User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q4 2009

Zion NP

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

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

:)

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

And remaining an IP helps to curb those twitchy fingers, no doubt. Good to hear from you. Acroterion _(talk) 22:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Same here my friend! Cheers. 98.220.45.32 (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah thanks for this too. BTW did you ever get that best buy discount? ;) 98.220.45.32 (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Since Circuit City went belly-up they seem to think they can do what they want, despite my shilling for them here on the wiki. Acroterion _(talk) 23:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Hi, Acroterion:

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

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

thanks

Christine's Mom

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

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

Legal question

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

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

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

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

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

spammer

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

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

The Shoemaker

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

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

Mongoos1111

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

question

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

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

here is a link to clear copyright infringe

http://maxheat.com/bio.html

for the page -- maxheat --

the license is at the bottom of the page

thnx

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

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

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

Please put back Stacey Jackson

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

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

need to ask you something

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

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

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

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

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

      Unsane33.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unsane33 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC) 

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

reasons

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

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

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

all my teachers say never trust wikipedia

Did they also say that you could write anything you wanted? If so, they were mistaken. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And that is coming from a teacher.....lol Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

hey

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

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

stop it.

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

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

Freegle

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

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

Andy

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

OK will do - Andy

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

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

September 2009

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

It's still wrong, though. You imply that the report indicates no core columns at all, which is not the case. Acroterion _(talk) 01:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The 9/11 Comission Report doesn't mention the 47 core columns. I have a copy in front of me. Please refer me to the pages where this core structure is mentioned.81.109.10.218 (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Weird... I could have sworn I remember reading about core columns when I read that book, but it was a couple of years ago, and my copy isn't here at home but at my workplace, so I can't look it up to tell for sure. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The perimeter columns of the twin towers surrounded a massive 47 steel column core structure that supported the floor trusses. The building was overdesigned to withstand multiple aircraft (including passenger airliners) collisions. The building design was awarded an Outstanding Civil Engineering Award from The American Society of Civil Engineers after completion in 1971. The 9/11 Comission Report states that the core was a hollow steel shaft. The core was not a hollow steel shaft but an extremely ingenious interlacing of 47 Steel columns of huge proportions that provided the backbone for the building. The report states that the perimenter walls 'bore most of the weight of the building'. That is false. The building was held up by the core structure. The 9/11 report does not mention this core structure and any collapse theory must deal with it. 81.109.10.218 (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're reading the 9/11 Report's oversimplified description of the structural scheme at WTC 1 and 2 too literally. My copy of the report seems to be in a box in the attic, so I'll take your word for it that they wrote that awkward description. In schematic terms, the columns of WTC 1 and 2 were not in a grid pattern, a they would traditionally have been, with fairly widely spaced columns around the perimeter and similarly-spaced columns evenly distributed in the interior space. The WTC structure was disposed in nesting tubes of columns, with very closely spaced columns on the outside skin and, as you say, 47 core columns arranged, schematically speaking, as a tube around the core. The point of the arrangement was that it eliminated all those inconvenient intermediate columns, leaving a column-free expanse between the skin and the core, spanned by those @#$%&*! trusses. There was no literal tube at the core, despite what that line implies, and the report goes on, I recall, to discuss those columns, as the question of how many were severed in the impact was a matter of vital interest. No analysis or source claims some sort of steel-plate tube existed, as you seem to be deriving from that description.

To quote from a book that I do have on the shelf, The Skyscraper by Paul Goldberger "...the skin, which was not a "curtain wall" hung from a supporting frame, but a metal mesh that in fact supported a substantial share of the building's weight", and "...returning, in a sense, to a kind of load-bearing wall." A similar arrangement, called a "bundled tube", was used for the Sears Tower, which used "tubes" of columns, which behaved on a meta-structural scale as tubes. Keep in mind that each fllor of the WTC was an enormous 40,000 square feet, column-free between the core and the exterior wall, an extraordinary and unique arrangement. The exterior walls and the core carried unusual weights, because that was all there was: no intermediate columns. 47 columns in 40,000 square feet is an extraordinarily small number (so they had to be stout), that was facilitated by their tube-like arrangement around the core. Acroterion _(talk) 01:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry old chap but you are really talking through your hat. I have seen the blueprints for the twin towers. I have seen films that were made during the construction of the towers. The core was a closely interleaved grid of interconnected massive steel girders and columns that supported the floor assembly. Each floor was firmly attached to the core into which the elevator shafts ran (tiny shafts in comparison to the total area of the core as a whole). The 'metal mesh' perimeter walls were not the main structural support system as Mr Goldberger claims. The core was not an arrangement of 47 tubes surrounding the elevator shafts; it was an extraordinarily robust support structure. The piece you quote suggests that the absence of columns between the core and the perimeter walls led the latter to be carrying more weight than was safe. The truth is that each floor was attached to the core structure which acted as a backbone through the center of the tower. You must really look at the blueprints themselves and you will then see that the core was absolutely massive. It was the most overdesigned high rise structure in the world in its day - from the safety point of view - designed to withstand multiple passenger liner collisions. The American Society of Civil Engineers do not hand out OCEA's to any fancy new building. Those towers were very, very robust and they were pulverised to dust within a matter of seconds. Now the problem with the article is that it does not represent the views of many eminent engineers, architects and fire safety experts who publicly state that in buildings of a far inferior design from the structural safety point of view fires have raged for many hours over many more floors at much hotter temperatures and they still did not collapse. No fire has ever floored a steel structured high rise prior to or after 9/11. And yet we are expected to simply swallow that on 9/11/2001 two of the most robust structures in the world were brought down by open fires (oxygen starved fires in this case). That is neglecting to mention wtc7. The point that needs to be made is that outside of the mainstream media many eminent professionals who are qualified to pass judgement on the matter do not agree with NIST because their explanation does not address the realities of the structural design of the twin towers (just focusing on the twin towers for the moment). Believe me, the critics of NIST's explanation are not kooks or fringe characters, they are very straitlaced conventional types who really know what they are talking about. I think the article needs a greater appreciation of their analysis. 81.109.10.218 (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I was concerned about your apparent misunderstanding of the awkwardly-worded description used in the 9/11 report. It was not an invitation to a debate. Since you agree with published sources that there were columns in the core, I am satisfied that my concern has been addressed. I see no inference in my comments or Goldbergers' (written long before 2001) that the clear span between perimeter and core was unsafe, nor did I state that the columns were themselves individual tubes. As my concern has been addressed, and as you appear to be mostly interested in initiating a debate about a personal interpretation of yours, I believe we're finished here. Acroterion _(talk) 04:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no misunderstanding. The 9/11 Commission report is a fraudulent document. However, one needs to be familiar with the actual data to realise this. Most folks such as yourself are not. The report distorts and omits data in numerous ways that establish it as utterly unreliable and disingenuous. It is for that reason that 400+ University Professors, 700 engineers and Archtects and more than 200 senior military, intelligence and government officials are publicly requesting a new investigation ([1]). So many ways does the report misrepresent the data that if you believe the 9/11 commission report is true and accurate you must be unfamiliar with the actual evidence - so overwhelmingly contradictory to the reports claims as that evidence is. I do not know whether you have any religious beliefs but the all the sages and prophets taught us that we must align ourselves with the truth no matter how difficult or uncomfortable that truth may make us feel. If you wish to make an inroad into the truth about 9/11 I suggest you watch a video of wtc7 (the third building that collapsed on 9/11 at 5pm) collapsing (several exist on the web). Then ask why Europe's leading demolition expert ([2]) has asserted unequivocally that that building was brought down by controlled demolition. Or why Italy's former Prime Minister, Francesco Cossiga, has asserted that 9/11 was the work of the CIA. The same view is expressed by the former Chief of Staff of the Russian Armed forces, Leonid Ivashov ([3]) 81.109.10.218 (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports the information that is agreed upon by the best available sources. If those sources are wrong, Wikipedia isn't the place to correct the problem- start by correcting the record so clearly that it'll be reported in mainstream newspapers and journals. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As FisherQueen says, Wikipedia is not a place to begin a quest for The Truth, it is more of an end. As I said, I offer no opinions on the WTC's destruction, and am not interested in discussing the subject. Acroterion _(talk) 23:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Barack's birthplace

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

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

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

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

"Found on road dead"

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

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

User:Beware the Librarian

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

Looks like Closedmouth got him, indefinitely blocked. Thanks for keeping an eye on them. Acroterion _(talk) 11:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST admins

Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added myself (unfortunately, it's alphabetized, so I'm at the front). Acroterion _(talk) 11:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The return of Stacey Jackson

Hi Acroterion, dropping you this message because I saw this post from you and wanted to give you a heads-up that the person recreated the article - while I didn't see previous versions, the one they created now is taken verbatim from the singer's own website and doesn't indicate notability, so it's likely to be identical to the previous ones. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 12:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've salted it for three months. It'll just expire about the time the album's supposed to show up. Acroterion _(talk) 12:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company building

Hi. I'm the guy who wrote about the building posting:

The building used to be extremely inefficient and expensive to operate. On sunny days in Winter in the 1970's, the south side of the building, in the sun, needed to be cooled down so people could comfortably perform office work. In the Summer, the north side of the building, out of the sun, needed to be heated up. This is why the building's design, though widely praised, has rarely been copied: it's uneconomic. Over the past three decades, many of the fancy window coatings designed to let in light, but keep out heat have been tested out on this building.

You edited that out saying:

nrhp infobox, rv commentary on energy inefficiency, which is not unusual in a building of the era) (undo)

I'm writing you because I think my commentary should stay in. People do wonder why very few other two sided buildings have been erected. My comments answer that question. To you, it's obvious, but to people who are not architects and who are unaware of how inefficient a lot of buildings of that era were (and are), it's not obvious.

I'm not an architect. I'm an NYC tour guide who gets asked questions like that -- Why aren't there any other two-sided buildings? -- all the time, so my comment is in response to that potential question.

BigGuy (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted mostly because it was an entirely unsourced commentary, which is something that's discouraged. The "two-sidedness" isn't inherently less efficient than four sides - there are plenty of long narrow buildings and round (one-sided) buildings of varying degrees of efficiency. Your comment states that nobody uses the form because it is inherently less energy-efficient, something that needs substantiation. Can you provide a reference for this? It appears to me that the building's lack of energy efficiency has more to do with the 1963 glazing, HVAC and control technology, as well as its orientation, rather than some inherent problem with the shape. There are other lens-shaped buildings out there, and I've never seen any indication that they are any more or less efficient than anything else with the same surface-to-volume ratio.

Why aren't there any more two-sided buildings than this? My guess is that it's hard to lay out interior space in a lens-shaped building, and a rectangular building will be more space-efficient. A multiplicity of sides yields lots of prized and high-priced corner offices, rather than two per floor with the lenticular shape. I doubt that it has much to do with heating and cooling.

Since you recognize that it's a commentary, you will understand that unsourced commentary is out of place in an encyclopedia. Please see WP:RS and WP:V for more on reliable sources and verifiability. Acroterion _(talk) 19:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

From BigGuy:

Thank you for explaining why you deleted my commentary about the building. What I wrote about the energy inefficiency is what people who worked in the building told me, but that was years ago. There were also some articles in the Hartford Courant in the 1970's and 1980's about the building that I recall reading -- reliable and verifiable to be sure -- but hard to retrieve. If I can download them, or at least reference them in footnotes, then I'll be able to add some things in about the building, but not before.

Thank you for all you're doing for people by working on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGuy (talk • contribs) 04:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can locate it I'd be happy to see the reference, as it's obviously a subject of interest to me. I think that long and skinny may be playing a role here, as well as possibly an east-west orientation, which would make things worse. I can envision that a curved surface arranged straight east-and-west might exacerbate solar exposure on the south side by prolonging the period of maximum heating as the sun moves relative to the skin - something we can deal with today, but hard to do in 1963. I've retrofitted buildings of that era with new glass and it's worked wonders. Thanks for your comments. Acroterion _(talk) 11:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

HistoryForUs

Hello. Could you please tell me who created that article. I'd like to help them understand why their article was deleted. I think helping new contributors understand will prevent fustration and recreation of the deleted material but also help us retain a possible good editor. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OnlineResources (talk · contribs) They've been blocked. Based on their contribution history, they appear to have been spamming for that site. Acroterion _(talk) 15:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Guess there isnt any reason to keep my reply open in notepad anymore, hehe.--TParis00ap (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged, I've re-educated some apparent spammers myself, who've gone on to make good contributions. This one was mass-creating redirects, maybe 8 or 10, to the main article from very generic titles, a hallmark of spamming. Acroterion _(talk) 17:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do not you wait for me hangon explanation?

Why do you delete the article of USA-ASSIST?

The reason for that article was to expand one of the companies listed in ‘List of United States insurance companies’ The information is very brief and without commercial character with corresponding references to the writing.

Other agencies with simile characteristic were incorporated such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_Guard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Corners_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Travel_Insurance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drakefield_Travel_Insurance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Risk_Managers A much others. Please , review your action.

The article did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion and made no assertion of notability. Most of the other websites you've mentioned don't appear to make the grade either. Can you provide evidence of non-trivial coverage in independent media for this organization? The links provided aren't very substantial in nature and don't establish notability. Also language like "...a leading edge vanguard company" make the article promotional in nature. Acroterion _(talk) 15:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, first at all, please response my question> Why do not you wait for me hangon explanation?
About the article> What evidence do you have to proceed in this way? Please review these point>
Notability: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable.
Verifiable: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Please check the sources and references about my listed articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_Guard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Corners_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Travel_Insurance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drakefield_Travel_Insurance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Risk_Managers

In my article I wrote a lot of sources and references for a brief content.
I think that company made assertion of notability, Because Its have more year of experience than others like Travel Guard and its was pioneer in offer ONLINE many different options of travel insurance for the international traveler via webservice.
Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice." It is important to note that a notability determination does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic. --Uacomm (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The links you used as references were either non-specific, self-referential, promotion, or trivial mentions in general articles about travel insurance. You provided no references that focused on the company and its notability; its worthiness of notice (I looked at them all). This is a higher bar than just getting mentioned a few times in a general article or a trade publication. Your article made no assertion of notability - "is a leading edge vanguard company that provides online travel insurance products with over 30 years of professional experience in the insurance market" does not convey anything to set it apart and is promotional in tone without explaining anything in an encyclopedic manner. We would expect to see an article specifically focused on the company in a general-circulation newspaper or magazine of national standing to establish notability. An promotional article by a different user was deleted yesterday with many of the same references and language. Acroterion _(talk) 18:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand, Please, see this list> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_insurance_companies I have checked all those companies... all have similar information and references.
You action seem a little unfair and wrong.
I put Hagon Wiki Markup, Why do not you wait for the explanation? Why did you not use a Notability Markup like other articless? I could have improved the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uacomm (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Snake River Ranch

I am curious...what is your interest in the Snake River Ranch and how did you come by your knowledge of the Resor and Hauge families?

--The Outhouse Mouse (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was writing a series of articles on the dude ranches and vacation ranches in Jackson Hole; this was one of them. As an architect, I was intrigued to discover that Mies van der Rohe had worked with the Resors - something I didn't know. The information came entirely from the sources listed in the notes, particularly from the National Register nomination form (ref #4) and from the NPS essay on dude ranches (ref #3). Acroterion _(talk) 21:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Berzertian inquery

I am unclear as to the reason for the deletion of mine article. would you be so kind as to explain it to me.

Danteysidro (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not post hoaxes or things you've made up; they're deleted as vandalism. Acroterion _(talk) 12:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Berzertian inquery 2

im sure there was a way to simply reply... but i couldn't find it.

I assure you, it is not a hoax, i had just created the page, and was getting my reliable sources in order when it was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danteysidro (talk • contribs) 15:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And those would be? This gets zero hits on Google, something of an accomplishment. Acroterion _(talk) 19:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

in order for google to get any hits, someone must first reference them smewhere on the web. most MICRO-subcultures are not eferenced on the web; due to the vast number of them. berzertians in particular, as they try to blend in, as stated in my article.

my references include berzertians themselves, includeing several membrs of the main branch famiy.

can you think of a better reference then from the horses mouth?

Oo, I can think of a better reference! A newspaper article, magazine article, or published book. At least, that's what Wikipedia's rules say. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As FQ says, the horse's mouth is not a source of reliable facts. As far as Wikipedia's concerned, the Bezertians must remain a reclusive, hidden, shadowy clan on the edges of society. Since they've been so successful at remaining unnoticed, the last place they need to be is on a top-ten website. Acroterion _(talk) 19:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

very well. then i shall be back. i know of a book currently in the process of editing, once it is published, i'll back with mine article.

untill then; i will have to be patient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danteysidro (talk • contribs) 20:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Confused

Why did you delete my new post? I am still new and unsure as to why you have done so. Thank you.

Forgot to sign sorry --Jack W. 00:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no credible assertion of notability. Wikipedia isn't MySpace. Acroterion _(talk) 01:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Lee Carey

I accidentally re-created Lee Carey while trying to nominate it for Speedy Delete (you had already deleted it in the time between my going to tag it and submitting the tag. Could you please re-remove it? Sorry for the inconvenience. Sahrin (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all; it happens now and then. Done, and thanks, Acroterion _(talk) 03:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

OK

I tottally understand where your coming from! But really, i was looking at your talk page and i noticed, could you please stop useing that condesending voice with everyone! Again not to be "MEan" BUt CALM DOWN. Anyway thanks for informing me on where you stand.--Zanebeast60202 (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Chamal has given you a final warning. I suggest you take it to heart. Acroterion _(talk) 17:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Bookzek

Could you please userfy the article "Bookzek" for the original editor? They have requested help on my talk page and would like time to make improvements to the article before it is reposted. I have explained the lack of notability and the need for reliable sources. Thank you for your help. Wperdue (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, now at User:Systemdweller/sandbox. Acroterion _(talk) 20:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That was fast. Much appreciated. Wperdue (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It was clearly a good-faith contribution, and I'm glad you're working with the editor. Acroterion _(talk) 20:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

/k/ article

A definite ooops.... sorry, as you saw, I tagged it as a redirtypo, completely missing the history. (A force of habit after tagging all the other article creations from that user) My bad. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 14:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I've done the same thing. (By the way, the rvv summary was aimed at the troll, not you). Acroterion _(talk) 14:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"By the way, the rvv summary was aimed at the troll, not you"... LOL, no worries, didn't think it was :)FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

thank you very nice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vieeduardo (talk • contribs) 01:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to find out the answer to a question.

I'd like to find out the answer to this question: How does a short circuit affect current and voltage in that circuit? I looked it up on Wikipedia and couldn't find it, so it said I could create the page. I didn't know that answer, so I just asked on the page if anyone knew the answer. Vortex007 (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to do your homework for you, and it's not appropriate to post an article to ask a question. You could ask at WP:Reference_desk/Science, but you will probably be told the same thing. Acroterion _(talk) 02:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, but do you know any website that can answer this question? Vortex007 (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

None off the top of my head - short circuit has some information. In general in a short circuit, current spikes (obviously). Voltage would depend on the specific characteristics of a circuit and its capacity. Acroterion _(talk) 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Vortex007 (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As the article says, in an ideal short circuit, there is no voltage drop. Acroterion _(talk) 02:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't really answer the question. I need to know specifically how short circuit affect both current and voltage. The article Short Circuits did give enough information. Vortex007 (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's the best I can do. I'm not an electrical engineer, and I'm not doing your homework. An ideal circuit would not be affected by considerations of current capacity, so voltage would not drop even if current increases massively, as would happen in a short. Other circuits would experience a voltage drop as the current exceeds the carrying capacity of the circuit. See voltage source and current source. Acroterion _(talk) 02:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think a short circuit would increase your reading comprehension, because the songs reinforce the way words sound. See this video as an example. This video shows what happens when a short circuit happens to a refrigerator.

Oh, wait. Those aren't short circuits. They're the Short Circus. Never mind. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Athens Consulting

Athens Consulting is a consulting firm that has offices in three states. It specializes in outsouced sales to customers provided by the client. It has had several big companies includeing Ibm and Microsoft. I don't understand how that would fail the test? I appoligize for not including a link to start with. I hope this clears up our misunderstanding.

Has it received significant coverage in independent media? A couple of non-trivial articles in newspapers of at least regional standing? That's what Wikipedia's notability requirements for companies generally requires to establish notability. Acroterion _(talk) 02:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There are just three links (I have more) demonstrating noterity.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-128967707.html http://athensconsultingnews.blogspot.com/ http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Athens+Consulting+Group,+Inc. reconizes it as an acronym —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wennerj (talk • contribs) 02:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

None of those sources establish notability. Blogs aren't reliable sources, nor is the freedictionary (nor is Wikipedia, for that matter), and it's effectively a "not found" message. The first source doesn't appear to be substantial in nature. We're looking for a major newspaper or media outlet devoting an article to the subject, not just a mention or a blog post. One source is just a promo from the company. Acroterion _(talk) 02:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Granted I'll see if the company can issue a few press releases and get more notability be continueing thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wennerj (talk • contribs) 03:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Press releases aren't sources. The Wall Street Journal, however, would be solid gold. Best wishes, Acroterion _(talk) 03:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

NPS Classified Structures

What exactly do you mean? I'm working on uploading images from pages like this at the moment, if that's what you mean. I'm not clear why we'd need to worry about copyright here, since even if images are taken from nomination forms, the forms would have been prepared by someone working for the NPS in some capacity. Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded a whole lot of images from the same source at the end of last year, but the images on the Classified Structures pages disappeared around the beginning of the year for some reason. I'd noticed that a few of them were from the NRHP nominations, some (but not all) of which were done by non-NPS personnel. I'd say, given the blanket disclaimer on the main NPS page, that they're safe, but as we know from experience with the NPS Focus site, the NPS isn't very careful about copyrights. There's nothing wrong, but I'd bear all that in mind. Acroterion _(talk) 21:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I wasn't aware that these images were down, and this isn't the first time that I've been uploading them: File:Snogo Snow Plow.jpg I uploaded over a month ago. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd given up hope that they'd ever reappear. They were intermittent in '08 - must've gotten a new server. Acroterion _(talk) 03:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Joe Justice

Thanks for your help, kiwiteen123 (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

and Liam kean...

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for the blocking of vandals! kiwiteen123 (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Just clearing out the speedy deletion queue. Acroterion _(talk) 04:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of page Amna hassan Kazmi

(119.152.7.236 (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC))Sir, i am a professor of kinnaird college for women. i have been teaching this young celebrity and i would like to make a page of her. i made one and by mistake pressed the edit page option for which u deleted the article. Kindly give me a chance to post this article again i assure you that i wont do any deletion or editing. thanks!

Does she meet any of Wikipedia's notability standards on her own, and not by inheritance from family members? In general on Wikipedia, a person isn't considered notable just because their relatives are. There's some debate presently ongoing concerning whether the Obama children rate their own article, for instance. From what I saw, Miss Kazmi does not have any independent claim to notability. Am I mistaken? Acroterion _(talk) 21:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the PP BigDunc 19:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not functioning correctly. BigDunc's page is still being vandalized. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The account was reginstered in 2008 and they got it up to autoconfirmed status, which would circumvent to semi-protection. I see it's blocked now in any case. Acroterion _(talk) 20:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted page

It appears you have deleted my page on "chronic weak jaw syndrome." I would like to know why you have done this, and ask that you allow the page to be published, as this disease is real. I have talked with my doctor about this. If, perhaps, you did not find the actual content of the article satisfactory, please let me know how I can change it to make it acceptable to your standards.

Thanks, J —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsieling (talk • contribs) 03:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that all contributions be verifiable, and a quick search on my part revealed no documentation of this condition at all. The article appeared to be a gentle inside joke aimed at a slow eater rather than a serious discussion of a medical condition. If I am mistaken, then perhaps you will be able to prodive a reference that documents this condition. Acroterion _(talk) 11:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Latah County, Idaho

The United States Census Bureau has defined the Moscow, Idaho Micropolitan Statistical Area (Moscow, ID μSA) as comprising Latah County, Idaho. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

μSA? I doubt the Census Bureau has that character on their keyboard. Acroterion _(talk) 14:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I did, however, eventually catch on to the "μ" = "micro" part: sorry, I'm a little slow today. Acroterion _(talk) 14:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

However, it looks like the Census Bureau has assiduously avoided creating an official initialism for Micropolitan Statistical Areas. Neither http://www.census.gov/population/www/metroareas/aboutmetro.html nor http://www.census.gov/population/www/metroareas/files/00-32997.txt defines an abbreviation for this. --Orlady (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jerry Sager

Why was the Jerry Sager page deleted for vandalism? Jerry is a real person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naylor07 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Simple existence isn't enough. See Wikipedia's general notability requirements and requirements for individuals. The content was a hoax (the next Marlon Brando?). Acroterion _(talk) 21:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted my post!

Acroterion--you deleted my post on Pearl Growing before I had even finished :( ....There is tons of information on Pearl Growing in information searching, but I will need time to add it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jendanna (talk • contribs) 03:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Answered on your talkpage, and the article is userfied to your sandbox. Acroterion _(talk) 03:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

Thanks Acroterion--I realized it was my mistake as a new user--I should have created my page before making it live. I have it ready now. Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jendanna (talk • contribs) 03:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done, and my apologies, it was a bit hasty on my part. Go ahead and move it into article space. Acroterion _(talk) 04:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Block of Cardinalsfan4ever

Comment withdrawn. —Notyourbroom (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

NRHP photos question/proposals

I've opened the discussion on NRHP photos at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#NRHP_nomination_photosand hope that you'll comment there. Smallbones (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I'll have a look. Acroterion _(talk) 17:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Baehing-vahraeyihtee

Hello,

is it possible that this page could be made into a user page?

thanks! Om3z444 (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)om3z444

It appears to me to be a hoax, which wouldn't be an appropriate thing to keep in userspace. Unless you can provide substantiation, Iwould not userfy it. Acroterion _(talk) 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Outhouse

I appreciate your affirming the obvious, and removing the Cleanup tag. As one of the primary contributors on the article (I also did a lot of work on the article anonymously before I became 'thirteen'), I thought the tag was unwarranted. The existence of the tag was a longstanding and annoying way of saying the article and all that research wasn't appreciated, even though it actually is a pretty good source on an important (world wide) subject. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Stan

Matt Holden article

The page I created, Matt Holden, was deleted due to A7. I would request your suggestions on how to make this article suitable for Wikipedia, in addition to emailing me the deleted article as I have no record. I understand the guidelines in question and respectfully request your input. Please email me at wellspeterson@live.com with the article/your response. Thank you. Onehandpushupman (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You won't need an email copy since you created the article at User:Onehandpushupman/Matt Holden and it's still there. General notability guidelines are at WP:NOTE and notability for musicians at WP:BAND. For the article to avoid deletion, speedy or otherwise, it must comply with those requirements: it did not make any assertion that it did. Acroterion _(talk) 01:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

François Robillard

Hi Acroterion,

I bet you have your reason to delete the François Robillard I just made up, but I think it was unjustified.

I work for François, he won an election one week ago, I just put a simple bio and some link on Wikipedia, nothing to worry about. I have the full right on text and picture on this page.

Yes, I work for him, and Wikipedia advice to be careful when doing this kind of thing. I just put his bio online, and saying that he was elected. Please consider this. You can find the very same text in french at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Robillard

Thank you,

Regards, Marc-Antoine Daneau —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc-antoine daneau (talk • contribs) 03:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing that you have permission to use copyrighted text unless you follow the procedures I've outlined. Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia, and you can't use material that has clearly been copyrighted elsewhere, unless you provide explicit assurance of permission. Saying so isn't enough, and existence on another wiki is meaningless (and a violation there as well). Acroterion _(talk) 03:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I understand your reason, and found it valid in some way. But I really don't understand how I can certify that this is correct for Wikipedia. Do I have to click somewhere I ignore? How can I confirm that I have the right to put this online? I work a long time for this, how can I find the page you removed?

(note : I don't blame you for doing your job, I just don't understand how can I certify that it's okay for Wikipedia. Each time I add something to Wikipedia, I received this kind of message, there must be something I don't understand...)

Regards, Marc-Antoine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc-antoine daneau (talk • contribs) 04:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite so easy: you can't directly certify permission - the copyright holder must do this. If you look at the links I provided on your talk page, you'll find means to either re-license the Vision Montreal content on their webpage (which their lawyers probably won't permit), or a way to provide for a verifiable email from the responsible organization indicating that they have given you permission to use the text. Since Wikipedia uses a license that permits free redistribution and editing for any purpose, we have to make sure that contributors understand that they are giving up control entirely to anyone and everyone, forever. We try to safeguard against violations of copyright holders' rights, and are unable to permit direct copies of copyrighted content without these assurances. Acroterion _(talk) 04:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi (again),

Be sure I understand your point. If I rewrite the page myself would it be consider correct? But if I want to add a picture, again doubt will be in my mind about the method to be sure of the copyright. A picture of him was sent to me by François itself two month ago, before the electoral campaign took on. The only way for Wikipedia to verify the copyright of the picture will be to send a email to François, who use hotmail. So what prevent me to create a false email and answer it myself?

Please excuse me to make you loose your time with such details.

Regards, Marc-Antoine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc-antoine daneau (talk • contribs) 04:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm here to help. As I noted a minute ago on your talk page, you could use the Vision Montreal page as a source for an entirely new text. Newspaper articles (in French or English) would be even better sources. As for pictures, unless you took the picture yourself, M. Robillard would have to provide permission separately, which may involve more than just an email, but email would be the way to start. Acroterion _(talk) 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank for your time.

I'll rewrite the text myself and take a picture of him next time I'll see him. It will be much more simple than finding the correct legal email form in Wikipedia and more faster than asking lawyers.

Regards, Marc-Antoine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc-antoine daneau (talk • contribs) 04:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi

It's me again... I rewrote this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Robillard I hope this is correct.

Regards Marc-antoine daneau (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The content is fine, but you will need to provide some sources. I declined the deletion request, as a city councilor of a major city is considered notable by Wikipedia. Acroterion _(talk) 05:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Wyatt and the mistakes I made

I was checking recent changes when I noticed that a CSD template had been removed. I reverted the edits made by User:Benjaminthebomb and left a warning on his(?) talk page. I checked my watchlist and found out that the article had been deleted. Later the page was recreated and I tried to use Twinkle to place a CSD template on it. That failed so I managed to complete an AfD nomination after that page had been deleted. I have managed to nominate the AfD for a MfD. Is there anything else I should do before I log off? -- allen四names 04:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw all that, and fixed it (I think). No big deal, no problem for editors with a delete button. Thanks for warning the guy. A speedy-deleted AfD will get cleaned up sooner or later - no need to go on to MfD. Your intentions were good. Acroterion _(talk) 04:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Something has come up and I need to keep an eye out for a vandal. Look at the page histories of Kevin Gallant (living) and Takeo Watanabe (1933 - 1989) if you want to know why. Again thanks. -- allen四names 04:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Nuclear Warfare got the vandal. Happy editing! Acroterion _(talk) 04:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

New POKEMON!

umm why did you delete cascadrop? its not fake —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisspongebob (talk • contribs) 09:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Cascadrop is fake pokemon created by ethan walters!" would tend to contradict your assertion, isn't the basis of an encyclopedia article. Acroterion _(talk) 12:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Alex Davis un-salt

Hi. You apparently were the last admin to delete and apparently SALT Alex Davis, obviously due to it being inappropriately created in the past. However, I need that page for a different User:ClubOranje/Alex_Davis. Could you please un-protect and perhaps even move the article (international football player, passes WP:ATHLETE, referenced etc) from my userspace. Cheers --ClubOranje^T 00:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I was the last to delete, Caulde salted it. I've removed the protection, and you can now move your article into the space. Acroterion _(talk) 01:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. --ClubOranje^T 07:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanking You From the Bottom of My Heart

Hidy ho, my friend Acroterion dude. Kevin doorflinger here, proud to say, keep up the good work! {By the way, I did the piece of crap article about "Wikipedia, what it is and what it's about you won't find here" to test your deleting prowess. Bravissimo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Doorflinger (talk • contribs) 03:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

the deletion of "Solace Beach Estates" page

hello, i apologize for the over zealous commercialization of that page. if i could have access to it, i am more than willing to create a more objective version of the page with a greater focus on its role as an official Community Gateway in the Second Life world, etc...

i am obviously a new user to Wiki and will be evolving the page with better internal links and citings.

thank you Solomon Mosely (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)SolomonSolomon Mosely (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Article recreated

Hi there. just wanted to inform you that the PARTS OF A BUSINESS LETTER article which you deleted is back up again with the same content. Amsaim (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Link to Talk:Veronica Sage

Hi, you have deleted this link from the above (red) talk page: http://blogs.sueddeutsche.de/schaltzentrale/2009/11/20/wikimedia-%E2%80%93-quo-vadis-streitgesprach-zwischen-felix-von-leitner-und-pavel-richter/#comment-590 It is used on a German newspaper forum to demonstrate how 3 youngsters are able to delete a four year old article about a woman who was "relevant" before they were born. It's not a good a idea to delete also this link to this discussion. They are talking about a lot of money, which German readers might donate or not. Regards 78.55.103.204 (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The talk page had no article associated with it (or useful content), and the parent article was deleted via an AfD discussion. Links to blogs are discouraged on Wikipedia. Whether someone donates money or not is not my concern. Acroterion _(talk) 18:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Graciliano Ramos

I tagged it as copyvio because it seemed like too much trouble for me to find a 'clean' version. I knew anyone else who wanted to could remove the tag in the meantime and go through the effort of fixing it. The tag was more to call attention to it as opposed to having it actually deleted. HalfShadow 22:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know; I generally keep an eye on what I tag. As I said, I figured it was salvaageable, I just didn't want to have to do it myself. Probably a bit of a dirty trick on my part, but it worked. HalfShadow

Heck, I learned something about Brazilian literature. We really need something that does a better job of attracting an urgent rewrite in this kind of situation. Acroterion _(talk) 22:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

How the hell did you find it in the first place? Acroterion _(talk) 22:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I generally scan recent changes; I noted somebody had chopped a big section out of it, I reverted it, the way the page was written looked unusual to me, so I did a text search on Google and it pulled up a word-for-word. I took a look at the history, went 'Ew', and tagged it. I really wish peope weren't so damn lazy; everything I write is in my own words. HalfShadow 22:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance please

I noticed you completed the speedy deletion of Maria Rose Abad. I noticed this because User:Darrenhusted, the contributor who nominated the Maria Rose Abad article for deletion also nominated Orio Palmer, an article I started. And, when I checked their recent contribution history, I saw they had made a series of nominations of exceptional 9-11 victims. I was frankly concerned by what I saw as a sequence of overly hasty nominations.

The wikipedia is not a memorial. But victims of disasters, for whom there is some well documented aspect of their story that makes them exceptional, should not be nominated for deletion under the "not a memorial" reasoning.

Can I ask whether the Maria Rose Abad article was about a 9-11 victim or survivor? If so could you userify it to User:Geo Swan/rescue/9-11/Maria Rose Abad?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

She was a victim, a senior VP of Keefe, Bruyette & Woods in Tower 2. I deleted two articles on apparently non-notable victims; the same user created a number of articles on notable victims and survivors that seemed perfectly fine to me. Acroterion _(talk) 03:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And userfied. Acroterion _(talk) 03:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Also User:Geo_Swan/rescue/9-11/Vincent_and_Andrew_Abate. Acroterion _(talk)

Thanks! I have reviewed it and put a db on the userified version. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the Abate brothers too; absent more notability, that's probably deletable too. Acroterion _(talk) 04:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ricky1305

...apparently didn't believe your message on his talk page. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

He can believe it now: blocked. Acroterion _(talk) 22:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acroterion _(talk) 01:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

One month later... thanks again. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Must be time to archive some; you're welcome. Acroterion _(talk) 00:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Jermyn Church

I will be adding references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consultjermyn (talk • contribs) 07:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:BIO and WP:SPIP. The bio was promotional in nature and failed to make a credible assertion of notability. References must be from independent publications with a reputation for fact-checking, of more than local coverage. Acroterion _(talk) 12:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

wtf?

What do you have against a new article on Moplord359????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moplord359 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a couple of references in major publications concerning this person, per WP:BIO? Acroterion _(talk) 13:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Tai Foong USA

How would I make a wiki page for Tai Foong USA without being promotional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.96.35 (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CORP for inclusion guidelines for corporations - you'll need to write it as a neutral encyclopedia article, in the third person, and cite sources that indicate how the company has received significant press in independent publications. Also, see WP:YFA for advice on how t write your first article, and WP:COI for conflict of interest issues.Acroterion _(talk) 18:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

GemCraft

Hey! I see that you've re-nominated GemCraft for deletion, under CSD-A7, as I did. I decided to remove the CSD tag for this reason, as I gave in my edit summary: "Removing deletion request; article is mentioned in another, more prominant article". Your decision to re-nominate the article was probably correct, but if you could give an explanation whenever you can, I'd appreciate it. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 00:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, it was a non-notable flash game. That said, I'll remove it if you've got a better notion of its importance. I didn't see your removal, so all's well. Acroterion _(talk) 00:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally think it (the article) could go either way. In any case, if the article is unnotable, another user will put it up for CSD-A7. The reason I thought that the article might have notability is that it is referenced in the article on tower defense games, with its own reference to an external source. This, however, may not show notability, so if not, feel free to speedy delete the article. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 00:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

you deleted Freshwap.net why?

i made the Freshwap.net for any1 looking for what the site is! the ask for money from people for nothing and promise fake files. it a worning for the ones that dont figgerit out for them selves. if you have any doubts that its fake just log in and youll get it in 5 secs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalixxx (talk • contribs) 03:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not notable, and Wikipedia isn't a place to issue warnings of that kind or to campaign for righteousness. Acroterion _(talk) 03:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Fat Tone Article

I would like for you to reinstate the Fat Tone article because I have a lot of information to provide for this article. Fat Tone is a very well known Kansas City Rapper and he's known plenty of other places as well. He is also linked and mentioned on plenty of other wikipedia pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Minister, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tech_N9ne_Discography, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Dre, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_kansas_city www.albumgrab.com/.../19080-murder-trial-bay-area-rapper-andre-mac-minister-dow-started-yesterday.html http://www.kmbc.com/news/4668770/detail.html blogs.pitch.com/.../west_coast_vs_east_coast_rivalry_ends_in_conviction_of_fat_tone_killer.php http://www.amazon.com/Untouchable-Fat-Tone/dp/B000TML12A http://www.last.fm/music/Fat+Tone http://www.blackplanet.com/music/view/artist.html?page_url=fattoneakadavett—Preceding unsigned comment added by Originalrecordz (talk • contribs) 00:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You are free to go ahead and re-create it if you think it meets the notability requirements for musicians. The article I deleted in February comprised, in its entirety, "Anthony Watkins (", so I think you have a clear field. You created Anthony "Fat Tone" Watkins (which I didn't delete); it was apparently rather promotional in character, so you'll want to steer clear of that and stick to facts. Acroterion _(talk) 02:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Heteroclisis, etc.

An editor is creating quite a few of these soft redirects. I'm not sure what, if anything, to do with them. Eeekster (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at their user page: there's a note from Xeno stating that the editor uses outdated equipment, but is OK. I decided to leave them alone. Acroterion _(talk) 02:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case I'll mark them patrolled and move on. The pages confused me at first, thought it was a caching problem until I looked closer. Eeekster (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

you deleted solar salt why?

I just give the information about the solar salt to everyone using the wikipedia. please unblock my page

I am a Korean government official introcuction is called solar salt, and it does not work well. I want to put a solar salt material.--121.178.144.8 (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been using Wikipedia for advertising, which is not permitted, and you have been using multiple accounts to do so in violation of Wikipedia policies. We have an article on Sea salt; the various articles on "solar salt" duplicated the same topic and implied that Korea was the only source of "solar salt," which is certainly not the case. There may be a place for an article on the Korean sea salt industry, but it will need to be written with care and avoid advertising. I would suggest that you confine yourself to one account and construct an article in a user sub-page that can be reviewed for compliance with Wikipedia requirements. You may need to get help from someone who is more able to write in English and understand how to write an encyclopedic article. If you are writing on behalf of the Korean government as a means of promoting Korean industry, please be aware of our conflict of interest policies. Acroterion _(talk) 13:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Solar Salt

Sent to both Seraphimblade and Acroterion - while patrolling I found ‎Jeonnam mudflat solar salt, which according to google looks a lot like Solar salt which you both have deleted multiple times. I can't tell if this version is identical, but before I throw some tags on it and try to clean it up I wanted to give you a headsup to see what you thought.  7  07:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ehdgh12 (talk · contribs) is a block-evading sock of Ehdgh1 (talk · contribs) (and Ryujg (talk · contribs) and Parkorea (talk · contribs)), who has learned to cloak advertising in a somewhat encyclopedic wrapper. Thanks for the heads-up: see above. Acroterion _(talk) 13:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.  7  14:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Spam

Can I submit this article and not publish the http blog address or will it still be considered promotional in nature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charenegraphic (talk • contribs) 18:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The link just adds insult to injury. The article is purest advertising and is not permitted on Wikipedia. Any resubmission of this or similar content will result in a block on your account for inappropriate use of Wikipedia. Acroterion _(talk) 18:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Obama

Hey Acroterion! We must stay neutral between people and Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjones5278 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Explain what your concern is on the relevant article talk pages. Don't just tag the article. Acroterion _(talk) 18:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I offered the same advice in response to the editor's comment on my talk page. I also provided ample warning regarding policy on the editor's talk page. While assuming good faith, I note that this editor's account was opened very briefly before it was used only to tag 3 Obama-related articles with POV-section templates at the tops of those articles. Depending upon subsequent indicators, it may be an issue of trolling or Lulz. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Some aggressive spammers have made me a bit cranky and I'm not feeling very patient at the moment. Acroterion _(talk) 19:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nasal Mucus Conservation

Hello. I thought Nasal Mucus Conservation was vandalism too, and considered tagging it for deletion. But then I checked the references, and they appear legit. It's an odd article, and liberally sprinkled with slang like "boogers", but I don't think it's vandalism. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I appear to have been too quick to judge. Too many attack articles and far too much blatant spam recently. Look up the page for a gem of audacity at subheading Spam.

Knowledge marches on! Needs a rename, though. I don't think a merge is appropriate, but a name like Nasal mucous consumption might be a bit less obtuse.Acroterion _(talk) 00:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the revert on my talk. I appreciate the help. See ya 'round Tiderolls 05:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help in the proxy detection project. Acroterion _(talk) 12:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

hey im trying to fix my page dont delete it!

AfD nomination of Giapo

An article that you have been involved in editing, Giapo, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giapo. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to add that I trust you don't think I was implying that my judgment was to remove the speedy, because I think you were correct to tag this article; simply that this is the third time around, the article's creator is quite insistent, and I wanted to get this solved once and for (nearly) all. If you have any questions or problems, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all: when I tag something and don't delete it myself, it's because I'd like another opinion. I'll participate in the discussion. Acroterion _(talk) 20:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK hook, please?

I'm writing an article about "Indian God Rock", an NRHP-listed large petroglyph in northwestern Pennsylvania. Since you came up with the hook for the Mummy Cave, would you be willing to try to come up with one for this rock? I'm wanting to focus somehow on the fact that nineteenth-century riverboats would stop at the rock to allow their passengers to look at it; if you want to read more, you can consult the nomination form here. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please leave me a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How about: "This American Indian petroglyph site was a popular tourist attraction for steamboats on the Allegheny River? Acroterion _(talk) 03:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've gone with "...that the Indian God Rock was a popular tourist attraction for nineteenth-century steamboats on the Allegheny River" and suggested that you be credited for the hook. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for the credit, although I didn't actually do much. Acroterion _(talk) 03:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

you just delted cheatedout.com, why did this happen? How can I make a page about what is a really beneficial tool not be deleted? should i cite more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sschaere (talk • contribs) 21:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The article made no indication that it complied with wikipedia's guidelines for notability for web content: see WP:WEB. Mention in significant third-party sources would be important in establishing notability. Acroterion _(talk) 21:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Acroterion,

Surprisingly you have deleted my new article - PRIMO based on Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

If you deleted the first draft whioch I understand, but the second version which you deleted is just a simple introduction with no what socalled advertising words or purpose at all. I am a PRIMO user, only start to know it this October but have benefit it so much since, and thought everyone should know it and benefit from it, that's why I come to Wikipedia and volunteer to introduce it.

I do not understand and will be confused if this short plain introduction is deleted. I hope you reconsider your decision, and show me how to improve it instead to make it a valuable information for everyone.

To be convenient, I copy below the short version of PRIMO for your reconsideration and feedback.

PRIMO, stands for Passive Residual Income Machine Online, is an Internet Marketing System, created by Tom Hua in Australia.

The PRIMO system is the new generation of ‘eBusiness In A Box’, designed to automate the Internet marketing process as much as possible. It involves three steps, and with one form and one click it will install hundreds of ebooks websites with personalized domain name, sales page, and order link and payment gateway ready to take order in just minutes.

Step 1 - Register Your Domain Name Step 2 - Open Your Hosting Account 'Step 3 - Go PRIMO

Many thanks for your attention and reconsideration.

Kind regards --Graciousness2009 (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Everything after the second comma is written as a promotional release. You should avoid the use of the first and second person, and anything resembling encouragement to register and use the product is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If it seems wrong for Encyclopedia Britannica, it's wrong on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is no indication that the product passes notability guidelines: has the product received significant coverage in third-party press? Acroterion _(talk) 00:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Acroterion,

Many thanks for your reply and valuable feedback, which I just found here (I am a new user and do not even know how and where to visit, sorry for this late response.

I also appreciate the comment from (talk who pointed out how to make a page about what is a really beneficial tool not be deleted, which I really need to learn. I will try to gather more information adn see what third party press I can get. Thanks again for your help.

Merry Christmas! --Graciousness2009 (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Hook, Maryland

Please take a look at recent addition to Sandy Hook, Maryland. Looks suspicious to me, but you're from that part of MD, so ... Best wishes--Pubdog (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pirates of the Potomac? The town isn't big enough to have been split between the Union and the Confederacy. A local, having fun with the wiki. Acroterion _(talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much--Pubdog (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Brandon Banks

Please revert the deletion of the Brandon Banks page. I believe it was deleted erroneously. Topgun530 (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's strange: I've restored it as it's clear on review that the article is OK. Acroterion _(talk) 15:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I didn't realize it was reverted. Thanks! Topgun530 (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No mistake on your part: I'm trying to figure out why I deleted it, as it's not something I would normally have deleted. Acroterion _(talk) 15:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE CHECK FAT TONE ARTICLE FOR APPROVAL

I would like for you to check my Fat Tone article I just created and let me know if it is ready for publication on the website and let me know how to go on and convert it into an article. If there are any problems, please let me know what they are so I can correct. The url for the article is

PLEASE I REALLY NEED YOUR FEEDBACK AND ASSISTANCE WITH THIS BECAUSE THIS GUY REALLY DESERVES A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Originalrecordz (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You've done a good job of developing the article. I'm no judge of notability for hip hop acts, but I think it will be fine in article space. You should fix a few informalities in language ("a lot of", for instance) and move it into article space. Acroterion _(talk) 23:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

PRIMO (Internet Marketing System)

Dear Acroterion,

Thanks again for your valuable advice. You asked if the product received significant coverage in third-party press? Although I am a new user of Tom Hua's PRIMO System, I do know hundreds of thousands of people are talking about Tom Hua and his products every day. So I did a google search just now and found 220,000 for Tom Hua (0.10 seconds), 53,200 for Tom Hua PRIMO (0.29 seconds). Then I did a Yahoo search and found 3,760,000 results for Tom Hua and 50,100 results for Tom Hua PRIMO. Will this be good enough to prove how many people interested in or searching for Tom Hua and his PRIMO? Your kind feed back and further instruction is appreciated.

Best regards for a Festive Season! --Graciousness2009 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Google hits aren't sufficient; they are just indicators of effective marketing. Non-trivial coverage in multiple independent media outlets, specifically focusing on the subject, are needed to establish notability. Newspapers, major business publications: those are reliable sources. Wikipedia exists to document notability, not to create it. Acroterion _(talk) 23:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Hua appears to be notable, but any article on Hua will have to be written in a very neutral, factual style. You're going to have to dial back the enthusiastic language to accomplish this, and any article will have to be thoroughly referenced to appropriate sourcign (i.e., not to Hua's marketing). Acroterion _(talk) 23:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

AR-57

Would you look at the last few edits here? You seem to be more involved with username-related admin work than I am. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The username's a problem, but their edits are more or less OK, if a bit WP:OWN-ish. I've suggested that they change the name and watch out for COI. Acroterion _(talk) 04:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tom Hua and his PRIMO

Dear Acroterion,

Thank you very much for your kind reply which put a smile on my face although I still feel the pain from your deletion of my article about Tom Hua’s PRIMO.

You are a very sharp guy indeed! Yes, you are right, Tom Hua is a very notable man judging by his remarkable selfless works, although I only get to know him this October through his passionate presentation at O2 Arena, which inspired seven thousands of audience. I am one of over four hundreds people who signed up his PRIMO immediately after his presentation. In fact, the PRIMO is Tom Hua's new product which officially just released this October. So you can imagine the phenomenon of the PRIMO, in less three months, it hits 53,200 in Google and 50,100 in Yahoo, isn’t that amazing?!

Anyway, Aeroterion, I am grateful that you left the door open, which gives me a hope. I will try to produce something better and seek for your approval someday.

Wish you and your family a very merry Christmas and a great New Year ahead!

--Graciousness2009 (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the more interesting subject would be Hua, rather than one of his products. You could develop one in your userspace, if you wish. Acroterion _(talk) 19:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You have no idea

Why did you delete Emalkay's page? This guy wrote the Dubstep anthem of the end of 2009, "When I look at you", is one of the biggest sellers on Beatport this year,playing shows in front of thousands of people, yet he's not important enough to have a Wikipedia page? People like you are the reason I hate that site sometimes. I think I'm gonna start deleting every entry I see on Wikipedia if I don't know the artist portrayed. If I'm not aware of it, it doesn't exist, right?

It doesn't get much more smug than that.

Sources:

http://www.myspace.com/emalkay

See his myspace page for upcoming gigs, views, and awards. They prove he must have a certain importance. Otherwise he wouldn't be playing all over the world right now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/nov/07/new-music-releases-reviews

This track was also chosen record of the week by BBC Radio 1's Zane Lowe.

PS Seeing the other comments, you seem to be endowed with a Divine mission to cleanse Wikipedia. I did not want to offend you, High Priest.

-Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.144.130 (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The article, in its entirety, read "Emalkay is a producer who is most famously known for his track entitles When I Look At You.." Would you call that an informative encyclopedia article, indicating notability for the subject? No mention of genre, awards, or context. I encourage you to write an encyclopedic article on the subject that explains this to a general audience, rather than specialists in the genre. Acroterion _(talk) 19:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

MHT link

The links to the Maryland Historical Trust seem to have changed from www.marylandhistoricaltrust.net to mht.maryland.gov [4]. A very diligent IP editor has started at the beginnjng and is changing them, but it seems like a bot could do that, or at least a human with AutoWikiBrowser. I have no AWB mojo - don't know if you've used it or not. We could also try at WP:BOTREQ. Acroterion _(talk) 19:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ac for making me aware of this change. I'm afraid I too don't know how to systematically revise the links, nor how to use a Bot. I concur, from my limited understanding, that this is something a BOT could do, but I have no experience using one. Please advise--Pubdog (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave a message at WP:BOTREQ and see if any bot operators are interested. Acroterion _(talk) 02:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'm afraid I'm at a loss with this one. I see that the changes made are to External links and not the more important Reference. I made one change and see it seems quite simple to change the URL from www.marylandhistoricaltrust.net to mht.maryland.gov. Seems like a simple BOT task. I really appreciate you taking the lead. Your fan.. Go Terps!--Pubdog (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've amended the bot request slightly to cover the refs too (although a bot should find them all anyway). It'll take a few days for somebody to answer I expect. By the way, I offer my sympathies concerning the Terps, at least the football Terps. I went to Georgia Tech: a good year so far, apart from a bad night in Miami. Acroterion _(talk) 03:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there .. just wondering how the discussion about this global change ended up. My read of this discussion seems inconclusive. Cheers --Pubdog (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Any word om the MHT bot request? I'm on leave til Jan 4 and can help out. Let me know.--Pubdog (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting on the MHT webmaster: I'll inquire again before we go the bot route. Acroterion _(talk) 03:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like some progress has been made. Take a look at US Post Office-Hyattsville Main as an example. I don't understand why it is not linking directly to the MHT page on this PO versus linking only to the main MHT page.--Pubdog (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's all the progress we're likely to see. The pages are created dynamically, and they don't seem interested in making that happen via the new address. I whined as much as I could, but I've asked the bot operator to go ahead at his convenience. Acroterion _(talk) 03:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. From my naive perspective, I would think a bot could easily troll the articles and make the change from www.marylandhistoricaltrust.net to mht.maryland.gov. I see a recent request that is quite similar, namely WP:BOTREQ#UKGameshows. Best wishes--Pubdog (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I see the bot editor picked up the request. Looking forward to having the links restored. Thanks for keeping on this. Best wishes

Hi --- poked the bot editor a coupleweeks ago and not invoked yet. Since I've not been involved with this before, I am wondering how long is a reasonable time frame? TIA--Pubdog (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul Dunay

I've just been trying to clean this article created on 17 December the subject's son ... and then spotted that you had speedy'd it on 5 December as not notable, so it was presumably deleted and re-created. You might like to cast an eye over the latest incarnation and see whether it should have been re-created or not. Thanks. PamD (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd call it barely notable. At least it's sourced and non-promotional. An AfD would decide the issue. Acroterion _(talk) 22:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

CFS

I am concerned with you deleting my additions to this article, particularly when you appear to agree with most of what I say. I agree that my statement does not apply when the heat given off by lighting is more than the total heat required by that space, but surely in any heated area this will only be in a small minority of cases and I believe my point should be made, particularly as all other reports and references in this article do not take my true statement into account at all. Canol (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you are significantly over-simplifying the topic, and disagree that over-heating is a minority situation. In buildings in temperate climates cooling is a major cost (or even the main cost), and less efficient in terms of energy transfer cost. Heat generated by lighting is neither controlled in quantity nor constructively distributed in the same manner as purpose-generated heat. I do agree with the obvious point that the more heat generated via lighting, the less made by boilers and so on, but the lighting-generated heat load is uncontrolled from an HVAC point of view, and from a maintenance-of-occupant-comfort point of view, is not a very efficient use of watts.

On the WIkipedia aspect, you contribution reads as an unattributed opinion, both in style and content. I believe your statement took what was obvious (heat generated by lighting doesn't have to be made in a boiler) and synthesizes that heat generated by lighting is an equivalent replacement for purpose-generated heat for occupant comfort, and ignores cooling issues. The reverts are part of normal content development: see Bold Revert Discuss. We're discussing, which is good. Acroterion _(talk) 17:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I just about agree with all you are saying, but I am concerned that the heating effect of incandescent lamps has been considered as totally wasted in every efficiency calculation, report, or ref, or article, I have read on the CFS page and this is simply not true. There are many instances where incandescent lamp surplus heat is not wasted and it is an over simplification to say it is. I believe we should agree a form of words to make this point without it seeming a POV. Canol (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there's some room for agreement; you'll need explicit sourcing and should keep it short, which keeps it from straying into WP:SYNTH or WP:UNDUE. My personal experience (unsourced and therefore not something I'm putting in) is that the heat generated by lighting (usually fluorescent tubes) is computed along with occupant loads in commercial HVAC design, but tends to be ignored along with most occupant-generated loads (like computers, TVs, people and cooking) in residential HVAC, unless it's been very scrupulously designed. I have no heat in my office at home, but I, the dog, the computer and the monitor keep it warm in winter and hot in summer, and are more efficacious in that regard than any light bulb, however inefficient in lumens/watt. Nevertheless, they're not something I'd call supplemental heating appliances. Acroterion _(talk) 15:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Lampshade

Please do not remove references from an article simply because you fear the implications. I did my homework, there really is a ban on inefficient lighting, and this is very relevant to lampshades. I'm sorry if telling people about this doesn't fit your POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike Mozart Deletion

I don't understand why you deleted Mike's page here it make no sence. Mike Mozart has been on The Bonnie Hunt Show Twice and has had a famous page on both Youtube and BlogTv and his video are some of the most viewed on Youtube. I don't understand why you kept Michael Buckley on here, but deleted him. I'm requesting the undeleletion of Mike's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_mozart.

Signed Calvin5040

YouTube presence is not usually significant, and no assertion of notability was made. The appearance with Bonnie Hunt was not mentioned in the three-line article; that would not in itself establish notability, but multiple notices in independent media would. Michael Buckley is stated to be a best-selling childrens' book author, which satisfies notability. Please review WP:BIO for notability guidelines. I'd be happy to move the deleted article to your userspace, where you could work on it. Acroterion _(talk) 15:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

LeeD vandal 65.92.125.109

Hi, some of the edits he made gave personal information and death threats againest another user. They will need to be oversighted. This has been going on for a while. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw that: is there a range that could be blocked? I'll email oversignt. Acroterion _(talk) 19:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that the range is 65.92.124.0/22. I asked a checkuser about 3 other ranges he uses here but he never got back to me on those. One of them is already blocked but those other two are not. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A small range, but I'm not adept with rangeblocks. I'll ping Jdelanoy. Acroterion _(talk) 19:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it's been blocked before. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note. J.delanoy's been off the air, but his page is watched by many. Acroterion _(talk) 20:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again. And Happy Holidays. Momo san ^Gespräch 20:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Diggernicks

I just ran across this user, who has done nothing except vandalising Norwalk, Iowa. Is this an inappropriate username? Thanks; and I hope you had a merry Christmas! Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No, transpositions won't make it acceptable. Hardblocked. Acroterion _(talk) 00:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi! Can you give me a list of the workers and bosses of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachary8604 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly - there are millions of registered users, thousands are active, and there are 1700 administrators - who aren't really "bosses," just users with extra tools. Is there something I can do for you? Acroterion _(talk) 01:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)