This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Acroterion. You have new messages at User:Nibbla. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Someone left the following message at my talk page:
Would you have the time to take a look at this [1], [2] related to this [3]. An already very intense flame war ignored by admins for 10 days has gotten completely out of hand after this extremely popular canvassing [4]. The longer this drags on, the worse it will get.Jeppiz (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
My userpage has a couple of userboxes and an in-text statement identifying me as a Christian, so I told Jeppiz that I didn't think I was a good candidate, as my involvement probably would only increase the objections already being made off-wiki. Since your userpage doesn't have any religion-related content, would you mind handling the situation? Nyttend (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for checking the situation. I don't think it disqualifies me, but I think it would have been taken as reason for more complaining, which we could avoid by having someone with no declared religious affiliation take care of things. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks like we've got a sock there. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I've blocked both socks and have blocked the apparent master account for 48 hours for BLP and socking. Acroterion(talk) 16:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. You beat me to it. Not quite sure about the time zones for them all though. But Iotablue was obvious - even made me think the puppetmaster may not be one of these. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Sock or meatpuppets, they're closely related and coordinating to insert borderline defamation. I had the same idea that there might be another account out there. Acroterion(talk) 18:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your "profoundly hostile" message
I said "I feel" that I have been reduced to human filth. There's no way you can deny my feeling. I was called names by Dougweller and IanThomson, when I did not publish any libel against them nor call them any names nor using profanity. I did not ask for your nor IanThomson's involvement in the issue I have with Dougweller. You stating that I have a "profoundly" "hostile" attitude towards editors is in of itself degradation and defamation and reduction to human filth. I am not "profoundly" "hostile" to anyone, I am not calling any one names, I am respecting others, it is in fact other editors who are not respecting me.
If an editor is not "familiar" with a subject matter, and a reputable source i.e. reference to the 113th amendment of the Indian Constitution, is made when changing erroneous information to FACT, then I believe the aforementioned (editor) should not get involved in the discussion. They should seek someone who is familiar with the subject.
Please prove that 'Odia' is NOT commonly used. Reproducing a search engine result or citing a media outlet is not sufficient ground for saying something is "common." I think a topic that involves a certain group of people, should use their convention whilst making reference. Again, the Indian Constitution has OFFICIALLY made the change, and it is only right and just-ful that an encyclopedia do so as well. This is of course, if Wikipedians strive for factuality and validity, rather than artificial political complacency. Prove me, If I am wrong.
Please read what I put on IanThomson's talk:
"I cited the authentic source for my edit, Dougweller, an administrative, did not accept that and reverted my edit. This revert made Wikipedia erroneous. That is enough proof of abuse of administrative power. Administrators are present to "revert" vandalism and/ or incorrect/opinionated statements, not fact. It seems that Dougweller and you are both hesitating to make a change. I am stating fact that Oriya is Odia. It matters not if Oriya is colloquial nor commonly used (there is no proof that Odia IS NOT commonly used) Please refer to the 113th amendment of the Indian Constitution. I am cooperating. I am being a good person and changing Wikipedia so that it is correct. I demand the change for Wikipedia's sake. I suggested to be "a bit more civil", who's the one not cooperating? If Dougweller does not "care" about the topic, then he should not be involved in it. He should get someone who does "care." I am sorry but more than 1 year to make a simple change to FACT is ludicrous and is injustice. I did not call Dougweller any names, nor did I publish any libel. Those are called "personal attacks" i.e. Ad Hominem abuse. He told me to be ""a bit more civil" which is an Ad Hominem attack defaming my stature. I am civilized. You came along and insinuated (actually stated) that I was a "bully"; that is Ad Hominem abuse. That is degradation and is a "personal attack." Please answer why, if the edit I made is verified by the Indian Constitution, it cannot be included in the article? I am seeing that not only are you/Dougweller NOT fixing the issue, but diverting the problem each and every way, effectively NOT fixing the issue." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticeIsTheOnlyRightRight (talk • contribs) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I did read it. That is why I expressed my concern about your hostile behavior on your talk page. Please change your approach to interactions with other editors. Your present bluster is not appropriate or acceptable, and it's certainly not a constructive way of getting help to make the change you have proposed.. Acroterion(talk) 00:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey Native West Virginian!
How many teeth do you have? Two? Three maybe? Okay perhaps four, tops?
Did you know most of us (outside of West Virginia) don't marry our siblings?
Yuz pretty smart for West Virginian... must have grajated from third grade or WVU- oh yeah, that's the same thing!
Talk to you later... and see you in snake handling church on Sunday 64.251.168.209 (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
At least I'm not in South Dakota. Yup. "Yuz" isn't grammar: it's you-uns. Speak proper. Acroterion(talk) 00:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually in a hotel in SD... you banned my IP at home. But shows you have at least a two digit IQ (being able to whois). 64.251.168.209 (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh and LOL@ architect in WV... what do you design- meth labs? 64.251.168.209 (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Oxycontin dispensaries. Much classier. Acroterion(talk) 00:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, at least you have a sense of humor... I'll leave you alone now 64.251.168.209 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Just wanting a bit of clarification here, the warning was given because of I added that sentence involving the allegations of Zoe's ex against her, right? And if so, couldn't you deleted and just made a note on my talk page? --86.156.85.208 (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Please make your proposal without defaming people No second warning will be given if this recurs. Acroterion(talk) 22:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Would you consider it fine if I rephrased what I said to Question: "Why aren't we adding any other allegations from her ex-boyfriend?" Answer: "They are either irrelevant or a violation of WP:BLP since it is a defamatory allegation from a poor source i.e. a self-published blog." --86.156.85.208 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thanks for reframing it. Acroterion(talk) 22:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Why was my Wu edit reverted for "Not being neutral"?
I did not make that article not neutral, I made the article neutral, The article as it sat was biased toward the side of the Feminists and not the facts, The "Sources" are not reliable as they are currently at the center of an ethics problem that is at the center of the issues that are being discussed in the article. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You removed sourced content and references from, among other places, the New York Times stating "Please keep your feminist agenda out of this article, Whose "feminist agenda" do you suppose those sources reflect? You removed all of the sources and substituted phrasing that implied doubt about the event. I'm not sure how you made it less "feminist", but you certainly made it unsourced and declared your own non-neutral agenda. Acroterion(talk) 00:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Neutrality does not equal your own personal biases/agenda.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to set up a company page on here to provide customers with more information and help with our natural listings in Google (like many company's have).
Why has my page been deleted?
Regards
Chris Zych
Marketing Manager
Garbuio Dickinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriszych (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The article made no indication that the company was sufficiently notable for inclusion in a global encyclopedia. See the guidelines for notability on companies for more. Furthermore, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory, a means of promoting an organization, or for improving one's Google ranking. Please see Wikipedia's guidelines for editing with a conflict of interest, which you clearly have. If you can substantiate the company's notability by showing substantial coverage in major independent media, the company ma be eligible for inclusion, provided the material is written in a neutral, non-promotional manner. Please remember that once posted, articles are not under your control and will be edited without your permission or review. Acroterion(talk) 15:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Acroterion I respect you but I think theBronx24 is at my userpage again
Thanks, Gerda, very much appreciated. I wish I had more time nowadays to work on articles, but real life intervenes these days, most of it in a good way. Thank you for everything you do! Acroterion(talk) 17:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for saying that! Can't believe your FA hasn't appeared yet, will try to change that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look through the article and look for updates, better pictures, bad grammar. I might edit the blurb, since there's a little confusion there on the date on which it was declared a park versus a monument. A technicality, but easily fixed. Acroterion(talk) 00:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Bright and beautiful, what I need these days, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Since the account appear to exist solely to add that link, I've blocked it indefinitely. Acroterion(talk) 23:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Gamergate sanctions
You did not follow procedure in issuing a topic ban of "ArmyLine". As with all general and discretionary sanctions, and as it says at the sanctions page, an editor must be notified of the existence of the sanctions with the appropriate template before being sanctioned. You failed to notify ArmyLine of the existence of these sanctions, and hence your topic ban was out of order. Please revoke the topic ban, and remember to notify editors and log your notifications at the sanctions page in future. RGloucester — ☎ 00:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
They were notified of BLP sanctions long ago. I will amend it to apply to BLP. Acroterion(talk) 00:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
If the topic ban is under the BLP sanctions, it should not be logged at the GG sanctions page. RGloucester — ☎ 00:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Yup, thanks, I was on my way over there to remove it and log it at the BLP page. Acroterion(talk) 00:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to request equivocal sanctions against User:TaraInDC for making false claims against Eron. Claiming someone lied when it is verifiable they did not is libel. Failing that, I will notify him of the issue and allow him to sort the matter himself, if he desires.--ArmyLine (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, add whoever added the first iteration of this, too.--00:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmyLine (talk • contribs)
I do not see an equivalent level of battleground behavior to yours, which has been going on for several days. You appear to be trying to get even. However, I have removed the initial sentence from the ANI comments: the point here is to stop using the primary subjects as weapons here on WP. I take no action on the content: nobody is named, and it is clear in the article that Quinn's detractors are the source. You are the one linking Quinn's boyfriend to the allegations and taking pot shots at people's sexual behavior. Acroterion(talk) 00:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure.--ArmyLine (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Why did you redact this but leave this and this in place? -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Because I'm still cleaning up the mess. Acroterion(talk) 01:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Which is why you need to know that editors of that group of articles must be careful to adhere to Wikipedia's policies. You've already posted what looks like harassment to one participant's talkpage. Acroterion(talk) 01:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
also while we're at it is there any way for me to get notifications about pages ive recently editified in the gray squircle of wisdom without having to follow said page because I never get to unfollowing followed pages which I don't care about anymore. --The Defender of Light Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing >Inventory< 01:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
If you are asking if there's an alternative to using your watchlist, no. I have to clean out mine every now and then; it's not hard. Acroterion(talk) 01:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, it looks like you are a very involved admin on many pages, just made an account, glad to be here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanmax98 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Edits to "sandy hook conspiracy theories"
I would like to know how in you're opinion the video I referenced in my edit is unreliableCitadel48 (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I explained to you in some detail and linked to the reliable sourcing policy. As I stated, a mashup of people saying things in a YouTube video does not make it a reliable source. Reliable sources are found in scholarly publications and in major independent media. Anyone can post a YouTube video and edit it however they wish. Please stop edit-warring to include the material. Youi need to find supporting sources in the press. Acroterion(talk) 02:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The reliable sources page makes no reference of specific websites/video makers.
The video shows credible information that could be double checked (I did).
Even if it is not reliable; why can it not be Inducted into the page?. The article puts forth all types of mediocre theories (many of which do not have a substantial number of believers). Yet the theory I wish to include, no matter how unreliable or reliable, has a very large fan-base.Citadel48 (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
You should read WP:RS and WP:V again: it is a general discussion of what makes a source reliable or not reliable, not a list of good and bad sources. It's also policy, you can't just add things to the encyclopedia that you found on the Internet, and you may not post doubtful, poorly sourced or untrue material. If you don't understand that, you might want to look for other, more suitable places to post. Acroterion(talk) 23:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Coffee meets bagel
I don't think a Coffee Meets Bagel page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWDdatingstuffeditor (talk • contribs) 01:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
You mention it was because it wasn't explained how it was notable?
Hello Acroterion! I've seen in the deletion logs that you deleted both Shoshana Roberts and Talk:Shoshana Roberts. For some reason, though, these pages are still there. I didn't know whether this result was accidental or not so, just to be safe, I'm writing to you this brief warning. Happy editing! LowLevel73(talk) 04:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
They were re-created, and one is a redirect, which is OK. The scare quotes are still a problem, as you explained well, but it will take some work to clean them up and make the topic read neutrally, which I don't have the time or interest at the moment to undertake. The account the user inserted ignores comments that were more personal than "hello" and it minimizes issues about unwanted interactions. However, the video has been criticized for an issue of racial imbalance. Acroterion(talk) 13:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Would you be comfortable moving Malcolm "Mac" Wallace back to Malcolm Wallace over the redirect? It appears as though the article was moved November 2013 (see diff), but we typically don't use nicknames this way in article titles. Cheers! -Location (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. I didn't see any reference at all to the "Mac" nickname in the article. Acroterion(talk) 05:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Request for your help
Hi,
I have known and use wikipedia for years but it's just now that I am trying to create a biography for a living person. I know you're busy but I would greatly appreciate if the following sources I have are more than sufficient. I really need help on checking if these are verifiable ones in accordance to wiki's standard. I can gather some more if the need be. My email is pm@anzinternationalinc.com. I would sincerely appreciate any help you can extend. Thank you very much.
I assume you're talking about Ed DeCosta? A quick review indicates that few if any of those sources are the kind of thing we can use on Wikipedia: they're nearly all user-generated, self-sourced, or promotional in nature. You need to find substantial coverage in major independent media: not just mentions, but in-depth coverage that supports an assertion of notability without promoting the subject. I don't (correct me if I'm wrong) see anything like that: a newspaper article, a business magazine profile, etc. Acroterion(talk) 05:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
ArbCom notification
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GamerGate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Hi, just a quick note to say you might have wanted to revert an extra edit when locking this page! That said it did make me giggle when I saw it on a protected article! Nikthestunned 13:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
GG sanctions
Pursuant to a discussion with Dreadstar, a sanctions enforcement page has been established at WP:GS/GG/E. Please watch it. RGloucester — ☎ 21:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Will do, though I'm inundated in Real Life and am not in a position to accomplish the needed follow-up discussion in most cases. I don't expect to be actively participating for a while. Acroterion(talk) 22:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd like you to go to the Katmai talkpage and read a final post I put on it. Read it, don't delete it, and then respond to it. It was just something I neglected to post during the April May edit conflict, which ended long ago. I wasn't "treating Wikipedia as a battleground!" I wasn't "continuing to revert edits of administrators much older than me!" I wasn't "still going against sources" and changing non sourced brown bear to grizzly! The whole archive-new post thing you kept reverting were just a few comments I wanted to add that for some reason I didn't add long ago. The edit conflict has long been over, but I still want you to express your feelings toward my comments.
You think everything I do is bad, and it's going to stop. I am a 15 year old young man who's got a life ahead of him and I didn't come to Wikipedia to be criticized, I came to have fun, and that's all! I don't mean any harm! Why don't you like me!!??--Anderswarr 6:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think everything you do is bad, far from it. I want you to have fun here, that's why we're all here. You might want to use this opportunity to learn appropriate methods of debate, counterpoint, rebuttal and acceptance of constructive criticism: Wikipedia is great for that. It's definitely not a place to avoid criticism, though. However, I have no interest in continuing to discuss bears with you, I've said everything I have to say, and you really should use that talkpage to discuss how its article should be improved, not to try to get in the last word. We will not discuss this again. Please remember not to delete other peoples' comments. If you want to remove your own, that's OK. Acroterion(talk) 03:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Please take a look at the recent edits. A new editor has been adding puffery and deleting cited passages. On the other hand, the edits have found some flaws. Do you think this editor may have a conflict-of-interest? What ought to be done? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I fear this fellow is a vandal, or perhaps he has a conflict of interest. The article is now restored, but it was a lot of work as I let it go too long. In any case, I must ask for your help again. Can you do whatever you think is best?Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Not a vandal, but a single-purpose account that should be discussing their removals on the talkpage, not just via edit summaries. Acroterion(talk) 13:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
SargentSingals
SargentSignals just sent me an offensive email calling be a "skiddy fucktard". Would you kindly remove his email access. - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)Talk 23:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
This is why we can't have nice things. Block expanded to email. Acroterion(talk) 00:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement#DungeonSiegeAddict510. At present I don't see a lot of substance to this complaint, and I do take the matter less seriously when it's reported by an IP with little track record. But I have no experience as an admin with Gamergate. Thanks for any input you want to offer. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave a note there: my feeling is the same as yours, given the extensive level of off-wiki activity I'm extremely skeptical of acting on a request from an IP without at least support from a registered user who's been involved in the conversation. Acroterion(talk) 18:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your threat to me about Binksternet
Questioning why he constantly deletes my sourced edits and threatens me with blocks is not a personal attack. If anything I feel personally attacked by him because he tends not to look at my edits he just sees my username then reverts them like he has some vendetta against me. Apparently it's okay when he constantly reverts but if I do it I always get threats and blocks placed upon me, what makes his edits so much better than mine that he can block people and constantly revert with no consequences? Also if I sign out and make the same edits so my username is not seen he does nothing to the edits. (User talk: TypeONegative13) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TypeONegative13 (talk • contribs)
"Your stupidity is really getting on my nerves" is a personal attack, no? Please moderate your language, and please do not log out to obscure your indentity. Binksternet is not an admin, he can't block anyone, but he can dispute your edits. Please explain your edits and provide appropriate sourcing to back up those edits: the unsourced nature of your edits seems to be the principal issue with several editors, and all edits must have appropriate sourcing. You may not report rumors in an encyclopedia. Also, please sign your talkpage comments with four tildes ~~~~ Acroterion(talk) 13:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Reply
Dear @Acroterion: — Thanks for your message on my talk page. I do appreciate your feedback about copyright, but I feel like you were very rude to me, as I said on my talk page, rudeness will not be tolerated. I am content about uploading non free work, not accepting it was a mistake, but not rejecting it neither. I will no longer be uploading any images because of your accusations and for the photographers sake.
And don't forget, I have a right of free speech under the United States Constitution. I will be careful what photos I upload to this "private" website.
Happy editing and Thanks for making Wikipedia a more reliable source! CookieMonster (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Stop uploading copyright violations and you'll be fine. Since you've done that about a dozen times now, you don't get any more chances, and if that means addressing you bluntly to get you to stop, that will be what happens. You also have no right to free speech on private websites like Wikipedia: see WP:FREESPEECH. Since you're interested in the law, you should become familiar with what the law, both constitutional and copyright, really says. Wikipedia is a private website, and it is a privilege to participate, not a right, and that privilege may be revoked if you abuse it. Acroterion(talk) 04:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Acroterion: — I will not be uploading any more images sir. I am very Interested in the law and I did read the WP:FREESPEECH article. I know very much about law sir, and I know more about the law than you think. So you're basically saying If I upload an image that can be on Wikipedia but has an misplaced tag, you will block me? In my opinion, that was rude, but there is nothing I can do because this is a private website and I need to respect the rules of this website. And no more chances? You should really open up a Bible and read about forgiveness, In my opinion. I am not "abusing" any privilege because I will no longer be uploading images. I want to thank you for your time to reply I will follow the copyright guidelines and Wikipedia Rules. And besides, do you work for the Wikipedia Foundation? Or are you just a regular person? Thanks for your time to reply on this matter. User:CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
You didn't "misplace a tag," you uploaded an image that wasn't free to upload - the one I deleted, and you did it only yesterday. And you uploaded an image of the entrance to One WTC to Commons that you claimed was your own work, when it clearly wasn't, on the 6th. Since you have repeatedly and recently violated Wikipedia image policies and misrepresented other people's images as yours,you will be blocked for escalating periods if you don't stop, for abuse of your editing privileges. As for myself, I'm a volunteer administrator, like everybody else you will encounter on Wikipedia, though the person who investigates copyright abuse is a part-time WMF employee. Acroterion(talk) 12:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Acroterion: Sir, you need to open up your bible and read about forgiveness. I asked jesus for to forgive me and he has forgiven me, because the blood of Jesus washes aways me sins! and about the image with the misplace a tag, I thought it was free and did not know it was copyright, but I will be careful. Remember to open up a bible and read about forgiveness. If jesus can forgive me, I know you and Wikimedia can forgive me too, but threatening to block me is rude, but after all, this is a private website. I will follow the guidelines of this website and not upload any more images. Thanks for your reply. Jesus bless you. CookieMonster (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
what was the reason for Tacky-Teamed Style deletion?
This is not a hoax. This is an actual movement that is taking place in our country (US). It ties closely to the tailgating culture of many football fans.
I know we have had disagreements, but I am learning to use Wikipedia more reasonable and I am learning how to upload appropriate images. Thank you! CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't feel like this page should be deleted. I am an elected Constable in Franklin County and I would like this to be reviewed please.
You may not copy copyrighted material into Wikipedia or in general copy/paste from anywhere into Wikipedia. Please rewrite in a neutral tone using third-party sources: the article was promotional in character. Please also read the conflict of interest policy, since you have a COI as holder of that office. Acroterion(talk) 12:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice to see Biscayne National Park on the main page!--MONGO 03:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! And all edits so far this evening have been constructive! Acroterion(talk) 03:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Request for mediation
Hey – your talk page makes for an interesting read. Anyway, I wanted to ask for your help with a situation on Rise Against. Some IP user has come in and is claiming that the band was formed in 2001 (when in fact they formed in 1999 and changed their name in 2001), and is making incorrect (and untidy) edits accordingly. I know that he is wrong, and I've told him so, but he won't take no for an answer. I don't want to start an edit war or anything, which is why I've come to you. Could you please help me set him straight? Thanks – with regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the page for ten days: the IP will have to use the talkpage to discuss the issue, and I suggest you start the process by explaining why you believe your edits are correct there and invite the IP to respond. Both of you will need to provide sources, but I am predisposed to support the status quo ante since the article is a GA: sources should be brought to the table to show that the article is incorrect. Acroterion(talk) 03:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help – I'll get right to it. With regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
the information is right on the page . So I don't understand the "get sources" thing . The article is written to add 2 years to a band that didn't exist yet. Technically .This is about the last time I try to have you both understand what I am getting at . Heres a clearer example . A musician who plays Bass since 1980 but prior played, Harmonica for three years, can not have in an Article(accurately) that they played "Bass since 1977" . This is what "rise against" article is claiming . Its Wrong . no two ways about it . Why "protect" a page from Truth . Why hound my edits without understanding them . People can play in other bands for 10 years , once they become notable and have an article the start of that group isn't 10 years prior . if it were the same it would be the same name on their royalty statement . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi again... I'm going to have to ask if you can protect the page again. The same person, under a different IP, is making the same disruptive edits and added a source that (although he'd hate to admit it) contradicts his point of view. I thought the issue was past us, but this person is adamant that Rise Against and Transistor Revolt are not the same band. Just to make things clear for you, Rise Against formed in 1999 under a different name, Transistor Revolt, and then changed their name in 2001; he says that Transistor Revolt formed in 1999 and Rise Against formed in 2001 – that they are two different bands. I know it's a pretty stupid issue, but again, this guy just won't take no for an answer. I shouldn't need to provide sources for this, because all it takes is a quick Google search ("when was rise against formed") and there's a thousand sources I can use to support the information I've given you. This guy can't and won't provide a source that supports his point of view, but he is still editing the page. Earlier, you said you supported my view because the page is a GA; if this guy continues to do what he's doing and gets away with it, it won't be GA status for much longer. Again, can you please help me with this person? Thanks – regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to add, this person isn't just disrupting Rise Against, he is vandalising and/or deleting valid information from several other pages, including pages related to this one. Protecting one of these pages, or all of these pages, isn't going to be enough. This person needs to be blocked, or else he will keep vandalising these pages. Can you please do something about this editor? Thanks – regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Transistor Revolt formed in 1999
how are you going to call that "disruptive editing" .
Oscar Meyer didn't form as Keebler . Rise Against with Different members and a Different Name and One release was not real reased under "Rise Against" the article is About rise Against . To "milk" an extra few years back to the "90s" It was written Deceptively . So are you not about a Correct Article and why are you having a problem with the truth ? Have you actually read that first section. Which for the first Few YEARS they weren't "Rise Against" . How is that Encyclopedic to lie ?68.39.152.45 (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
If you will not use the talkpage as it is intended to discuss the matter [5] and bring forth sources to support your assertions, you are being disruptive. Use the talkpage, provide sources, and resolve the issue with other editors, don't just claim that you know better. Acroterion(talk) 05:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Its not disruptive to Correct a page . Its actually disruptive when someone reverts a page without fully understanding the edits . heres what I shared with another editor:
"The name of the Article is what the Page is About . The name of the page is RISE AGAINST . Rise against start date is 2001 . Period . If they had "10" band names or one Prior . oranges are not apples . 4 men could form apple computers, if the same four men form dell computers later on, THEY ARE NOT APPLE . There is NO SUCH THING as "Dell was formed as APPLE" . You understand this ?" This is really Simple stuff . An unbiased "eye" can see the obvious truth in what I am typing and my edits . I don't cain to "know better" you don't know what I "know" . However I am claiming beyond a doubt what I am editing is true . 68.39.152.45 (talk)
Ok Im on the talk page for like 3 days now . I don't see that other person there . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
the sources are Right in the Article . Its written to make a band seem like it formed YEARS Earlier . the Article is RISE AGAINST .Rise Against formed in 2001. How is this bugging you lol 68.39.152.45 (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Acroterion, sorry for dragging you into this... 4TheWynne (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah well, it's what I'm here for. Both of you will need to provide a consensus of authoritative sources, and not work out a subjective truth about the band's formation via logic. That's the issue: the band's formation date is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. Wikipedia needs to use the consensus of published sources, or to acknowledge ambiguity in an acceptable manner. However, edit-warring to proclaim The Truth is not the way to do that. Acroterion(talk) 13:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting Brittany Maynard!
Thanks so much! NekoKatsun (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Appeals go to ArbCom. Acroterion(talk) 14:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Bad admin!!!! Go stand in the corner!!!--MONGO 15:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Go shovel wet sloppy snow is more like it. I see the discussion has (predictably) devolved into GG Argument #59368. Acroterion(talk) 20:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Two World Trade Center
Hello Acroterion, Can I have your advice/input please? User EngcolLab191480 seems to be making a number of test edits to this article, the last being a redlink - that seems to me to be advertising. There are no references or sources and my reversion asking for refs has been reverted. Could I have your views/advice on this please. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The MEP engineer would be a significant participant in the design, but they should have an article first, and the account seems to be solely devoted to adding them to the article. I'll have a word with them. Acroterion(talk) 20:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I see DieSwartzPunkt has already had a word and brought it up at ANI: we'll see what that brings. Acroterion(talk) 20:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Why did you delete the Hayes Grier page?
I was thinking of making a new one but I don't want to make the same mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyitsmegan321 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Cab you change the title to the new page created? I didn't mean to re-edit an existing project I wanted to start my own. So of we can
Get this title deleted that would rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossyoak2717 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:
Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
OK: Whatever I have to say on the subject, if anything, will be short in any case. Acroterion(talk) 17:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Aedin Adams
Hello I found some reliable sources published articles to help bring back Aedin Adams page please take a look at these.
I do not have an account. If you can notify me through here i will check back on your page for your response, thank you.
While they mention him, they do not substantiate notability: there needs to be significant notice focused primarily on the subject, not on a production. Perhaps once the show airs some better material may appear. Acroterion(talk) 00:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello i have found another published article including the airing time, is it possible to unlock the article?
You appear to be adding commentary to a biography: this isn't normally a feature of a biography. Please stick to a just-the-facts approach, and please reference as you go so we can see what the sources are. Unless you have strictly factual information to add to the biography, please avoid inserting editorial commentary into articles. You can see what you wrote in previous versions, and can re-use the text, provided it's sourced and devoid of commentary. Acroterion(talk) 03:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
User: 2001:7e8:c684:801:230:48ff:fed7:4cd7
Hello Acroterion, Could I just bring to your attention the edits of the above user on the Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey article. This "editor" has inserted a paragraph on this page, which has been reverted by three editors (in 24 hours) as too early and a poor source, but each time has been reverted back without explanation. I have left a note asking them not to edit war, but they have taken no notice. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Article semi-protected. Acroterion(talk) 14:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Another request: Mae Brussell was just moved to Mae Magnin Brussell, however, the first is much more common. Per the MoS, would you be comfortable moving it back over the redirect? Cheers! - Location (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Done, I assume she didn't employ the Magnin professionally. Acroterion(talk) 17:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
If GHits are any indication, and I think they are in this case, she typically did not use "Magnin". One of her letters found at http://www.academystamp.com/product934.html shows that she left it off herself. Thanks again! - Location (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Question about GG sanctions
Did this edit lead to this edit? Are there deleted or other edits I haven't seen involved in your choice to give notice? After the AfD I have only been following the GG controversy tangentially. BusterD (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
That's it: apart from the late Breitbart, there's the rather aggressive "perfect feminist echo chamber bubble" which led me to think that a notice of GG sanctions would be appropriate. I'd much rather people know sooner than later, the rate of BLPs have diminished on the subject, and so has the anger (though the plain old bickering has spread all over the place). I've had relatively little to do with the sanctions recently through lack of time, but that caught my eye. Acroterion(talk) 12:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Wiki-Pedia Demo Service
Could you yank their talk page access please? I removed some harassment from the talk page, but they reverted. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 12:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.
See the list of parties not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.
Please note that the purpose of the /Evidence page is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add [private evidence] instead of diffs.
The /Workshop page builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.
No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.
Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)
Fifth Harmony
Do you think the recent BLP violations on that article warrant RevDel? Some of their "fans" try to force their fantasies onto the group members. — Confession0791talk 14:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I took care of the most recent one, but I don't have time right now to review thoroughly. I'll take a longer look later. Acroterion(talk) 18:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
I'm not sure this is just the news. Can it be put back in, but more succinctly or briefly, assuming that it's not undue weight? Bearian (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have called it undue weight: I'm not convinced that a norovirous outbreak, despite litigation, needs to be discussed, or at least not so extensively and under its own heading. Acroterion(talk) 17:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll see i I can condense it a little this evening so it's more proportional. Acroterion(talk) 18:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that it is inconsequential and has run its course as news or even importance. Even litigation apparently has no place on WP unless there is a report of a result/verdict. At one point an IP added that no papers have ever been served to MMH, so in fact we don't know what became of the suit or if it actually ever occurred. I think the outbreak was a headlining item at the time because it was a "good story", but its time has passed and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Norovirus outbreaks have occurred elsewhere, including hospitality venues, without WP mention. Anyway, your call. Softlavender (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey thanks for your help on that article. Would you mind rolling back the IP's latest edits? It's apparently the same person who periodically appears under various IPs to vandalize the article and also add a useless uncited "Development Timeline". Another editor (Loriendrew) has had to request page semi-protection three times on the article in the past; I have a new request for semi-protection in just now. I've warned the IP on his Talk page, but I don't want to do the revert so I don't violate 3RR. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The subject needs to be sufficiently notable for inclusion in a global encyclopedia: several substantial instances of coverage in independent media, for instances. See WP:CORP for more on the notability of companies. Acroterion(talk) 01:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Obesity Medicine
Thanks for your message. The content that you are referring to has been paraphrased and should not be in violation of any copyright. Please check to ensure that you agree as changes were made to the initial page that was uploaded. I look forward to your feedback.Fstanfordmd (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)FstanfordmdFstanfordmd (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You lifted a set of test questions - which have no place in an encyclopedia - from one of the sources. You can't copy anything into Wikipedia. The paraphrasing remains quite close to the source. The tone is promotional and is more in the style of a medical advice website than an encyclopedia. I suggest you create a draft in your userspace, studiously avoiding any form of copying from outside sources, and rewriting in the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia, and submit it at articles for creation. Acroterion(talk) 02:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There are no test questions on the Obesity Medicine page. Please help me to understand what you are referring to. I do provide an abbreviated test content outline for the American Board of Obesity Medicine. If you would like for me to change that, I would be happy to oblige. Fstanfordmd (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)FstanfordmdFstanfordmd (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You say there are not test questions and then say there are? You need to step back and look at it from the point of view of an encyclopedia. The test questions are a direct copy, however abbreviated, and not appropriate. I've removed them as a clear copyright violation. The content is way too closely paraphrased and promotional. It needs a complete rewrite. If you copy into Wikipedia again, you may be blocked. Acroterion(talk) 02:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You also copied directly from here [6]]. Acroterion(talk) 02:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Should I create or speak to someone else to create a separate page for the American Board of Obesity Medicine similar to ones I note above? Thanks
Fstanfordmd (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)FstanfordmdFstanfordmd (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
If the organization is notable, it can be created, but you can't copy into it. As for the individual board members, unless they're notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles, they shouldn't be listed. Acroterion(talk) 02:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback on the American Board of Obesity Medicine. I will touch bases with the organization to let them know the feedback you have provided so that they may produce a proper page.Fstanfordmd (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)FstanfordmdFstanfordmd (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Erm, they (and you) need to look at the conflict of interest guidelines closely. You're not precluded from editing with a conflict of interest, but you should follow best practices when you have a clear COI. We encourage experts to edit, particularly in medical topics, so it's a little bit of a tightrope walk. Acroterion(talk) 02:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I will send over the comment you have posted to the persons in the organization as I think they may be best suited to construct their own page. I do have another question. What steps do I need to take to make sure that the close paraphrasing tag is removed on the current obesity medicine page?Fstanfordmd (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)FstanfordmdFstanfordmd (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Rewrite it so that the language reflects the factual content of the source rather than just being a somewhat reworded version of the source. It's somewhat of a learned skill, but it can be done, though a thesaurus comes in handy at times. The best way is to write a heavily condensed summary, consciously avoiding similar words and word orders. Acroterion(talk) 03:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I have rewritten the content in question (the definition) so that it will not be perceived as closely paraphrased. Will you please take a look at the content? ThanksFstanfordmd (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Fstanfordmd
Why are you a moronic dipshit?
Bruce McNaughton is one of the greatest minds alive. He is a leading candidate for the Nobel Prize in medicine. He invented the tetrode - this allowed the first recordings to be taken from populations of neurons, rather than just one. He pioneered mathematical techniques to isolate these signals. He has used the hippocampus - a part of the brain you may not have - his rats are probably smarter than you, to demonstrate that while a single cell might appear to randomly fire, using his techniques, which he has expanded to record from many cells, he demonstrated that across a population, complex synchronous signals are formed. So a rat's brain does calculus computations to navigate with integratedmemory with the cerebral cortex allowing it to correct for velocity.
Interestingly, he recently showed - you seem like you probably sit around wasting your life smoking weed - that the effect of canabinoid receptor activation, which occurs with weed causes the theta synchrony - a word finally you might have heard of - theta - like the waves from an eeg machine - is distrupted by weed. To confirm this synchronous disruption was the causal factor in memory failure, he used some extremely clever techniques that for intelligent people are just a gold star we get that day, while developing a technique that will allow whole brain imaging with the detail of cellular and action potential level spatial and temporal resolution, such that the pharmacological model that dominates most dumbass neuroscientist's worldview will be broken up.
Why don't you go erase Terrance Sejnowski - he just shotgun sequenced huge populations of neurons and analyzed them at the base level focusing on methylation patterns which are critical to epigenomics - Or you could start with non-biased approaches to cluster analysis.
Do you know how to cut partial differential equations - that will be a start - the epigenomic paper is in Science within the last year or so - read that and go read what Guzowski, Barnes, Mcnaughton did with gene Arc - think about your genes coming under neuronal control and the fact you have no free will, that whatever dipshit notions you have - your little theories about why your girlfriend screwed some other guy - Neurobiological description will be the "reducing theory", providing a more complete level of description. Only, your dipshit theory will not map onto the materialistic brain, because you're a dumbass - it will be eliminated. This position is called "Eliminative Materialist". Now go delete Patricia Churchland.
Are you so backwards you want to go delete Francis Crick? and James Watson, have you heard of DNA? Go delete Einstein. post a note explaining the difference between special and general relativity, you ant.
Re: your offensive tirade above: the content of the article I deleted in 2008 was, in its entirety "Bruce McNaughton is a stackwalker." Whatever a "stackwalker" might be, it isn't a notable occupation. No mention of that Nobel. Is there any other conclusion about a common name you wish to jump to and spend 15 minutes writing insults about?
Now don't you feel embarassed? Acroterion(talk) 12:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
"You ant" was rather nice, I thought. This is the definition of ant at Urban Dictionary: A funny, good looking guy, usually young but not neccessarily. Very cheeky and jack-the-laddish. Often intelligent and mature for his age, quick-witted especially around people he's just met. The kind of guy you see in a corner at the party telling girls about travelling stories. Like a party animal but not as wacky or drunk. That's just how I see you! Maybe the user mellowed out right at the end of their post. (Nevertheless, I've indeffed them.) Bishonen | talk 15:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC).
I feel cheated! I was called a "monster" not so long ago but I have never had the opportunity to be given the accolade of "moronic dipshit"! You should frame this so you can cherish it for all eternity! You lucky duck you!--MONGO 16:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Monster? No, no. Little MONGO just varra big feet! [Bishzilla discreetly pours plaster into MONGO footprints.] bishzillaROARR!! 17:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC).
And hairy...think Hobit times ten.--MONGO 20:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought that was funny too, but hey, I'm usually the one called "Ant" around here (with a capital A). Ed Abbey sometimes called people "pismires" which is a much more entertaining synonym for the industrious creature. Antandrus (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I liked the "ant" too. After all, they're industrious, cooperative and community-minded, and the extra pair of limbs, not to mention the antennae and mandibles, can't help but be useful. As for the UD definition, why yes indeed. I'm often seen surrounded by women, all lovely, all devoted, as I tell them about fishing in the Keys with Papa, or about climbing K2: not for me the commonplace Everest. Acroterion(talk) 17:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
My cousin the Yeti says he saw you on K2. That's all the verification needed.--MONGO 20:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The fishing trip with Hemingway is clear in my mind, despite the fact that I was only two in 1961. Acroterion(talk) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought you were thirty-nine for the first time in 1961.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you're really "mature for your age", per Urban Dictionary, you can't be more than twelve. Bishonen | talk 12:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC).
In fact, I think the last time I was informed that I was "mature for my age" was at about the age of twelve. That is,when I wasn't being an early adolescent jerk. If WP had been around in 1970 I'd have been sticking in "poop" (actually at twelve I'd have moved on to something more prurient) wherever I could and giggling at my boldness. Happily, 44 years on, I'm usually told that I look young for my age. Acroterion(talk) 18:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Following up on Obesity Medicine
I have rewritten the content in question (the definition) so that it will not be perceived as closely paraphrased. Will you please take a look at the content? If you agree, will you remove the tag about close paraphrasing? Thanks Fstanfordmd (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm just trying to get back in touch with you... I have rewritten the content in question (the definition) so that it will not be perceived as closely paraphrased. Will you please take a look at the content? If you agree, will you remove the tag about close paraphrasing? Thanks Fstanfordmd (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Fstanfordmd
I'll take a look when I get a few quiet minutes. Acroterion(talk) 02:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I look forward to your response.Fstanfordmd (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Fstanfordmd
You are so stupid...
How dare you deleted my article..you think you are hero.....you can delete many article with your own....why you want to delete my article....is that wrong....?????you mean what you say is true.....
To which article do you refer? Acroterion(talk) 12:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting mixed signals. Is he stupid or a hero? APKwhisper in my ear 12:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Presumably the IP is referring to an article he wrote using an account, which means you have no way of identifying it. But it doesn't matter, does it? What you need to do is go delete your own articles, stupid! Bishonen | talk 12:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC).
It's that missing hippocampus: I knew I'd need it, but it went to the organ bank, along with my spleen and appendix and the extra lung, in exchange for pie. To the IP: we can't help you much if you don't tell us what article you are concerned with. A lot of articles get deleted, and if you tell me what it was, or what you account name is, I can tell you in more detail why it wasn't eligible for inclusion. Acroterion(talk) 12:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
[Concerned:] Your hippopotamus is missing? bishzillaROARR!! 17:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC).
It is. I made up for it by getting my wife a hippopotamus for Christmas, but it's a hippo-shaped clay planter and not the same at all. I wonder if "I Want a Hippocampus for Christmas" would be a hit? Acroterion(talk) 19:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Following up on Obesity Medicine Once More
On your last post you mentioned that you would take a look at the Obesity Medicine definition on the Obesity Medicine page as it has been changed due to the concern for close paraphrasing. I am writing to follow up on this request. Please note that a read on the definition would likely take less than 30 seconds due to its brevity. I look forward to you looking into this. Thanks Fstanfordmd (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Fstanfordmd
It will take more than 30 seconds to do a conscientious review. Please remember that we're all volunteers, and at present my time is limited to short snatches of time between work and family commitments. I will review as soon as I can devote the appropriate attention. Acroterion(talk) 17:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I look forward to your review soon. Fstanfordmd (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Fstanfordmd
It looks much better. While I don't have access to most of those sources, it reads in a much more encyclopedic style and flows better. Acroterion(talk) 03:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Thanks for the feedback.Fstanfordmd (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Fstanfordmd
A final note of forgivness
I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.17.49 (talk) 14:56, December 19, 2014
Because you dared to block somebody. I got a speeding ticket once, but my attempt to close the interstate highway system failed, alas. That would have show'd 'em. Antandrus (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
(Followup): Darn, it's been deleted. It was funny. Oh well. Hey, merry Christmas and have a happy new year, and much editing pleasure in 2015. Antandrus (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Meta? There's a heavily-trafficked corner of the Internet, perfect for all kinds of denunciations. Merry Christmas! I'm busy washing china and silverware for the feast, advance food prep tomorrow. Acroterion(talk) 02:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I once almost had Metta World Peace step on me during the Malice at the Palace, but I didn't even know meta-wikipedia existed. I have to cook the turkey tomorrow night, both of my kids and grandkids are coming over at 11:am Christmas day to eat 'dinner', before they have to go visit the in-laws. Not getting up at 5:am to cook a turkey. heh-heh Happy Holidays! Dave Dial (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
This year to my great delight we're doing Christmas not at my house, so I'll be driving, but not cooking/cleaning silverware/setting tables. Ahh. I did, however, promise to bring the rib roast. And wine. So someone will be glad to see me. Bringers of food are drink are greeted with smiles. :) Antandrus (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Roast beef here, and it's huge, we'll have to get started early. Only four to share it, though, unless the neighbors come over, attracted by Irish whiskey. Acroterion(talk) 03:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Roast beef? Rare Who-roast beast is a feast I can't stand in the least! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
In about 24 hours your eyes will change from red to blue and your heart will grow three sizes too. Apparently nothing will be done about the green hair. Acroterion(talk) 13:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Question
Hello A. I saw that you had rev/del all of the personal attacks on NawlinWiki's talk page. I am wondering of the same should be done with the post that the person made on their talk page User talk:Ariel is in Arab-occupied Samaria. I blanked it but maybe it should be removed as well. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Done. Jeremy's busy today. Acroterion(talk) 15:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 15:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Hope you are well
Don't let people bring you down. We RevDel'ed the attacks, blocked the IP+account, and I SPP'ed your page for two days. You're an admin, you can see what happened, and you're free to remove the protection early if you feel like it. Happy Holidays? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
No worries, our old friend Jeremy's got a little time on his hands, so it's nothing to take personally. Thanks for the protection, it's just as well since I'll be away from the Internet for long periods in the next few days. Acroterion(talk) 17:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I proposed the article in question that you took to the BLP noticeboard for deletion
Please let me know if you agree, disagree, or have no opinion. Thanks. Afronig (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
He's sort of borderline notable, but I'd like to see real sources. I doubt the directory covers all of the territory the article does. Acroterion(talk) 21:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Could I ask that why the website security issues related to the Weather Channel is deleted? It is a big issue, even the architect behind the new TWC site contact the media to explain the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenmow (talk • contribs) 03:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
It would be something that might be included if a significant attack resulted from the vulnerability. However, in the context of an encyclopedia article on a company that predicts the weather, a discussion of the organization's website vulnerability seems very tangential, not to mention that Wikipedia is effectively providing advice on how to attack the site. Acroterion(talk) 03:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Posting of someone's address
I don't think it was done maliciously, but a person's address was posted in Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen (diff). If this is an issue, can you advise what steps, if any, I need to take? Thanks! - Location (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
That said it did make me giggle when I saw it on a protected article! Nikthestunned 13:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --ArmyLine (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
