User talk:AlexiusHoratius

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. :)