Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Thanks for the warning, I actually didn't realize I was breaking the 3-revert rule. So I do appreciate that. And please do not be to hard on my new friend Pink Oboe, he told me he has a hairy ass, is addicted to Twinkies and he loves the United States of America so much that not being an American is just eating him up inside, so he tries to hide his affection and love for the USA with anti-American comments. He is going through alot, I am going to pray for him.] (]) 13:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning, I actually didn't realize I was breaking the 3-revert rule. So I do appreciate that. And please do not be to hard on my new friend Pink Oboe, he told me he has a hairy ass, is addicted to Twinkies and he loves the United States of America so much that not being an American is just eating him up inside, so he tries to hide his affection and love for the USA with anti-American comments. He is going through alot, I am going to pray for him.] (]) 13:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:Ah, see now. I just knew you were the kinda guy who had problems counting to three. And anyone who prays just has to be suspect. --] (]) 13:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Revision as of 13:34, 14 November 2011
Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.
If you leave a message for me: I will respond here. Either add this page to your watchlist or ask me to notify you of a response on your talk page.
If I leave a message for you: Please respond on your talk page. I will add it to my watchlist, so you don't need to notify me, unless I don't respond when a response is expected.
This helps keep discussion easily readable and in one place.
Sorry, missed your first message. The article I deleted had nothing to do with football, Ottawa or the coach named Shaun Harris. It was pure vandalism, probably aimed at somebody in the same classroom named Shaun Harris. There's no prejudice against re-creation of an appropriate article. Acroterion(talk)01:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Why did you delete my defention of the word trublem, It is a group effort when a word like Brangelina is allowed?
Trublem
Combination of problem and trouble.
I have a trublem with my cashflow, planning or assignment.
Trublems plural = trubli Plural or trublem
combination of troubles and problems
trublematic
a combination of troublesome and problematic
Patent nonsense.
Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism and hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material. This excludes the sandbox and pages in the user namespace. In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply.
{{db-g1}}, {{db-nonsense}}
Many people understand trublem as a new jargon and it has a historic relevance due to the Economic woes at the present.
Misplaced Pages is not a host for things you made up one day and wish to promote. Brangelina is a term that has achieved wide circulation in major media. Your neologism has not, and is therefore ineligible for inclusion. You'll have to find some other way to promote your neologism. Acroterion(talk)11:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete of Article
A long time ago I know, back in 20:04, 25 June 2008 Acroterion (talk | contribs) deleted "Dalinda" (G12: Blatant copyright infringement) you deleted the page. We are actually the copyright holders. We would like to re-construct this page again but we would rather work on you in producing an acceptable page rather than you deleting it due to your ignorance. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albal21 (talk • contribs)
I won't reinstate the page as it was: it was an infringement on www.hossamramzy.com/cds/dalinda.htm. It cannot be reinstated with the same text, since the web content was written and intended as advertising,and is therefore not suitable for inclusion even if the copyright issue was successfully resolved. There is no prejudice to re-creation from appropriate sources in an appropriate tone. You'll need to use coverage in independent media as sources rather than a promotional website. Acroterion(talk)11:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet; since you've flagged it, we'll keep an eye on them and if they tag-team we can do an SPI. Hope all is well with you these days. Acroterion(talk)13:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I just tagged it as a sock. I will keep an eye out on them. Jonnybooth was editing the article the past couple days with bad and incorrect information, then today it was Algibson with the same edits. But it seems Algibson has more edits, so he might be the sockpuppeteer, though I could be wrong.
Things are good here. Slowly getting back into the swing of things. Trying not to kill my neighbors though. They have two dogs, which they like to leave outside in all sorts of weather (hot, cold, rain, whatever) and they bark all hours of the night. Then they bring them in about 9am when all hope of a full night's sleep is long since lost. But I think we are about to get rid of them....I hope. Then sleep can resume per usual. :) Otherwise though, things are going well and life is good. :) Hope things are going well in your neck of the woods and Irene didn't cause many problems. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Contents of 9/11 FLT 77 Page
I was editing the page for Flt 77, the aircraft hijacked on 9/11. Your site claims that information must be verifiable. I have verification of every change that needs to be made regarding the phone calls Theodore Olson claims to have received from his wife Barbara Olson on 9/11 regarding the hijacking of Flt 77. The verification is from our own FBI and is documented in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. If evidence produced by the prosecution representing the United States of America in a court of law is not verifiable then nothing is. I demand that you allow these changes to be made in order to reflect the facts regarding this incident! Your unwillingness to allow these changes to be made to reflect the facts reflects on the credibility of your website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcounte (talk • contribs) 18:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Your edits amount to a synthesis of separate pieces of information to draw a conclusion that is not reached in reliable sources. We have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for fringe views, and I will note that this particular theory concerning AA 77 is generally rejected even among 9/11 Truth activists. Acroterion(talk)18:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Thor
Sorry, I have to get back to that. Someone templated me with a claim of a personal attack, while I am doing is pointing out that Tenebrae is continuously making false claims. Please tell him to stop spreading lies, so that this can end. Thanks --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Tenebrae is not innocent in this matter. He insinuated in his report that OnlyForQuadell's edits were malicious when they turned out not to be. Tenebrae also used OnlyForQuadell's statement "it's just assumed that you bite newcomers" to accuse the editor of being too familiar with Misplaced Pages and perhaps having a previous account—a malicious one—when there is no solid evidence of that. Tenebrae's continued responses to OnlyForQuadell was essentially an egging-on when he could have stopped responding after TriipleThreat and I talked to OnlyForQuadell about the use of brackets. OnlyForQuadell did not keep a cool head, to be sure, but Tenebrae did not help the situation. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, and was of the opinion that it could be left alone, but since he specifically ignored warnings to drop the issue (and I am of the opinion that OFQ was the principal instigator here: it is clear that he's not new to WP and has a fair level of knowledge about policy), blocking was the last resort. I agree that Tenebrae could have walked away, and specifically note that I've declined to block on 3RR, as that behavior has been satisfactorily resolved. Acroterion(talk)19:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
To Acroterion: Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to wade through all this and come to a decision that I think protects me from further verbal abuse for now. I know that being an admin means taking on lots of additional responsibility that takes time and energy away from one's own editing, and I'm sure I'm speaking on behalf of many, many editors when I say we appreciate all the extra work you do.
I'm not sure why Erik, who has sided with blocked editor OnlyForQuadell throughout all this, is being so vociferous and getting involved so much. Given that OnlyForQuadell's remarks are those of someone who is not a newbie, as you say yourself, and given both his and Erik's penchant for boldfacing the first words in some of their posts, yes, I have what I believe are reasonable suspicions. In any event, I thank you again for the help in getting away from the verbal abuse that started with OFQ's very first comment.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Let's not go there, shall we? I appreciate the kind words, but I see Erik's concerns in good faith, and I've noted that I partially agree with him. I think the best thing for you to do is to move on to other things: had you disengaged, this would have probably amounted to nothing. It's hard to let go sometimes, but this afternoon's business is taking up a remarkable amount of time for what was originally a near null edit. Acroterion(talk)20:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Tenebrae, I do not appreciate the insinuation that OnlyForQuadell and I are in cahoots. Please assume good faith. While OnlyForQuadell has a temper, I did not think it was fair for him to be subject to reports and admin attention. Obviously he was able to engage in discussion with me and TriiipleThreat. Why didn't you walk away? Like you said on your talk page, you will respond to his false statements. WP:CIVIL says, "In general, be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility." You had basically approached him as if he was suspect of doing something wrong. It is a matter where you need to let insults roll off of you, disengage from edit warring, and bring the topic back onto the content. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Aside from everything else, he appears to be an experienced user masquerading as a newbie. As noted above, I'm not the only who who detected that. Why do you seem OK with that?
Incidentally, I did not assume bad faith; I asked for an edit summary. Politely. After another editor had reerted him. Yet he took a stand of, "I'm not going to tell you my edit and you can't make me!" That's a principled stand? For you to justify that behavior and to be OK with his insults — which he should retract — is beyond me. It is simply not right.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know all that. You'll note that I supplied the diff that started the whole thing, that OFQ seems to feel is a lie. I was, however, trying a little de-escalation, which isn't going to work if you insist on continuing the argument on your behalf. So, please do your part toward de-escalation, and stop argung with me. He's requested an unblock, and the reviewing administrator isn't going to be helped by you two going back and forth a few more rounds. Acroterion(talk)20:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I will try and walk away. Please do not let him falsely call me "liar" anymore. It's not right to let him punch me in the face and tell me not to defend myself if someone else won't defend me. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
True, I shouldnt of changed it really and from what i remember the french war minister , Daladier was trying to purchase as many foreign war planes as the economy could withstand. But yes i agree; Armed Forces is fine in general. Goldblooded (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Why Did You Delete That Page?
Sir/Ma'am,
You "speedily deleted" the page I created "Ship Your Car now, LLC". This is unfair. I am not trying to promote a company. I am trying to shed light on a new way people can ship cars. I don't know if you have ever tried to ship a car before, but the industry is disgusting. This company is different, and should be brought to the American public's attention.
This company is a hybrid Carrier-Broker. It is one of a kind. Shouldn't prototypes be visible on wikipedia? Please email me personally if possible at <redacted> as I do not really fully comprehend this wikipedia messaging thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rysherms (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a research project where advancements in an area of technology were made. The research colleagues that ded the work should have their credentials findable in Misplaced Pages. They are notable as they were in the news and on public television. What would be the proper format for an article about this, and can you help with the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebeckbeck (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The article gave no indication of notability, and gave no context for whatever the advance was, nor for how it was noticed in the media. In any case, posting a resume wouldn't be appropriate: if the subject is notable, the article should be about whatever the topic was, mentioning the people who did the research, rather than the other way around. Acroterion(talk)21:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I saw similar pages in Misplaced Pages. If I submitted an abstract to you here, would you help me compose it to be article-worthy?
Mikebeckbeck (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I challenge you all to find a document dated prior september 2011 that explains the structure of the collapsed WTC towers of New York. However, if you are not able or otherwise willing to do that, then please do not delete sourced information which explains that structure. Thank you. --Uikku (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The date of a report should make no difference, and in fact, all the high-quality sources post-date 9/11. An absence of information does not excuse resorting to poor-quality sources to reference dubious content. If no reliable sources exist, the article should be silent on the subject. Acroterion(talk)17:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)(edit conflict) Sorry, but I have to agree with Acroterion on this one. Unless you can find first-hand written, reliable third party sourced, the information isn't going up. Might I ask, that you wait to dig open old wounds until September 12, 2011? The next few days kinda suck for everyone in the US (and around the world), bringing back very painful memories of a horrible day, so wait to edit war on a source on that page until September 12. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Would you believe that there was a Martian ambassador in WTC-1 if NIST told you so? Did you also notice that you deleted two independent references and you called both sources poor-quality? Uikku (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Is there some sort of problem with sources after 9/11/2001? Yes, I deleted two poor-quality references. The NIST report makes direct reference to original design documents, with no reference to any substantial concrete core structure, apart from the usual concrete floor slabs. The references are mistaken in their assertion, unsupported by scholarly research.. Acroterion(talk)17:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the Martian ambassador. See, you cannot verify his existence, because he was smashed into small bits when WTC-1 collapsed. But not only because of that. Nobody had written an article about him before that horrible event. If someone wrote an article about him after 9/11, that would be dubious. The exact details about WTC towers has been a subject of controversy and the trustworthiness and abilities of NIST have been on stake too. But if you verify the content of the old document that NIST refers to, then you have a high quality source there. Uikku (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but if you wish to argue that post 9/11 sources must be excluded because of the existence of a conspiracy, or that scholarly articles must be ignored in favor of poor-quality sources that support your point of view then you've come to the wrong place. Misplaced Pages doesn't work that way. Acroterion(talk)18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
If I interpret that what you said this way: "There are some institutions that Misplaced Pages will not ever call into question." Is that correct? Uikku (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Another way to phrase it is that Misplaced Pages doesn't give much credence to fringe theorists that reject material that is well-documented in mainstream thought and in reputable scientific press. Misplaced Pages gives great weight to the work of research institutions and peer-reviewed journals, and nobody outside of conspiracy theorists have ever called the NIST report into question. Acroterion(talk)21:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, and I would drop the whole martian thing (do not readd the picture, fair use images aren't allowed on talk pages) it kinda kills the point you are trying to make. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
One of the ones I know well, since I use alot of images on radio station pages (and the Frank Buckles and Stephens City pages). :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello
I am not sure. The name I am using now was an old one that I nolonger use (til now I guess). For some reason when I signed in today, I was signed in to my old account (the one I am on now). So I signed out and signed back in and it took me to my more established account (the one I normally use). But then I got of my computer and came back later today to use wiki and apparently my computer didn't remember my info so I had to sign in again and it brought me to my old account. So, I signed out and then signed in again but for some reason I cannot access by "established" account and can only use my older one. (the one I am using now) So I really don't know what is going on.--$1LENCE D0600D (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, since you'd rather be on your main account, I'm going to block this account (autoblock disabled), so that this doesn't happen again. There's no prejudice to your primary account, this just avoids problems for you. But please stop shouting at people and threatening to make content forks if you don't get your way. Acroterion(talk)02:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I probably would have never realized that an extra 0 was the problem. Also, I dont know how to "shout" through a computer. I capitalized that message to make sure that the reader saw it. There is no reason at all why the battles cannot be linked by the Texas Revolution template. I dont think that just because "some" scholars ignore these events we should do the same. The Vietnam War template would be a good example of a combination of military, naval and aerial operations in one template, why should we have a seperate standard in this case? Why do we need a seperate template for the naval battles when the one concerning the military battles is so short. Its easier just to combine them is it not? (have all the links in one place) Whats wrong with that? (that last bit is all rhetorical, for you anyway, not Karanacs and that other guy)--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Glad to clear up the account business, but you should know that shouting is done with the cap lock key on, and is considered rude under virtually all circumstances. As for the template dispute, it appears that consensus runs against you: sometimes that happens, and locking down the caps key and yelling isn't a good way to change any minds. Acroterion(talk)03:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand, I see now that attempting to add the naval battle links to the Texas Revolution template is pointless due to some users whose opinion is more important than historical fact or accuracy. So I will create a new template soley for the naval battles. I dont want to do this because it is unecessary when we already have the texas Revolution template but its the only thing I can think of. With that said, hopefully this so called "edit war" will be over, maybe you can tell the others for me. Thanks.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, no, if you create your own personal content fork, I'll delete it as a creation against consensus. You don't get to have your own preferred content in defiance of consensus, especially when there's a live (or soon will be) RfC, as Karanacs explained to you. You'll be free to make constructive comments there. Acroterion(talk)03:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Since it's a public-domain government site, it's more like plagiarism than a copyright violation. Your link doesn't work (try again), but I would suggest aggressive pruning and rewriting it down to a stub if necessary, or the application of a hatnote describing the source this article contains public domain text from www.uscg.gov/blah/foo. Acroterion(talk)13:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I saw this, so I added the relevant template to the references section. Technically, that's "enough" to handle the plagiarism issue. The article still needs some major trimming; the biggest concern for me is that the tone is wrong (unsurprisingly, given the main source, it's overly promotional and POV); I'll tag the concerns at the top of article and add a note on talk, but I don't have the time or interest to actually fix the problem myself. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
With all due respect Acroterion.
Please rollback the Velociter Solutions wiki page that you have deleted.
I really want to work on that page and add the valuable information.
Waiting for positive reply.
I understand why you deleted the MyEntre.Net page for not meeting notability standards. I failed to include why this online community has been important to the state of Iowa- this was my fault. How can I add additional evidence to demonstrate the notability of this program? I cannot find this page's talk page and/or where to properly cite my case for inclusion. If it helps, here are three examples of why this online community has been of significant importance to Iowa entrepreneurs:
Additionally, MyEntre.Net was the first service provider in Iowa to offer webinars for small business owners back in 2007. To date, they have over 100 recorded webinars for viewing complete with dates. I can also find many news articles (not just press releases, per the rules) which cite these important contributions and should provide adequate reference to meet Wiki standards. Thank you very much for your patience, consideration and help with this (I'm a newbie to this, and trying my best!!).
The thing to remember about notability is that Misplaced Pages, as a tertiary source, judges whether something is notable based on whether it has received significant coverage by multiple, independent secondary sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books or the like. Take a look at WP:CORP and WP:NOTE for more. The reasoning noted in your message are fine, but aren't much help on Misplaced Pages, since they're self-referential: you need to supply evidence that the organization's been noticed by others in a substantial manner. In other words, an organization is notable on Misplaced Pages because people other than Misplaced Pages editors and the subject think so. Acroterion(talk)14:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
This helps clarify, where should I cite secondary resources? Do I post links to various source here to make my case or is there a more appropriate location? Also, I should fully disclose that I do have some conflict of interest, as I am employed by this program currently. However, I believe that after I demonstrate the value of this innovative program and it's services, others can freely challenge my point of view. Thanks again for the speedy reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob.J.Will (talk • contribs) 14:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest that you write a draft in your userspace at User:Rob.J.Will/sandbox, where you can take your time about getting referencing and such right without worries regarding deletion. You should read WP:COI: while conflict-of-interest editing is discouraged, due to the need for editorial distance from the subject, it isn't prohibited: you just need to observe the best practices and be scrupulous about non-promotion and good sourcing. I can help you with reference formatting: it's a steep learning curve. You want high-quality references that deal specifically and in some depth about the program, preferably in major publications of national standing. I've dropped the deleted content into the sandbox. Acroterion(talk)14:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I was expecting the Seussians to call, maybe leave some tracts, have some green eggs and ham, talk about my relationship with the Whos and maybe consider the teachings of the Lorax. No problem. Acroterion(talk)17:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
You might have to change your name, then: Multihuedmike? (Although orange-y or orangeish is preferable to green in both ham and eggs, in my opinion) Acroterion(talk)18:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Argh, I don't: it's right across from the Episcopal church and the Masonic Hall, but no pic among the images of that day just across the intersection. Reckon I'll have to go back. A hardship, but I'll have to bear it Although it'll not be real soon, unfortunately Acroterion(talk)02:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
With apologies for acting in advance of consulting you, I have increased the duration of the block on this user to indefinite (with the intention that in this case, indefinite actually mean permanent). The edits perpetrated by this account on the morning of September 11, 2011 were despicable and in my view, this individual should not be allowed to return to editing after 48 hours, or indeed, at any time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem, I found it detestable too, but having spent a lot of time recently dealing with 9/11-related vandals, Truthers and the like, I was being deliberately moderate lest I fall into a "block 'em all and let God sort them out" mode. I'm fine with indef/permanent on this one (my first intention), given the insistence on promoting their theory. I appreciate the review. Acroterion(talk)00:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
WTC7 edit
"While controlled demolition of WTC 7 is a popular theme among conspiracy theorists, it is not supported in any reliable sources, nor is it given the slightest credence by major media outlets"
Au contraire. The demolition theory is supported by many reliable sources and since when did the likes of Fox News lend credibility to anything. But I thank you for explaining the mindset of Misplaced Pages's censorship junkies. Even the dogs on the street know that WTC 7 was demolished. Calling me a conspiracy theorist is meaningless - the official story of 9/11 also depends on a conspiracy theory. Anyway you carry on with your "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome; I did my best to try and rattle your obtuse brains.
Excellent, thanks! :) Now I just have to wait until the new station (WZFC) decides what they want to do format-wise. They only changed their callsign today. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
14KT
Hi Acroterion,
I saw that you deleted the page on the artist 14KT. I have crafted a short and simple page in my user space. I would love if you could give me some feedback.
Please can you clarify your edit of the above entry.
You mentioned only including 'material that can be backed up by references and is of an encyclopedic nature'.
Please can you clarify? We were only part the way through editing this and have yet to add links etc
The information added was completely factual and historical. If people want to know about the school then each and everyone piece of information provides factual information which is relevant.
This is not peacockery and if you knew the UK education system then you would understand the relevancy of the information that has been included.
Many wikipedia entries include historical information and information about an organisations developments over time. If this were a company then you may talk about mergers or acquisitions over the years or stock market listings and previous names etc as that would be part of the history or fabric of the organisation and therefore relevant. As a school, the information that we have included tells the story of the development of the organisation over time.
The reason that it was added in one block is because we have been working on it offline and did not want to add something that was incomplete.
I removed an edit by an IP that was defamatory to a teacher; although it was referenced, it violated Misplaced Pages's biographical rules. Before that, the IP removed material, which I did not revert: you are free to edit as you see fit. You can't see the remvoed edit, as defamation is deleted from the public history. My actions had nothing to do with your edits, but I felt it best to leave a note about references: all material on Misplaced Pages must be backed up by references that can be verified, and your edits weren't. Acroterion(talk)11:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an edit filter manager, for good and excellent reasons of a lack of competency. While I could make myself one, it's better to leave a note on the relevant talkpage, so somebody with skillz can fine-tune the code if needed. Acroterion(talk)02:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you please tell me why you deleted my beemp3 page? Please restore it! I wasn't advertising! I dont support beemp3 anyone as they supply links to illegal downloads of music. Please restore it somehow! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahk11 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
It was obviously promotional and was an obvious copy of copyrighted content: since this is a free-content website, we cannot keep material that is copyrighted elsewhere. The source material you copied was intended as advertisement, regardless of your motives, and was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Acroterion(talk)01:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - there were forest fires in the area that gave them a pink tinge, which I've scaled back a little as it appeared strange. They lasted a surprisingly long time: I thought mammatus clouds were momentary. Acroterion(talk)04:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
This user Bbb23 is vandalizing the wickipidia page of Adriana Ferreyr. He has taken off numerables references one by one and then put the page up for deletion for a lack of referenceces. He has also deleted the talk page that an administrator have created for discussion of the page. Best, Jane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane77765 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion and removal of poor-quality references does not constitute vandalism. Discuss the issues appropriately in the deletion discussion. Acroterion(talk)01:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
CR.I.S.P. Deletion
Hello,
you deleted a page that i created, that is about a new European Project. Can you please state me the reasons for doing it? I thoroughly explained the reasons of the creation, and i asked for some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldTrafford27 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
deleting the bio about my client the king of bass
is interesting he fits just about all those requirments
you spoken of what proof do we need to show you to have him on
here,he is with a indie label.is even in the music charts actually..
and only thing i can think of hasn't won a grammy award , which you cant tell me
thats what has to do when alot of people hasn't and i notice there on here..so
email me at my personal email<redacted>,this is major disrespect.we believe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manner57 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
See WP:BAND for requirements for musicians; iTunes is not a metric of notability on Misplaced Pages. Additionally, and more importantly, the article mentioned a great deal of unreferenced personal information that is not suitable for inclusion in a biography without reliable sourcing. Acroterion(talk)22:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I of course agree with your recent revert of an edit this user made to The Bible. I took a quick look at this user's history and came across this which combined with your revert makes me a little concerned. Do you have any advice? Slrubenstein | Talk13:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Usernames containing things like "unbiased," "neutral," "truth" and so on are red flags to being with, much less a declared agenda concerning religion and an apparent problem involving Jews. A number of editors seem to be keeping an eye on UN's edits, so I'd a advise a wait-and-see approach. Further activity of this kind would be clear disruptive editing. Acroterion(talk)21:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Allen J and his Amazin Muzak
You have had a good deal to do with this prolific socker. As far I can see there has never been an SPI, though various groups have been tagged as socks of each other. As he is still active (3 new socks this month), I have collected all the socks I could find and raised WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Songboy193, so any new infestation can be listed there. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for following up on that: I've been busy in RL and have had little time to do more than answer messages. I'll keep an eye out for more: it seems like an edit filter could be constructed for this guy. Acroterion(talk)13:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
That's what I thought it might be when I saw it, but I've lacked the time to follow up with the article's creator. EBSCO's a research database. It's the kind of article that results from some of the more laissez-faire approaches to academic assignments on WP. AT least the post-abortion emotional health article is a little more encyclopedic in character. Acroterion(talk)13:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
That makes vandalism #274 to my userpage. I am of the understanding that when I hit 500, I get the all expense paid trip to Fiji, but I admit that "maybe" I misread that somewhere. Trusilver03:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
It's probably more like a free 45-minute refueling stop in Fiji as an added perk for your full-fare flight to Australia. As I understand it you got doused with insecticide by Fijian customs inspectors in the good old days when it was an obligatory stop on the way. Acroterion(talk)03:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I was looking into that policeman who pepper-sprayed the women in NYC the other day. Anonymous has posted his address and phone number on some hidden corner of the net. I think I better tell you I found it here, I bet we have a rule against that. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Go to your preferences menu: select Gadgets, then look under the "Browsing" header and check "Twinkle." You'll then get a TW tab when working in pages. It will change according to the namespace you're working in. For articles, if you select "Tag" from the dropdown menu, you'll get a further menu of ways to tag articles. There are more ways to do things, like doing it by section, and you should resist the urge to do drive-by tagging, but moderate use is helpful.
You're not bothering me - your note above was timely and appropriate for instance: that situation was intrusive and clearly wrong, something We Just Don't Do, and needed admin intervention. I find, as you know, that I'm getting much busier in Real Life, so my time on WP will be limited, I think. Acroterion(talk)15:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
artisan baking delete
The article that I posted was written entirely by me and is not copyrighted. I posted it on my blog, but have never published it. I have no idea how to cite my years of experience. I would like to request a reinstatement of the article.
Kevroy7 (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Material previously published elsewhere on the Internet under copyright cannot be copied into Misplaced Pages, which is a free-content encyclopedia, with its material copyrighted under the CC-by-SA copyleft. Since Blogspot content is not explicitly under the CC-by-SA copyleft, it may not be copied verbatim into Misplaced Pages, whether you originally wrote it or not. An absence of any copyright notice effectively means that the content is copyrighted for WP's purposes (note that you can post a CC-by-SA notice on your content per this , which deals with the copyright angle), but there are other issues involved.
Blogs are not usually reliable sources under Misplaced Pages policy; content should be sourced to references that have been published under some form of editorial control. That is not to say that your expertise isn't useful here: quite the contrary, but you should cite sources that have previously been published rather than using your own thoughts on the subject. Your referenced material can be informed by your personal expertise. Please remember that Misplaced Pages isn't a how-to guide: we're not in the business of teaching people how to bake or providing recipes, but we are interested in writing encyclopedic articles on the topic. You clearly have knowledge that can be imparted here, and I'd be glad to help you out. How about starting off small, with a summary article, constructed in your usespace, that can be moved to article space when it's mature? You can start at User:Kevroy7/sandbox, and I'd be glad to assist. Acroterion(talk)22:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. You know, I after I wrote the above, somewhere in the back of my mind I thought Google might own the copyright to all blog posts. Why don't I start by deleting the article from my blog. It is never viewed there and so is lost work. The idea here isn't for notoriety, it is to share information and hopefully start a dialogue. People will disagree with some of what I've written, and God knows there's a lot of information missing, but at least it's a beginning.
Most of what I've written is from personal experience working in the field and talking with everyone from bakers to scientists, and to "cite" published works would, at least in some instances, be a lie. Do I hunt down published works and mush them onto my definitions?
I appreciate your offer of help and look forward to working with you on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevroy7 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any need to delete the content from the blog page: just post the CC-by-SA notice that Google recommends on it. That said, it's important to remember that Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source, which takes material published in secondary sources (books, news articles, scholarly papers and the like, which are under editorial review), and uses them as references for the encyclopedic content. Your text is a primary source, a distillation of your experience. While primary sources can be used, they are discouraged for most situations other than the presentation of unvarnished facts (Rutherford B. Hayes was born in 1822, that sort of thing). I, for example, am a licensed architect with 30 years' experience. While I could write about quite a lot concerning the practical practice of architecture, I can't on Misplaced Pages, since my source is myself. What I can do is to write about architecture using my personal experience to judge what is important and what is not (and what is bullshit and what is not), and to source it to materials in my library. Your description of "hunt down published works and mush them onto my definitions" is, in fact, a fairly accurate description of the process. Your experience will inform your writing, including what is doubtful and what is not.
Misplaced Pages has a lot of enthusiastic amateurs. The sourcing requirements spring from the fact that a lot of people are writing about subjects in which they are not experts. This requirement ensures that:
Topics reflect mainstream opinions and knowledge, rather than fringe beliefs
That other editors can, if necessary, verify the material
That readers who want to pursue further study are guided to in-depth references on the topic
That a non-expert doesn't insert their own opinions
The role of an expert is to use their knowledge of the field to improve the topic and weed out subtle problems or to discard or de-emphasize obsolete or tangential views. This keeps the Randy in Boise-type editors from taking over the subject. Misplaced Pages is strong in popular culture and hardware, less so in other areas such as the visual arts (a peeve of mine), and in areas that might, to borrow from your title, be considered "artisanal." See blacksmith for an example of a voluminous but weakly-sourced article on a subject of making. While we try to avoid writing "how-to" articles, there are appropriate places for a description of the process of making a given thing without turning the subject into a recipe book, written by someone who thoroughly knows the topic and the literature. That's the sort of thing that experts such as yourself can contribute.
It's easy for Misplaced Pages editors to imply that contributions from editors such as yourself aren't valued, and to discourage participation based on internal processes or from a natural unfamiliarity with WP editing process and the 10,000 pages of Rules. Thus my offer of help: people who wish to contribute in good faith to the encyclopedia are valuable, adn worth encouraging. Acroterion(talk)23:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I have just helped to create an article about The Journal Cafe in Melbourne which you have listed for speedy deletion.
I am not sure why this has been done and was wondering if you could explain a little further.
The Journal cafe is an institution in Melbourne and deserves to have a listing. It has been noted in many newspapers, food guides, web articles by publishing houses etc around Australia and internationally and has even featured in design publications in the past.
The article has been written as neutral as possible to show a little but of its history how it came about etc. It actually copies the direct formatting of a few other cafes/bars that are listed in wikipedia.
I am a little confused as to how they get a standing on wikipedia and the Journal Cafe does not?
There are also other cafes and local eateries with no notable listings that appear on wikipedia. I am a little confused as to how they also get listed.
I have also cited 1 newspaper publication to keep it simple. Should I be adding more of these.
In your opinion, how can I make this article better? I have read as much as I can on wiki about it and still end up here.
Your help would be greatly appreciated and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
regards, David
As the article was written, it appeared to describe a nice, but not unusual restaurant, frequented by celebrities. That isn't enough to establish (or claim) notability. If there is indeed coverage on the scale you describe above, then it may well be notable, but that would be established by coverage from publications outside of Melbourne, indicating a national standing rather than local notoriety. Coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald would be better for establishing more-than-local notability than The Age, which could reasonably be expected to cover any moderately good Melbourne restaurant. The article is written in a promotional tone: not exactly advertising, but too far toward feature writing than is appropriate for an encyclopedia. It needs a rewrite and references that indicate real notability, whether for food or design. The number of celebrities who dine there is entirely irrelevant: notability is not established by association, the subject must stand on its own. If you wish, I can put the content in a sandbox in your userspace for you to work on at User:Dave kappa/sandbox. Acroterion(talk)00:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
It would be great if you could pop it into the sandbox Acroterion. Thanks very much. I'll see if I can make it better over the week or so. Certainly is harder then I would have thought. Is there anyone who might have the time to check it once I think it might be ready in a week or so?
I was starting to enter an article about my company and even before I finished I saw you notification for deletion because we do not meet wikipedia's criterias.
I understand this as I am a new user and my article is not yet finished.
Is it possible that my article is not visible as long it is not finished so I can work it correctly and make necessary to include all your expectation ?
Thanks to reply to my talk page.
Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphael Perez (talk • contribs) 01:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Mic Righteous
I do not understand how you can delete the page under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion because 'the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant' when it CLEARLY states he is a UK RAPPER! Very ignorant. Notify me of your response on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiftz619 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I did review the comments, and it appears to me than there could be an article on the band, provided it asserts and substantiates the claims you made on the talkpage, and provided it's not a copyright violation: the version posted was a word-for-word copy of copyrighted material, which isn't permissible. I encourage you to rewrite the article, making sure to cover the band's claims to notability (as seen in WP:BAND and try again, carefully avoiding copyright issues. Acroterion(talk)19:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Assistance
Hello. I was wondering if you could perhaps help me with something? I recently filed what I felt was an obvious SP report , but an admin later closed it down because he felt that the evidence wasn't conclusive. Well the same user has since that time returned with two additional SPs and openly admitted that he is all of the same usernames in this edit. He also appears to be using the accounts, among other things, to avoid breaching 3RR. I understand that this is all against wiki policy but I'm not quite sure what to do here. As an experienced admin, your help would be greatly appreciated. Soupforone (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Obvious sock is obvious: I see Fastily took care of the blocks and the protection. I'll watch out for more. They can't possibly have "forgotten" their password for two accounts in one day. Acroterion(talk)00:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if you could please take a look at this deletion and tell me what I messed up or if it might be an oversight. I want to figure out how to get the justification right so i'm not wasting my time chasing down great images that might be objectionable. Seems like you're busy from what I read so I understand if you don't have time - thanks. Teda13 (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The entries so far have been advertising. You may not advertise on Misplaced Pages. Any encyclopedia article on the subject should assert notability by reference to substantial reports in independent media. Acroterion(talk)11:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I am not a troll, and that is very offensive. Yes, I am short and it is somewhat unsettling that you know that, but I am not a troll; I was simply asking you why the "Kutta" page was changed. Deleting my question is censorship; see WP:NOT . Second of all, @Petiatil, you said you were there to help out in case I had a problem. Whatever happened to all the WikiAdmin older brother/sister hospitality you were displaying before. And @Acroterion, no personal attacks, ie; "...who likes to leave cleaver remarks". I'm sending this link to other WikiAdmins so they can assess the sich for themselves. - 90.148.10.22 (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC) - Yahya Al-Shiddazi (WikiReformer)
Indeed. I've sent the most recent IP incarnation off for a week. Do we have an SPI or LTA for this guy lying around somewhere? Looks like a ban may be called for. Favonian (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
That's the third or fourth in the last few days: looks like they're trying to branch out from harassing Jeff3000.I'll see if I can put together an LTA or SPI report when I have a little time to research it. Acroterion(talk)13:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Listen, do you think he's just kidding about the troll = short thing? I was up all night tossing and turning trying to decide. He's either clueless or a master of irony. EEng (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Acroterion! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
The IP is from the US and the user claims to be German, but based on their straighforward lack of interest in respecting BLP policy, I think they can be indeffed. If they have a sincere repentance and wish to be unblocked they can post an unblock request discussing their understanding of the policy and what was wrong with their edits. I hadn't realized that you blocked for 31 hours; I don't mind giving them a chance to repent. Acroterion(talk)23:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Because it was pure vandalism, followed by a stream of explicit abuse in its defense. I therefore blocked your mates. Since you've been more polite, your editing privileges remain intact. Acroterion(talk)03:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I've registered it™ and itṨ™ as a trademark but more importantly it™ and was wondering if I could post it on here. If so, it was deleted a while ago. I have also uploaded registered images to the trademarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintjamais (talk • contribs) 09:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Unless a product or company associated with the term is notable according to WP:NOTE, a bare trademark would not be eligible for inclusion, and in any case an article title would never use the TM superscript. Acroterion(talk)11:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
None at all: it's more useful than the class for three and four year olds that I deleted. I have to step away for the moment, but will do the redirect when I get back. Acroterion(talk)12:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
External Links
Hello Acroterion,
I wanted to set up some external links in the reference section of the "Private Islands" article. I noticed, that it's not possible at the moment.
Is there a chance to edit it somehow? I would like to link to articles like:
I know there were a couple of conflicts in the past, but maybe you can check out, if http://www.privateislandnews.com/ fits the demands of wikipedia. The page reflects the subject "private islands" all over the world.
I'm not sure why it's not possible: is the site blacklisted? You should review WP:ELNO, since the power generation link goes to a blog, which is not appropriate. The site as a whole is perhaps on the borderline of acceptability as a single link. Links to such sites should be employed sparingly, if at all. The article was the scene of spamming in the past, so you'll want to tread carefully, particularly if you're connected with the website: see WP:ADV. Acroterion(talk)17:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Acroterion. I'm just wondering why you changed my speedy deletion rationale for this article from A3 to A10. Even if A10 suffices, why did A3 mot suit it? Metricopolus (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Either worked, but since we already have an article on the subject, I though A10 would be apropos. I would have made it a redirect, as the OP appears to have intended, but the deletion discussion is at the moment headed toward deletion, so I thought I'd minimize housekeeping. Acroterion(talk)12:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
173.64.109.64 is a block evading sockpuppet that needs to be indef blocked, not just 24 hours
Interestingly, the IP is currently blocked, presumably the result of an autoblock, since no new block appears in the block log since my 8/24 block. I've made it a week, which would be the usual escalation in such a case. A little more investigation by a checkuser might be in order given the autoblock to see if there's a sock that should be linked. Acroterion(talk)14:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The GNIS system appears to be down....here amd trying to click the link to Search Domestic Names provides a HTTP 404 Not Found response...do you know if this is temporary?...or have you no idea?--MONGO04:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I haven't worked with GNIS much, but my experience with NRIS (the National Register database) indicates that it'll be down until Monday morning. I assume the two are equally fussy and prone to odd error messages. Acroterion(talk)15:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It's back up now....must have been down for upgrades...sorry to bother you about it, I thought you used it more but must have you confused with Mike Cline.--MONGO03:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Me neither....whenever I tell folks I was born in Montana, they automatically assume I can fly fish (must be derived from too many viewings of A River Runs Through It)...I can't...in fact, I'm a terrible fisherman...on my last fishing venture near Jackson Lake dam, my Nebraska cohort caught 4 cutthroat and I managed 2 Mountain suckers...BTW...Mike is is a natural...I've seen pictures of some of his catchings. Anyway, I've become used to using the GNIS data as a ref for coordinates....and it is almost always dead on (as I have cross referenced it with other sources), but I have never understood why their elevation data is usually so divergent from the USGS Quads and reported altitudes for various geographical locations...I think I saw an explanation for this, but can't remember where.--MONGO03:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I seriously contemplated making it indef, his comment was so uncalled for it was inexcuseabl. I suspect I'm not the only one who will be watching his talk page now with an itchy trigger finger--Jac1688801:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I already endorsed the block before he posted his unblock request, so I won't be the reviewing admin, but I'm not impressed by his behavior, and I don't think others will be either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course the "offense stands," and Belchman is currently blocked for two weeks partly as a result of it. But that doesn't mean it's useful for the offensive comment to be read by every passerby who might look for the next week at today's posts on the reference desk. See also my comment on the RD talkpage thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Apparently Acroterion I'm your "admin friend" and you called on me to block belchman. How did he know about our super-seekrit-admins-only group? It seems there's a mole--Jac1688801:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Jedi mind tricks. Perhaps me banging my forehead against the monitor creates a disturbance in the Force. Or perhaps the offending comment simply appeared intemperate to any passing admin. Go figure. Acroterion(talk)01:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
2011 Oklahoma earthquake
I felt the tremor for the 2011 Oklahoma earthquake while sitting at my computer desk last Saturday night...it was a very minor motion, but it was causing a half day old cup of coffee at my desk to also oscillate...I wasn't sure what I felt, but suspected it was an earthquake...I checked the news...nothing...then about 40 minutes after the vibration, I checked the USGS website and they were reporting the tremor...double checking the issue, I saw it was quickly upgraded to a 5.6 magnitude..almost as powerful as the one which hit Virginia a few months back...so I checked and it looked like a record for Oklahoma...and started the linked article...a first for me to be on top of a current event...cool. Anyway...you're a big time NRHP editor, so I see a lot of damage was sustained at a listed building...at St. Gregory's University the Benedictine Hall had damage to several turrets, including the collapse of one of the turrets...reports I am seeing such as this one says Benedictine Hall is on the NRHP...but I am not as familiar as you are with the navigation to see if that is indeed the building listed or if it is for the abbey at that same campus...St. Gregory's Abbey (Oklahoma)...so do the news reports have the buildings confused, or, well, is it just me that's confused?--MONGO03:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The NRHP nomination can be found here , and pictures (which aren't public domain) here . The NRHP building is the same one that's pictured in the Times article. It's the Queen of Angels Priory at the Benedictine Convent and Academy Administration Building at , now St. Gregory's U. Acroterion(talk)03:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the names have evolved over time. The NRHP nom is dated 1981, so it was either called that then or the nomination decided to use the antique name. The Times article says that it was the campus's original building. Acroterion(talk)03:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Now, see..I'm going to make a arse of myself I think but I guess the whole campus is on the NRHP? The Hall and the Abbey, according to the various different years of satellite imagery I use on Google Earth...are two different buildings. The Hall sustained the turret damage and the Abbey has not had any damage...--MONGO03:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Hold on, I had the wrong page up (the links above are still correct): I was preoccupied with the description of a two-story "prune drier" building at another Benedictine college, this one in Oregon, so strike that Queen of Angels Priory business - the brothers appear to have had issues with their diet. OK. The church/abbey at the campus in Oklahoma was built in the 1940s. The admin building, the one with the turrets, is the historic one. You're on the right track. It's not a historic district. Acroterion(talk)03:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
See...I am a real pain...the Hall is the building in this image...the Abbey is this building...which is 50 yards ESE of the Hall...isn't this the kind of thing you wanted to discuss on a Monday night?????--MONGO04:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Also...hold onto your socks...but they just had a 4.7 aftershock...hum...I wonder if the real quake is yet to come?--MONGO04:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Correct. The abbey isn't damaged, isn't historic, isn't on the NRHP and isn't the building in the Times photo. The Hall is all that. It takes me back to architecture school in architectural history class: identify this building, its date, architect and style from this image of a 6' x 6' detail. I doubt that these are foreshocks, but who knows? the Virginia quake had lots of similar aftershocks, which friends in Richmond reported feeling. Acroterion(talk)04:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I suspect you're correct about the quakes...a bigger one isn't desirable...OK City is only 40 miles away and nothing there is built to handle a 7 magnitude or worse I imagine....but that's more your realm as my understanding of such things (building codes) is limited. Do we have a list of NRHP for Oklahoma on Misplaced Pages? I thought we did....somewhere.--MONGO04:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I'm presently trying to turn El Tovar Hotel into something other than a steaming pile. 50-odd people look at that article every day and go ... hmm, and go somewhere else for useful information. It's my general plan to improve the gamut of articles on the very extensive built environment in GRCA and write a summary article like I did for GRTE. Acroterion(talk)04:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps after I resume the effort to get GRTE up to FA level (though I have no plans to submit it for approval), I can help improving the Grand Canyon article.MONGO15:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The article on Grand Canyon National Park is the neglected stepchild of the pretty-good-but-not-without-problems Grand Canyon article. It's another example of the sort of problematic article overlap we were looking at just above, although at Grand Canyon I agree that separate articles on park and canyon are warranted . I've come to the conclusion that I can write a stand-alone article just focusing on the building that was damaged. I'll give it a go a bit later. I've tried to establish a personal practice of improving an existing bad or stubby article to at least a tolerable level for every new article I write. Acroterion(talk)15:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Iggy Azalea
Hi, I'm planning on making a page about Iggy Azalea and I noticed you deleted someone's previous page about her. Any reason why??Desadawitch (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
It was a three-line promotion piece with no indication of notability. There's no prejudice to the creation of an appropriate, referenced article indicating notability; go for it. Acroterion(talk)12:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The deleted article was filler for linkspam originated by a search engine optimizer who erroneously thought it would improve their pagerank. Misplaced Pages isn't a how-to guide: please read WP:NOT#HOWTO for further guidance. We already have an article on the subject at study skills, so I'm going to redirect "How to study" there. You may wish to see if you can improve that article appropriately. Acroterion(talk)18:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
numi post
Hi,
I recently posted my first wiki article on Numi Organic Tea and I am wondering why you deleted it? What kind of information are you looking for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taracd (talk • contribs)
I didn't delete it: it was deleted by Peridon (talk·contribs) as advertising. You may wish to discuss it with him. You should review WP:YFA, for advice on your first article, WP:CORP for advice on notability guidelines for companies and products, and WP:SPAM for issues pertaining to advertising. Please note that anything resembling advertising or promotion is regarded poorly, and that editors with conflicts of interest should act accordingly. Acroterion(talk)22:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted page
Hey you deleted a page i was not done with editing, can you undelete it or give me the info off of it and give me some help on how i can make it better.
Like to know about the reason to delete above mentioned page and its content?Its no way Hoax,...Khalid Hamid was the member of Pakistan Hockey Team Squad and played 23rd Olympic games held at Los Angeles.This team won Gold medal in Field Hockey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahi77 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The version I deleted appeared to be about another Khalid Hamid, who wanted to impress his friends at school. You are welcome to create an article about the notable Khalid Hamid. Acroterion(talk)14:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Reginald Davis Johnson
Excellent start; I should be able to get some pictures for you, once it stops raining. The Post Office is an obvious and easy one. The Biltmore has been remodeled and changed, but I'll go by anyway. Not sure exactly which part of the Music Academy is his. Antandrus (talk)04:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Sounds like it might be a while before the rain stops. I've treated this kind of expedition as a sort of treasure hunt sometimes, doing things like trying to find all the Washington family houses in eastern West Virginia and get their picture, which led me to places I had no idea existed. In the case of Southern California architects I'm a little handicapped by distance and a lack of familiarity with the area: there's a big gap in my travels in California, between La Jolla and Carmel. I've used up what I can find on the Internet about Wilson and Johnson, but there are some print sources I might be able to use if I can track them down. Acroterion(talk)04:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
If you ever locate specific street addresses of houses, that would be great. It's a crapshoot with Montecito because at least four-fifths of everything is behind a hedge or wall. That realtor site you gave me curiously listed street numbers but no street names; for example the Biltmore is at 1260 Channel Drive, but on his list it's just "1260". I can query them out of the assessor's database next time I'm at work, and probably figure them out. It would be nice to have a couple pictures of residences, not just public buildings. Antandrus (talk)04:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice day for a walk, but the sun was gone by the time I got there. Let me know if these work. I took a lot of pictures, but that's the only angle on El Nido from the street that is unobstructed by wires, poles, stop signs, and passing trucks, and only the Santa Barbara Street side of Alexander Gardens is open to a passing pedestrian. The whole complex is hidden behind dense vegetation -- that may be the best angle. I may try this again on a sunny day. Antandrus (talk)23:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hopkins Home, Santa Barbara, 1898; Francis W. Wilson. At least two renovations since, one of which likely restored it close to its original look.
Alexander Gardens, Santa Barbara, 1906; Francis W. Wilson. Currently a senior living facility.
Those are great; much more typical of Wilson's work than the Grand Canyon depot, which was a one-off. Thanks for tracking them down. It's always hard to exclude all the street clutter in these kinds of pictures. Photoshop can remedy some of it, but not all. I've added them to the article. I really like the Hopkins home - it has elements that are reminiscent of Charles Rennie Mackintosh (the turret bottom and arch), C.F.A. Voysey and a little bit of John Nash's Cronkhill. Acroterion(talk)00:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll try to photograph some of Reginald Johnson's work soon, and also I'll get some of the public buildings. The library has a permanent homeless encampment on the front lawn, which will be part of the scenery. I enjoy these little trips ("treasure hunting expeditions" as you called them -- indeed -- I've walked past some of these places hundreds of times without really giving them a close look!) Voysey's article alas has no pictures. Appears to be another part of Misplaced Pages where there is still work to be done! -- fancy that. Antandrus (talk)02:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out. Johnson's Post Office seems promising from the images I've seen on the web. I should have a go at improving the Voysey article, considering I admire his work and have a monograph on him, but there's not much I can do for images. Voysey had one foot in Arts and Crafts and the other in Modernism (even though he disputed that). He's wretchedly absent from Commons. This page on one of his best buildings gives a taste of his work. Acroterion(talk)03:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the templated 3RR warning, it always go down well to the regulars. I'm so embarrassed at the lengths you were willing to go to to communicate your thoughts. A couple of micro-seconds to click a button, I'm so honoured. You really mustn't, I'm not worthy of your precious time. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning, I actually didn't realize I was breaking the 3-revert rule. So I do appreciate that. And please do not be to hard on my new friend Pink Oboe, he told me he has a hairy ass, is addicted to Twinkies and he loves the United States of America so much that not being an American is just eating him up inside, so he tries to hide his affection and love for the USA with anti-American comments. He is going through alot, I am going to pray for him.7mike5000 (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
