User talk:AlexiusHoratius/Archive 5

The Game

Hi. You locked The Game (U.S. TV series) You cited poor sources and edits not discussed. The content various editors have added is sourced. If edits must be discussed before being put in the article, doesnt this go for pinkadelica?pinkadelica too should have to post a discussion before editing. I hope it isnot that because we Game Fans did not mae an account that are edits are viewed as important. W hy did you revert back to pinkadelica's version, and lock the page? To be fair I think you should have reverted back to a version before pinkadelica and other's recent edits, to a neutral version. Then pinkadelica and other editors should post what they want to add to the article. We should all agree to content; but the way it is now it is that pink is the decider of content, and that isnot right.

This [1] is what I mean. This person added that the show was renewed. It was reverted. Then when another person added a source, it again was reverted, because pinkadelica didn’t like the source. Pinkadelica is not being reasonable it seems. I looked at the page history and majority of the edits are pinks, but no one owns a page. We all are here to contribute. This show is a great show with many fans, and when we heard the show was really adn truly back, we came here and added the info. Also, I see twitter as a source throughout wikipedia. Why is it not reliable? For example, it was through twitter that it was reported that Pres Obama called Kanye West a jackass last september. Thanks.

Lastly, Pinkadelica has truncated the intro, why I do not know. The information various people have added is worthy. Look at the Family Guy intro, it detailed, it is multipatagraphed. It tells of the shows cancelling and bringing back to life, so I think it is alright for this info to be there in The Game intro. 64.26.98.90 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My main issue there was that there were about 50 IPs changing the infobox to "Present", some of the information was sourced and some wasn't, and the article's talk page, which would be the best place to discuss future changes to the article, discuss sourcing issues, and get a consensus for the changes, hasn't been touched by anyone in over a week. If you have reliable sources for your additions, you can put them on the article's talk page along with an {{editsemiprotected}} template.

As far as using twitter as a source, it should generally be avoided, as there is essentially no editorial oversight over what is put on there. In a few cases, such as a person's own response to something it may be okay, but as far as statistics and breaking news and so on I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source. Again, most of these issues can be discussed on the article's talk page, or on the user talk page if there is a conflict with a particular editor. AlexiusHoratius 23:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. The reason so many changed the infobox to present was because the show was renewed. The news was known because we fans are on Mac's(director matthew cherry's) email list and subscribce to his tweets; so the fans of the show came and corrected it after he told us he talked to Mara(she is show creator). I get what you are saying about posting on the discussion page first. This is for us all right, pinkadelic too? i havent seen his/her's content posted for review first. If you go look at the discussion page, you will see I did post there [2]. I answereed 3 fellow fans questions. Pinkadelica reverted my answer. On purpose I think. I feel that if content has to be posted on the discussion first, then agreed upon, this rule should apply to all. Now, pinkadelica's truncated version stands, which is not fair. I think the page should be reverted back to an older version before our(the fans) and pinkadelica's edits. Pinkadelica and us fans will post to discussion our content. Then you review and tell us what you think. Do you agree or disagree that the intro is to have information on the show being cancelled then renewed? As I said in my before example, Family Guy intro has that it was cancelled then renewed, so I feel this article shoudl as well. For twitter, it is the verified account of the show's director Matthew Cherry and the verified account of the show. I know this because the show posted this info on their official website cwtv.com and the show's cast told us all well. I do not know why pinadelica does not accept that. I see twitter all wikipedia as a source. In your edit box for why you blocked the page you said --constant unsourced/poorly sourced/undiscussed changes --. I did source, I think the source is well but if not please tell me which one is poor. Thank You Alexius. 64.26.98.90 (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really do any serious work on television articles, so I don't know if those sources are reliable or not. Maybe they are, in which case it shouldn't be kept out of the article; on the other hand, they look at least at first glance like people's blogs, and it would probably be better to get something official from the studio. But again, I don't know - as an admin, I'm not supposed to be judging content disputes anyway. I'd say keep discussing it on the talk page, and if other users are objecting to it then ask them what their specific objections are. Most of the reason I protected the article is that the situation had become disruptive, with dozens of IPs making a ton of edits every day to it. I see now that you had tried to initiate a discussion on the talk page, which had been reverted, and that (the revert) probably shouldn't happen again. If it does, tell me. For now, I'd say stick to the talk page until there is a solid consensus to go along with the addition and also perhaps wait until a better source comes out. AlexiusHoratius 17:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As I explained below, this IP is well aware that their edits are unacceptable as they remain unsourced. I explained several times why they were being reverted only to be reverted by them. All this "Pinkadelica is a meanie" talk is amusing to say the least, but my perceived meanness is actually based in policy. I'm not going to let the article become overrun with unsourced crap because "fans" want it that way. If the IP had bothered to answer me when I posted in their talk page back in March(!), perhaps I would be willing to discuss changes with them. However, their past and continued behavior have made it crystal clear that they're only interested in edit warring and then complaining when the page is locked. Same old game, different day. I'm fairly certain that's what got their main account blocked to being with (oh yeah, the IP is actually a blocked user!). Pinkadelica^♣ 01:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion page was reverted again. I just undid it. What about my comments about the intro. The info we added there was pertinent and should be in the introducition. Other shows that have been cancelled and then renewed indicate this in the intro. The second thing is BET did it upfront presentation yesterday. The Game is set to air new eps this fall. Source is this : http://www.multichannel.com/article/451489-_Game_On_For_BET.php?rssid=20527 . Coby Bell will be a recurring character because he is on Burn Notice; source is this : http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3i0215407931edfdd7b7656c91b8dc3c19 and this http://www.bvbuzz.com/2010/03/15/the-game-sitcoms-return-on-bet-nearly-finalized/ : . Im unable to add this because the page is locked. And again, if all edits need to be agreed upon first on the discussion page, why did you let pinkadelica's editss stands? Shouldnt the page be locked to an early march version? 64.26.98.90 (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone is removing your talk page additions, ask them why they are doing it on their talk page. Maybe there is a good reason for it, maybe not, I don't know, I'm not the article's referee. AlexiusHoratius 20:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am going to revert "The Game" article to the 5Apr version. The short version with barely any information is not good. Intros do not have to be very short, an example is "Friends" article. I checked the rules here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section), 4 paragraphs is allowed. The show being cancelled and revived does need to be in the intro, examples are "Futurama" & "Family Guy". I am also adding a source for Coby Bell being a recurring character since he is working in Cali on Burn Notice. Thanks. 69.138.165.244 (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alexius, Are you able to be moderator of The Game page. I made edits. I explained them all. I corrected tenses and information. All info is sourced.

(cur | prev) 20:07, 2 May 2010 69.138.165.244 (talk) (21,790 bytes) (→Cancellation and revival: corrected info. Mara works 4 ABC Cougar Town. She will get her EP credit. Her husb Salim will be showrunner.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 20:01, 2 May 2010 69.138.165.244 (talk) (21,685 bytes) (moving filming location down.adding back in section on cancellation & revivial section has more in depth information. corrected tenses, B/C BET had its upfront last month & confirmed) (undo)

Still I was reverted. Could you moderate? Or how do I get someone to moderate? Thanks. 64.26.98.90 (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I would be well suited to that role; I don't have much experience in dispute resolution, and I know next to nothing about the subject. All I can really say is that if you have reliable references backing up what you're trying to put in (and by reliable I don't mean blogs or someone's tweets), and if that information is relevant to the article, they could probably go in. But I don't know. Talk to Pinkadelica, and pursue dispute resolution. That page takes you through the next steps in this thing. AlexiusHoratius 23:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheeky Vimto

Thank you for your help with Cheeky Vimto. However, the IP vandal/sockpuppet is back and the page is being vandalized. Could you please look into this? I think that what needs to be done is to semi-protect the page again (after removing the vandalism) and block the IP editor(s) who have been vandalizing. Thanks again. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected two more weeks. (I'm going to wait on the block to see if he migrates to another article.) AlexiusHoratius 17:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Full-protection for Armenian Genocide Article

Before I start I need to ask you to please tell me if this is not the place to discuss this or that it's not subject to discussion.

The article in question is probably one of the longest articles of Wiki which makes it very hard to keep track of. There are many disputes concerning the article that occur over and over again. Dispute resolution or blocks for edit warrings are also only temporary as same issues happen by the same members again. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is fine if you want to speak to me personally, if you want a third opinion or something I'd say re-list it at RFPP or post it at WP:ANI or something. The thing with full protection is that if it is used on articles, it should only be for short periods, like if there is a specific dispute or something. (See the protection policy for more on this.) I have seen full protection set as indef, but only in cases in which there is a specific dispute and as a way to avoid having the edit warriors simply wait out the protection. In other words, I've never seen an article get full permanent protection. I understand that the article probably has a lot of disputes and is a contentious topic, but a lot of editors also watchlist it and are able to deal with the vandalism quickly. Sometimes there are articles like this that simply are going to attract a lot of disputes and vandalism even though they are already semi-protected. In cases like this, WP:RBI should be used for the vandals and dispute resolution for the content disputes. AlexiusHoratius 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable thank you. Is there a way to eliminate the IP addresses at least? Because in the last weeks certain IP addresses deleted discussion in the talk page. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is already semiprotected, and there is generally a much higher threshold for semiprotecting talk pages. I'm not really seeing the level of vandalism/disruption from IPs that would justify protection of the talk page at this time. AlexiusHoratius 19:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton

Just a note to let you know I've unprotected the Lewis Hamilton article per my request at WP:AN for a warning template. Any editor will now get a warning that racist vandalism will be dealt with harshly. Any IP wishing to make a constructive edit to the article will be able to do so. Mjroots (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied at WP:AN. AlexiusHoratius 16:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm always open to discussion about any administrative action I take. I've added further comments there too. Mjroots (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk: Yankees

Thanks for reverting the vandalism. There is a section that you missed though that someone must have snuck in there. Check it out, I'll try and fix it as well. Kjscotte34 (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, indeed there was. Must have been some older vandalism, sometimes that stuff will slip through and will have to be manually removed (as opposed to rolled back or undoing the last edit). Looks like you got it all. AlexiusHoratius 20:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: The Game

Hi. Regarding your message about me reverting a post by an IP on Talk:The Game (U.S. TV series), I actually had to go back and look at the history because that reverted was quite some time ago. If the IP was attempting to discuss anything with that edit, that's news to me. They simply copy and pasted the exact same content from the article onto the talk page for some reason. IMO, that is not an attempt at discussion but if it's paramount that IP have the same content that was featured in the article on the talk page - whatever. It's more game on their part but again, whatever. I have dealt with the IP range before so if it looks like I'm being short, I'm actually not. Their behavior is tiresome to say the very least. Check the talk page archive for the very long, drawn out discussion regarding this very topic (the show being renewed) with this IP range. Me and another editor explained to them many times over that blogs, Twitter and the like are not reliable sources and that all content they add needs to be sourced. We also asked them not to do wholesale reverts simply because they want "their" version of the article in. Any time changes are made to the article, they revert because he/she claims their version has more information despite the fact that they're adding unsourced/poorly written content back in. Posts to their talk page explaining why their edits violate policy and simple MOS guidelines go ignored. They only time they start communicating is when the page is finally locked and they can no longer play their revert game. I appreciate your help in this matter and I thank you for protecting the page, but there's really more to this than the IP is letting on in the posts above. If they were writing content that followed guidelines and were properly sourced, I'd have no problems with their edits. Until they can follow simply policy, we're going to continue to have a problem. It's hard enough to keep unsourced fancruft out of television show articles and it's even more cumbersome to do so when someone is doing so repeatedly despite being asked/warned not to. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Like I said earlier, I know that these articles can get crazy, having seen situations like this many times before at RFPP. At the time, it looked like you were perhaps being overzealous with the reverts on the talk page, and while I was saying this and that to the IPs it seemed like, for the sake of neutrality, I should say something to the other side as well as far as reverts, but I see that that wasn't necessarily the case. I'm not going to get involved any further with that article - I certainly won't be lifting the protection. If the disruption starts again after the period expires, and it probably will, and they haven't come up with a better source than what I've been seeing, go ahead and re-list it at RFPP and I'll let another admin handle it. AlexiusHoratius 02:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my 'tude earlier. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were being incompetent or anything as I'm aware that you're not involved and trying to wade through the situation in a limited amount of time is not easy for an any admin. The IP's disingenuous messages to you above just got the better of me. I'm just tired of the IP's game of edit warring in crap content and then crying to the admin who finally grants protection. Again, thank you for protecting the page in the first place and my sincere apologies for coming off like a raging nutzo. Pinkadelica^♣ 06:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's cool; I probably came across as a bit of a grouchy school marm earlier and should have read a bit more into the situation before commenting. I do see you around once in a while and I know you do good work. Keeping Wikipedia (halfway) respectable and sane is usually a thankless and at times stressful task whether as an editor or admin... but oh well... such is the nature of this hobby of ours... AlexiusHoratius 06:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Again I'm not sure If I'm even allowed to ask you this but you're the only admin that have approached me with civility. My question is concerning an appeal which can be seen here: Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_TheDarkLordSeth I'm under the impression that the approach used against me is not just. It's just the same admins who commented so far and they're simply dismissing the appeal saying that they discussed it before where the accusations are simply not true and I wasn't actually given any justification for a topic ban. My real question is that if there is a way to make other admins notice this. Thank you for the trouble. (Though I know I will be attacked for simply asking you this) TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple caveats: first, I don't really have much experience with ArbCom-related matters, and second I'm not overly familiar with this specific case nor with the Armenian thing in general. Having said that, I honestly think that most admins who look into that case a bit, were you to take it to a larger venue, would probably say something along the lines of "nine reverts are nine reverts are nine reverts", in other words, regardless of the issues involved, they're going to come to the conclusion that you did screw up in that case and may deserve a topic ban. It's like this: most admins, and probably most editors in general, are really sick of the nationalist/ethnic stuff in certain areas: mostly Ireland, the Balkans, Israel-Palestine, and perhaps Armenia as well, so regardless of the specific merits of your reverts or your case, you're probably going to be written off as a nationalist trouble-maker if a larger audience looks into this briefly. I'm not saying you are a nationalist trouble-maker, but that's probably how it will look. My honest and frank advice is this: whether your topic ban holds up or not, it would probably be a good idea to try to avoid the Armenian issues all together. Myself, there are a few topics with which I have a serious issues in trying to stay neutral, and I'll just end up avoiding these things. That isn't always a great thing, and it may not be easy to do, but at the end of the day it probably makes for a better encyclopedia. Again, don't take this personally, I don't really have much of an opinion on Armenian issues nor about you as an editor, but I really don't think the chances of this situation improving for you if you keep pushing at it are very good. AlexiusHoratius 08:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand. But the problem I have with this is that I was already blocked for 31 hours for those reverts which then I stopped. Whatever I was warned about I have stopped doing. That's why it's completely not understandable for me to be accused of continuous disruptive behavior. I'm almost being harassed by certain admins for simply not agreeing with them. At first I didn't even have anything nationalistic about my discussion in the talk page. It was mostly about how the reference used for a certain point in the article was inaccurate as the link was saying something else and the sentence it was used for was saying something else. I didn't marched in there saying "You're all lying." I know how nonconstructive that is. What makes me mad is the way some of those admins are behaving. Anyways. Thanks for your input. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple comments here. First, I'll say be careful about the topic ban. I say this because I've seen the same scenario play itself out like 50 times. It's like a guy gets convicted of something in court, and the judge says "I'm not going to send you to jail this time, but you must avoid x neighborhood of the city". The person then leaves, and spends the next few months sort of hanging around the outskirts of the neighborhood, being involved with people who live in the neighborhood... you know, sort of testing the limits. He's busted a few times, but gets out because for this reason or that his actions did not technically breach the terms of his release. Then one day, he gets pulled over while driving on the street that serves as the boundary of the neighborhood. While this in itself may or may not constitute a technical breach, the judge just says "enough, you honestly cannot seem to avoid neighborhood x", and sends the person back to jail. If Wikipedia were a city, and you were told to avoid a certain neighborhood, and you're still constantly hanging around really close to it, when instead you should be trying really hard to avoid the neighborhood completely...trouble is going to come of it eventually.

My other comment is that I can empathize sometimes with people who for whatever reason sort of go down "the wrong path" or get started off on the wrong foot at Wikipedia, and problems start to snowball. I get that most of them are probably not bad or unstable people in real life, and that in fact the real life situations of editors probably bear little resemblance with their on-wiki identities and behavior. Some of our admins and arbs are probably a complete mess in real life, and some of our banned users are upstanding, rational people when not editing here. This probably isn't always the case, but I have a feeling that it often times is. So I understand when you say that you didn't dive right in and seek to cause trouble, or that the situation sort of slowly built to where you find yourself today. But, nevertheless, it is the one you find yourself in, and I think now you're at a real fork were you can either try to get back to being a productive and quiet editor or basically keep doing what got you in the situation in the first place and probably end up getting banhammered. I hope I don't sound like I'm attacking you or trying to give you some sort of patronizing "father-son" speech. I'm not trying to do that, just giving some advice based on what I've seen after several years on here. AlexiusHoratius 17:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much asked for a "father-son" speech actually so thanks. You're simply being realistic. I appreciate that. The reason I wanted to edit was to simply fix certain issues with the article. I was labeled as a nationalist propagandist because I wanted to fix a number issue on a link where the reference suggested 600 thousand instead of 100 thousand. To the admins that is my disruptive editing behavior, I guess. The reason I believe that the situation have came to this level is because of my confrontational and blunt behavior. Even though an admin should be neutral they get pointy when their judgment is questioned.

What I have a problem with is that many people regard Wiki as a reliable source but the truth is that it's a place where only the opinion of the loudest is heard. Facts do not matter. I was looking for a scholar version of Wiki. I found it but was disappointed to see that it was mostly ignored by scholars. It would be much more better if people who actually knew about the issues posted in.

Well, thanks for all the help. I seriously appreciate it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Tito Ortiz

Wasn't protection a tad premature? One incident vandalism in the last 3 days? Jumping the gun a little there. 203.97.188.54 (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

One baseless assumption as to sexual orientation every three days comes out to just over 100 such edits per year. Should I wait until 10 such edits are made? 25?. Until flagged revisions come out, if that day ever comes, semiprotection is the only way to keep most of that garbage out of BLPs. AlexiusHoratius 04:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(West) Virginia

You fail. Virginia is inbred. Known fact. Sorry for making Wikipedia more accurate.

If you insist upon vandalizing Wikipedia, please at least attempt to make it original. Seriously, I've seen that same edit like 50 times. Same thing for San Diego meaning "a whale's vagina" in German. Re-fried comedy is the worst comedy. AlexiusHoratius 17:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Expand Networks Semi Protection

Pls remove.

We have been blanking slanted, non encyclopedic entries about Expand Networks focused on current events. We believe this to be from a previous Expand employee with an ax to grind. Protecting them or leaving them is negative marketing. If you do not want marketing then you have to prevent both. Look at our competitors Riverbed, Bluecoat, Cisco, etc. they ALL have positive unattributed marketing on their pages. Why are we being held to a higher standard? We suspect collusion. ```` 4-15-2010—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.193.148 (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If the other editor has some sort of obvious personal problem with the company, then neither one of you should be editing the article (see WP:COI). The information was sourced, so it shouldn't simply be cut because you don't like it, and what appears in other articles, while sometimes being useful as a rough guideline, shouldn't have too much sway over one particular article. If you feel that the criticism section is violating WP:Undo weight, and I have often seen this to be the case with company articles, you should use the article's talk page to discuss changes you feel should be made to the page. AlexiusHoratius 19:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You make some reasonable and good points. I confess our Wikipedia contributions have not been adhering to your guidelines but neither has the other editor. While we ramp up Can we temporarily remove the obvious slanted contributions of the other editor leaving the innocuous first line. And removing the uncited opinions. The incorrect dissemination of purported financial information, although attributed to Israeli newspapers should be reported as such and not as fact and definitely not in the history section. As a private company we do not release our financial information publicly. As an encyclopedic entry, both editors are wanting due to COI issues. Any attempt to reason with the other editor is unfruitful. So we will come up with a acceptable, attributed article and remove any obvious COI portions. what do you say 4-16-2010 76.98.193.148 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it should be in the article, maybe not, I don't really know. The best place to have this conversation is at the article's talk page. AlexiusHoratius 17:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You are assuming that the other editor is reasonable. Our discussions with them prove otherwise. 19 April 2010 13:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.51.42 (talk)

So I have registered and placed suggestions on the article talk page -- what next? --Fair&Balanced45 (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as your new account, you'll have to wait a few days and make like 10 edits in order for it to become autoconfirmed (in other words, to get the same abilities as any other usual account). On the content dispute, I'd say take a look at dispute resolution and WP:Consensus. Basically, if you know that someone is going to have a problem with an edit that you would like to make, you need to discuss it first on the talk page. Perhaps consensus is against you, in which case you're going to have to live with the article as it is, perhaps there can be some sort of compromise worked out between the two of you, or perhaps a number of other editors will agree with you and then you'll be able to make the changes you want. Try discussing it on the talk page of the article and see what happens. If no-one objects after a few days, make the edit you want to make. I'll also put a welcome template on your user talk page, which has a few more links which may be useful. AlexiusHoratius 14:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for semi protecting John Paulson. Decora (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I don't know too much about what is going on, so let me know if a longer period of protection will be needed after this one expires. AlexiusHoratius 02:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply

But North Dakota doesn't exist --72.144.252.140 (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It does exist. I've been there. Briefly, but I've been there. Trust me. Also, any further edits like that are going to get more vandalism warnings followed by a block. AlexiusHoratius 23:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help and advice on the Sencore speedy deletion ordeal. sdgjake (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've never been very involved in the whole inclustion/deletion debate, but sometimes I'll try to lend a hand when a see an okay article on the chopping block. While WP:Othercrapexists isn't a valid inclusion rationale, the fact we have an article on List of fish on stamps of Iceland is always in the back of my mind when I see possibly legitimate articles about to be deleted. The key there is to provide third-party sources and I think you're in the clear, in most cases. By the way, how is the photography going? I saw your Delmont pictures, which looked good. My parents actually moved away from Sioux Falls, so I don't know that I'll be getting back all that often. I guess the SD photography torch is pretty much getting passed to you now. AlexiusHoratius 16:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing my best with my limited time, that and I usually have my two year old daughter along with me. I have some pictures of Canton that I need to upload. I need to make some time now that spring is finally here and everything is starting to look greener. There are a few things I'm excited about though. I've been learning to do panoramas lately and trying to make more of those. I also got a hold of my dad's old photography equipment. He had two Minolta SLRs and several lenses for them, and a decent tripod. They are 35mm film cameras but they take great pictures. I've been using them along with my digital camera when I go out to take pictures. I haven't gotten any of the film developed yet, so I don't know if my old photography skills are still intact or not. Hopefully they turn out good and I can get them scanned. Any requests on what subjects I should focus on next? sdgjake (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This hero's rumored return needs to be documented, big time. Seriously, although it would never make it into an article, I'll put a photo of the guy on my userpage if you upload one. It could be a few more months before he's back up again, I hear. It's good to hear that you went to Canton, I had always been contemplating going down there but never got around to it; it had always been sort of on the cusp of the 30-mile zone in which I'll go out of my way to take Wikipedia photos. I had swung down to Harrisburg and Tea, but didn't really see any infobox-worthy potential photos, though they may exist, I'm not sure. One thing that has always eluded me is a good photo of the Washington Pavilion. I tried to take one last time I was in Sioux Falls, and I usually take two or three photos from the same spot just to make sure, but I only took one and it turned out blurry. If you go to the northwest corner of 11th and Dakota (next to the YWCA), some time after noon so you're not looking into the sun, you may be able to get a good shot of it. Also, if you ever go to a sports event in Sioux Falls or Brookings or whatever, that would be a good place. Like a photo of a game of the Canaries or Pheasants or whatever they're called. (I actually saw State play the Gophers in football last November, but didn't have my camera along...) If you ever go to something like JazzFest or something, that may be a good photo for the Sioux Falls article. One more idea would be to get something along the bike trail, preferably with bikers or joggers in the shot. Biggest thing I think would be to keep taking the mainstreet shots for smaller towns. I think we may need a 'requested photos' page for WP:SDAK. I know we already have a category for that, but it has like 1,500 entries and there is stuff that is really lacking, like a good picture of Bear Butte or downtown shots of the larger cities. Anyway, keep up the good work. I do envy you, in a way. Most of the Twin Cities area is completely tapped out when it comes to missing photos. I've had to focus on individual skyscrapers or buildings at the U. of M. which will probably never end up in articles; a few weeks ago I was bored so I drove about 20 miles to Wisconsin. But the pickings are pretty slim around here. AlexiusHoratius 19:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive. sdgjake (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That is too cool - thanks. I love the photo of his cast full of signatures as well. See, I told you - pure civic pride. That statue is much more loved than David ever will be. AlexiusHoratius 14:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Gene Vincent protection

Hi. Could I trouble you to protect Gene Vincent again? Shortly after the protection wore elapsed, the fan club re-added the external link to their page. It's a pretty small matter, but thank you. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually going to hold off on protection for now. The article has been unprotected for a couple weeks and there has really only been one incident since then. Also, someone started a thread on one of the ELs on the talk page. I'll keep an eye on it, and re-protect if the older problems pop up again. AlexiusHoratius 05:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The fan club link is back. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, protected for two more weeks. Perhaps they'll take a hint. AlexiusHoratius 21:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force Protection

Thanks for the 3 day full protection. Administrator User:Buckshot06 and I agreed upon the single source currently used on the article.Here it is. However User:Tutu1234 had decided to revert those changes and instead used a variety of inconsistent sources. The very thing I and Buckshot06 tried to avoid. I asked User:Buckshot06 for protection on the page to stop the vast number of unregistered users from committing vandalism. His reply was that he would most likely semi protect the page if the vandalism didn't stop after a week. Right now User:Tutu1234 needs to be talked to.Recon.Army (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If the disruption continues after the protection expires, I'd suggest giving the offending parties 3rr warnings and then reporting them so they can be blocked. I guess other forms of disruption could be brought up at WP:ANI. However, my protection of that article is where my involvement with it begins and and where it will probably end. (Sorry for the bluntness, but there have been a few occasions where my protections have resulted in my being dragged into the role of mediator on an article I have no experience on/interest in, and I don't really want to repeat that ordeal.) AlexiusHoratius 21:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine mate. Hopefully your 3 day protection will encourage people to stop vandalising the article. If they dont, I will take your advice and and warn and report. Thank you. Recon.Army (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Again, sorry if I sounded a bit blunt earlier, but sometimes content disputes that stumble onto RFPP in turn stumble onto my talk page as well; which I guess is understandable. I just wanted to avoid what happened on the first half of this page. AlexiusHoratius 09:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Kansas

Thanks, but I think I'm going to decline. I'm a member of several WikiProjects, but the only one I am very active in is WikiProject South Dakota, as I feel that (most of the time) I know what I'm talking about and few other editors are involved with the state. I do have the Kansas article on my watchlist, mostly to keep out common vandalism, etc., but that is pretty much it as far as editing about Kansas-related topics. I have been there numerous times, and it's a nice state and all, but I don't know that I'd be much help; I'd probably just end up being another inactive name on the members list. AlexiusHoratius 21:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all you do!

Notyourbroom has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

—Notyourbroom (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! AlexiusHoratius 03:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Protecting the Pastime

Thanks very much for re-protecting Baseball.—DCGeist (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Should cover it through the end of the season, at least. AlexiusHoratius 12:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

protection of Talk:Writings of Herbert Schildt

On 28 April you protected this page in response to my request, [3] but rescinded it shortly with the comment "Unprotected Talk:Herbert Schildt: nevermind, looks like it's over, re-report if socking resumes "

Since then the same blocked editor User:Spinoza1111 has continued to post his abuse on that Talk page, and deleted other editor's comments, using IP socks. He makes an assault every few days. He always comes back -- he's being doing it for at least two years now. At this moment he has started again using IP 121.202.84.158 and so far I've reverted three or four times. He was vandalising the article page Herbert Schildt (recently changed to Writings of Herbert Schildt, but this I expect will be changed back) until that was protected.

So -- is it possible to semi-protect the page for a longer period? It's painful to keep dealing with this same garbage over and over. Barsoomian (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for three days. Usually I prefer to avoid protecting talk pages, but there was quite a bit of disruption. I doubt this will stop the problem, but it may help. In the future, I'm thinking that simply blocking the new IP, if it crops up, would be a better option than long-term semiprotection of the talk page. I'll check in and out and see what happens. AlexiusHoratius 14:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but he'll be back immediately it expires. Look at his history. He's learnt how to use dynamic IPS, so blocking an IP just gives you a few minutes break. Eg, see 28 April edits: he used Special:Contributions/203.218.232.77 which was blocked and 5 minutes later he was back at Special:Contributions/203.218.81.19. And if you look at his long history at User:Spinoza1111 you'll see he is continuing the same edit wars on this and other articles he has been waging for 5 years or more. So thanks again, but don't be surprised if I'm back here in three days. Barsoomian (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt

I requested Theodore Roosevelt be unprotected at WP:RPP but just went back and read this instructions, it suggests talking to the protecting admin first, so here I am. The page has been protected for over 6 months. There have been a few request for edits to the protected page that have been fulfilled. I think we should try again with unprotection. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've unprotected it for now. I'm pretty sure the vandalism will return, but at least a few days of unprotection to see whether or not it does won't kill us. AlexiusHoratius 02:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of your image in Businessweek

An image which you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons of Sioux Falls was recently used by the magazine Bloomberg Businessweek in an article entitled 'Best Places to Raise Your Kids'. The image appeared without attribution and did not mention that it may be reproduced under a Creative Commons license. I thought it would be helpful to notify you of this fact. Contact information for Businessweek is available on its website. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and for your efforts in finding the contact link. Despite what the license says, I guess I personally don't really mind if other sites attribute it or not. It'd be nice if they did, but it's fine with me if they don't so long as they're not claiming the photo as their own (as in saying it's copyrighted or taken by someone else or something). I've also found CNBC and I think Money Magazine using that image as well, and one of my ethanol photos was used on some other site. I suppose in a way I'm a bit flattered by it. Perhaps if more Wikipedians knew their photographs would end up in major publications, more editors would take photos. Anyway, thanks again for checking that out. As for Mr. Bloomberg, I have unrelated reasons to dislike that man. AlexiusHoratius 22:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your swift action regarding the lead paragraph of the entry on Aesthetic Realism. The situation was getting pretty rough. I'm hoping that without that intense pressure we can now get back to finishing the article, and also get to a lead that is careful and that accurately represents the article. Nathan43 (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. AlexiusHoratius 00:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting the Arizona article. --White Trillium (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. AlexiusHoratius 05:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope it isn't a problem. --White Trillium (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Thanks

You've also protected the Texas article, and just from watching it for a few days it's obvious it needed it! Thanks! Dffgd (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, most countries and states can get along unprotected, but there are a few that probably need long-term protection. I've had the article on my watchlist for a few years now, and it's my third-most edited article. I've only done a few dozen content-related edits on it, which means that over two hundred of my edits there were reverting vandalism... AlexiusHoratius 19:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you!

AlexiusHoratius - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  23:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi AlexiusHoratius, I ask Toddst1 (but he seems to be inactive) for an edit on Croatisation, the page I asked for protection, the request is about the section disputed by that single user, and I suppose it's necessary to restore it in the article to let other users debating about it for mantaining or changhing consensus on it. You can find my request in Talk:Croatisation. Thanks in advance. - Theirrulez (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The article's talk page is the best place to sort this out - if there is a solid consensus for an edit to be made then it's a possibility, but even admins are not supposed to edit a fully protected article unless it's either agreed upon or else really minor and uncontroversial. I'm not really involved with the debate nor the issues; I'm just the one who checked off the protection request. AlexiusHoratius 05:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

ottoman

man the ottoman empire was 19.9 mil at his greatest al the articles are wrong i could know i study history in turkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.226.152.29 (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you say, man. But in the future, please avoid making edits such as this. Thanks. AlexiusHoratius 04:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:That Sport

Yes, when you live in a country that invented the sport, you're bound to get a lot of coverage about it. My advice is don't get hooked! Stay a watcher every 4 years. I got hooked in 2002 and I can't help following my club and country all the time. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I know how it is. Honestly, when it comes to my favorite American football and baseball teams, I'll often avoid watching the bigger games due to the stress level... AlexiusHoratius 16:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Shon Brooks

Hello,

I have addressed everyone's objections regarding this article on Shon Brooks by presenting more concrete facts and sources. He has created curriculums that are already in your Wikipedia Encyclopedia! I have rewrote the entire article on my USER/ Draft space. You will find that this is a individual that should not be denied the main page. Please bring this article back to existance. Thank you for your time and patience in learning your system.

Habeebah (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Habeebah

Fanmail

you are a douche —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.119.194 (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mom, you have my telephone number. There's no need to use Wikipedia to get in touch with me. AlexiusHoratius 19:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yankton, South Dakota

New to wikipedia and not really caring all that much about having an External Link on that page, I'm not overly concerned that you reversed the link I added, but I would like to point out, it was in no way spam or illegitimate. Unsure what the External Link section is used for, I saw it as an opportunity for those who visited the page to be able to find business information. And if you are going to remove a legitimate business link from the page, I would also suggest you remove the Yankton Travel link which links to a yanktonkiosk.com - they are not a local company and their pages in no way contain enough business information to warrant them being on there and yanktonbiz.com being removed. Just my personal opinion and felt I wanted to share it. I will no longer be using wikipedia as my first experience seems to be unfavorable. Thank you 24.111.79.151 (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)A Representative of YanktonBIZ.com

Sorry if the edit summary sounded a little curt - nothing personal, just standard operating procedure in those situations. On Wikipedia, many people try to add a lot of commercial links to articles, especially ones about cities and towns, so there is often a need to limit these to just the city's official website, official tourism site, or perhaps a link to the chamber of commerce. In other words, editors trying to add general .com business stuff will often get reverted. Again, it's nothing personal, but that's how it usually happens. AlexiusHoratius 15:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice of user problem

Hi Alexius H and Go Gophers!... I've been trying to carry on a civil discussion with User:Altaileopard on references which he's somewhat confused on. Anyway, he has a Category:Megafauna of Africa insert on his discussion page. I corrected it by adding and extra set of brackets [ ] so that it would not appear on the category article/page. He reverted it so now it appears. I'm going to alter it again as a Reviewer and hope he doesn't repeat it again. Just letting administrators know. I also notified Adm. User:After Midnight as I don't know who's active this week or next. Thanks... Noles1984 (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes those categories can get on there as a sort of false positive, so I'd suggest just talking it out with them if it's causing categorization issues. AlexiusHoratius 17:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Please lock the Carrie Underwood as the vandalism going on

Please lock the Carrie Underwood as the vandalism going on, and until there is official source to confirm her new name. As her wedding happened recently, her new name disputes just like Ashlee Simpson.

Thanks. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 07:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I semiprotected it for a week. For future reference, listing the article at WP:Requests for page protection would probably get a faster response in cases like this. AlexiusHoratius 12:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

San Cayetano fault

I added a new page on this fault, because there has been recent activity north of Ojai, and people might be interested. I didn't know if it was appropriate to have an article devoted to a single geologic topic other than the San Andreas. If it is, there is probably more background to be added about the research that associates this fault with a previously unsourced earthquake in 1812. Any advice or suggestions for the article San Cayetano Fault would be appreciated. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientwest (talk • contribs) 18:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know all that much about the subject; the San Andreas Fault is just one of those random articles I have on my watchlist for some reason, like Statue of Liberty or Finland, and most of my activity there is focused on removing common vandalism. WP:WikiProject Geology and WP:WikiProject California might be good places to go for help on the subject - just make a post on their discussion pages. AlexiusHoratius 18:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Matt Damon and ONEXONE

Hello,

can you please ad a link to the new ONEXONE page on Wiki? In fact, perhaps you can help clean the page up for me as I am not as experienced as you are. I have joined Matt to Rwanda in 2009 with ONEXONE and worked with him on the Entourage episode. thank you very much. BGRWANDA(talk)

I'm not very familiar with the article nor ONEXONE; the talk pages of the relevant articles would probably be the best place to discuss new additions. AlexiusHoratius 03:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the Reply. ONEXONE is a new article and is already mentioned in the Matt Damon Wikipedia page. All we need is the link to get setup since the spelling is different being OneXone not ONEXONE. Matt is our official ambassador, you can see it on our site and the great work with our efforts.

(http://www.onexone.org/who-we-are-matt-message.php). He has been with us for 4 years now. I hope this helps.

Thank you again. BGRWANDA(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC).