User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q3 2009

Account used for BLP violation

What with google searches being what they are, do you think it would be a good idea to delete the creator's talk page, as well, or at least to redact the subject's name from it? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the name should be redacted. I've already create-protected the article, and I have run out of good faith concerning the editor's username. Acroterion _(talk) 01:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you run out of good faith with a username when I have answered your questions directly? Also, isnt the name of this post incorrect? The subject has been convicted. Arent we basing posts on facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuteteacherguy29 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; the article Acroterian linked to must be an old one, then; I thought it indicated that the subject hadn't been convicted yet. In any case, as the subject doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, there's no reason to create an article; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and doesn't need articles about every person who is convicted of a crime, unless that crime is especially noteworthy. Your username indicates that your primary goal is not to make a better encyclopedia, but to publicly humiliate this person; that isn't what Wikipedia's purpose is, so you'll need to do that elsewhere if it needs to be done. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You have answered none of my questions in a manner that indicates that you understand the responses that three administrators have provided on this subject. I believe you have created this account specifically as a way to persecute someone, as evidenced by the name you've chosen. That is not acceptable by Wikipedia policy. Guilt or innocence is not the issue. Acroterion _(talk) 02:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Acroterion- Did you know there were two Columbine massacres? I learn the most amazing things on Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In Serene, Colorado ?! Acroterion _(talk) 02:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fisher, The single event explination was sufficient for the terms of use. I dont think you can judge someones intentions on their username. You have no idea, and you have no proof of any kind to back up your statements. The posting will not be redone by me. However, even though your interpretation is completely incorrect, and the rudeness of your post is insulting, the topic is ended as I see it.

--Cuteteacherguy29 (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons overrides all, and would rule in any case. That is the point we've been making. Now, will you please find another username? Acroterion _(talk) 02:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I find the blocking of my username trivial at this point. I was the person you just blocked. The reason is I have made it known that the post will not continue, You then decide to block it? For what reason if I do not reference the same subject matter. I ask you to reinstate as long as I do not reference the same subject matter--Itendtodisagree (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The name was used as a means of disparagement and thus violates user name policy. Please consider it retired. Official policy in these matters is quite a bit more harsh than the application in this particular case; you could have been blocked entirely under the circumstances (a username hard block, to use the technical term), for a username apparently intended to disparage someone. You are free to edit under the new name (within policy), so happy editing. Acroterion _(talk) 03:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as though you are doing it to make a point, can you at least edit the name of this article. Just to make a point, it is not a true statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itendtodisagree (talk • contribs) 03:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. However, I was not making a point, I was preventing the account from being used, and did not know that you had chosen a new name. Acroterion _(talk) 03:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Zoom

Hi I wrote the Zoom Entertainment page that you deleted so quickly. I realise the article is not only bringing to the attention of the world that tey exist but could be seen as advertising. They do exist and the article explins there function with links to verify that. How do I produce an article so that the world is aware that they exist? It is not indifferent to a similar named site Bang! Zoom Entertainment which can be declared an advertisement also but has many links to it. This is just a start and I will continue if allowed to obtain many incoming links to show it has VALUE.

Please reconsider your judgement on this. Regards Pete Heath (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

How does the organization meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability of comanies? You will need to provide references indicating the firm has received non-trivial notice in multiple publications with a reputation for fact-checking, preferably of national standing. Wikipedia is not the place to bring things to the world's attention: they should already be on the world's radar to get written about here. Acroterion _(talk) 02:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Zoom Entertainment deletion

Please reconsider your judgement on this. Regards Pete Heath (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for wasting your time. I will gather the required information in order to meet this criteria and perhaps resubmit at a later time.

IKON Office Solutions

How do I edit the top portion of the post. Someone asked for the citation. I could not edit in the correct paragraph. --Itendtodisagree (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ELSWORTH

Curious, why should it be moved to Kent County? Please let me know on my talk page; I'll forget to look here. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I thought you meant that the description or the community given was actually in Kent County. Just yesterday, I moved one ship's listing from Hammond, Indiana to Muskegon, Michigan; it would help if the NRIS kept up with semi-permanent moves like this. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Update?

Hallo, is there anything new concerning this? --Matthiasb (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's been in article space for about a month now. I put the history on the talk page, which seems to be the prescribed method since we can't import into this wiki. Thanks for your help! Acroterion _(talk) 13:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Message for Acroterion

I beg your pardon, but I have not added any personal commentary. This is FACT, as substantiated by evidentiary support found in the listed references. Please do your own research and verify these claims before you so quickly decide to remove them as unfounded.

This is a REAL Phenomenon...AC 360 (Anderson Cooper) has reported that illegal immigrants from mexico are responsible for planting marijuana crops in U.S. National Parks. On June 15, 2009, Anderson Cooper has reported that it is easier for these illegal immigrants to reach consumers in the U.S. because they are growing crops here in the U.S. and thus do not have to smuggle them across the border. As a result, their job is easier if they plant in the U.S. The public needs to understand the dangers that this issue poses. This has nothing to do with my opinion. These are recurring, GENUINE phenomena that need to be shared.

See for yourself:

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/category/marijuana/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.30.209 (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And why is this vital to the article on Los Padres National Forest? This is a common problem in all of California's national forests and has been going on for years. Why are you so focused on this one, and how does this undue weight help the article. Please do nopt edit-war to insert this: discuss it on the article talk page. The article is not a forum for your views on Mexican drug cartels.Acroterion _(talk) 03:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Message 2 for Acroterion

Yes, it is important and specific to this national park. The referenced articles only specify this park, Los Padres National Park.

As a result, you have a duty to report factual events that impugn the character of this park and to hold those accountable for their actions in California. You may not be opposed to illegal immigration, but that is irrelevant here. It is imperative that United States citizens understand the core issues that affect immigration laws, national security, and the public welfare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.30.209 (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a national park. It's a national forest. I have no duty, nor does Wikipedia, to report anything; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You are using the encyclopedia as a soapbox on immigration, and the information is tangentially relevant at best. Acroterion _(talk) 03:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Message 3 for Acroterion

I think you have mistaken Anderson Cooper's words for mine...Everything I have written is verbatim from the news articles referenced

I have not expressed any opinion on the issue. This is totally unbiased and simply reports the nature of the events.

This is a pertinent issue and deserves recognition from Wikipedia and all those interested in the park

If your family wanted to go vacation in this park, then you should AT LEAST BE AWARE of these occurrences. Wikipedia has the duty to inform, then it is up to the individual to choose whether he or she still wishes to visit there. Do you still not see my point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.30.209 (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAPBOX; you are introducing material at variance with those guidelines, and you seem to be uninterested in the actual subject of the article. Acroterion _(talk) 03:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The user has added the material again, after a final warning. The user doesn't seem to get that what he is doing is against SOAP. I would suggest blocking, as, after all the warnings, they still have not learned.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for disruptive editing and soapboxing; the core issue isn't the content of Los Padres National Forest, it's the editor's use of Wikipedia as a forum for his views on immigration. Acroterion _(talk) 03:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking care of this while I was away at a July 4 barbecue. I had a feeling this inappropriate material would find its way back. -- 68.53, if you are reading this, the problem isn't the newsworthiness of Mexican drug cartels beginning a growing campaign on U.S. public lands; this has been going on for years, and is well-documented; the problems are 1) you are trying to add it to an inappropriate place (the Los Padres National Forest article is about the forest, not drug production, and the issue is tangential and [[WP:SOAPBOX|soapboxy there), and 2) the writing has a xenophobic edge to it. There's certainly somewhere on Wikipedia where a stricly NPOV rewrite of this material could be covered; Mexican_Drug_War#United_States might be reasonable, and there might even be somewhere better. Just my opinion. Thanks all, Antandrus (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor was using the quote as a sort of fig leaf for the edit; the fact that the quote mentions Los Padres is not as important as the editor thinks. I've been seeing reports like this for twenty years, it's far from new, and Sequoia, Mendocino and others (where there's more water) are probably more heavily affected than Los Padres. Lou Dobbs is a much more fertile source anyway than Cooper for xenophobia. There is an appropriate place on WP for this discussion; I can see an article on the history of marijauna production in California national forests and national parks as entirely valid, tracing its history from locals growing their own to more organized enterprises to foreign-dominated organizations, but this isn't the way to go about it, and a scholarly discussion of this sort isn't what the editor had in mind when he said above "As a result, you have a duty to report factual events that impugn the character of this park and to hold those accountable for their actions in California. You may not be opposed to illegal immigration, but that is irrelevant here. It is imperative that United States citizens understand the core issues that affect immigration laws, national security, and the public welfare. " The quoted material isn't even about illegal immigration per se, it's about Mexican drug cartels, who like cheap labor as much as the next business. Acroterion _(talk) 13:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

St. Mary's County images

I see you're adding images on Washington County, Maryland. Nice pics! Thought you might like to know I spent Fri in St. Mary's County to take pics and added a number to National Register of Historic Places listings in St. Mary's County, Maryland. Nice trip ... best wishes.--Pubdog (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I was actually in St. Mary's County on Tuesday and got a few shots, although not necesarily of NRHP things. I saw your additions and will check them out in more detail: I've also added a few in Cecil, Kent and Berkeley County, WV. Acroterion _(talk) 18:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the new Wash Co pics. Visited Anne Arundel County / Annapolis yesterday and added 25 new pics to National Register of Historic Places listings in Anne Arundel County, Maryland; added summaries to all ... cheers!--Pubdog (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw your AA pix; they're nice. You've done a good job of avoiding the vertical perspective distortion that makes buildings look like they're falling over backwards - not easy with a lot of these tall brick buildings. For some reason everything I've tried to shoot recently faces north (well, maybe 50% anyway) and needs extensive work in Photoshop to have a good, evenly exposed image. Also, every time I have a few minutes to shoot, the sun goes behind a cloud. Ah, well. Keep up the good work! Acroterion _(talk) 21:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments about my pics. I'm afraid I feel I'm battling foliage more than anything this time of year. I'm using the Picasa 3 tool from Google for any edits I make. I'm not making many edits though, so maybe I'm just lucky. I think we'll get 'em all!--Pubdog (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Trees and utility lines are the bane of architectural photography. Trees at least lose their leaves for a few months; big black phone lines are forever. The last couple of pictures I posted in Hagerstown were the best of a bad lot of street lights, signs, signal lights and overhead lines. I have a list of places to revisit after the leaves are down so I can get a long shot without trespassing.Acroterion _(talk) 23:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

why did you delete my page: Abraham Renteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sargentslaughter (talk • contribs) 04:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it was an article about someone who does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Acroterion _(talk) 04:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You've...

...missed the point completely by thinking it's random, and demonstrated a lack of intellect by saying as such. First of all, I never said that, "Edit-warring is murder", what I said was, "So a vandal who escapes admin for a day is no longer a vandal and disipline should not be given because he did it in the past...". That means that, because it is a problem which was left unchecked in the past, it should not be pursued as it is not valid. That's stupid. "A block for edit-warring is effective only when there's an edit war in progress...", that's simply not true. On the "randomness" of this, there is none. I sighted and showed that this is by no means random. Also, it really makes no difference to me on what you feel about my analogy. The "established means"? Do you mean find the easiest target involved and punish him, is that one of the "establisted means", as it would appear so. It's easy. It's tidy, because you let them file an appeal, but it never gets anywhere. It only pleases those who wish not "waste" their time dealing with situations properly, but it will please as long as it gets to the desired result, no matter what it costs. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll let the remark about my "lack of intellect" pass, rude though it is. I've blocked many, many vandals, and the lesson works best if you do it when they're vandalizing, edit-warring, spouting original research, etc. The "established means" refers to the practices we've found work best in maintaining the encyclopedia. Going back and blocking people for past offenses is very much frowned upon by the community, as it can lead to the prosecution of vendettas, fighting among admins, and general chaos. I have been able to get vandals and edit-warriors to reform without blocking them. Blocking is not the only means, or even the best means, to change behavior. A single-minded focus on blocking is not a positive administrative characteristic, and I speak as one who has, at this moment, blocked 1810 editors, most indefinitely. "Punishment" applied as such, rather than as a preventative measure, tends to escalate the problem, which is why it's discouraged. No administrator will block someone against policy simply because another editor demands that they do so; if they do, they have no business being an administrator.

From WP:BLOCK: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. We take this very seriously, and I think it's a good policy. If you disagree, take it up on the policy talk page, not here. If the user is disrupting the encyclopedia on a continuing basis, I'd be happy to deal with them, which may include blocking them. Otherwise, it is poor practice to go around meting out punishment when the editor may not even be aware that punishment is being applied. Acroterion _(talk) 13:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The above comments were expressed in the abstract. Having looked at the situation that provoked all this, you clearly are trying to prosecute a vendetta, having failed to convince other editors that your preferred edits are valid. Your behavior on Talk:Code Lyoko indicates that you are not interested in abiding by policy for reliable sources, and wish to have others sanctioned for insisting that you do so. You have resorted to rudeness when other arguments have failed. The Rogue Penguin is mainly guilty of having been lured into a reversion cycle of policy and consensus enforcement with a determined edit-warrior, leaving him open to the kind of increasingly nasty dialogue (from your side: TRP has been consistently polite) that I've seen. MataNui44 is fortunate to be blocked for only a month. Jayron acted correctly and within his discretion. Your behavior is far from exemplary, and you are not in a position to demand that others be sanctioned. Please consider yourself warned; you are yourself in disruptive editing territory.. Acroterion _(talk) 14:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond in this to both of the above. You are blowing the "lack of intellect" quote out of preportition, though it would probably have fit better as "lack of awareness" or "logical reaction". Vendettas cause you admins to lose your cool, and all that? Well, you have me unconvinced that not prosecuting is a good strategy. When did I demand? I asked that you consider doing it and gave, reasons, evidence, as well as witness's agreement. If blocks are takeen so seriously, then why don't investigations precede them?

(Next Message) I don't think there can be any argument about my edits as I had my sources. You're the last one to talk about policy. You play by the book and get whomever is convenient, that is how the current blocking policy works. My behavior? I was the one greeted by a sarcastic ass, "Didn't you read above...". "The Rogue Penguin is mainly guilty of having been lured into a reversion cycle of policy and consensus enforcement with a determined edit-warrior, leaving him open to the kind of increasingly nasty dialogue (from your side: TRP has been consistently polite) that I've seen." Now you're getting into the "that poor dear" argument, which I've seen you pull on anyone who has "dared" to go against TRP. Polite? As if! MataNui44 is fortunate? Looks all that blocking has gone to your head, because you're feeling happy that a person who was only doing the right thing, deserves what you guys unwittingly gave him. A couple things wrong with that: 1. Jayron did not act accordingly. 2. Taht's a matter of opinion. 3. I never demanded. 4. What am I supposed to do? Also, I am beginning to suspect that there is some sockpuppetting between you admins and TRP. I will report sock puppetting if I feel it nessecary. So please consider yourself warned. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. Acroterion _(talk) 18:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed something. When did I even ask to talk with you? --76.95.66.209 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You did not; you were arguing with an editor I respect on her talkpage and taxing her patience as she very patiently explained why she was not going to do what you wanted her to do. You are convinced everyone you interact with is acting in bad faith, and you are keen to argue under all circumstances, attributes which are not very helpful on Wikipedia, where collaboration is essential. Acroterion _(talk) 18:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, on many of your statements. No, I did not ask to talk to you. And yes, I am convinced you're interacting on bad faith. "...And you are keen to argue under all circumstances, attributes which are not very helpful on Wikipedia...", that is not true. You know I've realize why you and the other admins have done this to MataNui and I. We saw that you did not do what you're supposed to, when you're supposed to (not blocking TRP when he was edit-warring). Now that you've stuck to that decision, anyone who challenges TRP or you is an "evil edit warrior hell-bent on destroying Wikipedia". This also coincides with the blocking policy you've sworn yourself to. You've left me unconvinced that wikipedia is run by responsible, caring, fair people; instead I'm starting to get the feeling that wikipedia is run like Nazi Germany. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Godwin's Law. Now, I'm going to go work on my house; it's nice outside. You should take a look at a bunch of policies like WP:NPA, WP:RS, and WP:V. Acroterion _(talk) 18:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at them and have integrated and followed them. Once more, I do believe you're backing out of this disscussion because I hit to close to home in my last post. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I have a porch to fix and this isn't getting it done. Acroterion _(talk) 19:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I responded on MataNui44's talk page. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 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) 21:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

File:File:SpringWood Aug 2007.jpg

Hallo. I yesterday tried to transfer the image to the Commons, however it isn't there correctly. Now I tried to transfer it once again, but at EN:WP it already is deleted. Could you please restore and reupload it to commons? Thanks. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Images can't be deleted or restored for the time being while the image mess continues. I got an error message; I'll try again when things get better. Acroterion _(talk) 02:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Your reply

Please do not forum-shop, and please do not assume bad faith of new users or treat non-administrators as second-class citizens.

All of those are false. You should stop assuming bad faith. Iowateen (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on AN/I indicate otherwise. We're not here to bite new users, and I have no intention of arguing with you when it's clear you don't understand the policies. You asked for an administrator's opinion: you got one. Drop it. Acroterion _(talk) 04:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Uninvoved admin here: I support Acroterion's observations here. Acroterion not assuming bad faith and it's not cool to assert that he or she is. Toddst1 (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't indicate otherwise. Here is my reply to your accusations copy and pasted from the page: "I know that it's possible for anyone to make mistakes, I don't know what forum shopping is, I thought the usernames were against the guidelines, and I thought that only admins could reply to questions in ANI. People that get blocked for inappropiate usernames are able to change them." I won't drop it when an admin is throwing lies at me. Did you ignore my reply? What you did was biting (which I did read the page). Iowateen (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have left Iowateen a friendly note on their talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to have helped. Acroterion _(talk) 13:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Unbelieveable!!! COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT AGAIN FOR AN ARTICLE THAT I WROTE!!! WHAT IS THIS! WHAT DOES A PERSON HAVE TO DO TO MAKE A STATEMENT TO THE COMMUNITY???? THERE'S ONLY ONE THING I CAN SAY. **** OFF! THIS IS THE REASON THAT NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW TELEKINESIS IS REALTelekinesisProf (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page, using the shift key. Acroterion _(talk) 04:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ship -vs- boat

Looked like the ship won, so I did away with the boat category. Sorry my friend. Hope you're OK with that. Others has "boats" in "ships" and they far outnumbered just the MD boats, so consolidated. Ahoy matey.--Pubdog (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Arrrr, ye swab. Yeah, I had some trouble with the notion that a log canoe was a ship, but the dividing line was not easily definable, and perhaps a pointless distinction. Want me to delete the boat category, seeing as I made it? Acroterion _(talk) 19:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please, Captain --- boats be gone! Thanks for all the help. Working on subcats on Category:Railway stations on the National Register of Historic Places. I sure hope what I'm doing is OK!--Pubdog (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Firefly

Thanks for the links, that was exactly the sort of information I was looking for.--OMCV (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome; it's a good year for them. Acroterion _(talk) 02:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Scout (Buffalo Bill Statue)

On July 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Scout (Buffalo Bill Statue), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Hi Acroterion - I added a note for you on my talk page. Please resond with your thoughts on my talk page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selwyndvr (talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Exuse me, why are you silencing my wikipedia rights?

I have written an article on a fictional story made by a real person, I do not understand why you keep sending me hatemail, and keep trying to destroy knowledge. Please lift your attacks on my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burly Man Of Intelligence (talk • contribs) 04:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt deletion

Thanks for deleting the RetroS1mone article I inadvertently created in mainspace. You were so fast, in fact, you got to it before I could put a {{speedydelete}} tag on it! --RobinHood70 (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it was easy to tell that you'd gone astray there; I've done the same thing now and then. Acroterion _(talk) 01:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mummy Cave

Have you seen any sources on Mummy Cave other than the ones that you used to write the article? I've found tons of online sources; apparently this site has been seen as one of the region's premier archaeological sites. Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I worked with the Wyoming SHPO's site; I've stumbled into the permanent site locations but haven't found an index - the format is http://wyoshpo.state.wy.us/NationalRegister/site.asp?id=xxx. I didn't do a thorough search, just clearing the redlink for the time being. Feel free to expand if you've got some good sources. Acroterion _(talk) 21:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean - it is a big deal. Acroterion _(talk) 21:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added some sources. Would you have time to put a little more work into this specific article? It would be interesting to expand this one as much as possible. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do this evening and in the morning. There ought to be a DYK in there somewhere (at the very least). Acroterion _(talk) 01:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe I'll read this evening and undertake actual editing tomorrow - there's a 247-page Park Service report on the place! Acroterion _(talk) 01:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You've been busy! Now I don't know what I can do; perhaps I'll just look for more sources and hope that I can find some that you've not yet used :-) I've found the date of the Science article and added a link to its abstract; however, I don't have access to the journal itself, so I can't use the article. I've asked for help at the Archaeology Wikiproject, since I expect that someone there might have access; I'll also ask Billwhittaker, although he's much more Iowa than anything else. By the way, sorry for the confusion with the reference numbers; I didn't know that you were planning to use another WYSHPO reference. Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, are you familiar with {{NRHP navigation box}}? I've created {{NRHP in Park County, Wyoming}} and applied it to all 39 listings. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've finally made it into the meat of the article, but it's almost all based on the linked paper. I plan to summarize the major epochs of occupancy and to discuss the mummy a little, look around for some other sources (not much seems to be out there that has anything to add) and wrap it up. There are relatively few useful NRHP archeology articles since the NPS is so fussy about them. Considering this site is well known and on a major highway (I've driven right past it three times, but didn't know at the time), it's silly for the Park Service to hide the nom. This site is one of the few that actually has some source material. Thanks for doing the template - templates and I are not friends, but this one's easy enough. Since we have some really good sources for everything in Wyoming, I can see us getting the whole state to stub-or-better in a few months. Acroterion _(talk) 01:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the actual writing! Most of my work consists of small entries, so I'm not accustomed to putting together a significant article — the only one that I've ever written to a decent size is Southworth House (Cleveland, Ohio), a property for which I had a personal picture and some personal experience. We should have the Science article soon: someone at the Archaeology Wikiproject has agreed to help us with that. And as far as the template — I don't know how to code them, but this is one of those templates that has no toggleable functions, so it's simply a box with links. Once someone else created the code, I found it very easy to make more of them. Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Independently of the Archaeology project, Billwhittaker has helped — go to http://billwhittaker.googlepages.com/mummy for the link if you want it. Bill would like to take it down rather soon, so best if you'd download it or decide that you don't feel like it. Nyttend (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's more digestible than the Husted document. I'm a bit lost in Paleoindian terminology and arrowhead morphology - not my field at all. Please thank Billwhittaker for me, and I'll save it locally. Acroterion _(talk) 15:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, archaeology is interesting to me but quite confusing. I've let him know, and see what I can do with the article before you make tons of improvements :-) Nyttend (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] Hey, I nominated the cave for DYK, if thats all right with you. The article had caught my attention and, from an above comment, it seems like you were going to do so eventually, so, sorry if I jumped the gun with it. --​​​​D.B.^{talk•contribs} 22:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me as long as Nyttend gets credited. Acroterion _(talk) 00:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, although you definitely should come first as the original creator and the author of most of the text :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Toomey's Mills

A tag has been placed on Toomey's Mills requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates

You're welcome :-) I'd thought of creating more templates, but since there were so many redlinks, I wasn't sure whether you'd find them useful yet. Now that I see you creating many more, I think I'll create more. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohio

August 4, 2009

Dear Dcmacnut,

I feel that your editing is arbitrary and blocks the purpose of an encyclopedia that by definition is a compilation of articles of knowledge on topics. I am adding firsthand knowledge about Sherrod Brown for Ohioans to read. By editing it out you are limiting access to his writings and you have determined it is controversial on your own. You are arbitrary limiting Ohioans ability to gather knowledge that Senator Sherrod Brown has disseminated in emails to people who have contacted him.

hidden category

Do you know how to get rid of the hidden category, "NRHP infobox needing cleanup"? It's on some of the articles I've started like Embassy of Uzbekistan in Washington, D.C. and Connecticut Avenue Bridge over Klingle Valley, but doesn't show up on Oak Hill Cemetery Chapel (Washington, D.C.) or Old Stone House (Washington, D.C.). I think "cp" may be the problem, because "nhldcp" is on the Oak Hill and Old Stone articles. Although "cp" works fine on L. Ron Hubbard House. I'm confused. APK that's not my name 22:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not something I've studied, except that hidden categories tend to come in templates. You might want to consult Dudemanfellabra (talk · contribs), who's rewritten all of the National Register infobox templates. I'll bet he knows what's going on. Maybe you have an old version of the template on some articles? Acroterion _(talk) 00:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'll head over to his page. Gracias. APK that's not my name 01:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Broken Coords

Hi. In order to clean up Category:Coord template needing repair, would you mind if I changed some instances of {{coord}} in User:Acroterion/NRHP list and User:Acroterion/Sandbox4? There are about a dozen which have 60 seconds, and need to be rolled over to one more minute and zero seconds, e.g. from "{{coord|48|11|60|N..." to "{{coord|48|12|0|N...".
—WWoods (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK with me, or I can do it. I've deleted the sandbox, since it's no longer needed. Acroterion _(talk) 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

___ Bridge over ___ ___

Curious, have you found a reason why the various Wyoming bridges are denoted by three letters? I've done nothing with them other than uploading pictures of several of them. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I thought at first it was a railroad designation, but that's obviously not the case. I think the Wyoming highway department must have assigned a three-letter code to each bridge, since the designation doesn't appear to relate to the particular type of bridge, and all are unique as far as I can tell. That said, I think there's scope to do a less alphabet-soup rename, assuming I'm right. I've read (well, skimmed) the MPS and find no explanation for the terminology. Acroterion _(talk) 21:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gypsum Board

Like to get your thoughts on the whole Drywall discussion since I feel we have some agreement on some things and because I believe you would be more likely to have access to relevant sources (books). BTW, i'm not inclined to begin an article known as Gypsum Panels - - suggest eliminating the redirect from Gypsum board instead, so as you have been suggesting, information about the material might be migrated. What kind of act of god would need to occur for that? Looking at the history, it has been opened up and re-merged before; suppose those arguments have been lost into the Wiki history long ago--Teda13 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Making Gypsum board into an article from a redirect is fine. The history's just that one move, and I don't find any sign of a discussion apart from the bold move itself and the edit summary. I'd organize the new article into a general discussion, followed by sections on interior and exterior products. Glass-fiber facings deserve mention, as they're replacing paper. Most of the materials we have in our library are elderly, as everything's available online in updated form - the big wall of binders is getting smaller, much as the Sweet's Catalog went from 100 lb of green books (one delivery guy who'd carried the boxes up to the third floor thought we'd ordered some particularly dense candy) to nothing. But at least I know the (North American) players and will chime in where I can - I'm way too busy in real life to do anything very ambitious here on the wiki. Acroterion _(talk) 22:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

... another matter if you don't mind? maybe you could put on your Admin hat or refer it to someone - - the latest revert by user:Ahering... : (→Fire resistance: Removal of weasel clause tag: The verbiage used is identical to building code language and the references match. Standards + codes are correctly referenced.) what do you think about this? my reading across some passages of this article is that they have been ripped and slightly reworded but according to this Ahering user the passage on 'Fire resistance' is word for word from the code... do you see any inline references of that? shouldn't the whole passage be eliminated if it's a copyright violation?--Teda13 (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit puzzled by the weasel tag, which is usually applied when someone employs " ... some think that ... " " ... might have been ..", "sometimes", " ... is disputed in some circles ...", etc. If it's a copyvio it should be reworded or rewritten. If it's just the same terminology (which is how I read it), then it would be OK, even good. A quick Google search doesn't reveal an obvious copyvio (and removing copyvios isn't the exclusive preserve of administrators), but it isn't very digestible in its present form for the lay reader. Paragraphs and such are needed to break up the wall of text. I think the idea of the discussion is useful, as gypsum panel fire ratings aren't a widely discussed concept outside the building profession, and the discussion would be illuminating for the casual reader looking for an introduction to the concepts. References are, as always, desirable; you might want to ask him to add them. From his CV it's his field, so it shouldn't be difficult. Acroterion _(talk) 03:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks. maybe i'm reading it differently but it seems to read pretty well throughout as " force of authority to a phrase or a sentence without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable." if i'm accepting that it's not ripped from somewhere else, then the tone really seems pretty pretentious. i agree with you there are parts to it where the idea of giving a reader, not involved in the building industry, a look at boiled-down lesson on passive fire protection almost appear - and that would seem a decent wiki thing to do. i feel fairly comfortable reading dense scientific technical papers and textbooks, specification language, legal documents, the lousy UL manual descriptions, etc. yet, in my opinion, there are parts of this that seem far more complicated than they need to be to describe the subject, failing to give me an exact reference - again and again - saying "the building code", i think we know how wide and varied ocean that is, or "approved designs" or "appropriate category" written as if UL is the only authority in the world. forgive me if you disagree but the whole last paragraph flits from conclusion to conclusion to conclusion "importantly", "therefore, important" "simply" "In reality," is, therefore, counterproductive" with the ease as if it's the back of a Betty Crocker box and still no inline attribution. as i understand it... and as i'm reminded at the foot of every single edit page... "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" . The burden in on the editor and I would like to see sources - that's the wiki way - and the easiest way to separate out the original research and copyright violations.--Teda13 (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

also - - i took out two passages from the "Specifications" section because they appear ripped directly from Copyright © 2009 Handyman Matters, Inc without attribution - - you can see it's not up to the bar as a wikipedia's reliable reference considering it's an advertisement shrouded in some information--Teda13 (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. This is an encyclopedia for general readers, and whatever we can do to make it readable and comprehensible to the public is valuable. As always, if you find a clear copyvio, take it out. If you think you have a copyvio, it's best to condense and rewrite it if it's feasible. I've run into situations where I could swear it's something from a textbook - the style is distinctive - and copyedited it to something more encyclopedic. There is a certain tension between enough referencing and too much, but my personal goal is never to add any unreferenced content, unless it is in the form of a lede or summary that is backed up farther down the page with referenced material. If the subject is biographical, a more aggressive approach is demanded - no unreferenced material in biographies of living or recently deceased people, apart from a fairly concise lede. Acroterion _(talk) 12:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

i'm leaving this alone because, you're saying you will be adding the inline reference that indicates: information about drywall (not gypsum board changed to drywall) and that 1/2" is most common. thanks for the follow up by the way - - i'm glad we discussed this matter--Teda13 (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I put the information back in as a summary to make the article flow until it can get a better, and referenced, rewrite. WP:V only requires references for assertions that could be challenged and for quotes. I doubt anyone would challenge the dimensional information presented. It is possible to over-reference. However, there will eventually be a reference for this. Acroterion _(talk) 18:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)--Teda13 (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding that more than a few of the passages and an image or two in the article are transfered, word for word, from this Cull Dry Lining advertising web site without attribution of any kind.--Teda13 (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The boards are cut to size by using a large T-square by scoring the paper on the front side with a utility knife, breaking the sheet along the cut, scoring the backing and finally breaking the sheet in the opposite direction. Small features such as holes for outlets and light sockets are usually cut using a keyhole saw or a small high speed bit in a rotary tool. Drywall is then fixed to the wall structure with nails or more commonly the now-uniquitous drywall screw. - from Cull website--Teda13 (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

By all means, remove copy/pastes and put back a more appropriate discussion. Be aware that sometimes the reverse is possible - that another website may have copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way around - I've seen it happen. But not in this case, I think. The image at 365 x 360 is awfully small to have been uploaded as an owner-generated image. I doubt the claim stated in the file release and have taggted the image. Acroterion _(talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, nuke it. It's not a difficult subject to write about without plagiarizing, but it's not an unusual problem here. Acroterion _(talk) 04:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Therefore, a fire in one room, which is separated from an adjacent room by a fire resistance rated assembly will not cause the adjacent room to get any warmer that the boiling point (100.c) until the water in the gypsum is gone. This makes drywall and ablative material because as the hydrates sublime, a crumbly dust is left behind, which, along with the paper is sacrificial." - from Cull website. I'm getting some comments from User talk:Ahering@cogeco.ca|talk about my clarifying of the 'Fire Resistance' section, so there may be some delay in processing those removals - would like to choose good references, and it's just such a thrilling subject. Noting that this other editor has a fairly contentious history when I look at the Talk:Joint_(building)--Teda13 (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Because up to 17% of drywall is wasted during the manufacturing and installation process, and the drywall material is rarely re-used, disposal is an ongoing problem."- from Cull website. --Teda13 (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw the revert on the drywall image and I still think the image is fishy. Not that it's much of a unique image but I don't understand why a nearly 50 year old "dry lining" company in Liverpool would have any reason to steal images (or verbiage for that matter) from a Wikipedia article? I wonder if there is a history of an attempt to link this Cull website as a reference for the article? The website seems to go back to about 2006.--Teda13 (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's why I only tagged it rather than deleting; I wanted someone else to look at it, and right now after a night's sleep that looks like a US-spec outlet box - UK electricals are huge. I missed the earlier version, which would be consistent with an older, low-res camera. Looking at the uploader's contributions, my suspicion grows that the content on the external website was cribbed from WP, since that 2005 uploader had no connection to the text you were looking at. You might want to look around at other parts of the website to see if it's written consistently. Acroterion _(talk) 11:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced (cribbed from Wik). I'm beginning to agree with you that the Cull Website is not likely the originator, because - as you suggested - other pages on their site seemed cribbed also - - but that doesn't exclude a third source. I'm finding that the Plaster section of the Cull site is cribbed from The (printed) encyclopædia britannica available on Google Books if you want to see yourself... I haven't been all through it, but I think the wiki Plaster section should be checked against the encyclopædia, with an eye on attribution too.

Kind of like a house of mirrors, isn't it? Acroterion _(talk) 13:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the revert on the Drywall article. Do you think it's better or more accessible to the common man without the re-org? Seems like a pretty punitive move to me, like he owns the content? --Teda13 (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You're in the D phase of WP:BRD - you should discuss your edits and concerns with the other editor, who's asked, quite politely, to do so. That was an opportunity to explain what you were doing and why, including any copyright concerns, so that you might both work together to improve the article. Nobody's ever claimed that a collaborative anonymous editing environment was easy. I believe your concerns are valid (my comments above stand, but I've removed the bolding you added, as a refactoring of my comments - it's better to quote in your own comments), but you, for the sake of clarity and courtesy, should take up the offer to discuss with the other editor, who seems to have some useful insights to offer from Canadian standards. Article ownership is usually more obvious and far less politely stated, over a long period of time. Acroterion _(talk) 12:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO, his first discuss wasn't polite, it was a terse shot over the bow about defending what he deems as his content, talking about "... getting into an edit war" with me over his original research... saying "personally designed and run any fire tests" saying and "can't fathom why". I don't see anything precious or dear about how the Fire section was written, and I think the part devoted to penetrants still seems heavy for the topic and presumed audience. I put "which" tags right after items that needed rewording or clarification and largely left the phrases alone. Did you look at the admin intervention dialog on the Talk:Joint_(building) article? I did, which is why I wanted to just polish up what was there, add some more worldly (than just Canada) and encyclopedic content, then move on? --Teda13 (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The first time was a bit peevish, but no bridges have been burned. As I said, my comments still stand - we must remove copyright violations, and we should avoid excessively technical discussions in a general-reference encyclopedia. I try very hard to avoid appeals to authority (as in "I've been a licensed architect since God made dirt and I tell you that I'm right ...) because that kind of discussion inevitably goes wrong, as tempting as it is, and is contrary to WP:V and WP:OR, whether I'm right or not. The first comment to you was an appeal to authority. Your objection is not whether it's right or not, but whether it's accessible and whether the language is copied. I don't endorse the reversion, nor do I endorse a policy of non-engagement .It's not beyond the point of productive discussion, and right now you're talking past each other. Acroterion _(talk) 15:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. You are reasonable to work with so I appreciate the listening. Not sure if I will continue as you suggest - it's all getting pretty tiresome since no one seems to be interested in adding or cleaning up content. I have a lot of Wiki-articles i'm interested in that I keep a look at, many of them weak - - overall edits adding content are very rare. This Gyp article with all the effort on the talk page about references, many of them available online, and no one willing to transfer that understanding to the article?--Teda13 (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Remember that there are no deadlines here. I'm happy to listen, but I will admit to being overwhelmed by apathy at the prospect of editing articles about building construction technology - it's too much like Real Life work, which I'm pleased to say is showing signs of getting busier. We're supposed to be doing this for fun as volunteers. Don't worry too much about it and find something that makes you happy to edit, and as you correctly observe, there are lots of opportunities to do good. Acroterion _(talk) 16:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct.... and i'm glad to hear Real Life Work in your part are showing some improvement - i'm noticing that too.--Teda13 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Maine Lights

I'm in the process of adding 40+ Maine Light articles -- all of the redlinks on Template:Lighthouses of Maine. If there's anything you'd like added to them -- I can do it as part of the process.

I deliberately didn't add the NRHP infobox because none of the other lighthouse articles I've seen used both that the lighthouse infobox. I think the lighthouse information is more interesting to the casual reader than the NRHP detail.

If, however, there's any consensus for using both, I can easily add it, but I don't have the strength to look up the add date and reference number... If you can provide them easily, here they are:

1. Baker Island Light
2. Bear Island Light
3. Browns Head Light
4. Burnt Coat Harbor Light
5. Curtis Island Light
6. Doubling Point Light
7. Egg Rock Light
8. Great Duck Island Light
9. Grindel Point Light
10. Hendricks Head Light
11. Heron Neck Light
12. Indian Island Light
13. Libby Island Light
14. Little River Light
15. Lubec Channel Light
16. Manana Island Sound Signal Station
17. Monhegan Island Light
18. Mount Desert Light
19. Narraguagus Light
20. Perkins Island Light
21. Petit Manan Light
22. Prospect Harbor Point Light
23. Pumpkin Island Light
24. Ram Island Light
25. Saddleback Ledge Light
26. Seguin Light
27. Squirrel Point Light
28. Tenants Harbor Light
29. The Cuckolds Light
30. Whitehead Light
31. Winter Harbor Light

Also, I don't understand the speedy deletion beef (and you seem to agree.Jameslwoodward (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to take the NRHP template off: it doesn't add that much, and as you say, it's not commonly used on lighthouses, although the blue bottom NRHP template is. I find it handy to track the HRHP nomination number,which helps in finding the Park Service documentation, but there are other ways to do that. The speedy tagging was a misguided newbie; I've seen a lot of that recently and have been aggressively declining them. I think I'll put the nomination and ref in the article next to the NRHP mention and ditch the infoboxAcroterion _(talk) 23:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can find all the dates added to NRHP quickly in NRIS by searching State=ME and Name=Light, which gives me a list that includes the 31 names above. Is there an easy place to find the nomination numbers -- five minutes on NRIS doesn't turn up an obvious way there. If you'd like the numbers included, I'd rather add them as part of the creation process (I use an Excel text generator for this sort of thing, so if I have the numbers, they can be added with no extra work at all). Then, as you suggest, I'll use Burnt Coat Harbor as my model. Jameslwoodward (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A Small Favor

Could you do me a favor? Could you move WPCN to WVRR? The station moved it call sign in the past couple days and I attempted to do it myself, but it is currently in used as a redirect. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. It appears to have been a redirect its whole life and had no meaningful history. I assume you'll tidy it up to the new letters, etc. Acroterion _(talk) 00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That I will :) I am in the process of going through the West Virginia stations and updating them with logos, new infoboxes, updated information and the like to give all the pages a more uniform look. Took me a year to do the Virginia pages (mostly cause I took a couple breaks) but the WV stations are going quicker. Many thanks for the move. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We West Virginians don't have quite so many radio stations as those fancy Virginia folks. All their NPR and all ... Acroterion _(talk) 00:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse, me, sir/madam.

You have deleted my wiki page, RobloxFever. It was a site made by me, and I would like to know why it got deleted.

I read A-7, but I assume you deleted my page because you didn't know I made the site too... Anyways, thank you.

Cool33333 (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted because it made no assertion of notability and because it was borderline advertising. If it's your site, you have a conflict of interest, which accounts for the inappropriate promotional tone of the article. Acroterion _(talk) 11:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Mummy Cave

On August 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mummy Cave, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 08:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work! Nyttend backup (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the push, and it's been rated as a B-class article. Acroterion _(talk) 16:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the real Gerard. Just trying to create my page without knowing what im doing. Ill send my real email or fone if u want to verify me xxxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcotter (talk • contribs) 03:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Jerkin'

hi, I noticed you were on the deletion logs for this page.. it seems to be salted. I'm not sure if you know but there has been some local coverage in the LA Weekly about this "trend", and it appears there is an interest in this article to exist. Can you restore the article so sources can be added and it can be brought up to standards? thanks riffic (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any of the deleted revisions, which is strange, but I can tell you that if there had been a reference, I wouldn't have deleted the article. I seem to recall that it was unreferenced and short on substantive content. I'll keep looking, but something funny's going on with the deleted revs. Acroterion _(talk) 18:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 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) 18:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Fort Laramie Three-Mile Hog Ranch

On August 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fort Laramie Three-Mile Hog Ranch, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 08:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Old Ponce Casino

hi and thx for adding the info box to old ponce casino article. I have now created article PONCE CITY HALL and added an infobox as you did. However, i couldn't find the NRHP Reference#: that displays at bottom of infobox. can you help? thx. btw, I intend to create a handful more similar nrhp articles, where can i find the nrhp reference number? thx. Rob99324 (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(I'm butting in here because I'm watching Acroterion's talk page.) I have a download of the National Register Information System, the database that lists properties on the National Register. I had to do some looking, but I found the reference number, which is 86003197. I added it to the article.

I have a number of query tools for the downloaded database at [1]. However, the query by city tool doesn't work for cities in Puerto Rico, because I don't have "PR" listed as a state. Here's a workaround, though: If you use the query by city tool and manually enter the city and state parameters, you can get a listing for what's in Ponce, PR. That's kind of a hack, but at least that should get you going on Ponce. I'll fix the query tool sometime this evening. (Also, I know that Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, not a state, but the National Register database lists commonwealths and possessions as states.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Elkman! from Rob99324 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, from me - Elkman's toolbox is where I'd have pointed you as well if he hadn't been stalking my talkpage already. Acroterion _(talk) 21:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Lighthouse discussions (not on NHRP)

Dear Acroteriion, Thank you for correcting my errors. Doing this many discussion pages inevitably involved some errors. Happy editing.

In making this edit I encountered a difficlty in that the edit summary did not display. This was odd, and I could not fill it out. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

You're welcome, I appreciate your hard work. Sometimes it's hard to tell whether National Register status is appropriate, especially if the property is part of a historic district, so don't worry about getting it wrong - there are a lot of that sort of thing and I've been trying to make a stab at sorting them out. As for the edit summary problem, that's a new issue that I haven't seen before, but there have been problems recently with some of the servers that deal with the editing and uploading aspect of the encyclopedia, so I'm not surprised. Acroterion _(talk) 15:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, when I began my project of stubbing out all of the redlinked Maine lighthouses, I did an NRIS search on "State = Maine" and "Name contains 'Light'", so I thought I had a list of all the NRHP lights in Maine. I've noticed that you've added the WikiProject National Register of Historic Places|class=stub template to the discussion pages of several that do not appear to be on the NRHP --- (Eagle Island Light, Dice Head Light, and Blue Hill Bay Light). Since you're an expert and I'm a newbie, I'm reluctant to simply remove the tag. Are they very recent adds? NRIS is down right now, so I can't check there, but they don't appear on Elkman's tool. Jim a/k/a Jameslwoodward (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I may have done the NRHP assessment without specifically checking those for NRHP status, since I've generally added the NRHP bottom template if it checks out. I've been going through the unassessed NRHP category, which is based on the talkpage wikiproject listing. It's easy to forget to check for NRHP status. I'll have a look at those, thanks. Acroterion _(talk) 12:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Croterion, I also have put project banners on all of the lights in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesolta, Illinois, and Ohio. Thanks for all of your hard work. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

Here I go stalking Acroterion's talk page again. :) Some time ago, I found a reference that would help: Inventory of Historic Light Stations, part of the NPS Maritime Heritage Program. It lists lighthouses in each state and identifies which ones are on the National Register. It turns out that Eagle Head and Blue Hill Bay Lights aren't on the National Register, but Dice Head Light is a contributing property to a historic district. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

My wiki page states that you deleted it

I would like to know why you deleted my article on the clan "Blue Dawn Gaming" it is a real clan (website www.bluedawngaming.com) and contains true information. I would like it to be restored if possible. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by BDGAchilles (talk • contribs)

The article described a club or organization for which no assertion of notability was made. In general, gaming clans do not meet Wikipedia's general notability standards. In general, you'd need to have received non-trivial mention in multiple media outlets with a reputation for fact-checking, of more than purely local standing. In other words, there'd have to be several newspaper articles about the clan. Acroterion _(talk) 02:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Abubakr Buera‎

Is there anyway you could be the ax down on the Abubakr Buera‎ article? It looks like an unremarkable person, has alot of personal information (address, email, etc.) that shouldn't be in the open, among other things. The user continues to remove the db-person tag. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Professors are generally considered notable, but not when the article's their resume. Acroterion _(talk) 03:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of 'DJ Frayz'

This was unwarranted as the article was not yet complete; editing was in-process and was suddenly deleted. Not appreciated. Ryanfaricy (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-name

Minor point. Your username, Acroterion, is the best name I have ever seen on Wikipedia up to this point in time. Bigturtle (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? I've come to think of it as a bit too grandiose-sounding, myself. On the other hand, it's a minor Greek architecture widget, sort of like a Greek gargoyle, so that's kind of cool. Thanks! Acroterion _(talk) 22:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Port Austin Light

According to the Coast Guard, the light is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, but it has not been listed. Michigan Lighthouse Conservancy, Port Austin Reef Light. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

I've run across some like that; the Pasadena Freeway is eligible, even applied for, but not listed (in that case because Caltrans is opposed to it). I'd think that virtually every 19th century light station is eligible, but there's no consensus to include eligible properties as part of the NRHP project, especially since there are 60,000 fully registered properties with no articles yet. Maybe there should be a template or something that states that "this property has been determined by Agency X to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, but is not listed on the Register. Acroterion _(talk) 13:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't insisting. Just thought you'd like to know. I understand. I've got 150 plus lighthouse aricles in Michigan alone that need more work or need to be created, so I simpathize.

I understood your meaning, and you're doing a great job. I'll reply to the items below in a short while. Acroterion _(talk) 15:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. These lighthouse articles are one of many backwaters in WP. I don't know that anybody (except for me and a few editors I've been working with) notices or cares. And building these up is a long journey, with occasional side trips to other Great Lakes states, and even such places (Tenants Harbor Light (which I thought was pretty neat -- the links to the paintings are better than any of the associated lighthouse websites). Anyway, I digress. I've got to get out of here, and will have limited access to the internet for he next ten days or so. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

Talk:Peninsula Point Light

Pllese take a look at this. I don't know that the changes I made again (the server didn't pick up an edit) will affect your rating. But the article is more complete. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC) stan

More detail is good. To generally answer the question of rating, I evaluate on the basis of the class B criteria:

• Suitably referenced? Your articles are well referenced. I've rated a lot of articles as Cs when they could be Bs with a broader range of references, but sometimes the refs simply aren't available. Some of my own articles suffer in that way.
• Reasonably covers the topic? It's always hard to tell about this, and I think some expansion concerning the design of the lighthouses themselves would be welcome. I'm an architect, and I'm biased in favor of a discussion of the structure, not just the characteristics of the light. More history would be good, if there's history to be had.
• Defined structure? More detail allows more structure, but your articles are pretty well structured.
• Well written? I think the White Shoal article is a little informal in places, but the overall writing is acceptable.
• Supporting materials? More images, drawings from HABS, maps and so on are welcome.
• Accessible? No issues there.

In general, if an article is close to meeting all the B criteria, but is missing in one respect, I rate it a C. If it's two criteria, I make it a start (unless I feel otherwise, etc. I do not claim to be totally consistent). In the general case of the lighthouses, more supporting material and more detail would boost the rating. Also, keep in mind that I'm rating articles from the point of view of the NRHP wikiproject, so an article on a school, for example, would lose credit for completeness if it focuses on the organization and minimizes the physical structure. Lighthouses have fewer problems in that respect. I think Peninsula Point could use more content, in summary, if there's any to be sourced. Acroterion _(talk) 15:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's good to know the rules. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

White Shoal Light

Please let me know what I might do to boost the rating? This is a good article in terms of lighthouses and the available information (albeit I have not plugged in a lot of books yet). Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

Starting with the above discussion, some of the informal language in the how-to-see-the-light section could be rephrased. The light required some detailed engineering. More content on that would be good, and a less list-like format would help the flow. There is a lot of general discussion about lighthouse preservation in Michigan that, while not unwelcome, doesn't contribute much to the article and could apply anywhere. There are a few issues with inappropriate capitalization. Your sourcing is excellent. There doesn't seem to be any HABS or HAER information on White Shoal, but you should check for that in general, as their drawings are excellent. A map would be nice. Hope this helps, and I hope you find this encouraging. There's been a lot of good work on Michigan NRHP articles recently. Acroterion _(talk) 16:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The best drawings are in the Putnam National Geographic article that is cited. Worth the look. Awesome article. Thank you again for taking the time and offering the valued advice. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

Thank for the updated info. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

Outhouse

As a primary contributor (under this name and a numbered IP), I think this artilce is underrated. Anyway, I'm not unbiased. Have a good weekend. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

The main body of the article seems a little under-referenced and the latter part is in list format, which isn't desirable. I think there's a pretty decent article in there, but it needs some reformatting and references for the early part of the article. Acroterion _(talk) 20:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I can't get to this till next week. Real life intrudes. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

We have no deadlines here, I'm happy to say. I'm not opposed to lists where they're appropriate, but on this particular topic I think it could be presented as prose. I'm resisting the urge to indulge in outhouse-related humor, so I'd better stop here. Acroterion _(talk) 20:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Because of your professional background, you might be just the one to edit this. Kind of give it a high colonic, so to speak. Sorry, couldn't resist. In many respects, because I edited it so much, I have no objectivity, and not much energy for this project. Indeed, I thought I pulled together more on the subject than one can find on any on line source, and there are a hell of a lot of links and sources cited. It is much more dense than you might think, as there is a lot more than the scores of references. It was my first real effort in wikipedia, and is very name was a metaphor for my then anonymous efforts. Not that anyone cares about the subject matter or . . . but I digress. I actually think that the subject matter is important, both as history, and in light of the fact that much of the world still uses outhouses in one form or another. I thin that the three areas that it is weak on (substantively) are the technical way outhouses work and need to be maintained, and some greater recognition of standards for their construction and maintenance. I had tried to get a couple of friends (one a public health official, the otehr a retired Lt. Col. from the army) to put in some material (no pun intended), but to no avail. Likwise, during he New Deal there wws a concerted effort to get farmers to alter their practices -- particularly distance from potable water sources -- which conferred a large benefit on public health. Best to you. All of this is well outside of my job description or expertise. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

I've actually encountered that New Deal program in other research. I'll have to go look for its name. I'll have a go when I get the chance, but that makes at least three tasks other people have asked me to undertake in the past couple of days, so it might be a little while before I'm able to approach the seat of ease. We'll see how it comes out. Acroterion _(talk) 20:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

To paraphrase a great philosopher, "We're not on a deadline here." 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

Mount Hope Estate

Thank you for your assessment of this newly-created article. I've expanded the "Architecture" section, and added a section about the outbuildings. I have no background in architecture, historic buildings, or anything of the like, so I don't know if the points I've chosen to mention from the NRHP nomination form are really the important ones, or if I'm skipping something important. Could you take another look and let me know what you think? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The NRHP nom is a perfectly valid source, so you should note it as you already have (as reference 1). I think you could go into greater detail, particularly where the interiors are concerned, as it appears to have a very significant amount of period detail and materials. If I get a chance I'll have a try myself. I certainly wouldn't go into the level of detail in the nomination, but the fact that the information was presented in the nomination to that degree is indicative of its importance. Acroterion _(talk) 12:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a try regarding the interiors, but it could probably use a reworking by someone who understands architecture a little better than me. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Company wiki page deletion

Hi,

How do legitimate companies get on wikipedia without deletion for "advertising and promotion"? I recently posted a company with objective content so people wanting to find out about the company could find out more about them. Why was it deleted? Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulWhitfield (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

All articles must be written in a factual and informative manner, preferably by an editor with no conflict of interest. All articles on companies must meet Wikipedia's general notability standard as well as notability for corporations. The article was deleted because it was promotional in tone, and failed to assert that the company was notable. To be notable, one must in general have received multiple non-trivial notice in independent media with a reputation for fact-checking, of more than a purely local basis. Acroterion _(talk) 19:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Business Postings

Why are companies such as Much Music able to post their entry and not other businesses? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Music —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulWhitfield (talk • contribs) 19:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

See my answer above. Much Music is clearly a notable organization with wide exposure. Acroterion _(talk) 19:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The article MuchMusic was started years ago by User:Xaviere, an editor (now retired) who seems to have had no connection with MuchMusic - which is exactly how we like it. What is your connection to Peashooter Media? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Blender enclosure

you suggested that my article was meaningless...? would you elaborate? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? i will repost my article and will search out your work and postings to delete them.... how about that?

Thank you for your response 74.81.245.147 (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Goalseeker

See my response on your IP talk page. Acroterion _(talk) 21:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Newcomer message

You may wish to respond to this on the user's talk page. JamieS93 22:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

His phone bill comes from Mars?! Acroterion _(talk) 00:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thurmond, West Virginia

Good call on the merge from the Historic District. The updated page looks great. BTW, have you ever checked out WP:WVA? youngamerican (wtf?) 12:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Given my de facto participation, I should probably add my name to the list over there. While Thurmond is merged, I'm not satisfied with the way the page flows and the level of detail offered, but the merge has the side benefit of revealing such shortcomings. Acroterion _(talk) 00:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Question for Ya

I was wondering, do you think the Newtown-Stephensburg Historic District needs its own page or should it be merged into Stephens City, Virginia where a section (with a link to the district page) already exsists? I am wondering as I have seen more and more historic district pages be merged with their host or town articles. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You've touched on the raw, inflamed wound of the day. The lede is somewhat contradictory; I'm not sure how the central section of town can span the extreme ends of town (although I realize that Stephens City is rather linear). My first reaction is no, but further research is warranted. At the moment, I think merges should be limited to clear-cut, substantially duplicated town/HDs. A comparison of HD acreage versus town acreage will be diagnostic. Acroterion _(talk) 01:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The HD is 65 acres, but the town is 1.4 square miles/896 acres. Not a candidate for a merge under current consensus. Acroterion _(talk) 01:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually forgot I posted this here until now :S Thanks for the response. I will leave the page as is. I just wanted to make sure it was cool under the current discussion. Thanks again :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

?

i HAVE submitted copyright validation for the page - maxheat - i've added the lisence on the webpage & sent email. what next? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxheat (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Some context, please? Acroterion _(talk) 00:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've found the deleted material: it appears to be overtly promotional in tone and unsuitable for inclusion as it was written. I suggest that you take a look at WP:YFA for guidance on appropriate encyclopedic content. In short, it was advertising, as will be deleted as such if posted again. The person in question also does not appear to meet notability requirements for musical artists, another deletion category. Acroterion _(talk) 00:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

When is it appropriate....

To refactor another editors talk page? [[2]] I have left a lvl 1 warning on this page for refactoring another users talk page that was clarly not vandalism. I have since been told that because I have a colorful history it is an invalid warning. I would like to have a few admin go and comment one way or another to this as I believe my actions were not only appropriate but very moderated. Thank You.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the situation if you wish, however the prevailing opinion has been if you make 60,000 edits it's ok to discount others polite opinion because "they have bit a newbie (once) and have poor grammer." This wasn't a personal issue but a disturbing attitude trend.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Coming somewhat late to the party, it appears that all has been sorted out. As far as your "colorful history", I'm aware of it, as I'm aware of your work since then. We should strive to treat everyone equally, and it's always been a struggle. I think it's about the same as it's always been in that regard. Acroterion _(talk) 01:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)