You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for um, like, I feel like it and stuff.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

APK whisper in my ear 16:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Aughh! My world crumbles! Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This is even worse than the time you got rabies.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm feeling much better now on both counts, thank you very much. I just have to wear a tag from the veterinarian. Acroterion (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

They asked for a source I gave them a source --Lawyer or Attorney (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

For a football position? Stop trolling. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello acroterion, I wanted to ask if you could please add a link to the FBIs crimes by city/state reports for 2012..... This link will take you to the search page and after clicking Conneticut you will see Newtown (where Sandy Hook is located) as having '0' homicides for that year. I think it should go somewhere in or around the hoax theory. Thank you for reading this!

www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/8tabledatadecpdf/table_8_offenses_known_to_law_enforcement_by_state_by_city_2012.xls/view — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maytrixfree (talk • contribs) 07:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a primary source: I would suggest that you look for a secondary source that places the statistic in appropriate context by mentioning that the FBI placed the Sandy Hook massacre into a separate statewide category due to the Connecticut State Police taking the lead on the investigation rather than the local police. This bookkeeping decision allowed Infowars last September to start the notion that the statistics are somehow proof that nothing ever happened. That, in a nutshell, is why we prefer to use secondary sources instead of primary sources: primary sources can be misused, selectively interpreted (as in this case) or misinterpreted. More primary sources here [1]. A well-sourced discussion of secondary sources on the Infowars selective interpretation as fuel for conspiracy theories would be welcome. Acroterion (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I was just tagging that as A10 when I found you'd deleted it G12. I'd just declined G12 as the 'source' appeared to be a mirror, and acknowledged CC and GFDL into the bargain, and the Coren bot site had a large part of its text attributed to Wikipedia. Was your deletion because of the duplication of the Airbus Beluga article? Peridon (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The Avax News site [2] does appear to have scraped WP content, although it's barely acknowledged and claims normal copyright. You're right, it's an A10 anyway. The user who posted it had already posted another A10. I've made them both into redirects. Acroterion (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What triggered my check was that I knew I'd read that text before - after seeing one of the things at an Airbus factory last year. Had it been an airliner, I wouldn't have known it from any other, but those Belugas are enormous. I was thinking of a redir, too. Peridon (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That user name Lolroblox doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence. Sock, perhaps? Peridon (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not the most auspicious name, but I think they're just trying things out. As for enormous, in the early 1980s I lived in an apartment under the approach to Dobbins Air Force Base, home of Lockheed-Georgia. The C-5s would float over like zeppelins, with that strange howl the TF-39s make. That would contrast with the sheer noise from the Georgia Air Guard's F-105s, the last and noisiest of their kind, even on approach. Acroterion (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you able to move Plausible Denial to Plausible Denial (italicized)? I think this is an uncontroversial move, but I'm not sure how to do it. Thanks! - Location (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd better o a little research: I ought to know how, but I don't. I have to head to work, I'll see about it when I get a chance later today. Acroterion (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No move needed, I just put in {{italic title}} at the top. Acroterion (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! - Location (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think that I am scared of such nonsense? I think it is merely stupid that I am in an editing war, because I am putting real information, it is not fake. I hope you understand I am not in an editing war with someone!

Thank you!

--Kennster2015 (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be edit-warring to insert trivia. Please read WP:EW: edit warring can lead to a block. Acroterion (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not trivial, it is mere information and someone could probably use it as a fact in a PowerPoint about Shabazz Napier in the mere future. --Kennster2015 (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Several editors have advised you that it is not appropriate or sufficiently significant to be eligible for inclusion in a biography as part of a global encyclopedia. Please do not insert gossip. Please also read Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the warning, but I don't think of it as gossip but merely information. --Kennster2015 (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you please explain this, this and this? Thank you. --Enok (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources vary between seven and nine in the post's complement, which isn't an unusual disparity for such events. I've added yet another source for the nine, but have qualified the text. "Fewer than ten" would also be accurate. Mary provides an hour-by-hour account of events, You appear to be on an aggressive campaign to remove anything relating to the Pont Saint-Louis action, or if that doesn't work, to argue about minutia. Please provide sources (this is the third time I've asked) that dispute Kauffmann and Mary. The texts are on my bookshelf, though the 2006 Kauffmann is at the bottom of a pile. It is worth noting that both Mary and Kaufmann used Frnech archives: is there an Italian source claiming that the French account is BS? It would be worth including if there is a dispute. Acroterion (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that in Kaufmann's The Maginot Line: History and Guide at page 161 is written that the number of soldiers was fewer than 10? Am I correct? You risk the ban for this kind of false claims. --Enok (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Page 161 of Kauffmann 2011 says "nine" which was what I had in the article until you pointed out that there seemed to be a range from seven to nine depending on the source. When I get a chance I will review all of the sources in detail. Please adopt a less aggressive tone: we want to get the material as correct as the sources will allow. Your accusation that I am falsifying sources is offensive. Acroterion (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

My contripution was cancelled from here:

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

so,

How should I express the fact that the authenticity of the phonecall of Madeline Sweeney concerning 911 has been seriously questioned by former flight attendant Rebekah Roth in her valuable new book about 911 plane manouvers?

Rebakah states (among many other things) that e.v.e.r.y. flight attendant would have known that the plane was in the N.Y. area (IF they really were flying there at the moment of the phone call).

BR

M.V.

You can't. It's a biography of Madeline Amy Sweeney, not a soapbox for fringe theories. In any case, according to Roth it's a novel, and none of the mainstream journalistic and scholarly sources that Wikipedia relies upon for references have offered an analysis of Roth's views. Acroterion (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

A new editor is showing great enthusiasm on this page. Could you please protect the page, or whatever you think is best. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Continues to make edits to his talk page, making critical changes to your comments relating to enforcement actions etc. Koncorde (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Warned. I'll keep an eye on it, I had thought they were just being silly with signature colors. Acroterion (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I have the support of the DSD and the City of Denver Attorney's office TO EDIT THIS PAGE. Please desist in your responses to edits to DSD Wikipedia. I am the producer of the annual report and have been given license to edit the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.112.254 (talk • contribs)

We welcome corrections and statements of concern by representatives of public agencies, but please remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative work, and that we would appreciate it if you approach other editors as helpers in the spirit that has been offered by PaulinSaudi, not as adversaries. PaulinSaudi is a retired US Army officer and has as much right as you, or anyone else (even Saudis), to edit any Wikipedia article. Acroterion (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Please also revoke talk page access of SuperMarioZaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Materialscientist got it. Sorry, I was cleaning dog ears. We won't sleep through the night when a bloodhound has itchy ears and keeps shaking her head. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you pinpoint spots where I seem to not have a neutral viewpoint? I really need to improve it to be neutral for my college level english class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.81.148 (talk • contribs)

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. It's good to see folks from Tech: I graduated from Tech ... well, let's say a long time ago.

The main issue is that you're making an argument in an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedias are like Sergeant Friday: just the facts, ma'am. Your addition was a critical essay, not an encyclopedia entry, and it was entirely unreferenced. If you're describing someone else's views in an encyclopedia article, you need to directly attribute those views in a concise statement and to avoid making the argument in the encyclopedia's voice. Acroterion (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion! It's very good to be talking with you again. Hopefully I am not bothering you... I have been inspired to write an opinion essay for Wikipedia's featured newspaper column, The Signpost. This essay will be discussing primarily about the role of unregistered users (IPs) on Wikipedia, the facts and the opinions about the controversial internet users, and why IP addresses are harassed and/or judged differently than registered users. It will also discuss why not all IP addresses are here to vandalize Wikipedia, why they actually do play an important role on Wikipedia, and why they don't register as an official user. I want opinions from different perspectives, including Administrators, Rollbackers, Pending-Chaneges reviewers, Autoconfirmed users, and IP addresses themselves. I want to know what's the big deal about these mysterious internet users, and you are a perfect Administrator to express your opinion why IP addresses may not register, the harassment IP addresses may get from other users, and why IP addresses may play a good role on Wikipedia. I want to write a lot about your expense as an Administrator dealing with IP addresses and vandalism in my essay, and I really do hope you take apart in this essay, which may have a drastic change of viewpoints for all registered and unregistered users on Wikipedia. I look forward to discussing this important opportunity soon. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I can give you my point of view, though I don't know that you need to focus specifically on me, I suspect my views are similar those of most experienced users. I'll see what I can say, most likely over the weekend when I have a little time. Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Acroterion, your opinion is very valuable! Looking forward to your viewpoint soon! CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Acroterion: This essay has been placed on hold due to reliability and a unregistered user mentioned in the essay blocked/banned. Please see the lastest details here: User:CookieMonster755/The validity of unregistered users. Thank you! CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Not trolling. Was honestly looking for real records of Obama's Baptism. Being honest, the reference cited to support the claim of Obama being baptized by the UCC is not supported anywhere in the referenced article ( Kantor, Jodi (April 30, 2007) "Barack Obama's search for faith". The New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2007.) or other references. Baptism is not mentioned in the article, nor can I find any other online record of that physical rite being performed. This does not pass Wikipedia's Verifiable content policy.

I am not claiming Obama is a Muslim. Joining a church is not Baptism. Joining the UCC and undergoing the physical rite of Baptism are mutually exclusive, meaning one can happen without the other. Please cite a reference, not an assumption, that Obama underwent the physical right of Baptism. I appreciate the help in locating such a reference. Thank you.

RE: #6 Kantor, Jodi (April 30, 2007). "Barack Obama's search for faith". The New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2007. Rmallen9999 (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you happen to look at page 2 of the Kantor piece? Kuru (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Page 2 quite clearly states that Obama was baptized into the church. Acroterion (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Eric Hoffer's The True Believer, one of the great books of the 20th century, regarding this. I was wondering when one of these would show up. Antandrus (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Who knew there were IS sympathizers in Jersey? Thanks for the link to Hoffer, I'll look for him in the enormous used bookstore in town. I think there was an issue with a kid there who attracted the attention of the police: possibly the same person here. He had a few issues, but isn't IS. Acroterion (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't intend for the artist/band "Jae Retch" to be published yet. We have credible sources for the page MTV, Chicago Now, ITunes, & Respect Mag. I wasn't finished creating his page. But our my sources credible enough ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliusdevon (talk • contribs) 04:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Requested move 19 April 2015 was opened by 87.244.71.112 you blocked for "either trolling or rape apologist, either way blocked"

There have been 6 failed move requests that have all been inconclusive, and this one is mostly being pushed by a blocked NOTHERE editor. Given the policy Don't feed the trolls - can you snow close it? Otherwise should this be posted at AN/RFC ? -- Aronzak (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, you recently removed 2 of my wiki pages and I was wondering if you could tell me the steps I can take to get it re-listed. Like do I provide press mention, explain the significance, etc. I would really appreciate your help with getting my pages back up. Also, can you please notify me of a response? Thank you! Cheaptech (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be trying to advertise on Wikipedia. You should address that first, through strict avoidance of promotion and marketing-speak. If the companies and people you wish to describe are truly notable, there should be ample material in relatively objective third-party publications to provide an objective foundation for notability. Acroterion (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--CosmicEmperor (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for deleting that false claim that listening to the song, "Africa" can cure any illness; and I was about to tag it for CSD A11! The Snowager-is awake 02:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That was an easy one. Whoever wrote the article must not have been around in 1982 when it was in heavy rotation. Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

LBJ and Hoover are dead, Truth is good!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billwatkinsword (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

What is this all aabout? A troll?Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

...Why side with one edit, as is happening with Oswald piece right now? The piece should be taken offline until the dispute is resolved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billwatkinsword (talk • contribs) 02:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits have been disputed by four separate editors.If you do that again, your conduct will be discussed at the edit-warring noticeboard. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Why are numbers of people deemed more important than SOURCE(S) cited for one's edit? Is Wikipedia a popularity contest, or a place for truth backed by credible sources? --Bill

Credible scholarly sources count for more than opinion polls. The chief dispute in such sources is whether Oswald was part of a conspiracy, not that he was not responsible for Kennedy's death. The article reflects that consensus, and has done so for a long time. Acroterion (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

There are several of my friends on Wikipedia that I have heard you blocked due to some ridiculous reason or some ridiculous crime they did. My questions are exactly why did that happen and is there a way to revert their indefinite block from the site. Thank you.Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Without knowing what the accounts are, it's hard to tell if they were blocked for some ridiculous reason, isn't it? Acroterion (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I see you're open to this, that's good, but I don't like sarcasm. One of them was Uraswhole, or some vulgar username (I think he voluntarily changed it right before getting banned (but either way ruined his credibility)), and the other is "DRUMMABoys" entertainment, sic. I'm sure both of these did at least something stupid to Wikipedia, but I have also heard the other way around. I don't think it was a huge deal, though.Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It'd be a lot easier to take your request seriously if you weren't wondering why someone who chose the username "Uraswhole" was blocked. The answer should be self-evident, apart from their vandalism to right-wing politics [3] and the behavior on their talkpage that led to their talkpage access being revoked [4]. We're volunteers and have better things to do with our time that that. I looked through my logs for the last year and don't see a block of anyone with a username resembling "DRUMMABoys" entertainment", nor in the users log. However, it's the kind of username that often gets blocked for promotion. Acroterion (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the attitude you're giving me right now, publicly admitting you aren't taking me seriously. The reason I asked was to know if there is a way to remove an indefinite block since my online friend from Oklahoma admitted it was some stupid thing he did but the main administrator responsible wasn't cooperating, and considering (from what you are telling me) it was just his talk page he was messing around with, not others, and how the vandalism he committed is easily reversible, all his crimes are repairable. I'm asking you nicely if you could and would unblock Uraswhole and forgive any stupidity he did in the past, as he is unwilling to create another account because he respects Wikipedia, this includes editing videogame articles to have accurate and objective information. I or you can tell him to change his username to something less disagreeable, and afterwards Wikipedia can go on as it would.

Forget about "DRUMMABoys" entertainment" (I think I'm spelling it wrong, sorry), I admit he isn't worth your time, now that I think about it, just so I don't waste you volunteer timeDandtiks69 (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC).

Oh, and what's funny is that I just realized what his username stands for. But still, that's changeable.Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You asked and you got a serious answer based on policy. Your friend is free to request an unblock. Based on his behavior at the time, he was not showing any indication that he planned to edit Wikipedia constructively, belated renaming request or not. Trolling of that kind poisons the waters.If he has had a change of heart he is welcome to convince us of that, starting with an acknowledgement that he was wasting our time with his original username, and that he has a lot of ground to make up.

You've been warned by several editors about your determined insertion of gaming trivia into articles, but you're not listening, rather like your friend with the silly username. You're becoming disruptive, so stop doing that. "Warning" them is inappropriate: they have every reason in encyclopedia policy to reject your edits, as I have done. Stop edit-warring to include trivia. Acroterion (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't bring in irrelevant topics in: that's a different problem. Fine, I'll go contact him and tell him if he is able to use his indefinitely blocked account. Don't think this is over, though, because honestly I don't think he's spent that much time in Wikipedia: he's a n00b, still (been only about 15 months), so what you mean by trolling was probably a lack of understanding and added frustration. Thank you for your understanding.Dandtiks69 (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You appeared here voluntarily, and I'll set the agenda on what I choose to discuss in response. Your edits are problematic and display a disregard for Wikipedia policies and processes, so I've taken this opportunity to warn you about that issue. As for your friend, I am willing to remove the talkpage protection to allow them to communicate, providing they behave appropriately.That doesn't include frivolous unblock requests or game-playing about usernames: they must either edit constructively or stay away. Acroterion (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Acroterion. I believe both I and my friend's problems originated from a lack of understanding of the rules of Wikipedia. Can you recommend me a few pages on the laws to start on Dandtiks69 (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)?

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

See the ceiling fans in the gallery of Mohonk Mountain House. Softlavender (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, sir

i am a telemarketer from Indonesia. i have been travelling to several countries to see and watch telemarketing development in visited countries. i visited to Canada, French, Belgium, Switzzerland, USA and write down about telemarketing development technolody in 2015. i have written about telemarketing in Quebec Canada, but it was deleted by administrator. i suppose that the articles is not advertise someone, sir. can i continue the contents related to telemarketing in Quebec Canada?

signature, Nopi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopirosyadi (talk • contribs) 01:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You can't advertise on Wikipedia. All articles about companies must avoid promotion, and must pass the notability standards for companies. Acroterion (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the image. Several of us in Pennsylvania are attempting to get photos for as many municipalities as possible (see User:Nyttend/Pennsylvania), and with 750+ municipalities remaining, anything you can contribute is quite welcome. That's especially true in this case; Schuylkill County (which includes Frackville) has more unillustrated municipalities than any other county, except for one. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I pass through central and northeast Pennsylvania every couple of months on my way to project sites in the Hudson Valley on I-81, and the area around Hazleton and Frackville usually coincides with a need to make a pit stop. Depending on how rushed I am, I plan to try to get pictures of places reasonably close to the interstate as I go, though I usually have time for only one or two places and no time to go exploring. I'll see if I can hit Schuylkill County in a more organized fashion. It's a pretty grim part of the world. Three prisons in the neighborhood. I'd do more in the Hudson Valley, but Daniel Case has done a pretty good job. Still, I got some decent pictures of Sing Sing last year. I should probably think about New Jersey as well, since depending on which jobsite, the Turnpike is often an option. With more daylight for the next few months I can work in more side trips. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Since you mention Hazleton — Luzerne County is the only one with more unillustrated places than Schuylkill County, although Jakec has started helping with Luzerne photos lately. And I understand the grimness; I've seen a lot of decay in Monongahela River towns such as Brownsville, and it's hard work here too, with scenes like File:Main at Fourth in Aliquippa.jpg being typical of one nearby city, and a murder just this past week several blocks from my house. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Brownsville - the Dead City. Been there. It's like the Bomb was dropped and that's what's left. Only Fiddle's Confectionery is left. Acroterion (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Good description. Quite sad, more than here or Aliquippa, but I still love these postindustrial river towns; I'm thankful to be doing what little I can to contribute to the community (see my comments at the end of WT:NRHP#Why this project is important beyond Wikipedia, part XXIX) and hope to be able to do more long-term. And while it's hard here, I can still remind myself that it could be far worse: go to User talk:TheCatalyst31/Archive 7, look for "If given the chance", and read from there to the bottom of the section. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

East St. Louis. Yeah. Haven't been there, but I can imagine. Brownsville, at least, isn't scary, just interrupted, I guess is the best word, as if one day the opticians and lawyers and and banks moved to the place on the highway up the hill and left it all behind. Frackville isn't deserted, just gray and cold and gritty, like so many places in Pennsylvania in winter. I've been in some alarming parts of Baltimore and Philadelphia where things are actively falling down, with building collapses an everyday occurrence, and I definitely do look over my shoulder. Newburgh, New York is another surprisingly devastated place. I mean to spend a little time there when I get a chance. Acroterion (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll post more of my Brownsville pictures when I get a chance. They're a bit sub-par, since we were there in late afternoon and Brownsville looks its best ... well, better ... in the morning, since the principal buildings face east. Acroterion (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. In 2009 you joined up for the wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki. The project has since ceased activity but is currently being given a kick start due to its importance and the coordination needed to translate content from other wikipedias. If you're still active and are still interested please visit the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intertranswiki and add a {{tick}} by your name within the next week so the project can do a recount and update. Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion,

I've written the iMakr page, unfortunately the title says "IMakr", would it be possible to change it please? I tried to move the page myself but it says that I do not have permission to do so.

Thanks a lot!

Currently, I plan to edit some articles on Denmark and Finland to start on my journey to provide useful geographic information for everybody to read (after all, we Americans are notorious for knowing little geography (and for basically dismissing all those other countries as derivatives of the U.S.A.)). But apart form that, I just wanted to ask where could I address in Wikipedia the aggressiveness of some administrators on Wikipedia (in general, not individual administrators). I feel like they should be more open to what people have to say (of course, not to crap like what this user did to this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John_from_Idegon&diff=605759401&oldid=605758766. That's a waste of time). I know you cooperated with me when I addressed you, and although it could have been better we still were productive. So I wanted to ask where can I ask administrators to calm down. For example, I have seen users go to administrator's talk pages and discredit the administrators as disruptors of Wikipedia for abusively re-editing articles; of course, the administrators were simply doing their job, but it is analogous to police brutality. I know I have insulted some administrators (unintentionally, of course), but the way they responded to me they weren't producing logical writing. Thank you. Dandtiks69 (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have actionable complaints, WP:ANI is the place. If you have specific constructive suggestions, then WP:VP is the place. If you want "administrators to just calm down," there's no such place, though a glance at WP:CALM contains valuable advice that might have helped you out early on when you were edit-warring to include gaming trivia. Administrators deal with a lot of crap, much of it ugly, and often there's no clear or tidy solution. We get tired, we get testy, we sometimes have less patience with the merely misguided than we should have. In return, we ask that editors recognize that, for instance, no admin that I know of blocks people for, as you once put it, "due to some ridiculous reason or some ridiculous crime they did." That's an assumption of bad faith. Your friend with the political agenda and the offensive name did come around at your urging and offered a well-conceived apology, and I unblocked them, taking them at their word. That's good faith in action on both sides, but until that apology was provided we had no way to identify them as anything but a troll based on their contributions. It's a text-based medium on the Internet and all we have to judge by is what's on the screen in front of us. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

What I meant by "due to some ridiculous reason or some ridiculous crime they did" is that my friend probably, like you said, had a political agenda and wasn't cooperating like he should have. I admit I was edit warring with the other administrators but that was because I didn't know these administrators were impatient, and these admins simply regurgitated the same reason why this "gaming trivia" didn't belong: it just doesn't. That's circular reasoning, something I find hard to accept. But you made it clear for me, and you're making it clear for me again with the article you're recommending me and the complaints page. That's how I believe administrators should respond rather than the way they snapped at me. Of course, not 'all' admins are like this.

But shouldn't there be a page specifically for admins for the way they act here in Wikipedia? I sure there already is, but there doesn't seem to be anything regarding aggressive tactics the admins use. No one should give volunteering a bad name by acting out like this, or by vaguely specifying the reason. Admins should be direct but not monsters. Can only admins edit that page? Dandtiks69 (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC).

I am the owner of www.hrhjamesscottwallingcarver.org and I am not infringing on my own copyright.

This is absolutely ridiculous that Wikipedia has blocked when I have done nothing wrong. If you would ask before jumping to conclusions without the solid facts you would know that.

I am not "Soapboxing" or soliciting.

My website gives detailed history on my family's lineage which is giving readers information of over 4000 years of history on my family.

Don't use Wikipedia to promote yourself or your website. Acroterion (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Whatever you try to advertise, it violates the rules for Wikipedia, especially if it involves your username promoting material outside learning. This site is a temple for the mind, not a place to promote or show personal individual facts. If you believe this doesn't apply to you, then discuss this in the noticeboard. Dandtiks69 (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Harrias ^talk 09:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Credit for improvement should go to Hchc2009 (talk · contribs), not me: I started the article years ago, but did not do the work to make it a GA. Acroterion (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

So i got a message saying i could get sanctions for editing. Im planning on trying to add more content to make it more balanced and less biased. Is this gonna get me banned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destructor3 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean you've done anything wrong, it just means that you're in the vicinity of a minefield, so you should be particularly careful about bold edits. Please take the time to work with other editors to arrive at a consensus on edits in that subject area. Acroterion (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright thanks. Destructor3 (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I've modified your recent block of Eqqy (talk · contribs) due to an outstandingly unpersuasive unblock request. Kuru (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, that's why I imposed the indef topic ban, and repeating the offense in an unblock notice argues for a general indef on BLP grounds. I'll amend the DS log accordingly. Acroterion (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

recently you have deleted my encyclopedia reasoning that it is a promotional page and also coz of copyright infringement. i will manage to change the contents regarding the copyright issues. the encyclopedia is all about a non profit organisation called SEDS.

it is not a promotion strategy. it is for the reference of students and General public to know what SEDS Chennai is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeep C Sekhar (talk • contribs) 15:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It was written as advertising and directly copied to Wikipedia. Please see the ntoability guidelines if you wish to re-create the article to see if it meets the standards for inclusion, and if so, please re-write the article to avoid the copyright issue and promotion. Acroterion (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your contributions first of all to this namespace. Second thing is that it is usually the blocking admin who has to take the responsibility of every single WP:AC/DS that has been sanctioned. In this sense this edit had to be made by Kuru. It doesn't really look like a AC/DS block, it looks like a normal block, maybe there was no need to make any entry either. Thanks again, hope you will recognize our usual standards. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, whatever custom dictates. Given the potentially ambiguous nature of the various topic bans and blocks imposed on this user I felt that it was better to make note of it than otherwise. Acroterion (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It is all good then. I just needed an explanation and I have got that. Keep up the good work! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

[5] should also be clobbered. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Acroterion (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed you created the article for Elmwood-on-the-Opequon and for the most part have been responsible for its expansions. I'm writing to you now because while reading the article, I couldn't really get behind it, out of its lack of visual stimulus. It's talking about all of the additions the estate has gone through, and the only picture on the page is its location from the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. It'd be great if there were the pictures from the wvculture PDF somewhere on the page depicting these changes or at least a before and after since the sourced material has a great array. Which pictures, if any, could we look to add? I understand that pictures on wikipedia typically have to be taken by the user who shares it. My thoughts are that this is a place of learning, though how can we hope to learn and truly understand a concept by reading how a second story addition to a house was at a 90 degree angle? I get that one could just access the PDF from the source; is this the extent of the idea? Is there anywhere an overall goal of keeping the information on a singular page, so that the sources can be used, not necessarily as a supplement but as a way to verify information, rather than peruse what's already on the page, if that makes sense? Looking forward to your response, Complete turing (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. However, like many old country houses in this part of the world, it's down a long lane on a wooded lot, and there's no way to get a good freely-usable picture without trespassing. The NRHP images that the WVCulture website uses aren't freely usable on Wikipedia because they're not public domain, so we can't upload and use them here. Most National Register documentation was produced by private or state consultants, and so is copyrighted. Relatively few NRHP properties were documented by federal employees whose work would be in the public domain, so we're stuck with hoping for a donation, looking for some HABS documentation (which doesn't exist here), or sending readers to look at the NRHP docs on an external website. I supposed I could draw some simple plans and elevations - after all, it's my line of work - but time is scant. Acroterion (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

So I know that in the article on the state (or country) of Denmark in Europe it mentions that Denmark is amongst the happiest countries in the world. However, I believe I can elaborate much more on that without crossing the line of subjectivity. Would you recommend that I edit part of the page for that or is the page fine as it is right now? Please answer this on my page. Otherwise it's still okay. Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I am putting a real informantion! Jeez!Daniel23456 (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you know how i can get in contact with some of the more high up or high ranking administrators? Ive encountered some major corruption with some of the admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destructor3 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a hierarchy of administrators. If you have actionable concenrs, backed up by evidence, WP:ANI is the place to go, but you should be very certain that you have clean hands and that what you allege is provable and significant. If you simply disagree with some administrative actions, you might not get a sympathetic hearing. Is there something specific you need to discuss? Acroterion (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, TRPoD is not an admin, and you're making personal attacks. Stop that. They're patiently and appropriately explaining Wikipedia policy and you're not listening. You are on the edge on the GamerGate sanctions I warned you about. Acroterion (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Im sorry about the insults man. It just really pisses me off that someone would just come in and delete all this factual stuff i put in just to further his own agenda. It's bullshit man. And everytime i go to the talk page to try and reason with him he just eliminates it and says its a worthless opinion. You seem like a cool guy, thats why i came to you for help. Destructor3 (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You have to convince other editors, not shout at them, and you're trying an argument that has been rejected by many editors in the past: please recognize that and learn how to make an argument that doesn't involve the word "bullshit." Because I'm cool and don't like seeing new editors walk unawares into a subject that has been a trap for editors on both sides of the argument, I warned you this afternoon that you were walking into a minefield. You're firmly in the middle of it now. Acroterion (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution and I'm sorry to hear that you get spammed. I've read the sources, my problem would be the line describing "gang stalking" as a "belief system" instead of an objective phenomenon by external observers. There are no examples of these reports, which I believe should be described in the utmost detail, or at the very least have their own source instead of just glossing over it. There is a much bigger issue, however; just because something is dismissed by doctors or even scientists in general as delusions, doesn't mean it should be described as such, and only as such, in an encyclopedia. Take this article on breatharianism, for example. It clearly states the scientific view on the subject as "pseudo-science", but it doesn't completely dismiss the other, non-scientific point of view. It deals with it concisely and accurately, and cites over fifty sources from both sides. There are only two sources on this bizarre "gang stalking" topic, none which includes the supposed reports, and none which discusses the phenomenon from a more general, cultural point of view, I assume because none of them is reliable. To be completely honest, I'm not even sure what should be done with it, but I hope you see where I'm coming from. Thanks again and sorry for the really long read. I hope you have a nice day. UnluckyClover77 (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to propose a rewording. However, please remember that Wikipedia in general will give vastly more weight to the views of physicians and mental health professionals, and little to fringe theorists and advocates of pseudoscience. The issue I've seen is that the section typically sees two kinds of new editors: the first being the sort described in the referenced articles, who sincerely believe they're being assaulted by mind control devices or shadowy conspiracies, and who find support in like-minded people on the Internet. The second sort is typified by everybody's elderly relative who sends FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: to all their relatives to warn of an epidemic of secret stalking of strangers by criminal gangs. The first version is straightforward Internet-enabled paranoia, the second is Internet-enabled fear of the Other, somewhat short of true paranoia. Both are hard to source, though I'm reasonably certain that, for instance, there are many people harassed by gangs from within their own social or ethnic communities, and that it is vastly underreported. However, that's more along the lines of criminal harassment. What people seem to think is "gang stalking" by pure strangers doesn't seem to exist in reliable sources beyond a few random examples, hardly enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. Acroterion (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your answer on such short notice, but I'm not sure what rewording would do since it is not just an issue of the tone used ... Perhaps it will sound a bit more balanced though, I'll see what I can do.

I couldn't help but notice your own belief on the subject, which is perfectly understandable. I do feel the need to share what I know, which doesn't include mind control conspiracies or anything strange like that, or even involving me personally, but more of a collection of strange harassing events that I've seen first hand, clearly targeting a family member...by complete strangers. I understand that my third person, unsourced view is pretty much worthless, I just thought you should know. I hope I'm not stepping over the line here. UnluckyClover77 (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No, you're not crossing any lines by relating personal observations to other editors. We all have our own personal experiences, and I don't doubt that things of this sort happen from time to time. You're right, though, we have to stick to what we can cite in published sources. Your experience and mine aren't very useful here, which is why my little essay above isn't going into the article in any form. It's just an observation based on editing patterns I've seen over several years. Acroterion (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This has been a good talk.

I have to say that I looked around the page and I'm not sure how to request a rewording, any chance you could help me with that? If you're not busy... UnluckyClover77 (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance. It's a difficult subject, and the more extreme voices have a way of drowning out measured discussion on topics like this. I have a few things I'm doing at the moment and may shut down for the evening soon. Rewording is best discussed on the talkpage in any case. Go ahead and start a section with your proposed changes (there's no hurry, maybe you'll want to do a little composition in your userspace sandbox), and other people besides me can see and comment. Acroterion (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That's funny, because I'm shutting down now. Tomorrow, I think I'll come up with a way to present the subject without getting too much of these voices. It's been a pleasure. UnluckyClover77 (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

--> Hello, again! Just finished my small addition to the talk page, thought you may want to know. UnluckyClover77 (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Akroteria 2 Cape May HD NJ.JPG

I thought you might be interested. Also, I think I messed up on the singular in the titles, but the category at Commons confused me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed one of those acro-thingums. If asked what the pretentious-sounding object is, I tell them it's either a Greek gargoyle or a high-altitude cafeteria. Seems a little esoteric for a shopping arcade, probably an architecture school graduate trying to get some value for the degree. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Acroterion

I am attempting to create a wikipedia page for Orkney Pool. We are an association that was formed in the mid 80's and all information I would like to cover on wikipedia is fact based and taken from our local newspaper 'The Orcadian'. I am new to wikipedia as far as having my own account goes so will be very disappointed if I am not able to promote our association. We have played pool at World Championship level and I am hoping we can do again. Thanks for any response and apologies for my lack of understanding with wikipedia

Stewpotkeld (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Stewpotkeld

Concerning your statement that you will be very disappointed if you "are unable to promote your organization," please remember that Wikipedia doesn't accept advertising or promotion of any kind for any organization. If your goal is to document your organization according to coverage it has revived my major independent sources, that is fine. You should look for sources that are more than purely local, as The Orcadian might not meet that requirement. Acroterion (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Would I be wasting my time if i started to re-enter the data? Stewpotkeld (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I will have another go. I should not have said I was trying to promote my association. My page is more intended to be used as a reference for the pool players in Orkney and in particular anyone who has been involved in the history of Orkney Pool. I can not imagine the page being of much interest to anyone outside of poolStewpotkeld (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have new fans that trust Wikipedia more than my personal site. I have a song on FM radio and Wikipedia is vital right now. If I was on a record label they would've created it but I'm independent so I do my own record label work. My page is harmless and brings more people to Wikipedia. Please unblock and allow my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenback98 (talk • contribs)

Please see the notability guidelines for musical artists. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and performers must meet basic notability standards to be eligible for inclusion. Acroterion (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What exactly was it promoting? It was informational and a start. A lot more was going to be added. Everyone calling me a local celeb is inaccurate and incorrect. Most of my traffic comes from different states as well as different countries. I don't understand why I'm being attacked there are way more things on Wikipedia that need removal. I am not using Wikipedia in a destructive way. I actually did not make the page nor did anyone I know. Someone from the Wikipedia community made it. How do you expect others to succeed when peers are constantly pulling one another down? Who can authorize this since everyone that has a hand in taking it down doesn't have the power to put it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenback98 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You're not being attacked, you just need to make sure you understand the rules for inclusion. Please see the guidelines for notability for musical acts, which give a number of ways to establish sufficient notability for inclusion in a global encyclopedia. If you meet those guidelines (and can provide it by reference to major independent media), then an article might be possible. Additionally, please read WP:COI, since you've got a conflict of interest. That doesn't preclude editing, but it does require scrupulous attention to the rules.. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I want to thank you for understanding I have not committed vandalism and I like to add relevant information and do not appreciate being reported for vandalism after forgetting to include a source on a piece of writing. I have not committed vandalism and I will keep on adding relevant information where neede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakepenks15 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I've sorted out an unblock request from him so it now displays. Why do people put their reasons in inside the blocking template? Peridon (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping them. I don't see much likelihood that they'll get unblocked, though. It seems to me that we could come up with a more graceful technique for unblock requests than making people copy/paste stuff: the admin response on its own is a nuisance to do right, and that's after seven years of practice. Acroterion (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey you deleted my page. I'm sorry that it came off as offensive, it was simply a page that started my friends and I new backyard wrestling league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephwrites1 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added a heading to separate your post from the thread above. Peridon (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That is odd when I try to nominate the Marilyn Mosby article to be checked for neutrality you immediately jump in and remove the tag and claim it is "drive by tagging"Do people not have the right for this information and for it to be checked for its neutrality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be far more interested in telling everyone about your personal point of view on this subject rather than discussing the points of view of a preponderance of reliable sourcing. Placing a POV tag because something doesn't reflect your personal point of view doesn't advance article improvement. A detailed discussion with suggestions for appropriate sourcing must accompany such a tag. As another editor has pointed out, vague griping and accusations of bias aren't very useful. Please be very specific rather than offering generalizations about "thought policing." The article is about Ms. Mosby, not your thoughts on politics. Acroterion (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen you are mentioned here User talk:HUM1969 WILL KEEP RETURNING TO WIKIPEDIA. It might merit removal of talk page access. OTOH if it doesn't bother you that is fine. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 00:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, no reason to give them a forum for disruption, so deleted. Acroterion (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Good deal. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Acroterion, I would appreciate your advice on recent edits to the above article? Ii ShOrtBO ii has made unreferenced, and in at least one case incorrect, alterations to the info box. I have asked on at least three occasions for sources/references, but this has been just reverted and the offending "edits" re-inserted. They now appear to be using a anon IP, 107.178.11.1 to make the same alterations - again without any references. Is this a case for page protection or other action on the user? Thanks and regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article to at least force the IP back to their account and I'll leave a note. Let's see what happens from there. Acroterion (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello Acroterion

Thanks for your attention at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, Wikipedia appreciates your help. However, I'm aware of your deletion of the above article per G3 perhaps as WP:HOAX. Do you mean the page is an hoax? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£}

Yes. Acroterion (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I easily find sources that establish the subject of the article's existence with a quick google search. WP:CSD#G3 only applies to blatant hoax. Can you shield more light on this? Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The article claimed that it was discovered by a young man whose girlfriend nominated him for a Nobel Prize. It was entirely vandalism, whether or not the subject actually exists. Acroterion (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because you stated the theories were offensive. While I totally agree with you that these theories are totally disrespectful, I found the wording to be a bit opinionated, and Wikipedia is not supposed to be opinionated. I am sorry if I caused inconvenience, and if you think I made an error, then I apologize. I am not defending these ridiculous fringe theories: I think they are a plague of this world. I just thought the neutrality of the article was violated.

Gdeblois19 17:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't state the theories were offensive (to those affected by them): the sources do (and I did not write the material in question in any case). Neutrality doesn't mean that everything must be watered down to a vanilla statement of the mean between two equivalent poles. If something is demonstrably false, it must be described as such. If something is widely described as contradictory or widely held to be obnoxious, describing it as such is entirely appropriate. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I apologize for my error. I see what the sources say, and I did not know of Wikipedia's policy regarding demonstrably false claims.

Gdeblois19 13:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdeblois19 (talk • contribs)

So like a month back I wasn't behaving like this society expected me to, and so two other users made me promise to make it all up by building a respectable body of work, and I chose science stuff to fix. And I did it! Finally! So now they are happy too. Dandtiks69 (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC).

Hi, I published a wiki page for Soulflower company and it has been deleted by you. Can you please help me with the reasons or else mistakes I did ? It would be helpful. Please notify me of your response. Also I would like to edit this page. Thanx talk — Preceding undated comment added 05:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears to have been written as an advertisement. Articles must strictly adhere to a non-promotional tone, and must be directly supported by references in major independent media. Acroterion (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello I create Daniel J Webb's page on here as he is a well respected member of the community. His work with celebs is well known. he works all over the uk, and is a politician. We are you going to delete the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldtimber86 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I marked the page for deletion on account of promotion and notability issues. If another admin agrees, it will be deleted. In general, we expect someone to be notable beyond Swindon or even Wiltshire in order to be eligible for inclusion in a global encyclopedia, and the article suffers from a tendency toward puffery. Please provide references in independent media from somewhere other than Swindon to support the subject's notability. Acroterion (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, any chance you could import this into Corregimientos of Panama?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, imported to MediaWiki talk:Corregimientos de Panamá since it's a bit rough for article space, even as a "to be translated" section. I'll move/merge/delete when you're done with it. Just let me know when you're finished. Acroterion (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

So I know I have not gotten around to much editing lately; articles types of my focus are those in the cultural section. One thing I will admit: I did not have the best political balance nor the adequate focus on my edits, because I mostly followed Colbert's ironic statement "And reality has a well-known liberal bias." I am stating right now I have little to no authority here on Wikipedia, and serve merely as a messenger of some sort.

I know this isn't much of my business, but where I'm getting at is that one of my closest advisers here on Wikipedia by the name of Dandiks69 had some administrators literally block him here in Wikipedia temporarily for disruption. Personally I don't trust Dandtiks69 that much, but I personally know he would never tell somebody to die off or whatever you seem to claim he did. He claims that is not what Wikipedia is about. That's what I believe too.

He recently contacted me about the disturbing messages he received from one user he messaged a confirmation note saying the administrator made some sort of deal with him to recontact him for his reward once he built up a reasonable body of "improvements," and that his Facebook-style messages were apparently interpreted as death threats by those hateful administrators. After this the administrators discredited his contributions to the math section and as an insult labeled them terrorism. Finally you decided to block him for rebelling too much. I looked into his talk page once I received these news.

Now, I mean no offense. That being said, is it not hypocrisy to block a user for personal attacks when in fact the administrators attacked him first ad hominem and not once did they mention anything about the mathematics involved in his reference, or the actual evidence in his case?

Sincerely, FDJK001 (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC).

P.S. If you want you can answer back in my talk page.

"Death threats?" "Terrorism?" Sorry, I have a hard time treating such nonsense seriously. Your friend was editing disruptively, and upon being warned, upped the ante. He's blocked for a while. That's all. If he keeps on doing it he'll be blocked for longer, or permanently. We're writing an encyclopedia. It's his choice if he wants to participate. Acroterion (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Please excuse the boldface coming up next, I don't know how to control it yet. It was for your name but I messed it up.

It shouldn't be taken literally, Acroterion (talk). Truthfully they labeled his contributions as disturbing, particularly you. More generally, they were labeled as attacks rather than construction. Please give me the evidence so as to know why he got blocked, because right now it looks like the administrators are laughing at him rather than constructively criticizing him.

FDJK001 (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC).

Re-read Medeis's comments, which include links. Nobody's laughing at anyone, and since constructive criticism has failed to alter a disturbing and unconstructive pattern of editing, blocking is the next option, particularly following the inappropriate outburst of today and your entirely unacceptable conversation on May 10-14, for which you both should have received a final warning. By the way, it's "scare quotes" (see, I just used them), not scare tactics, and they don't belong in a featured article in that context. Materialscientist correctly reverted their unexplained insertion. It could also have been an attempt at bolding. Without a constructive edit summary I can't tell. We use an imperfect text-based interface, and we can only judge by what we see. I see repeated attempts to encourage disruption by you and Danticks69 and little activity to suggest constructive contribution. If that changes after the block expires, good. If it continues, then editing privileges will be revoked. WP:NOTHERE neatly summarizes the problems I see (items 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9), and each can be grounds for blocking, as I have done. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Medies's links say nothing of Dandtiks' disruptive editing, and the "scare quotes" (unintentional here) you talk of go no further than its emphasis; if anything, these were just silly mistakes my friend did. Please, give me the real evidence and I'll start believing all of this mess.

Both of us mean no harm.

Still, the way Medeis describes this activity he makes it seem like violence committed against a specific user just to troll and should not have been a final warning; his tone is inappropriate to Wikipedia and is counter-productive to what you say it should be. Hypocrisy at its finest. A simple comment on the necessity of an edit summary would have been nice instead of trash talk from the many powerful directed at one poor defenseless individual, a vigorous one.

If you deliberately force yourself to think that we were discussing plans to commit disruption, then so be it, but it was not directed to all of Wikipedia. That would be terrorism and disturbing on how you described it. Specifically our plan was to report some administrators that we felt were not being productive and hypocritical, and taking the Wikipedia rules literally for their own purposes. Common sense should be used, but I guess it isn't commonly used here, so abuse needs reporting. And judging from your poor responses (except this last one) you are laughing at us, but you are our savior and our friend so we would rather cooperate with you in helping us regain our reputation as constructive editors.

One conversation we had isn't enough to label us as potential disruptors; I already said I was not here in Wikipedia for months, so I have not done anything truly productive because I was busy, and most of our conversations take place via texts and e-mail (it just so happened that a certain conversation ended up here in Wikipedia). This whole act of misinterpreting the evidence, whether intentional or unintentional, is called circumstantial evidence. I edited an article here on Theodore Dreiser's book An American Tragedy several months ago for my English major, based on that, where the main character is accused of a murder he did not commit, and that is what's happening right now.

Both of us mean no harm.

Going back to common sense, it needs to be exercised here on the rules and should not be taken absolutely or literal. I could easily accuse you of "Treating editing as a battleground" from WP:NOTHERE but both of us know that isn't your intention: you are here to deal with hundreds of idiotic unproductive editors daily who intentionally destroy the validity of Wikipedia, not the ones that make silly punctuation mistakes or messages not directed to the general public. I know that the scope of your job goes far beyond that, but practice common sense on this too, if you have a mind.

Both of us mean no harm.

I'm not a "civil rights" wacko here in Wikipedia, as that is grounds for expulsion, but I believe some talk of the rights of an editor must occur if we are to cooperate and edit in harmony.

Both of us mean no harm!

If you made it this far in reading this then congratulations for actually reading what I meant to say. Remember that I meant no harm to you or others, just the reporting of several disruptive editors (we abandoned that plan some while ago). If you have a heart please respond kindly and constructively, not like those other administrators.

FDJK001 (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC).

Then behave as editors who are more interested in improving the encyclopedia than as grudge-bearing disruptive editors with chips on your shoulders. Alternating between discussing revenge and declarations of constructive intent doesn't give anyone confidence that you aren't wasting everybody's time. Acroterion (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, you haven't read my message to you, and in this case I wasted my time giving you a lengthy explanation. Bye.

FDJK001 (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC).

On the contrary, I've read everything you've written, but do not reach the conclusions you think I should. Acroterion (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Humorous: you can't even elaborate. FDJK001 (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Um, you might want to look at User talk:Riot kiddo, as they appear to only be getting worse. Plus now they are saying they will be "moving over to more reliable sources of information" to get away from "aggresive editors" like User:Liz. Wow. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 03:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There seems to have been a recent increase in very aggressive editors who are blind to their own conduct but are eager to respond explosively to pinpricks. I'm going to shut off talkpage access, and if/when they misbehave at the end of the block term we'll deal with that. Acroterion (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

John from Idegon (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, you sent me a message in April about making an unnessecary edit to the page on Mammoth Cave National Park. The problem is, I made no edit to this page nor have I ever visited this page until I got the message. You have the wrong person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.186.60 (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Some have edited the All by Myself and Elton John article and nearly identically, which between Lam Thuy Van and currently sock IP 42.112.132.30. More or less passes the duck test. Which one is the puppetmaster in this case is unknown but an educated guess has been made. 115.164.89.34 (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a reasonable conclusion to me. Blocking the IP for a while. Thanks for the heads-up. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do you revert the change back to "American" when Ramirez was a Mexican-American. Go check Cesar Chavez's page; why is it okay to call Chavez a Mexican American, rather than simply an American, but for Ramirez, he MUST be labeled as an American?

Double standard?

It is factually correct that Ramirez is a Mexican American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotallyFUN (talk • contribs) 23:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Chavez is described in the lede as American with no qualifier, and only later is his ethnicity discussed. You appear to be trying to make a point about Ramirez: If you edit-war you will be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note that, when RevDel-ing logs, you should only do thosew parts which are, in fact problematic. This includes that when handling user creation logs for self-created or automatically created accounts (nearly all account creations are one of these), you only need to hide the "editor's username/IP address" part. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've generally found the choices a bit cryptic and it's hard to preview what will actually happen, so I tend to overdo it. Acroterion (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

	Barnstar of Protection
	Thank you for protecting articles @ WP:RPP. CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection. So who did we piss off now? :P Amaury (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone in the UK who enjoys cycling their router. I find it much easier to just block 'em. The relative expenditure of effort is to our advantage. Acroterion (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there ACROTERION, from Portugal,

please read User:Amortias' talkpage, what I said there can be extended to your person. Keep up the good work, cheers --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• I read the tag better (firstly, I thought it read the page had been protected), and came shooting like a breeze here. What is this, ME being blocked? What have I done, besides revert a punk vandal? Please elaborate, thanks. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You were blocked in error due to the recent vandalism. You didn't do anything wrong. :) Amaury (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I misread your IP - it was a mistake on my part, entirely my fault. Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, it is no longer there. A mixup, happens to the best. Cheers --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• No worries. Just a small favour: can you keep my page on your watchlist, in case it is vandalized for the duration of the block? --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• • Certainly. Acroterion (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

As a Biblical scholar I know the importance of BC/AD dating and how the important these dates are in describing biblical figures. To change them to the secular BCE/CE dating, is an attempt to disrupt the proper biblical teachings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.154.239 (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not do anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.117.67.140 (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not place both? If it is a Biblical figure the first date should be BC/AC and then BCE/CE.198.189.133.5 (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You had revoked his editing priviledges a few days hence thought of notifying you, the user was back from the block and continued the same unsourced and falsification of sources to add genres to articles. And then this cropped up. I left another warning template for NPA, rest is upto the higher authorities to deal with. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Before I begin another discussion I would like first of all to apologize for what I did, letting circumstantial evidence slip like that like I was disrupting. Even if I was I shouldn't have talked back to you or the other user. It didn't matter who was right, I should still have conformed to the rules.

Now, another question, can BBC count as a reliable source? Obviously Fox News cannot even count as "news" because of the extreme subjectivities but BBC supposedly has a tiny bit of it. Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The BBC is generally regarded as reliable, with the usual caveats for opinion pieces. Fox is also generally regarded as reliable as long as one sticks to straight news reporting and avoids the personalities which feature so heavily on that channel. All news sources must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, no source is automatically authoritative. Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the problem I keep hearing about Fox is that nowadays it is becoming extremely and continually difficult to tell what is "news," even those news away from the personalities. But another problem is that information easily gets manipulated or misinterpreted in that channel and yet people still believe it.

For example, Bill O'Riley openly discredited the WWII veterans, but a few days later it read on the Fox News website that he said so otherwise! So information information put on that channel is changed according to the convenience of the personalities, whether it be in a few days or months, or years. Dandtiks69 (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As with practically any news source, one must use great skepticism when the personality is the focus of the story; i.e., when the news itself is the news. Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So would you say the same amount of caution should be used in MSNBC, or less, or more? I feel as thought MSNBC is more reality than opinion. Dandtiks69 (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

MSNBC has its share of opinions and personalities who are the focus of news and positions itself as sort of the anti-Fox, and it's had its share of issues. All media sources can be placed along a spectrum. In the UK the Guardian is considered leftish and the Telegraph (or Torygraph) is rightish. The Los Angeles Times has long had a reputation for conservatism. The New York Times is considered liberalish, though in my view it reflects the moneyed classes more than anything else. Acroterion (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

New IP sock Special:Contributions/118.71.136.23 doing the same disruptive edit, especially Running with the Night. 115.164.57.136 (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for spotting it again. Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

New IP 42.112.136.24 was doing same editing in a week later. Destiny Leo (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked. Acroterion (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet again. David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello A. It looks like someone has a bee in their bonnet. Since it is a new IP each time it might need a RFPP to get them to stop but I won't ask for one unless it is okay with you. I also have a line of Troll-be-Gone in floral scents for spring (northern hemisphere time) if you need it :-) Cheers to ya. MarnetteD|Talk 17:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops I posted the above while I was editing other articles. Now that I have gone back to my watchlist I see that you have already taken care of things. I'm glad things will be quiet - for awhile anyway. MarnetteD|Talk 18:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you revert to the wrong revision by ClueBot with this edit? It removed an entire section that was completely legitimate. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was the intermediate revision that was problematic, not the last one. Thanks for fixing it. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Acroterion. I am Abhik. This is regarding your edits to my Recent contributions to Wikipedia. First of all,I would like you to know that it was not an experiment. So there is no question of using sandbox. It was an actual edited contribution to the Wikipedia Data bank. Secondly, the Total Length of Howrah Bridge is 705 Meters which is 2313.0 Feets. This length beats the Pont de Québec bridge by 156 Meters flat. If you have any doubts about the length of Howrah bridge, then please visit the Wikipedia Page of Howrah Bridge through the link given here:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howrah_Bridge.

I am unable to understand what you meant by "it did not appear constructive". Could you please explain why you thought so ?

At the end, I would like to request you to please make Howrah Bridge the top ranking bridge in that list because it is longer than the existing Rank 1.

I am eagerly waiting for your response.

Thanking you, Abhikdhar2009 (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The bridge ranking is by the length of the longest span, not the total length: it is after all the List of longest cantilever bridge spans, not the list of longest bridges or longest cantilever bridges by overall length. Unsupported span is the measure in most bridge rankings. The Howrah Bridge does not have the longest cantilever span in the world, the Quebec Bridge does, though it may be indeed longer in total. Please do not rearrange the table according to criteria at odds with the way it was presented. It was correct as it was. Acroterion (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain why are you censoring my suggestions in the talk page of Bilderberg Group? As far as I know, you are nobody to decide what a user may say or not on article's talk pages. Dornicke (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for your views on the Bilderberg meetings, and it very specifically is not a congenial environment in which to call people "criminals." There are many better places on the Internet than an encyclopedia for you to post defamatory remarks. Acroterion (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You are not a reliable source to say they are not criminals. The Guardian is. I don't care about what you "think", your personal opinion is irrelevant. Dornicke (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You should create an SPI for Lam Thuy Van. New IP 58.187.40.148 is currently same editing again. Destiny Leo (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please explain this action User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Is is simply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/173.54.198.128 ? User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Since nearly every edit by an IP or a new editor in the past couple of weeks has been nonconstructive, and since Ellen Pao had to be protected recently for BLP violations, I thought it was a good idea to semi-protect. Obviously, you're keeping an eye on it, so if you feel it's not necessary I have no objection to unprotecting. Acroterion (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit rusty, allowing only autoconfirmed editors is fine. I don't actually "watch" this article as not much happens now. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the new technology of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Thank you for the page protection on Chicago Med. I was about to file a request, in fact :PCallmemirela (Talk) ♑ 17:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I hard-blocked the latest IP, which will prevent accounts from using that IP to edit. Acroterion (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you (: It seems there are a lot of socks revolving this person, should a SPI investigation be created? I know they won't give up. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 18:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems like semi-protection for increasing terms would be simpler, since they're IP-hopping. SPIs involve too much paperwork to prove something that's already obvious. Acroterion (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Oki doki. Thank you for your help! (: Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 18:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

And so it goes on with our sockpuppet Sky friend from Oxford. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked, protected and all. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

...for your support over at my RfA; it was especially nice to see your username among the votes in favor. :-) I shall do my best to be worthy of it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)