User talk:AlexiusHoratius/Archive 2

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my user page. Cheers --Patrick (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mel Gibson"

Hey there.

I notice that you removed the vandalism that I missed somehow. Thanks for that.
...but what exactly happened there? ~ Troy (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I had noticed a long string of unexplained edits, without many reversions, which is usually a bad sign. I checked the diff between Insanity Incarnate's version and what had been the current version, and there had been a number of vandal edits that had been missed, in other words, the reverts weren't going back far enough, so I just reverted back to a version before all the disruption started. I've put in a request at WP:RFPP, hopefully that should take care of it for awhile. I'm not sure why it was all happening today, he must be in the news or linked on the mainpage or something. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the article has been semi-protected for a couple weeks. By the way, thanks for the rvv on my userpage the other day. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my userpage! --  Darth Mike  _{(Talk • Contribs)} 10:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

It appears you get this a lot, but I really appreciate the help reverting the vandalism on my Talk page. CIGraphix (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Micheal Phelps is not as good as Ian Thorpe

Sure Micheal Phelps is winning all those gold medals and is so called the best Olympian ever. But who said being an olympian is all about winning, to be the perfect Olympian you have to have physical strength but also a kind respective attitude but does Micheal Phelps have that. No, no he doesnt which makes him half a perfect olympian so who is the perfect olympian who has those too put together. Hardly anyone but no there is two Stephanie rice and Ian Thorpe. Sure Stehphanie is still ypung but at least she has a good attitude. What about Ian Thorpe his retired but was never a show- off or a boaster like Micheal Phelps. So what do i say. Viva Ian Thorpe, Viva Stephanie Rice, Viva Grant Hackett, Viva Eadmon Sullivan, Viva Australia. But long Micheal Phelps your going down. Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie Oi oi oi!

By Leo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Togetherwelovepoo (talk • contribs) 07:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Flamingo

The article states "In Ancient Rome, flamingo tongues were considered a delicacy". Do you understand what does this mean? Why only tongue, not other body parts? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit of research on it, and I found a reference that covers the passage in the article. I'm not really sure why they liked it more - but then again I stopped trying to understand Roman cuisine after reading how garum was made. AlexiusHoratius 10:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you feel about mops?

Hey there Alexius, I saw that you were asked about adminship back in May by User:Qaddosh. You mentioned that you wanted to wait a few months then; I was curious, when were you thinking about trying for RfA? I've been looking into your contribs a bit, and I think you do fine work here. We could certainly use your help! Looking forward to your response. :) GlassCobra 17:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I would be open to running this time, if you wanted to nominate me. If you do, I'm pretty open in the next few weeks. Feel free to ask me about my edit history or anything, and if you do want to nominate me, go ahead and let me know how best to go about doing this (although I've been watching RfA's for most of the year, I've never actually gone through with one myself, so I don't know much about the pre-transclution side of it). AlexiusHoratius 04:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

732SOUTHPAW (talk · contribs)

Hi. Please assist in reverting this user's edits, because this user keeps on removing metric units, if they haven't been reverted already. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Nevermind, I have finished reverting the unwanted edits, but some of the other edits are OK but some I'm not sure about such as making links less specific such as "CSI Miami" to "CSI" and "character actor" to "actor". Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, looks like the metric ones have been taken care of. (Sorry, I was out for a bit.) The removals seem to have stopped for now, if they start up again I suppose we can discuss what to do about it at that point. AlexiusHoratius 23:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I think you are absolutely gorgeous!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nissanaltima (talk • contribs) 07:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you very much. AlexiusHoratius 07:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

Thanks for the reverts on my userpage. --Patrick (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. AlexiusHoratius 23:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing vandalism

Thanks for reverting stuff at my user page and helping to block the vandal. CRETOG8(t/c) 06:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. AlexiusHoratius 06:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank in WP:N?

Thank you for pointing out in the crown. Thanks it again. --Bart0278 (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, (they looked the same to me at first as well). I think it had something to do with the coronation of Elizabeth II, the change in flags and the coronation were both in 1953, but I'm not completely sure if this was the reason. If you want more information about it, the Humanities Reference desk would be the place to ask it. AlexiusHoratius 11:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Holler House

I have just created Holler House and see you are interested in Milwaukee topics wonder if you may be able to find/upload any free images of Holler House. Any article improvement would be appreciated too. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I read the article, and it actually sounds like a pretty cool place, but I don't think I could be of much help as far as pictures go (I don't live in Milwaukee, I just watch the article). AlexiusHoratius 06:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Pro

Changed my Latvian goat edit in a matter of seconds. before my friend even had a chance to see =/

66.235.40.209 (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't like to brag, but maybe you're right, maybe I should get paid for this... AlexiusHoratius 01:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh

Sorry 'bout that.[1] You beat me on the rollback, which I had in another tab while I warning the IP. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'm sure I've done the same thing a few times as well. AlexiusHoratius 00:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

My user page

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page!! ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and good work with all the rvv's lately, seems like almost every other revert today has gone back to a version by you. AlexiusHoratius 20:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Vermont

Thanks for taking care of the vandalism on the Vermont page. Please include the "next" step of warning the vandals. (I did already this time) I have noticed few repeats among warned vandals. The ones that do repeat - we have a history when they do it on different articles. Thanks again for your effort. Student7 (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I generally do warn them, but that guy hadn't edited in the half hour between his edit and my revert; I sort of figured that he had had his bit of fun and moved on. (For the registered accounts, repeat offending IPs, and the really nasty stuff, I always give out warnings, but for the first time testers, or for first time IP vandals whose edits are a bit old, as were the ones on Vermont, I will often just let that slide.) Some time ago, I looked at some of my really old user talk warnings, and found that quite a few of those pages consisted of my one vandalism1 template and nothing for the three or four months since, so I guess I lightened up a bit on warning the people making test edits or the vandals who looked like they were probably one-time offenders. AlexiusHoratius 14:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I should have known that there was a good reason! 12:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No need for an apology. I don't even know if my reason is a good reason, it's just that on the one hand, we have some burned out anti-vandal admins who don't warn anyone, and on the other there are cases I've seen where eager-beaver hugglers will be warning people for absolutely every edit, even ones to the sandbox or poorly worded talk page messages. I think my way is a bit of a happy medium, a bit more nuanced. The vandals who really need it still get warned, and the person who made a smiley-faced test hours ago gets off the hook. Although I should point out that sometimes I'm not entirely consistent, when I probably should be. If I'm in a hurry and just clearing out my watchlist I might just rollback all the vandalism and not worry about the warnings, sometimes if I'm in full-on RC patrol mode I'll warn people much more often. AlexiusHoratius 16:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your assistance in keeping USS New Jersey (BB-62) vandal free while the article was up on the mainpage I herby award you The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! AlexiusHoratius 01:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of User talk:Ygogg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User talk:Ygogg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User talk:Ygogg is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User talk:Ygogg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Panama and Panama real estate

The update that I made to the Panama real estate section was both accurate and timely. The information it currently contains is neither. By changing that update, you did the people reading that page a disservice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.34.167.2 (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't logged in when I made the edit or this update, but I am now so that you can contact me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilimedia (talk • contribs) 00:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted that edit for a couple of reasons. First, Wikipedia, and the external links added to it, should not be used to advertise businesses and services; the link you added, www.panamarealestate.com, frankly adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the article. It does not help the reader better understand the subject, instead it seems only geared toward selling land or condos in Panama. (Please see the guideline at WP:External links for more information on this). As to the edit in the article itself; I don't necessarily object to information being added (from reliable, third party sources) about a real estate boom in the country, but that addition simply sounded a bit too boosterish, a bit too much like an advertisement. Looking at the matter again, the link clearly didn't belong, but if you feel that more information could be added about a real estate boom, please discuss it on the the article's talk page, located at Talk:Panama. There, editors who are more informed about Panamanian topics than I am will be able to help out. As many Central American articles have had spam-related issues lately, it would be best to discuss any changes to those articles on the subject of real estate before making them to the article. AlexiusHoratius 01:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Stuttgart: thanks

Just a quick thank you for your edits to the Stuttgart which I totally overhauled earlier in the year. It's never been upgraded in terms of quality or had a peer review so any input on it is much appreciated! BuzzWoof (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, happy to help out. AlexiusHoratius 22:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Resilient Barstar
		Thanks for making tireless contributions to improve the quality of Articles, and for your unbelievably talented edits. Nissanaltima (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! AlexiusHoratius 08:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Saskatchewan

Thanks for noticing, I actually fixed it but I totally forgot to upload it. Thanks again :) EOZyo (мѕğ) 05:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. (I think our little Prince Edward Island may be cursed or something, it was giving me problems on a map I made as well. Who knows...) AlexiusHoratius 07:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it, I think that when I was doing AB map it happened the same, but I noticed it before uploading it, hehehe. EOZyo (мѕğ) 19:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Alexius Horatius! Thank you very much for your question and support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Please don't worry about the 'outdated' page :) It was actually a reason for some oppose !votes on my 2006 RfA, but I pretty much didn't update it since and many things have completely changed. I just don't think it's really worth my time at this point to re-analyze/re-write the page, hence the reason for the simple tag. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the successful RfA - I was thinking about it after I had asked the question and put my support down, and I think you're right that that page isn't that big of a deal; I may have made it sound like something of more importance in my question than I meant to. Thinking about the matter again, I wouldn't worry about it, you're right that the tag is probably enough. I saw the older RfA, and I was somewhat at a loss as to how to get to the bottom of it - I didn't really want an anti-anon admin working at AIV and RFPP, but on the other hand, I figured that you most likely didn't feel that way anymore and I didn't want to unfairly sink your RfA based on an old page from a long time ago. I thought the best way to handle it would be to ask you your opinion straight off on the matter (sorry if that seemed sneaky at the time), and when it turned out that the page was indeed outdated, I wanted to word my support in such a way as to keep people from opposing based on it, which is why I emphasized the fact the page was out of date. Anyway, congratulations again. AlexiusHoratius 01:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy Notice

I've completed the GA Review for Texas.

zsef

this is free editing u idiot. dont tell me what to do \ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.186.77.105 (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Berlin

Please let me have your suggestion. On Nov.19. 2008 I added the photo of the Kaiser William Memorial Church to the Berlin page, considering it the best example of war results. Two hours later user 92.225.24.19 deleted it . I put in his talk the following: Quite amazing your statement two ruins' photos are too much. The photo I added is the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial that means the most significant memory of the Berlin destructions due to the second world war; the place I put it is the right place for that photo. Why you have not used the same criteria for the two photo of the Berlin wall? I think you should have a better reason before deleting other works. I got no answer. Could you tell me if may I try again to insert that photo or if it is better to forget it. Thanks.--Pio Box (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the photo you were trying to add to the Berlin article - although it is a good photo and may even illustrate more than the current picture does (post-war construction together with ruins, instead of just ruins), that article is already pretty well developed and probably has enough photographs. If you really want to see the photo replace the one currently used in the article, you should use the article's talk page to discuss it with other editors about which photo would be better. That said, that article is already pretty well-developed, and there are a lot of German-related articles that aren't. (For instance, History of Berlin looks like it could use a lot of work). Don't take this to mean that you can't or shouldn't edit Berlin, you can of course, but you may have an easier time, especially as a beginner, if you start out with an article more in need of expansion than Berlin is. AlexiusHoratius 16:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks AH for your kind answer.--Pio Box (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

gay mississippi

The gay and lesbian section of the mississippi article should be removed. It is not relevant to the article. Ih ave not come across any other state article on wikipedia with an entire gay and lesbian section. Demographics of states should be left to race and ethnicity only. Also the info even though sourced is misleading and one qoute is flat out wrong. I double checked the sources they have listed and Jackson, Ms is not number ten in African American homosexuals. Furthermore it is natural obvious to assume that Mississippi would have the highest percentage of Black gays of any state, Mississippi has the largest overall Black percentage of any state. From the soures listed on the article New mexico and Texas have the largest Latino gay percentages. Latino homosexuals though are not included in the demographics sections of the Texas or New Mexico articles. So why should Black gays be covered in the Mississippi article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christchild777 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Christchild - the reason I gave you that message a year ago was because you had simply cut the section without giving a reason, (at the time a number of people were doing this) but I see that you've now put a topic about its removal at the Mississippi talk page, which is good. I actually agree with your message on several points - while some of the information could possibly be added back, for instance, the gay marriage amendment could be mentioned as a contemporary political issue in the government section, the older section did seem like a bit too much information on a demographic group that probably isn't a major influence on the social or demographic makeup of the state. AlexiusHoratius 03:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I have restored the section as it was and replied on the talk page. Cheers. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 08:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Mississippi. AlexiusHoratius 09:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

British spelling

Please note [-ise/-ize debate]. Rmhermen (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. (That's actually news to me.) AlexiusHoratius 21:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey

My edits were not vandalism. Infact they were good. --Assembletheways (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said they were vandalism, I said that you should discuss major edits, and especially major deletions, such as your recent ones to Alabama and Mississippi on the talk pages of those articles before making the edits. Also, citations need to be left in the article per our verifiability policy; you had removed them all from Alabama. AlexiusHoratius 17:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Galib is wishing you a Happy New Year. This card promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day much better. Best Wishes and Happy Editing!

Best To Reply At My Talk Page. Thanks.

Just Stopping by. Yours Truly, M.H.^{True Romance iS Dead} 15:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC) .

Revert thank you

Thank you for the hasty fix of Geography of Saskatchewan. I have made the image changes in a different manner this time. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 04:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep - no problem. AlexiusHoratius 05:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy editing Texas

I have divided the Texas page into 6 parts. Hopefully with more manageable chunks, people will be more willing to copyedit the page. would you be willing to copy edit one section of the Texas page?

Talk:Texas#Copyedit_plan Oldag07 (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look and grab a section. AlexiusHoratius 18:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Oldag07 (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your copyediting work. in getting this page ready for FA, I expanded the sentence on the Texas Ranger Division, to a whole paragraph. like to look over it? Oldag07 (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

California star

		The California Star
		In recognition of your continuous, apparently tireless reversion of vandalism on California Gold Rush. Much, much appreciated! - NorCalHistory (talk).

NorCalHistory (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool! - possibly the best-looking barnstar. Thanks! AlexiusHoratius 06:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for catching the vandalism to my talk page and reverting it. It was much appreciated. Trusilver 08:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, no problem. AlexiusHoratius 08:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The South Dakota Barnstar
		AlexiusHoratius, awarded this barnstar for many edits in the South Dakota article. Chergles (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Do I qualify for it as the #3 editor? Your call. Chergles (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Sure, you can have one too, check your message bar. AlexiusHoratius 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I am not from South Dakota but enjoyed a trip there 2 years ago. I traced the path of Lewis and Clark from Sioux City to Rapid City, stopping along the way to see the historical markers. I had a fun time in the town of Belvidere and Chamberlain. Chergles (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome for the barnstar- Say, there was actually an L&C-related article that I was thinking of creating on Spirit Mound. I don't know if you visited it on your trip, it's just a small hill but it has a fairly interesting history. I saw that you had been involved in DYK's, so I thought you might be interested on coming up with some sort of DYK hook or something. AlexiusHoratius 22:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How about Spirit Mound in a week or two? I'm starting it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chergles/Spirit_Mound If there's a valid DYK, which I'm sure there is, we'll both introduce it to WP with a bang. Chergles (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good - no rush at all. AlexiusHoratius 02:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, hey, SD is now a GA! Too many things to do, too little time. On my WP list is Spirit Mound, MD-90 (aircraft), a car factory in Illinois, and a road in NY. Those will take a while. Add in some minor stuff and my plate is full for at least 2-3 months.

I see you have been to Liechtenstein. Interesting place. Probably boring if you have to live there for years. I've been there twice. At one gas station, they gave me directions to the bed and breakfast. Turn left at the VW dealer they said in German. Chergles (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey hey! ho ho! this B-class joke has got to go! Not going to lie, today has been a pretty good one - a GA after almost two years and too many edits, temperature outside is above freezing for the first time in like six weeks... I know what you're saying about workload, not that it's a real workload, but still - I'm working on getting History of South Dakota up to GA in the next few months, and I had been planning on doing the same to First Punic War, but I've hit something of a wall there...we'll get to Spirit Mound at some point. I've got another reliable source on it as well, so we shouldn't have any problems with references there. AlexiusHoratius 01:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Map of James Cook voyages

Hi I really liked your map of Cook's voyages. I'm working on an article to do with whaling back in the 1800's. I don't have much skill with Wiki but I wondered if you could point me to where I could find the digital map base of the World map centered on the Pacific, and how I then add in the voyage of the whale ships.

Thanks for your help Maxworthy Maxworthy (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the base map I used, found on Commons. In general, I can find most of the blank maps I need there by searching for things like 'Category:Maps of the World' or 'Category:Pacific Ocean' and so on. Also, and not that I mind that you asked, but just for future reference or whatever, a link to the base map used is often (though not always) somewhere on the map's infomation page, found by clicking on the map. For instance, I put a link to the base map I used for the Cook map on the Cook map's page, next to the 'Source' heading.

It was actually very time consuming for me to draw the voyages. I draw all of my maps by hand; in this case I used photocopies of Cook maps I got from my local university's library as a reference. I then used the outline of the coasts, islands, and lines of latitude and longitude as reference points when drawing the map. This all may sound a bit unprofessional, but the resulting map is actually much more accurate than anything else I could find online.

The program I used to draw the map, and this is a bit embarrassing, is Microsoft Paint. I would really suggest working with a higher-line program if one is available to you, as Paint takes a lot of work not to look horrible, and even then it only looks mediocre. I use it because it's all I have access to, and I haven't done enough cartographic work to justify getting a better program.

Anyway, good luck with your map, and feel free to ask if you have any other questions. AlexiusHoratius 08:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		On behalf of all the vandalized pages you have reverted, thank you and keep up the good work. South Bay (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! AlexiusHoratius 21:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the vandal revert

on my talk page. When I'm at work, I can't check WP that often.DCmacnut<> 19:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. (BTW, I wonder where they came from...usually it's the vandal fighter or controversial admin who gets hit like that, first ever edit and so on, although I suppose they could have simply stumbled onto your page by accident.) AlexiusHoratius 19:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

opinion?

prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwerle (talk • contribs) 03:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't really prove that it's your opinion, but I am forced assume that it is because you are the one who added it, it was not at all worded in a neutral manner, and you did not provide any reliable sources to back up your addition. AlexiusHoratius 06:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Iowa Barnstar

		The Iowa Barnstar
		For your protection of the main Iowa article, I hereby award you the Iowa Barnstar. Bill Whittaker (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! AlexiusHoratius 15:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

RfA followup

Hello AlexiusHoratius! I'm sorry that we haven't spoken in so long, turns out that RL has been quite demanding these past few months. However, I wanted to ask you if you were still interested in running the RfA gauntlet; I've been digging through your contribs and writing up a potential nomination statement. If you'd like, I could also ask User:Qaddosh, who wanted to nominate you back in May, if he'd be interested in a co-nomination. Hope to hear back from you! GlassCobra 16:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like Qaddosh isn't active much anymore. If you'd like another user to do a co-nom though, let me know and I'll go ahead and ask them. GlassCobra 16:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello again - yeah, I'm still open to running, let me know if you have any questions on the nom or if not, I guess just let me know when you've finished writing it and I'll transclude the RfA the next day or so. No rush, whatever suits your schedule. I'll let Qaddosh know about it in case he sees it and wants to put a co-nom in pre-transclusion, but like you said, it doesn't look like he's hugely active (as in every day); if we don't hear from him then I suppose one nom is plenty. Thanks, btw, for offering to do this, I really do appreciate it - I understand about the RL stuff - after we spoke last summer, I didn't really want to pester you with a bunch of "Where's my nom?!?" messages, and I had seen that you were studying in Greece...I figured if you wanted to nom, great, if not, thats OK too. Again, let me know if you have any questions or if you've finished the nom. AlexiusHoratius 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the quickest way to contact you (AIM, IRC, etc)? I've got a few final questions I'd like to ask you before we get the ball officially rolling. GlassCobra 22:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've actually never used IRC, I guess my talk page would probably work best for me, I've also enabled email if you would rather do that, although I would prefer to keep things on-wiki for transparency and ease of communication and so on. AlexiusHoratius 22:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just shot you an email. :) GlassCobra 22:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied. AlexiusHoratius 23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool - I'll probably transclude it in the early afternoon tomorrow. AlexiusHoratius 00:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, great! Make sure to fix the timestamp once you've transcluded it, instructions are at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate#What to do if you are nominated by someone else. Good luck! GlassCobra 01:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: One last thing

Hey there, I replied on my talk and made a couple tweaks to the nom statement. That look okay? GlassCobra 16:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks great now, I left a fuller response on your talk. AlexiusHoratius 16:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sioux Quartzite

Hi - I saw you just changed Sioux Quartzite to "mid" for its cultural importance in Eastern SD. I started the article with the geology only - would you mind helping me, or pointing to references, for its cultural importance? Thanks, Awickert (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually have a book that I've been using to slowly expand History of South Dakota with (the one by Schell) that I'm sure discusses the stone in various places, I'd be happy to add a paragraph or so over the weekend, if you like. The book is SD-specific, but should help nonethess, I'm thinking. I haven't read page-to-page that far in it yet, but I seem to remember it discussing various quarrying methods, immigrant workers, etc. when I was first paging through it. AlexiusHoratius 04:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

All I know is that the natives carved ceremonial pipes from certain layers, and that much of Sioux Falls was built from it. I think the stone is most significant in South Dakota - but I'll check some info on Pipestone National Monument in MN as well. The article as it is right now was a one-day pet project by me, so I'd love if you'd like to expand. Awickert (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm proposing a re-organization scheme on the talk page. Feel free to add material whenever you want, and I'll pitch in. Awickert (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good! AlexiusHoratius 04:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmmm... I'm not seeing it in the book initially, but it's got to be in there somewhere... You're right about the historical significance of it to SF. It was a fairly major early industry in the city- a bit like milling's importance to Minneapolis, maybe not quite that important, but important - in fact, there is still a large quarry in operation in the city right beside I-29. Most of the larger public buildings were built using the stone, courthouses and early mansions and so on. This probably isn't sourced, just my OR, but it is sort of used in a "symbolic" way now in the city, like with sculptures and monument pedestals. The pink color is pretty distinctive, I suppose, so it's kind of cool in that way. I also saw/read somewhere, and again, this is my OR unless I can find a source, that the rock that was quarried was used as a paving stone in many larger cities to the east, like St. Louis or Chicago. Again, I'll look at this over the weekend and try to do a sourced expansion, if I'm able. AlexiusHoratius 04:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OK - thanks - sorry about the edit conflict. I'll look around too, for what I've been thinking of and for what you say, and list any good sources I find on the article's talk page. I'll start the section if I find enough info, or I'll start a smaller section (i.e., spiritual importance to Native Americans) that you can feel free to incorporate as a subsection to a larger "Uses/Importance to humans" section. Awickert (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. (Don't worry about the e/c by the way, I actually think that may have been a first for my talk page!) AlexiusHoratius 04:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA

Dear AlexiusHoratius,

I have closed your recent RfA as successful per the consensus of the community. Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please make sure you're aware of the Administrators' how-to guide and are aware of the items on the Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to let me know. Best of luck in your new position! —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! :D --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wield it with pride, Alexius. Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The admins' t-shirt! Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! 'Twas actually a good experience, overall, even though I'm glad it's over... Just like to say thanks to everyone who participated- especially GlassCobra, my nominator. It was a bit surreal seeing all of those people showing up and reading the comments... Thanks again! AlexiusHoratius 22:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!!!America69 (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! (and thanks for your support, BTW!) AlexiusHoratius 01:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

George Laraque

Dear Alexius Horatius,

I believe you edited out some well-sourced and referenced history of the rivalry between the boston bruins (specifically milan lucic) and george laraque on the wikipedia "geiorge laraque" page.

I noticed one of my footnotes remains but the message has been changed. Sadly, it does not tell the complete story. The question becomes, if the Boston Bruins "outplayed" the Canadiens in the first round of the playoffs in 2007-8, how would they have lost? Thus I think that that is not a neutral stance.

Second, why the fuss about all the referenced items. I even took one from the Boston Globe as well as the Winnipeg Sun! Is there a way we can cover this rivalry in a way that you will think is fair, or do I have to report your entry to Wikipedia for lack of neutrality?

Please respond so we can work this out.

Thanks, dr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deranged Ranger (talk • contribs) 06:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually never removed or added any content to the article itself, I only semi-protected the article as a request had been made at WP:Requests for page protection; it looked as though the article was receiving a large amount of vandalism in addition to some of the content disputes that you're speaking of. I see that you've started a thread on the subject at the article's talk page, which was the right thing to do in this situation. I would suggest continuing the discussion either there or on the talk pages of some of the editors who had been reverting your additions. (I don't personally have an opinion on the validity of the various argument being made, as I don't really know that much about the subject of the article.) AlexiusHoratius 14:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing my posts?

I have professionally edited and added several times a segment for Janeane Garofalo, and have had it removed. I would like to inquire on it being protected. This is what I have added:

The argument that some have stated about this interview in 2009 dealt with her previous comments given on Keith Olberman in August 2003 where she stated, "I am in favor of any citizen talking" and "...the most appropriate response is dissent which is the most patriotic thing you can do and the First Amendment guarantees everyone's right to speak out."[14]

I posted a youtube link to the video showing this, and edited it for nonbias. I posted it in the appropriate area as well. Thanks in advance for your response and aid towards this matter :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtCheeseNOLS (talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article because Garofalo's recent statements had set off a wave of vandalism like this and this. Such statements don't belong on any article, but they especially don't belong on a biography of a living person. The vandalism was coming in at a rate faster than the usual methods of anti-vandalism could deal with it, so semi-protection was warranted in that case.

As to the content dispute, please use the article's talk page and come to a consensus with other editors as to what should go into the article and what shouldn't. I'm not saying I support seeing the article purged of anything critical of the subject, but things to keep in mind in this case would be WP:BLP, WP:Recentism and WP:RS (youtube usually doesn't count as a reliable source due largely to the lack of editorial oversight. However, it shouldn't be difficult to find a better source.) AlexiusHoratius 21:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand there would be vandalism like that, but what I posted and another user was not insulting in any way. We both quoted her Keith Olbermann interview, and we showed both sides in the videos posted. We showed her words in the 2003 Olbermann interview and in the 2009 (recent) interview. If there is anything insulting towards her that was said, I don't see how it could be considering all we did was show what she said. We never stated she was a man in the articles, only quotes with video references. I actually did a fairly good job of being nonbiased in saying, "Some people are arguing that her statements were controversial due to her prior statements on the Keith Olbermann show" and I showed the link to the comments. Can you please review what was said and protect it as well? Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.21.101 (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, how is Youtube not a legitimate source in this example? I understand that people will make their own videos and such, but the video posted is an actual clip of her stating those comments given in the article in question. There is no audio editing, and you can see that for yourself. Why would you say, "That website is not a legitimate source, even though that video clip IS her talking, and is talking on the subject being mentioned in this paragraph. But you must now find other places that have that video, as I don't personally like youtube as a source." If you want to make the argument of "not a good source," we could be here a long time.

All I am asking is that you read the paragraph I added, look at the content posted, and the videos I posted from YouTube and please tell me how they are in any way slanderous and nonfactual. Thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.21.101 (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

On the protection of the article - there will be, at times, cases where semi-protection (or full-protection) will block out useful content contributions, and this is unfortunate, but protection is still in many cases warranted as the other incidents of straight vandalism are occurring so fast that editors can't stay on top of it. Sometimes, if there is an important recent event, the article will stay unprotected for a time as anonymous users are being helpful in adding critical updates, but in the recent case on Garofalo's article, I didn't see the good faith content contributions as being critical enough to outweigh the damage being caused by the vandalism the article was experiencing. The article's talk page has always been, and is, unprotected, so anonymous users could have used that to discuss adding content to the article.

On using YouTube as a source, I said that usually this isn't done, but I believe exceptions can be made in cases such as this, where, like you said, you are saying that one person has made a statement and the video being used as a source is obviously of that person making the statement. Again, you'll have to use the article's talk page as to whether this link should be included.

As far as my personal opinion on the contribution you are trying to make - while again, I'm not saying that the article needs to be whitewashed of anything unfavorable, I do still have several concerns about it. As I said before, you need really good sources backing up what you're saying, and there is also the matter of giving a huge amount of time to a recent inflammatory statement by someone who has basically made something of a career out of making inflammatory statements. Also, it looks like what you are trying to say may be synthesis, in that the conclusion you are coming to (that she is a hypocrite) is not explicitly stated by the sources you are giving. Synthesis is basically using different sources to come to a conclusion that the sources themselves do not.

Also, I would strongly urge you to stick to one account from now on and make sure that you are logged in when making posts. I realize that new editors may from time to time forget to log in, but when you do this, especially in contentious areas such as this, you are opening yourself up to accusations of sockpuppetry. I'm not saying that you're guilty of socking at this point, but you will probably run into trouble down the road if you don't make sure that you are logged in when making posts or edits. AlexiusHoratius 16:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see now that this may have been two different people commenting on the same thing, rather than one person editing as an IP and as an account - if that's the case, don't worry about what I said in my last paragraph. AlexiusHoratius 16:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There were 2 different people involved, myself who was showing the 2009 interviews controversy, and the other person who wrote JUST on the interview by quoting her. I can understand how you can say I am pulling synthesis, but don't all Wikipedia pages show the "Controversial side" as well as the "other side?" Is that not the best way to provide information the public? To give them ALL sides of the information, and let the reader make their own judgment based off all of them. I understand she has made a career off making outlandish claims, but does that mean we should give her a free pass and not put it on her Wikipedia page? Should she not be remembered for her "career out of making inflammatory statements?" There are people in history who have done some pretty bad things, and said some pretty bad things. But that shouldn't stop us from putting that information here in Wikipedia for the world to see. If someone calls people "racists" and "white-supremacists, should we not write that on here? Don Imus's Wikipedia page is almost 60% devoted to his inflammatory and controversial remarks (if you don't believe me, you should check it out)! If that is what someone's career is, it should be posted on here with facts. I posted facts. I showed what she said, the controversy it created, and the arguments made by those people who felt there was controversy in it.

As I don't want this debate to continue, I would like to then know. What can we do about this? What information can I keep on her page, and what should be removed? I personally believe the entire segment from her transcript on the Keith Olbermann program to the controversy it created. It shows the facts, both sides, and video to go along with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.21.101 (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I do think that, on the whole, there is a bit of bias towards the Left when it comes to political articles on Wikipedia. It isn't huge, overall, but it is there at certain points or on specific articles. The Imus article is a good example of too much weight being given to a single controversy, and the Monsanto article starts off as an article about the company and then collapses into a a screed for the final 75% of its length about how supposedly evil they are. On the other hand, I have always found the Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher articles to be very neutral, and in fact much better than anything the New York Times or the BBC would be able to come up with on either of those subjects. I generally try to view things on a case-by-case basis, with the belief that just because one article is screwed up doesn't mean they all have to be. On the subject of having a 'criticism' section, I would rather just say what the people did, what the effects were, and let people come to their own conclusions as far as what is good and what isn't. As far as what I think belongs on the Garofalo article, I would say that the comments and the reaction they caused should be at least mentioned, (you're right in saying that someone basically equating conservatives with white supremacists should be mentioned) but that that should be as far as it goes when talking about only comments. I think that adding a link to the transcript or having a special section dedicated to them is simply a bit much. Another thing to keep in mind is that the comments made by Imus basically ended the guy's career (at least for a time), while so far the comments made by Garofalo have really only been just that - controversial comments. AlexiusHoratius 17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a story about biases, this is a story of me and other users wanting to add to her page things she said. Would you allow us to just put her partial transcript of the Keith Olerbmann interview on the wiki page? Or what should be allowed? Because this is not bias, this is fact. She said those comments, as Don Imus did. The Wikipedia site is here to give information on people, whether good or bad. If she did community service and helped pass legislation in Congress that helped people, I would hope that article would be put online. If she spoke at a university to give a commencment speech, and there were some moving or touching words given, I would hope those are posted here. But in this case, at the present time, Janneane Garofolo said some very "controversial comments" on the air, and those should be posted. What people say and do show their character and define them as a person. Therefor I believe something should be mentioned on her page. So please tell me, what can be posted on her Wiki page? Would you prefer that you and I work together on something we can both agree on? I am willing to do either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtCheeseNOLS (talk • contribs) 18:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already given my opinion on what I think should go into the article, you are "allowed" to give as much or as little information on the incident as there is consensus for, provided it is properly sourced. I think you may be misunderstanding my role in this whole thing a bit - as I already said, I semi-protected the article due to blatant vandalism, and as an admin I can enforce the WP:BLP policy when additions are made that aren't properly sourced, but other than that, I'm just an editor, same as you. My opinion as to how much weight this is given doesn't count for anything more than the next guy's - consensus determines how much weight these events are given, not the opinion of one administrator. AlexiusHoratius 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. --How may I serve you? (Marshall Williams2) 23:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. AlexiusHoratius 00:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

fun!

Realized I didn't recognize your username amongst "admins I know", saw that you recently passed - congrats! Also noticed from your userpage that you, like me, live in Minneapolis - we need more sane, midwestern Wikipedians like our fine selves. :-) I'm not on wiki much any more personally, just happened to be watching Leno last night and heard Arsenio complain about Wikipedia, thought I might log in to see the "activities". Only had to block one user and revert a few IPs before the sprotect, not a bad night's work :-). Have fun with the new toolset - Keeper | 76 14:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I can picture it - an Upper Midwest Cabal, known for its common sense, mild manners, wisdom in blocks and protections, and willingness to give out handy boating and fishing tips. AlexiusHoratius 02:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

AKERIA PITTER

WHAT UP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.223.245 (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Not much. AlexiusHoratius 20:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ventrilo

Page protection really wasn't needed, I blocked all three of the vandals. BJ^Talk 01:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've unprotected the page. (I saw that huge string of recent edits, and I guess I should have made sure that they were being made by more than a handful of users...) AlexiusHoratius 01:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

RFA thank you

My RFA passed today at 75/2/1 so I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. Special thanks go to GlassCobra and FlyingToaster for their nomination and support. Cheers! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

How are you? Appleton 01:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing okay. How are you? AlexiusHoratius 02:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I haven't seen you in so long. Appleton 02:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello AlexiusHoratius! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster

Missouri revision?

Hi ehh I JUST got a message pertaining to a revision on the Missouri article dating back to Jan. of this year.....I cannot really remember reverting it although it is possible since I live in this state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.189.188 (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I also remembered my login.....please feel free to contact me if you can remember why the revision was made. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moelarious (talk • contribs) 15:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, here is the edit that I reverted from your IP. As you can see, it wasn't really horrible vandalism, but it also wasn't really constructive; just a test edit, in other words, so I gave your IP a templated message as that is pretty standard in situations like this. You may have not been the one who made the edit, but someone from your IP (in other words, someone at the place you are editing from), did make it. I guess this makes sense, as you said you live in Missouri. I wouldn't worry about it too much, as, like I said, the message I gave is pretty standard in dealing with IPs.

I see that you've registered an account, which is a good way to not be warned for edits made by other people. Although registration isn't required, one of the advantages to it is that others can't edit from your account so long as you log out when you are done with your session; with an account, you can be sure that all the edits made on your account are made by you, and not someone using the same computer as you. AlexiusHoratius 15:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Donovan McNabb

You recently sent me a message asking me not to make edits to Donovan McNabb's page. I've never seen his page, and I've only ever made one edit to a Wikipedia article (for spelling, but I can't remember which article). I don't know much about how Wikipedia works, but I wanted to let you know that it wasn't me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.166.27 (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This was the main edit that your IP made that I warned it about. Most of what I said in the thread directly above this one applies here as well, in that although you may have not been the one that made the edit, someone from your IP did. As I said above, one of the advantages to registering an account is that you won't get warning messages for edits you did not make. AlexiusHoratius 16:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)