User talk:Acroterion

Yes, you bet me to the total revert... thx... κaτaʟaveno^T_C 02:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, busy evening. Acroterion _(talk) 02:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any conrete reasons why this page was deleted?

According to the information presented in the article, the band does not meet WP:BAND criteria for notability: a single self-released EP (released this month) does not qualify. Regards, Acroterion _(talk) 13:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep deleting info I am creating about The Steele Foundation. I have been looking for info on this company and a friend suggested that I create a page with facts about the company. You are incorrect that it is copyright infingement. I am writing info that I have researched and thought others would find interesting. Help me out here. How am i supposed to post factual information if you keep deleting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Roberts (talk • contribs) 04:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have posted a direct copy of content from the Steele Foundation website; this is not permitted. Also, there is no indication of notability for this organization. Please refer to WP:NOTABILITY; also, WP:YFA may be of assistance. Regards, Acroterion _(talk) 04:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am enjoying your contributions to wikipedia.... Kdfromhb (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia page for Camp Nathanael and all I am simply attempting to do is to create the initial page so that other users can continue the work. Here is the website: www.campnathanael.com to verify that this place does in fact exist. I've attempted to alter the sentences and change the wording as to avoid a "direct copy/paste" from the website. I did however quote and give credit in terms of their written mission statement; which you must agree, should not be rewritten. Thanks. -Nswedlund

Please see your talk page [1] for advice from myself and other editors. The issue is not whether it exists - that is not in doubt - it's copyright violation, notability , and the fact that the article is written as an advertisement. All three issues must be addressed before the article is suitable for inclusion, not just the copyright issue. You may wish to consult Wikipedia:Your first article for advice. Regards, Acroterion _(talk) 16:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up this particular ball and running with it. I couldn't figure out how to get through to this individual to help, short of leaving a note right square in the middle of the soon-to-be-deleted article, so I'm glad you did. Let me know if there's something further I can do to help. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't like to repeatedly delete good-faith additions just because they fit CSD. It may not survive, but I'd rather go the extra yard in cases like this, as opposed to the rash of repeat vandal/attack page creations I've fielded recently. Unfortunately, I think it was the block threat that got their attention. Acroterion _(talk) 17:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your experience seems to be matching mine (I think we both became admins at about the same time). I've seen so many repeat vandal/attack page creations lately that when something comes along that has even the slightest shred of good faith, I want to help however I can. And it's only about a quarter of them that turn around and bite you in the butt <sigh>. I'm slowly becoming less of a deletionist and more of an inclusionist, I guess. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, to my understanding, userpages still fall under speedy criteria due to the fact that they are still classified as a main space, per here and here. Please correct me if i am wrong. Cheers.

Also take a look at this convo i had with another admin. Tiptoety (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...there's this person that's been harassing me and trolling on my talkpage. StopTaoSpam (talk · contribs) has been harassing me since I reverted his removal of content, and he's been very uncivil to me and attacking me on his userpage, and he has been trolling on my talk page. I have the diff links if you want them, plus a warning that's still fresh on my talkpage. I would recommend you get rid of this message before he makes a big deal of this again on his userpage. -Goodshoped 02:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion_of_User:Etheltrust. in case you're interested... Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 02:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there: I see no harm in letting the page say "la". Acroterion _(talk) 02:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you file a arbitration for me at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration]. You state it is not harassment but his actions has continually involve his relationship with administrators. Even now I have to deal with name complaints for another administration in which perhaps is bad judgement but does not change the course of events. I was thinking of letting it go but it is long pass mediation as if I am treated in such a way, only arbitration will determine any further involvement with editing. Thank you.StopTaoSpam (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest (and just did) that everybody drop the issue. It isn't worth the effort. I am concerned about your username, and I'm concerned about Goodshoped and Gp75motorsport's diplomatic skills. Best that you stay apart, and everybody just edit the encyclopedia. By the way, you want mediation first (which is what this discussion amounts to). Arbitration is longer and more tedious, and will just result in scoldings all around. Acroterion _(talk) 03:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have and had nothing to hide. I could do the name change and than arbitration. Mediation implies there were sufficient good faith and civility involved. I received lacking of any and since I can understand your reluctant. My wiki markup is poor but will initiate it poorly if you don't get back to me tomorrow. Thank you. StopTaoSpam (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One question: what do you want from this process? If you want to be left alone by the editors you have an issue with, I have no reason to believe that they won't do what I've asked them to do: leave you alone. In return, it's reasonable to expect you to do likewise. If you want some form of punishment, you're unlikely to be gratified.

Also, name change requests are this way; you are unlikely to have your alternate name approved. I'd suggest a new, neutral name. It usually takes a few days. Acroterion _(talk) 04:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm willing to stop, but, please, stop attacking me and I will stop attacking you. It's that easy. -Goodshoped 04:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That user just arbitrated me and other users, even the fact you told him to drop it! I'm not lying! -Goodshoped 05:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This has apparently been going on for months now, so it's time it's stopped. Best, --Gp75motorsports (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acroterion. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 22:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I get to make a category? I think Decorative fits the name (but not necessarily the person), while Antique might cover both bases. Acroterion _(talk) 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you (or anyone, really) be able to do me a favour, and revert Eddie Stobart Ltd. to this revision? There's been an ongoing spam problem for a few days, which I've been fine with, but it appears that currently, whenever I edit any page with a reference, it mangles it, as seen here in my last revert of the spam. If I try to revert myself, I'm still editing a page with a reference, and thus the issue still happens. I have no idea what is causing this, or if it's just me, as it happens in both IE and Firefox. Any thoughts? :-S --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neeever mind. While I was writing that, this discussion popped up (which wasn't there when I started), so it's not just me. And then, when I tried to let you know that the issue wasn't just me, the database was locked, and it appeared that the glitch was caused by a software update, which has now been resolved, and I was able to fix it myself. Thanks for listening anyway. :P --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to help, especially if I don't have to do anything. I've seen a lot of database server issues recently. Better contribute, I guess. Acroterion _(talk) 19:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My page does nothing wrong, my purpose was not clearly stated as I was still thinking of the correct words to put it in. If you still feel it needs to be deleted then I would like to now how I can petition or some sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolzonek (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page appears to be an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged. If you've set up an orphanage and saved ten people from a fire, there should be no problems finding multiple references in a third-party media source, preferably of national standing. Neither of those accomplishments will necessarily make you notable, however. Otherwise, I could re-create it and send it to Articles for Deletion for debate, but you might not like the outcome there. I will, however, do that, if you wish. Acroterion _(talk) 22:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me why my article, Niagara Basketball Association was deleted? This organization has operated in the Niagara Peninsula, Ontario, Canada (Welland, Fonthill, Port Colborne) for 38 years as a men's basketball league. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JSeliske (talk • contribs) 05:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no assertion that the league was notable. As an amateur local sports league like hundreds or thousands of others around the world, it would not be eligible for inclusion, and no claim was made or substantiated that the league had wider standing or notability. Regards, Acroterion _(talk) 12:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed your block reasoning of this user, as they turned out to be a sockpuppet of a user called Ionas68224. Thanks. Acalamari 00:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, my sockpuppet taxonomy isn't that up to date. I blocked on the basis of the SV trolling. Acroterion _(talk) 02:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you asked me to drop a note if the edit pattern continued; and it is. This time the user removed several of the section headings entirely, with no discussion on Talk or my talk page. Photouploaded 15:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case caught that: both IP's are now blocked, with a sockpuppet notice as well. I'll continue to keep an eye on it. Any continuation is blockable. Acroterion _(talk) 15:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for catching my flub on the "create and article." Wondering your thoughts on a Rafael Robb article? Too newsie? --Lyonspen 18:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my general feeling. Consensus seems to be that murderers (and their victims) are not usually notable unless there's something else to make them so. The only notable thing about this particular incident appears to be that the perpetrator was a professor, which doesn't quite cross the bar for me. Others may disagree. If you want, I can rename the article and send it over to Articles for Deletion for debate - let me know. Acroterion _(talk) 19:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a sensible reply. It would great if you could rename and send it over to debate if only for my own edification on the process. I'd be interested to hear what people think. Thanks again.--Lyonspen 02:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. This sort of thing usually gets a fairly serious, considered set of responses. Acroterion _(talk) 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Acroterion _(talk) 02:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a couple of hours of ban for the IP... best Pundit|utter 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea: 24 hours. Acroterion _(talk) 21:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I really hate dealing with these obsessive radio/TV editors - it's hard to see if it's really a problem. It's so nice that this one uses consistent names. Acroterion _(talk) 02:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed...I think he wants to be caught personally. At least he is outta our collective hair for the night. Take Care and Have a Good Evening...NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by your message. I did not add any negative comments or personal opinions to the Best buy page. I added a link that leads to customer opinions and comments. The Best Buy page is not a company run promtional tool, it is a page for those who are looking to educate themselves about the company, and the customer experience is surely relevant information. The fact that there are numerous webpages dedicated to customer's negative experiences at the Best Buy is relevant, important and interesting. I suspect you may be an employee of Best Buy and that is why you have an interest in censoring this information. I kindly ask you not to delete my addition again. If you are concerned about the negative customer experiences being available on the Best Buy link list, perhaps it would be more contructive to add links that detail positive customer experiences, if you know of any.

I refer you back to KnowledgeOfSelf's concise response [2] to your identical critique. Don't add links in violation of policy, and don't use Wikipedia for your personal vendetta. Acroterion _(talk) 18:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving Wikipedia for the time being due to pressures of every day life getting to me right now, and wish to excercise my right to vanish. Please delete my talk page and block my accout so it won't be misused or compromized in the future. Thank you, Rackabello (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that WP:RTV assumes you won't be back - it's not a "for the time being" sort of thing. If you're just are going away for a while, you're fine as is. RTV isn't a method of enforcing one's own departure, and we won't block you just to keep you from temptation. Feel free to blank your own talk page; it's your prerogative. Acroterion _(talk) 03:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THE ABILITY TO TALK TO AN AUTHORITY OF THIS WEBSITE. I HAVE BEEN GIVEN KNOWLEDGE OF A GROUP OF POSSIBLE TERRIORISTS USING THIS SITE, WIKIPEDIA, TO TRANSFER INFORMATION WORLD WIDE. SO PLEASE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE CONNECT ME WITH AN AUTHORITY. IF ACROTERION IS AN AUTHORITY THEN PLEASE NOTIFY ME AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND I WILL INFORM HIM OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PRESENTED TO ME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Home skinny (talk • contribs) 04:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^^^That is the weirdest thing I have seen on Wikipedia in awhile....and I have seen some weird stuff on here. Some people have WAAAAY too much time on their hands. :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm operating under the assumption that my chain is being yanked, but I await further developments with lively interest. I would note that I'm entirely certain the NSA keeps an eye on Wikipedias of all languages - it's not hard - Google does it quite well, so the NSA should find it easy. Acroterion _(talk) 19:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, OK. You're talking to an administrator IN ALL CAPS on an encyclopedia anybody can edit, so it's not hard to transfer information of any kind, including yours. If you wish to email me, there's a link on the left side that says "Email this editor". Otherwise, here is fine. Acroterion _(talk) 12:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is Harper's unreliable? It is an esteemed cultural/political magazine in the same group as the New Yorker, The Nation, and The Progressive. So, in your estimation any magazine is unreliable. Where am I suppose to get my facts? Newspapers? Well, what about the New York Times. Am I free to use that? Or, I bet you want me to strictly use Fox News materials...that's hard-hitting journalism... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeftChicago (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the Index, not the magazine. The Index is usually based on another source - making it a tertiary source, if such a thing exists. As I said, I enjoy Harper's, and subscribe intermittently. You're making a fairly startling assertion, and I'd expect multiple sources, preferably those the Index used. Maybe the CIA explains all those @&*%! Pokemon articles. Acroterion _(talk) 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very good point. I will add the sources the index used. I will remember this in the future. This is my first time adding materials....I'm a student in learning, if you will --LeftChicago (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may expect to have your assertions challenged, FYI, but I'm leaving it alone for now. Discussions should take place on the talk page, not as part of a revert war. Check out WP:3RR for the policies. Also, remember that the Index is an essay in irony. Acroterion _(talk) 22:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]