User talk:Acroterion

Invasion of Saudi Arabia

unwanted arrival of foreign military officers constitutes an invasion. That is denotative, not connotative. What I said in that respect is irrefutable true and necessitates no source other than a dictionary. I find your sweeping generalizations of the quality of my writing to be offensive and false. As for the word "inference" I recommend you consult a dictionary. The article as it stands is obtuse and utterly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrenWiley (talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Then discuss it with other editors on the article's talkpage. You are inserting your own opinion directly into the article, which is very far from what recognized sources state. The perception of an invasion is an important concept in the context of the article, but it's not for you to state as an editor: it requires referenced statements by authoritative sources. Acroterion (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Rescuing the text of former article

Please give me the code of article which you've deleted. It is about the article named “Different between plants and animals”. I need it to put that data in the few related articles on Wikipedia. Regards, Alex ^discussion 20:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion...

Why did you go and delete my page?! It took me a good hour or so to make it that good! Come on man, it's like I'm an ice sculpture artist and you're a fat lazy guy that goes and leans on my project and breaks it! Don't do this to me man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecamronmoore (talk • contribs) 03:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As the note on your talkpage explains, you shouldn't create autobiographies and you're not notable. Wikipedia isn't a personal webspace provider. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you vaporise the link to his Facebook profile, as seen on his userpage? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 22:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not against policy that I'm aware of to have a link to one's Facebook page in userspace. Am I wrong? Acroterion (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that under the influence of protecting younger editor's privacy. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 22:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

(adding) Also, is there a more civilised way to say "nobody gives a flying fig" when they ask why their article was deleted? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 22:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at the privacy angle too: assuming they're really 18 as they claim, I don't see a privacy issue; if they self-identify, I won't remove it unless they ask. On the other hand I've seen a lot of 9 and 11 year olds recently, with too much information and have been very aggressive in removing material in such cases. As for the second part, I don't think there's any polite way to say that we really can't be arsed to be a repository for their self-promotion. I usually resort to a bland discussion of WP:NOTE/BIO/BAND/CORP. Acroterion (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Deadly Coordinates

By the time you read this I'll probably have blocked him as a sockpuppet, but see my post at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Displaying a formula"

Hi! I notice that you reverted User:Deadly Coordinates' move of Help:Displaying a formula to Help:Displaying a mathematical formula without giving a reason. May I ask why the old name was better? —Tanner Swett (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The user has been blocked under two usernames so far and has a history of problematic moves. While I have no opinion on the appropriate name in this particular case, consensus at AN/I was in favor of the status quo ante for this user's moves. See the note directly above.Acroterion (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject West Virginia

It was recently suggested that WikiProject West Virginia might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Deborah Presley Brando Article

Hello! You have deleted a page entitled "Deborah Presley Brando", she was married to Christian Brando, elder child of actor Marlon Brando. here is an internal link to her husband Christian, where you can see it's talking about her in the marriage section.Christian_Brando , Could we start an article about her based on that? thx Antonio --Antoniomecheri (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to try, providing you have good sources, but in general marriage to someone notable doesn't create notability for the spouse, nor does descent from a notable person. I don't see this convergence making her notable, but opinions may differ. Acroterion (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

She also claimed that she was the illegitimate daughter of Elvis presley, the courts could not prove the opposite was true. she was found to have been the illegitimate daughter of Elvis by the supreme court of Tennessee, but could not inherit cause she was not lawful, it was in Elvis's will, which stated no unlawful child shall inherit from his estate. she was also the daughter in law of actor Marlon Brando. so, shall i start over an article, cause the last one was deleted? thx --Antoniomecheri (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI -- deletion discussion. Antonio, please be careful of our biographies of living persons policy. Antandrus (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So why is she mentioned on wikipedia's Christian Brando's article, in the content "marriage and spousal abuse?", that could be considered as nonsense too! and she has a million "mainstream media" good and verifiable sources all over Print and internet. what makes someone notable? Her claim was overturned by the Tenessee courts from non illigitimate to illigitimate but without inheritance rights. please, do your homework before concluding. thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoniomecheri (talk • contribs) 00:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Also, you have a page about Bonnie Lee Bakley, which was the wife of Robert Blake, Bonnie_Lee_Bakley,Bonnie_Lee_Bakley who based on your arguments she does not qualify as notable by marriage, (same case as Deborah Presley Brando)!!! or by inheritance, but yet you have a page of her ??? why are you discriminating here? a similar article can be written about Deborah, yet she is more notable than Bonnie, that i can tell you. check it out!--Antoniomecheri (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Antandrus for reminding me of the deletion debate: I wouldn't re-create it. I am entirely uninterested in comparing this case to others: all must stand on their own, and your abrupt jump into complaint ("I" do not run WP) makes me believe that you aren't sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia policies to create an acceptable article at this point. Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You interested or not is not owned by you! you do not own wikipedia to remind you. millions than you are interested and open minded to this. you may have a problem with constructive debate, that s your problem and for you to make such a mediocre claim that i'm not familiar with this and that is not necessary, this is not the bible, remember it has not been written by almighty god but by people like us. so respect my right to express myself, sincerely yours Antonio Mecheri--Antoniomecheri (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC) And i'm inviting other people but you to this debate and re-write this article, you r uninterested, im disinterested of your inappropriate comments about me writing an appropriate article, please read your last reply.--Antoniomecheri (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You have no right to self-expression or free speech on Wikipedia, nor may you write anything you wish, particularly in a biography. If you have nothing new to contribute to the article beyond what was discussed in the deletion debate that took place only last week, it will be immediately deleted. Since Cirt has kindly placed the deleted content in your userspace for development, you can concentrate on improving it there. As for my disinterest, you appear to be confused: I am not in interested in comparing the Bakley article to this one, a matter of firm WP policy: claiming other stuff exists is irrelevant in these situations. Acroterion (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure I do! this wikipedia was built by people like me who expresses their rights to free speech and expression. you r delusional, I have not by all means written a thing that you alleged i wrote about anybody in any particular biography. all was written based on verifiable facts and sources. Assumption should also be a sin on wikipedia. You make it look like you r doing me a favor by letting me contribute, remember that this whole Wikipedia was written by people like me and for free! now, you sure can enforce certain wikipedia policies but in the mean while you let them slide on other articles. Reminder, policies should apply to all! that is why I brought up other article on wikipedia to compare. We all should equal in the face of wikipedia! Antonio Mecheri--Antoniomecheri (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the useful links that Cirt asked you to read, you might want to look at WP:FREESPEECH and WP:OSE for more background on why the points you raise tend not to be persuasive on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

[1] Good of you =) Nikthestoned 13:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome: Favonian recognized him as somebody's sock and blocked them. Acroterion (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this fellow I believe... Nikthestoned 13:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	It's good how you don't just use fixed messages for deletion, you use your own which can sometimes be funny. Puffin Let's talk! 19:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't think I'd been very amusing recently! Acroterion (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandals

[2] What intelligent human openly vows to continue vandalising immediately after expiration of a block? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 21:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Massachusetts Fascist Movement

The MFM is a real political movement that deserves a place on Wikipedia. Its funny how all these socialist and communist movements can stay on Wikipedia, but the minute a fascist group is created it gets deleted. Isn't Wikipedia for information? well maybe people want information about the MFM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dackkorto (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"The moment a group is created" is a bit premature for listing on Wikipedia, which requires that article subjects have received significant coverage in major independent media. A group that was formed last week is unlikely to have received any useful coverage just yet, and is therefore not eligible for inclusion, since we require that articles be written from reliable sources. Acroterion (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Whats the reason for deleting my page? Its an organization devoted to helping the people of Massachusetts. Granted it was only formed last week, but still. Dackkorto (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

See above: no press = no notability. Acroterion (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the kinda double post. Thank you for your time Dackkorto (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, there's no prejudice to re-creation once the organization receives coverage - it's just way too soon. Acroterion (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

American exceptionalism edit

I received a message from you about my edit of the "American exceptionalism" page. I wanted to let you know that my edit was intentional. I understand that I'm new and have a lot to learn about WP: guidelines. That being said, I feel my edit was valid. I justified my edit on the discussion page of the article. If they can show me, using their source, that American Communists were the "first" to use the phrase "American exceptionalism", than I would be OK with it. The fact is, the source that they cite states that they "used" the phrase, not that they invented it. I thought it innapropriate to include in the summary portion of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyJ160 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine; it wasn't very apparent without an edit summary, and your edit to the talk page took out part of a signature. It's usually best to wait a day or so to see if there is a response on the talk page before removing something; I think someone's already responded. I was mostly concerned about the unexplained nature of the removal. Check in on the talk page and see if you can get a conversation started. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

A brownie as a reward for your hard work! Atterion(Talk|Contribs) 15:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Acroterion (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr Fagreterion, it seems you still haven't learned what I told you. Now leave me alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldBoyofWCGSV2 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Supreme facepalm of destiny --The Σ ^talk_contribs 21:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Kids these days ... get off my lawn you young hoodlums! Acroterion (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Anti vandalism

I was thinking if I had the qualities an admin had and I was reading the guides to Rfa, I was thinking about it because I do a lot of vandalism reverts and wanted to be able to block the vandals. Also, delete pages which meet the criteria for speedy deletion. It said to ask an active admin if they think that my contributions reflect the points I made above so, do you think my edits are good? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert Aiss

Hi, you deleted my page. Actually, Robert Aiss SHOULD be listed in wikipedia because, as an up and coming film director, I was curious to know who he was when he first got in contact with me. I googled him and I all could find was slanderous articles on ONE website. I took my chances and met up with him anyways and all the stuff written about him was FAR from the truth. He is the real deal and so far I've made numerous contacts in Hollywood and am now on my way to the top.

Robert has worked with many film Legends such as Otto Preminger and John Schlesinger and is only looking for TALENT. When he does find Talent, it's hard for that talent to see what they're getting into because of certain things written about him. There's is currently a defamation suite being filed against the person who wrote that stuff. So again, I'm speaking for myself and any future artists that he may find that this wikipedia page is definitely beneficial and SHOULD be available to the public. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Robert_aiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerxes Sangco (talk • contribs) 01:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia notability is established by accomplishments that are documented in reliable sources, not by association with other notable individuals. All biographies must be appropriately sourced. Wikipedia isn't a good place to fight a public relations campaign or to refute alleged unfavorable press. Anytime someone is described as "up and coming," it is an implication that the subject is not yet notable. If you have multiple, independent reliable sources in major media concerning the subject, please use those to make a credible assertion of notability, rather than listing the notable people he's worked with. Acroterion (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Severe T'snow Warning...

...Is not a club term. The DCWS is a highly professionalized organization which dedicates itself to providing warnings to help people. That is not the act of a club. It spends hours at a time, when its members could easily be doing other things, tracking storms and writing warnings for the public. That is not the act of a club. No. The DCWS is no club. It may not be as well known as the National Weather Service. It may not have quite as many forecasters. It may be limited by it's size of workforce. But it is no club. It is significant. The DCWS has provided warnings for storms that the National Weather Service didn't see. The DCWS issued a Tornado Warning in Jackson, MS before the National Weather Service did. That is no club act. That is significant. --Bowser423 (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Has any of this been covered in reliable sources? It looks like something that you have originated on your own, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. While I appreciate your enthusiasm on the subject, from what you've written, this appears to be a more-professional-than-most high school meteorology club. That's a good thing, but not of sufficient stature to be covered in a global encyclopedia, unless there's been significant coverage of the organization in major publications. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

To address point-by-point,

- Has any of this been covered in reliable sources? What has not been placed in published online documents is being documented. the DCWS Severe Weather Glossary covers most of the alerting terms.

- While I appreciate your enthusiasm on the subject, from what you've written, this appears to be a more-professional-than-most high school meteorology club. This is not a club. DCWS forecasters and spotters would take offense at being called a club. In particular DCWS storm spotters bring themselves out of their way to report severe conditions to the DCWS LFOs.

- That's a good thing, but not of sufficient stature to be covered in a global encyclopedia, unless there's been significant coverage of the organization in major publications. There is a significant impact on the local culture of Dublin. If the Terrible Towel can have an article, then this is a similar case of local cultural significance.

--Bowser423 (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that notability on Wikipedia is established by reference to multiple independent sources of significant standing, and that subjects may not resort to self-sourcing. If the only source on a subject is itself, it's not notable, because it has not received independent notice. With all due respect to Dublin, Ohio, local organizations in small towns are generally not notable. Has the DCWS received coverage in major Ohio newspapers, or better yet, national newspapers? Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Dublin is not a small town. Dublin has the best school district in the state of Ohio (statistically), is a City and not a town as defined by Ohio, has the number 3 football team in the state, Muirfield Village of golf's Memorial Tournament, and over 41,000 residents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowser423 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You're not addressing the issues, you're obfuscating things like "town" and "club" without dealing with the main problem: you're provided no indication at all that the subject complies with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Acroterion (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.--Bowser423 (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been attempting to address the issues individually as you bring them up. --Bowser423 (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

<undent>You're quoting from a tagging template guideline. See WP:CSD, specifically CSD A7, which is the directly applicable policy. You will note that I've tagged only the DCWS article for speedy deletion, as it falls within the speedy deletion guidelines for organizations with no credible assertion of notability. Notability in Dublin, Ohio (giving that the benefit of the doubt, as it's not supported by any independent references) and nowhere else is not enough. The thundersnow warning was originally tagged for proposed deletion, since it's not suitable for speedy deletion, but since you contested it, it's at Afd. Whether it's a speedy, PROD or AfD, your energies would be better spent establishing and documenting notability by reference to independent published sources. I've mentioned that two or three times now. It's vital. Additionally, Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for you to promote your own organization; since you like to read policy, please read WP:COI; you're far too close to your subject. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The TSN-W article was written because it was a little-known alert type which is now instrumental in protecting lives/property during Blizzard T'snow. The information being made available is part of how widespread fame of an item begins. On the point of the DCWS article, I don't even know what to respond on that anymore. I know many other sources who could be asked, and tell someone, about the DCWS. Published sources are slim due to the recent-born (6/29/2010) nature of the DCWS. DCTV (The Dublin Coffman HS lunchtime news program) once ran a DCWS-created LF, and is planning to run daily LFs this year. I can't say much more for it. --Bowser423 (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to take a particular interest in critiquing new articles... this is meant in no way to offend/attack/critisize. --Bowser423 (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"Little-known" generally means "not eligible for inclusion because it can't be sourced." As your statement above makes clear, this is a local high school club that has received no press at all, and is therefore not notable. As for my frequent critiques of new articles, yes, I do a lot of that: I do a lot of new article patrol and deletion, or at least tagging for deletion. People naturally object to having their work deleted, so I try to help them understand why this is happening. Spammers and vandals get less consideration. Since you're contributing in good faith, I'm willing to talk it over with you to see if there's some way your work can be brought into comp[liance with the guidelines. Acroterion (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

TWA Flight 800

Thank you for removing that reference to KAL Flight 007. I was about to do it, but then I saw you did it so thanks. I still can't believe after 16 years some people still believe it was shot out of the sky by our own military. Fighting for Justice (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I had a similar thought, and in fact had reverted two such edits earlier today, but the editor who inserted the most recent link has a history of spamming links to KAL 007 through a variety of aviation-related articles, so it's not a given that the intent was to link the causes. Acroterion (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This may be helpful...

...for reference in future deletion disputes like the ones on this talk page by other users and myself. WP:YOA --Bowser423 (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(butting in) -- Bowser, nice work -- really. You're a quick study. I don't think we have an essay equivalent to that one yet, and we have needed one. Please have a look around our meteorology articles; there's a lot of good stuff I'm sure you can contribute. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What Antandrus said: that's a fine summary, and it reflects well upon your ability to assimilate the culture here and take advice to heart. There are several essays along those lines. WP:BAI is another one, and there are others more or less funny or scathing, such as WP:DUMB and WP:1000THINGS. Yours is more kind than those, a good thing. It's pretty clear that you're doing well with WP's steep learning curve, and since WP is written and managed by meticulous detail-obsessives, given the impressive level of effort you've put into the DCWS I think you'd fit right in. Wikipedia has a dedicated corps of serious editors on weather-related topics: an astounding number of hurricanes have featured articles about them, and I'd like to encourage you to see if there are any places in WP content where you can get your feet wet and improve the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have already adopted the WP:TYPO "Hurricaine" and also seeked out "tronado" and "torando". I am putting the edit summary down as "TypoPurge - [typo]". As an anon several weeks ago I made a fix to a critical error regarding warning flags in TC watches/warnings. The major issue I have most noticed is the lack of an example in Storm warning of an actual marine Storm Warning, or, for that matter, an inland Storm Wind Warning. I will be awaiting the issuance of such an alert from the NWS (since consensus says a DCWS alert is not currently notable) so that it can be made into an example. An internet search for warning text has turned up no results, so it's a waiting game. I am particularly interested in Severe weather, so many of my improvements will likely be ones such as these. --Bowser423 (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You might want to look for improper application of toronado too: just remember that an Oldsmobile Toronado was a ghastly vehicle of the 1970s that limped into the 1990s, so don't fix those, it really was spelled that way. Acroterion (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Is there a way to flag a page as having correct information which looks similar to a typo? --Bowser423 (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You can embed noinclude notes, but that's a programming hack that's not really appropriate in most cases. Wikimarkup's already hard enough for most people to understand without having lots of notes embedded into the editing panel. By the way, Hurricane Danny (1997)'s the WP:TFA; the article featured on the front page. Acroterion (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Bosnian Pyramid

If you insist on removing any statements that suggest the pyramids in Bosnia are legitimate, by stating there's no proof they are what people claim them to be, then you are just flat out wrong. The wiki site states in the very first line that they are natural formations, yet there have been numerous studies by accredited scientists that say otherwise, yet people are only listening to the nay-sayers.

At very least, it should be indicated that there has *yet* to be conclusive evidence that they are in fact the world's largest man-made stone structures. There is as much evidence to say that they ARE man-made, and that they ARE a work of engineering wonder.

I'm not arguing that the entire page should be stated like this, but it should be stated that the answer is NOT CONCLUSIVE until more research has been done, and more land has been excavated. By simply dismissing it as a hoax, you are doing a disservice to people who are looking for real information.

With the underwater temple in Japan being older than the pyramids in Egypt, and the temple in Turkey known as Gobleki Tepe being over 11000 years old, and of the same monolithic magnitude as the Bosnian Pyramids, the argument that the major 'scientists' are making, namely "they were hunter gatherers who didn't possess the technology or know-how to make such a structure, therefore the mere thought is absurd" argument just DOESN'T hold water anymore.

Edit: http://bpblognews.blogspot.com/2010/06/prof-ezra-zubrwo-investigate-who-built.html A link from a reputable professor who says they are in fact pyramids and they should continue research 'unfettered'. People use wikipedia is a source of fact (unfortunately), and keeping this type of information censored is tantamount to a modern day book burning. (sorry for the multiple edits, I'm new to the wiki editing thing) http://bpblognews.blogspot.com/2010/06/prof-ezra-zubrwo-investigate-who-built.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyending1 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You're constructing a synthesis from a very small piece of information by implying that the presence of concrete on the mountain indicates a man-made origin.You're also removing well-documented skepticism on the nature of the hills. The fact that the article exists at all is in itself a statement that a number of theories exist on the nature of the hills, but the fact is that the theory is being promoted on slender evidence by a single researcher and his followers. That is what sources tell us, and that is how the article is written. PPlease stop edit-warring to include your overly broad conclusions. Acroterion (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem with the multiple posts; it would help if you avoided cries of "censorship" or "book-burning:" if such things applied the article wouldn't exist at all. However, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meaning that it publishes information that has already been published elsewhere, and reflects a consensus of thought on a given subject, including significant minority views. This is reflected in the article. Wikipedia just reports what is stated on the subject. There is room for improvement in the article, particularly on the side of the man-made proponents, but it has suffered from editors who can't set aside their outrage that the man-made claim is disputed, and who wish to use Wikipedia as a means to settle the debate in their favor. That isn't Wikipedia's purpose. The consensus of reliable sources strongly disputes the claim of man-made origin, terming it a "hoax" in strikingly sharp terms, and until that changes, the article must follow those sources. If the experts change their minds and publicly state that they have, the article must follow. Acroterion (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Swaggeristic

I created the accounts Snipes Swaggeristic and i understand it has been deleted but why does the article still come up on google when will it clear? (Snipesmc)== Deletion of Edwin Kiddo ==

Isn't wikipadia about information for the people? I am a real person and I posted the description of what I do.

The deletion of my post, goes against what wikipedia's supposed purpose.

Do you only allow posting of the Rich and Famous?? You must me quite a snob. Shame on you.

Edwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinsamayoa (talk • contribs) 15:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose is to document notable people, things and events. It isn't an indiscriminate repository, and requires that entries on people be both notable and sourced to reliable references. See WP:NOTE, WP:BIO and WP:NOT. Musical acts are required to meet WP:BAND's requirements. Acroterion (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Google will retain the information about deleted pages for a period of time known only to Google, from hours to days, but it will eventually drop out of their cache. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia.

As I replied to the other person on July 1st, articles must be about notable subjects: that is Wikipedia policy, which we enforce. It isn't a place for you to promote yourself. We do indeed expect subjects to be famous, in a manner of speaking: that's the point and the purpose of Wikipedia, to document notable information, not an indiscriminate depository for information. Rich, not so much. Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Fuku- socks

Special:ListUsers/Fuku Looks like a lot of socks were pre-created. Block many of these on basis of username and WP:DUCK.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Already done. I didn't bother with the old ones, and only one new one was unblocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fagreterion-give up. Now. WCGS99 (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)