User talk:Andonic

Request to proofread a Ninja

Hi AndonicO. EyeSerene has finished copyediting the article for Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game). He requested that I get someone to proofread the article before I consider to put it up at FAC. I would like to request your help in this as you are a non-participant in the Wikiproject Video Games and have considerable contribution to the FA (articles and process) on Wikipedia. Jappalang (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No problems, I am willing to wait. Maybe a week later? Jappalang (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will ask a week or so later. Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Egyptians

Hello, you seem to have done a good job solving problems on Coptic-related topics before. Can you please make user:Yolgnu understand that reverting referenced information is considered vandalism? This is inreference to the verified and referenced information he continues to revert on Egyptians. Thank you. --Lanternix (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you also keep an eye on this guy? This IP address is the most recent one that seems to be agressively diruptive on "Copt" (see this edit). Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've protected Egyptians, and left a note on the talk page. As for the IP address, his only disruptive edit was this one; I'll check his contribs a few days from now to see if he continued. · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

H Kramer and Company

Hello, I was wondering if you could remove the protection from this page. We are attempting to update the site with correct company information. We will be glad to reference the Pilsen Perro organization in the article but nowhere in the article does it state anything about the true company itself.

I was not trying to vandalize, just trying to get the information current and true.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by A1NTME (talk • contribs) 16:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

FTW

Re: Hi, please don't keep readding this; it doesn't belong there.

One could say the same to you, or whoever is reverting it. (Do you have a separate account?) It does belong there, as is demonstrated in the talk page. Whoever is reverting it without discussing is the person who should be messaged. 75.40.251.3 (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The guy keeps going. Four times now. Enigma ^message 18:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm getting rather sick of having to revert it. The content belongs there, as is demonstrated by a consensus in the talk page. 75.40.251.3 (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making the effort of finding a source. It felt as if my efforts were being ignored/reverted simply because I was editing from an IP and not a username. I hope there is not an assumption that IP editors are less reputable than named users. It's too bad if that has become the case. I apologize for violating the 3 revision rule, but it seems unfair that only I was blocked from further edits, especially if only for the fact that I lack a username. I actually have a username, but I elect to do most of my edits by IP. Anyway, I again thank you for finding a source. I am glad to see this worked out. 75.40.251.3 (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

H. Kramer company

Hi. I didn't revert "by mistake" (see User talk:A1NTME), I reverted because A1NTME replaced the article with the same unsourced advertisment as Correctedit used to do.  Channel ®   21:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. My mistake. I'll strike the warning.  Channel ®   21:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, no! He writes "I simply put in the correct information about the company and the services it provides to the world.". Not "I added categories". And on your own page here he writes "We are attempting to update the site with correct company information." I now have a VERY strong suspicion that he's the same person as Correctedit and the IP that edited before him.  Channel ®   21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So while we both agree that Correctedit, IP 71.176.225.57, and A1NTME are more than likely the same person, I can't warn A1NTME because the vandalism a few minutes earlier was done by IP 71.176.225.57? Eventhough they are the same guy? Hm. I see your point but it doesn't feel right to me.  Channel ®   11:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Thanks, Andonic, for participating in my recent RfA, which recently passed with 81 support and 1 neutral !votes. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA and I thank you for taking the time to !vote in my nomination. I feel so honoured to be trusted by so many of you and please, if you have any advice, comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. I would also like to thank Acalamari, Rlevse and Nishkid64, for their nomination statements. Thank you again. AngelOfSadness talk 23:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Coptic Language

Hello, AdonicO. Sorry for putting a lot on your plate, but this seems to be quite urgent. The article, found here, is being constantly reverted before we have even reached a consensus on its discussion page. I've have tried to at least convince the user, but I've had no luck thus far. The discussion can be found here. Thank-you! ~ Troy (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where else to post this--Wikipedia "wikifies" so many things that it's impossible to find a simple "Click here" link. The Coptic language article has a basic problem--there are very vocal proponents of Coptic revival who have a couple of POV websites as "evidence" that the Coptic language has either not gone extinct or has been revived. The entire scientific community, however, along with all the scientific bibliography, says that Coptic went extinct in the 17th century or so. They have continually pushed their minority position and accused those of us who have the preponderence of the evidence of "edit warring. Their web sites have not been scientifically verified and are highly POV. The other problem is that three of their four sources are not in English, but in Arabic, so they are unusable for the majority of Wikipedia users. I am willing to put some compromise language in the article to reflect the attempt to revive Coptic from the dead. Indeed, the article already contained the seeds of such a statement. But to remove all reference to Coptic's extinction in the 17th century is scientifically unjustified. If these guys insist on Wikipedia administrative involvement, then I request arbitration. I am not very good at templates, wikilinks, etc. so please make the instructions plain and simple without a lot of "wikification", if possible. (Taivo (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

Today, I have responded to this issue here. Also, I'd like to thank you for preventing this edit war for continuing. I would appreciate it if Taivo could make a new agreement with the others (depending on the circumstances; the discussion is likely long from over, so it's important to prevent editing in the near future). Understandibly, the articles (Egypt-related or not) have often been subject to disputes, so for me, this is nothing new. ~ Troy (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks! 202.79.62.21 (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for the comment on my RFA. There is no reason for me to take it personal, unless my mom wrote it *angry face*. These are all comments and ideas of ways for me to approve, and there is nothing I can do but work on them. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on Crackdown

I think the intro sections needed the most work ( as that pretty much was what was cited before). Thanks again for the copyedit. --MASEM 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hello AndonicO, I'm Pericles, nice to meet you. I was looking through a list of those who could help with peer review, and I picked you (how special! lol) out of a list of names to help with an article on Zhang Heng, which I've recently nominated for FA status. I was wondering if you would be so kind as to read through it and copyedit where necessary. Thank you!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Take your time. I'm glad you liked Technology of the Song Dynasty.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Unprotecting Potential superpowers

Hey, could you please unblock Potential superpowers. The dispute on the talk page has been resolved and a new improved, better sourced ediition has been created and is waiting to be added to the page. Full unprotection or semii-protection would both work well. There is simply no need for the protection, as things have simmered down. Thanks. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For helping me copyedit my homework Okay maybe that too :D - For an outstanding job copyediting several articles, I « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie hereby award you this Barnstar. Congrats! « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Srbosjek

You have started with that so can I please ask you protection of article Ivo Andrić until Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/J. A. Comment is closed. Comments for this checkuser case has been that I need to rewrite evidence so can you tell me your thinking if now it will be OK ?--Rjecina (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Rjecina (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Err...

"Not as bad as not signing when you've commented on an autograph book, eh? ;) Could you please point out where I've forgotten to put note sections, please (I hate digging through my userspace...)?" LOL, you're right. I did realize the mistake and corrected it immediately.

The notes I was talking of involved sentences like these:

I am an American male, born in Florida, though I do not think highly of the State. I characterize as a "geek,"

Since, you've not included a "notes" section on your page, one does not get to read the nested text ("Reasons: heat, mosquitoes, humidity." and "From the article's examples, I am these: science fiction, computer, science, chemistry, history, gamer, classical music, and literature geek; if you would like to discuss any of these—or other, even—topics, feel free to leave me a message, or e-mail me.)")upon clicking " and ". May be you'd like to include a "Notes" section with {{Reflist}} at the bottom of the page like this (I'm saying this with complete knowledge that you must be much better than me at both Wikimarkup and HTML, but doing so to only keep myself clear):

Notes

Thanks for the reply.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 10:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Err...err...

Hi again! Well, I just realized going through the source of your page that you've indeed put a "notes" section, but just that it requires to be expanded to see the notes. Well, eating words might be better for my health than eating junk food ;) All the best. And, of course you can always thank me for "causing" you so much entertainment!

Bye. Take care.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 10:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

POV pusher at Barack Obama

User:Life.temp gutted the article, removing a total of 732 words in two consecutive edits: [1][2] I placed the following warning on his/her Talk page and on the article Talk page: [3] He/she removed the warning from the user Talk page with a personal attack in the edit summary [4] and discussed this warning in two edits on the article Talk page,[5][6] proving that he/she had seen the warning and was aware of increased concerns about edit warring. Nevertheless, last night Life.temp again gutted the article, ripping out nearly 1,000 words this time: [7] None of these edits were accompanied by anything resembling consensus. It is obvious that Life.temp's goal is to expunge any controversy from the article. I request a block of at least 24 hours for Life.temp. Thank you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hand salsa

I have nominated Hand salsa, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hand salsa. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection conflicts

Gah... Acalamari 19:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry too ^{for being more notable :D} Acalamari 19:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You're definitely right about that! ^{Proper link} Acalamari 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Numberjacks

Would it possible for you to keep an eye on this page.? An IP vandal you blocked has returned, but my report went stale as he/she doesn't attack elsewhere regularly. Thanks Bevo74 (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting. Bevo74 (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Heavy IP Vandalism???

Ivo Andric article - Before throwing such an accusation - it would be nice to justify it by a sentence or two. Before that - see what are differences between two sides. Looks like Rjecina got a support finally from an admin - in harrassing articles and other users.--71.252.56.110 (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(Replying here because your IP address may change.) Waiting for the checkuser case to end. · AndonicO ^Engage. 23:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hand salsa

Since you agree that there are no reliable sources for Hand salsa, you could probably {{db-author}} it since you're the only one to make any significant contributions to the page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• That's an odd position. Why would you want to keep the article if there're no reliable sources? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki would be a good idea. In any event, it's probably best not to keep it here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wicked Bible

Hi. Could I ask you to read and check the article, paying attention to the language? I haven't been speaking in English for a long time. It is rather urgent :) Thanks in advance, Timpul my talk 19:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

¿Por qué? Tú hablas español profesionalmente :) Languages like Kashubian or Silesian are useless :P Anyway, thanks a lot. Timpul my talk 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My RFB

Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, between now and then I'll be here, doing things that aren't stupid. Useight (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC

Tim Russet

Its very unwise to close the article off to everyone because of edit warring of for whatever reason. The article needs a lot of work and since he died people will edit it extensively and by blocking the article, it will not receive these new edits. If you are having a problem with an editor please put his account on a block or something but dont shut off the article.

GordonUS (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In two days nobody is really going to be reading the article nor editing it. I don't see why two editors having a disagreement will penalize other editors. We need to take advantage of this current event and allow people to edit. People are going to be reading the article and it needs to be in the best shape.

GordonUS (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Howdy! If possible, it'd be super if we could semi-protect the article instead and deal with anything as it happens. I've started a discussion to the effect on the talk page for the article for your consideration. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Beat me to it, thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the article back into semi-protection! Question, though: I know that this is unusual, but is there any chance we could get the talk page semi-protected? It looks like we're going to get a lot of anons commenting on his death. — BrotherFlounder 20:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

GordonUS (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Josphine A

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer. A little earlier tonight I already reported her [8] but Tan declined and told me to report again if she continued. That's what I meant with 'Tan, she's back.'  Channel ®   23:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Great work

I award you this shiny metal thingy for your efforts towards protecting our cherished wiki. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection of the Humanities desk

Hello, AndonicO. First of all, thank you for trying to keep vandals from assaulting the Humanities desk! 71.100 has become quite annoying again of recently. Still, your protection also raises some questions. The desks are high-frequency pages with a lot of good edits made by unregistered IP addresses, both as querents and as helpful volunteers. One persistent nuisance shouldn't lead to locking out all these good-faith editors. Reverting the posts on sight seems to be the better alternative, even if it looks a bit like disruptive edit-warring at times. Of course the individual 71.100 addresses could be blocked as well (though that won't stop him from logging out and starting over with a new dynamic address). In any event, I think semi-protection should be avoided at the desks. Another user has raised this concern here. Best wishes. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(Re:Rangeblock)I responded at WT:RD. I remember great reluctance to range-block another, far less malicious, but also annoying refdesk hooligan using a dynamic IP a while back. Please be careful you don't get yourself in trouble. And thanks for responding. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Header.

Yeah, nice job. It seems that the talk page on Coptic language is easier to discuss now without the threat of any constant reverts on the parts of both sides—thanks for that. However, I have yet another concern. On "Copt", the edit warring has been going on for longer than most (if not all) of the other articles. On its protection log, it says that the article has been protected several times, and once in a while, there would be discussions on those issues. After all of that, there still still seems to be several IP addresses involved. Unfortunately, it might have to be protected again unless there's a way for anyone to mediate new talks over the issue. Keep up the good work, ~ Troy (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-protection of Otto Erich Deutsch

How then deal with the problem? Enter an edit-war? Wait for somebody to correct it, only shortly before it will be vandalized again (i.e. keep the wrong version for 90% of the time, as practically no one edits there)? What's so wrong with semi-protection? What's semi-protection here for then? How else settle it? WaldiR (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Please answer here to keep the discussion together, but notify me of it at my talk page so I hear about it. 12:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There have only been thirteen edits this year, and of those, only three were disruptive (and all from the same user). That isn't enough for semi-protection. · AndonicO ^Engage. 21:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox journalist

I can't quite tell whether you protected this template because of its vulnerability in the future, well beyond the death of the Tim Russert (as this would make sense), but if you did not semi-protect it for that reason, I just wanted to point out that the template is already fully-protected, since it's transcluded on User:East718/PTT. -- tariqabjotu 13:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

hello

Apparently, you have no idea how to protect pages, next time could you please re-read the instructions carefully, thanks.. Buddha24 (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Block: Omnimichael

Hi. User:Iridescent has informed me that I erred in reverting User:Omnimichael for his MySpace links. Further, it appears that my error was the basis of your blocking him. Please accept my apologies that you took action on my incorrect reporting. Please also review the discussion at my talk page and unblock Omnimichael if you see fit to do so. I've asked Iridescent to do so as well. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up. Omnimichael (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

History of timekeeping devices

When do you think an FAC would be appropriate? (On a related note, perhaps we should do a bit of spamming to ask for Squad members' help. There is work yet to be done...) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely the 27th at the latest. I'll try to take on Modern devices, it's a bit neglected. Some of the refs are also duplicates, we may want to check on those as well. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Copt

I think there should be full page protection as "Copt" has a bad history with sock puppets and user accounts which were only created to get around semi-protection. However, I have put a warning on any further edit warring on here, so just protect the page if there are any further reverts that are undiscussed. Thank-you,

• ~ Troy (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, undiscussed reverting in the near future seems inevitable. There might as well be indefinate full protection until there is a consensus on the talk page. ~ Troy (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, great. However, anyone can still edit it anonymously or logged in, so that must mean that it isn't protected—there's only a template. Can you fix that? Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks anyway :) ~ Troy (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Srbosjek

I've noticed that you turned this article into read-only mode adding on the very top of this article

• The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (May 2008)
• This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2008)

You did not leave any explanation on the talk page what is not accurate in the existing text nor what are additional citations needed.

Please respond on the talk page and put back this article into write mode. I have very good overview of the references supporting the text of existing article edition and I'll be glad to answer your doubts and claims.

--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)