Jump to content

User talk:BZTMPS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andrew J Barker (talk | contribs) at 22:10, 17 May 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hey, I'm BZTMPS.

Thanks for visiting my page. Here you can see my edits, send me a message and ask for help.

andy4789 ★ talk page / welcome / new msg

Template:UserTalkArchiveBox

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

—GFOLEY FOUR!— 18:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 18:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

don't vandalize my talk page again. thanks Cowback23451 (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vandalize, in fact I was warning you for vandalizing in the first place. Maybe you should do some research on what vandalism is before you point the blame. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 19:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll consider it, at this point. Everyone is accusing me of vandalism and thus vandlisiiing me themselves. It isn't funny and you must stop with the fussing and fighting my friends for life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting my friends to the end. Cowback23451 (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putting warnings on a userpage doesn't really count as vandalizing. If you had been constructive in the first place, warnings wouldn't have had to have been given and so we wouldn't be in this situation. If you think you are being harassed by the warnings (hardly likely) please go to the other editors' talk pages and talk to them directly, telling them how you feel. I'm only here because I added the template. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 20:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IACGMOOH

info is correct mate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.143.141 (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching it and it isn't correct yet, maybe in 10 minutes it will be. Feel free to update it then, or put proof on the article and update it now :) --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 22:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit To Pseudo warm front

Hi Andy4789, I'm working on it and am looking around for images....it will be fixed soon! Brohnhdon (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! :) hoped the tutorial helped. Happy editing --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 23:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Williams

You reverted the changes I made to the Williams page. Using "Whaaat" as a comment is not helpful on what you found objectionable.

From WP:FACEBOOK, IMDb and youtube are generally not allowed as references. They can be allowed in the external link section.

Thinking IMDb is reliable is a common mistake. Anybody can edit IMDb. I have seen real interesting info put up by PR firms or by the person themselves. On YouTube videos, I personally don't mind if there are a few in the external link sections, especially for musicians as this is a way for the reader to hear the music. Bgwhite (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But they were like the only references there... isn't it best to keep them, but have a tag saying to add better refs? This is beside the point, that I don't see how a video of the person in question asking the girl out isn't a reliable source? It couldn't be more reliable, lol. It's unfair in my opinion to blanket the entire YouTube website as a whole saying "you can't use this as a source"... But hey, it's Wikipedia, the place where nothing makes sense but everyone gets on with it.
I agree I should have used a better edit summary too, but I thought it'd be obvious what my reasons were. haha --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 17:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm not in favor of disallowing all YouTube videos, which I stated above. Also, the guidelines does say, "if the source would normally be considered reliable" it would be ok. A Youtube interview can be used as a reference as long as it abides by the WP:SELFPUB rules. The problem I have with William's page is that almost everything is a YouTube. Do we really need a YouTube link to every video of his or would one in the external link section pointing to his channel be better? There "should" be only reliable references in an article. But, I'm just speaking for myself.
I think you are being harsh about, "hey, it's Wikipedia, the place where nothing makes sense but everyone gets on with it". There are somethings that are broke, but the nature of the beast is thousands of people from all over the world are editing and interpreting. It is bound to get messy. Wikipedia rules are like the Bible and there are differing interpretations and religions. As the great sage of our time, Stephen Colbert, supposedly once said, "The encyclopedia where you can be an authority, even if you don't know what the hell you are talking about." See more at Cultural impact of The Colbert Report#Wikipedia references. Bgwhite (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.
Thanks and you're welcome! Glad to be a part of it all. -- andy4789 ★ · (stop sopa!) 19:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Mrsafety.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mrsafety.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your user talk page. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 17:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For fighting vandalism (what else?). Good work and keep it up! Bped1985 (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, BZTMPS. You have new messages at Bped1985's talk page.
Message added 20:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Bped1985 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:AlexDayForeverYours.ogg

Thanks for uploading File:AlexDayForeverYours.ogg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation.Template:Z134 --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 23:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_February_10#File:Tupac_Amaru_Shakur.jpg

Just FYI. -FASTILYs (TALK) 11:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Hi. I am sorry for posting that page. I was just trying out for the first time, and thought the pages would be saved for later, not published, but pressing save. And I couldn't find a way of deleting it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdverg (talk • contribs) 10:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's cool. In the future, if you want to just try writing a page without it going "live", click here to go to your sandbox and make it there. It will stay as long as you need and you're free to make changes and write articles etc without worrying about all the rules yet. Administrators, or 'sysops', are the only users that can delete pages. Hope this helped. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 11:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asma al-Asaad Personal

Could you explain to me why Wikipedia is allowing purely opinion pieces to be included in the personal history of Asma Al-Asaad? Has Wikipedia lost all credibility in providing objective and non-biased information? It seems you support this practice since now you have even started to reverse the removal of these questionable opinions. Just FYI: Just because a opinion is posted on an article, it does not make it anything beyond a "opinion". Explain to me how removal of these opinion pieces is "vandalism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.84.46 (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content was referenced, and opinions are fine on Wikipedia so long as the article has a neutral point of view, so removing it isn't really allowed. It's not biased if the article has two different opinions and states them, with references. Please don't keep re-adding it or you may blocked for breaking the 3 revert rule. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 19:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so if I find content that is completely the opposite of what is being used and is currently referenced, you can have colliding opinions on a single page?? You do understand that when you use bias opinions from objective news sources that you can have conflicting opinions, right? Which is why opinions really should be irrelevant to begin with. And I don't believe the article is "neutral" at all; obviously the article source is critical of the fact that Asma al-Assad is siding with her husband in this conflict. Please address this, because I assure you, I will have NO trouble finding a news source (Russia Today) that will completely have different "opinions" than the current article. The page will end up with conflicting opinions from "neutral points of view". 68.100.84.46 (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand. It's totally fine to have different opinions on a topic on Wikipedia, so long as they are referenced, they don't put undue weight on an incident, and that they're relevant. Feel free to add more opinions, as long as you give them citations. It's fine. But please see Wikipedia:NPOV#Achieving_neutrality, and stop edit warring on the article immediately, as that will just get you blocked, which gets you nowhere. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 20:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have undone the removal of the opinions yet again. So again, since you say opinions are perfectly fine as long as they are referenced? So if I find information from a news source that emphasizes with Asma al-Assad instead of very low comparisons to Marie Antoinette and Lady Macbeth, those "opinions" are to stay if legitimate citations are included? So basically, there are going to be a lot of conflicting opinions because opinions are solely based on the author and the news source. Ex: Fox News vs. CNN. You are fine with this? Because I will go on researching right now and I will include my own opinions that I find from references? Explain to me how the Marie Antoinette opinion is relevant. How is that relevant at all? It is NOTHING but a critical opinion of Asma for standing by her husband. How is that "neutral"? 68.100.84.46 (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you include other people's opinions with references, that is fine. But be careful, if you disrupt the encyclopedia to prove a point, as per WP:POINT, this counts as vandalism. So don't do that. I also posted here. I have no idea who Asma even is, so unfortunately I can't comment on her. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 20:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just added information to the personal section with a reference. Could you check to make sure it is done correctly. Thanks for all your help! P.S. In regards to "disrupting"; well, I personally find the Marie Antoinette comparison to be disruptive. If you do not know who Asma al-Assad is, why is it you are allowing the other user to continue to keep their opinions? 68.100.84.46 (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it's a tricky one, the tone of that edit seems particularly biased, so don't be offended if the wording is changed (this is why it was reverted at first). But yes, that edit in general is ok. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 20:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy -- well, someone tried to completely delete it. They claimed NPOV? It's not biased; if you click the link (reference), you will see DIRECT quotations from a leader of the Syrian National Council. I don't see how comparing a married woman to Marie Antoinette is any less biased than an actual threat made by a group of people. My edit is fact; the Marie Antoinette reference is a opinion. What should I do if the person keeps deleting my edit? That would be considered vandalism as well, no? Will you be re-instating my edit like you have been doing for the Marie-Antoinette comment I was deleting earlier? I just want to make sure there is fair ground for these kinds of things; especially when folks prefer to use opinions over facts. Thanks again. 68.100.84.46 (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the reason why I find the Marie Antoinette comparison derisive is because it is used in a derisive manner. For example, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/so-what-do-you-think-of-your-husbands-brutal-crackdown-mrs-assad-2372008.html, "So, what do you think of your husband's brutal crackdown, Mrs Assad?" I don't understand the necessity to bully and tarnish Asma al-Assad for whatever her husband is doing. In that very derisive and sarcastic article, they bring up the Marie Antoinette reference. It's not meant to be "neutral". It's meant to be derisive, mean-spirited, and highly opinionated. I'm still not sure why it's being allowed to stay. It has absolutely no relevance to her personal life, really. 68.100.84.46 (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor is reverting the edit... you'll have to speak to him now because you know more than me about this whole thing haha --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy -- The Marie Antoinette reference was removed by Sarek, the editor. Thank God. I wish you could have done the same for me earlier and sided with the fact that the opinion had no place. He said the Marie Antoinette comparison was a BLP violation. Just for your future reference, so that next time, you don't side with the wrong side. By the way, I'm not a expert on Asma al-Assad either. I just emphasize with her because I'm positive she is going through a difficult time as well, and fingers pointed and judgments of her have no place just because she does not have the patriarchal power to act. Thank you for your help all day today. Take care. 68.100.84.46 (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CKC Onitsha

I'm sure you've noticed from your watch list, I've just "fully" qualified the cites for the refs you repaired. That was not hugely enjoyable, and it would be ideal if you could persuade our new editing friend to look at them as examples of doing things really well (I hope you agree that this is doing things really well!). I also moved the article to what must be its final home. As you'll see form the edit summaries, some of those citations are suboptimal, but beggars can't be choosers. I'll probably dip in and out of the article again, but I'll leave reversions etc and education and help to you :) I just wanted to help by getting it into the best shape I could for you to help the new gentleman. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We'll get there. Luckily the Cite button does most of the annoying work for you. I did a load of cites at Epsom College too. We turned a poorly cited article into, well, judge for yourself. That was pre cite button! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, thanks for getting the article for how it is right now, it's a lot better than how it was a few hours ago. I'll send the other user another message in a bit saying how its been improved, and its a good example how they can also edit constructively in the same way. I'll edit the article again tomorrow as well :) This is working out alright! --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 22:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering before I pulled back about trying the email contact route since I found it impossible to engage him in any way at all. His heart is in the right place, it's just getting his eyes and fingers there too :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief! Good luck. He IS trying, but he seems unable to see what he is doing. I'm not even going to touch that one now. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well,the gentleman seems to understand some of what is required for references, though is unable to find WP:RS ones. But he seems to have a mental block over learning to use citations. He's gone back to inline, bare url links. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy4789 and thanks for your reply! I replied to you on my page (below my long reply to Tiderolls). Nothing urgent... just if you find a spare moment... thanks! Kasamoto (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Kasamoto[reply]

Thank you for your time and patience! I never meant to go about this just to be challenging; I sincerely wanted to know Wiki policies. Thanks for the whitelisting info, in particular, since I wasn't aware of that. Kasamoto (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Kasamoto[reply]

Ghost bikes

Thanks for your comments on my post regarding Ghost Bikes just looking for a little help as I have gone through a number of edits and I am not hitting the mark here. What is confusing for me is that the German language version of Wikipedia has an entry for Ghost Bikes and their parent company has Accell has an entry on wikipedia and I am modelling the entry based on those existing submissions but still running into some editing issue. My goal is simply to fill an information gap as many other bike companies have entries on Wikipedia (including this one) and this company builds a good quality bike that is used by Olympic athletes and they have an interesting story of being started by two partners in a small backyard shop in a town in Germany that inspired their name (the town is a buriel site for 17th century Christain Crusaders-the catacombs are said to have Ghosts.) Any help would be greatly appreciated. "trooperlake" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trooperlake (talk • contribs) 19:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 18:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Balancing - New Article

Hi Andy4789 and thanks for your help. I was about to submit my article to the articles for creation page and noticed that there is a backlog of 469 articles! Is there any other way to submit an article? I have read thru a fair amount on how to create an article but am getting confused by all of the various possible links of information. Thank you! (Guinyviere2000 (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hello. Thanks for the backlog info, you may be astonished to know that the backlog is actually usually higher than that... so I like to help out often at that project. In terms of making your article, then getting feedback and having it actually created on the main part of the website, Articles for Creation is (in general) the main place to get this done. I've heard there are a couple other ways, but they aren't very popular and I don't know much about them. If you get autoconfirmed (after 10 edits and 4 days), you can create your own articles yourself without any help, but beware, if they don't meet Wikipedia's (rather strict) criteria for articles/policies, an article can be "speedy deleted" by an admin. Don't worry about waiting by the way, your AfC contribution should be reviewed in a day or two, if not sooner. If not, feel free to tell me and I can help out. Hope this helped --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 17:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - this was very helpful. I am submitting it now. Thanks for the encouragement! (Guinyviere2000 (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Re: WP:DEFCON

Please when updating the template, remember to remove the previous signature and replace it with your own using four tildes Kiko4564 (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks for the notice. I've edited that template countless times, and this is the first time I've forgotten to do something. Also replied at your talk, as it appears that you're blocked. Cheers andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 18:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOTDs (This space for rent)

You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I get banned?

I'm putting truthful stuff and it's being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.143.149 (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "he is a bit of a legend" violates Wikipedia's policy of always using a neutral point of view when writing articles. It's best to just state the facts and then let readers get their own conclusions, instead of using your own point of view. Secondly, your edit was not referenced - please include a citation while writing facts such as this; they can be easily made up leading to incorrect information on the article (not that I'm saying your edit was wrong). Finally, do not edit war on an article - if your edit is reverted, there will be a reason for it; it's best to resolve the dispute, by using the article talk page or another user's talk page, instead of thinking that you're right and constantly re-adding your text. This is one of the easiest ways to get blocked, and it causes a lot of stress for other editors, so please don't do it. I hope this information helped, and I hope you continue to edit Wikipedia in a constructive way. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 16:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you changing my edits?

Why are you changing my edits on the homo erectus page? I'm just trying to help, and now I'm being threatened to get blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.96.238 (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This, this, and this is unconstructive and clearly vandalism. If the facts were true, (which I don't think they are), you need to add references/citations to where you got the info from using ref tags. It seems to me like you're not trying to help, but you're trying to add joke information, which unfortunately Wikipedia isn't for. This is also unreferenced and so could possible be incorrect. If you want to help, please be constructive and add to the website positively. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 16:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright alright just calm down there's no reason to be so angry, or to insult me. I respect you and what you do. I was just trying to be helpful and the facts was from my pal Adam. Just take a chill pill and let's put this behind us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.96.238 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I came off as angry in that edit, I aspire to be one of those friendly editors who is happy to help. I've just had so much experience with vandals who edit wrongly then have a go at me for reverting it. I'm happy to put this behind us, if you were editing in good faith feel free to remove the warnings from your page. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 17:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asma al-Assad Page

Hi Andy - I hope you have been well. I need your help again. Please visit the Asma al-Assad page to review changes I have made. I believe the changes are appropriate, especially in comparison to other first lady figures (like Hillary Clinton). The specific change is my edit of using Asma al-Assad's maiden name prior to her life before marriage to Bashar al-Assad. I think it's politically correct to list her as Asma al-Akras (her maiden name) in the information pertaining to her life prior to meeting her current husband. Please visit and review as the tyrant who thinks he controls the Asma al-Assad page makes changes whenever he sees fit (without consultation), but undoes any changes made by others that do not meet his fancy. Your opinion and review is requested and would be appreciated. Thanks. 68.100.84.46 (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you on vacation? Please check the Asma al-Assad page as noted on your talk page when you have a moment. Thanks! :) 68.100.84.46 (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy - I just realized that you are in the process of moving. Congratulations? I hope the move is due to positive elements. Oh, and this is my user name now. I have registered. I am no longer just my IP address. Stop by when you are settled down. Have a beautiful day. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies for my late reply! I have been moving house (as you saw) and haven't had internet access for days. So thanks for waiting on me. The article as I saw it before seemed fine, every article has the odd drawback and this one is no different, but there is nothing hugely wrong on it. I hope you will understand that it gets a bit confusing if you refer to the subject as different names throughout the article, so I changed a few parts relating to this, but nothing too serious. If you are having a dispute with an editor, please try your best to sort it out on a talk page instead of edit warring (however I can see that you're already doing that well). If there's anything else you would like an opinion on, please ask. Thanks! --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 17:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, there's no need for apologies. All of us have personal lives beyond Wikipedia. The only thing that I disagree with is addressing the subject previous to her marriage with her surname post-marriage. If you refer to the Michelle Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton or any other First Lady BLPs, you will see that it is always, "Subject was born.....avec subject + maiden name". There's agency there, in recognizing a woman with her born surname; especially prior to marriage. To complicate matters further, for this particular subject, legally, she is Asma al-Akras. Applying al-Assad to her name is a Western practice. It is forbidden in Islam for a woman to adopt her husband's surname after marriage. However, for the purpose Wikipedia and Western readers, I believe referring to her as Asma al-Assad is acceptable and the norm for us. But I do think it is appropriate that we list it as, "Asma al-Akhras was born..." in the Early Life section. The same is done for Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama. Let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks for all your help and good luck with your move. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Ida

Hi Andy, thanks for your help on the Donna Ida page. I have made these changes last week after I spoke to a few people in the talk room. I actually am not sure how to make further changes to it that you noted. If you could show me examples and let me know, I would really appreciate this - I'm struggling with this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Ida

Thanks in advance.

Steph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.117.208 (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collins, Indiana

Hello Andy,

you removed my edit on collins, indiana.im sorrry i couldntget it in the right spotbut that article is false. i was trying to put that in there in a nice manner but i couldnt figure out how. I just went through collins about anhour ago, and it was a very small farm town. but every house had a family in it, just had an abandoned old schoolhouse. i would love if you would put that in there for me. i dont ever edit wikipedia because it is almost always correct, thanks to people like you :) THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.2.255 (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, and thanks for improving Wikipedia! I only removed your edit as it was in the wrong place and unreferenced, however as you have said you've been to the area I've re-added it to the article for you. Here it is. Thanks for sending me a message :) --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users attempting to impersonate you

I have blocked User:Andy4879, User:Andy4979, and User:Andy4249 for attempting to impersonate you here, although I'd appreciate it if you could make sure I got everything right; all the numbers floating around left me admittedly confused at one point. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 22:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've never been impersonated before! This is weird. Yes, those three accounts have nothing to do with me, so thanks for taking the steps you did. I'm confused too, haha ;) --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 23:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one submitted the AIVs and the numbers had me confused too. I was worried that inadvertedly I had listed you. Fortunately not. I didn't get any impersonaters but did get described as a member of the Rebel Alliance :-) NtheP (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

For removing that unwanted comment on my talk page. --OfTheGreen (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :) --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 20:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

edits to BullsEye Teleocm

I noticed that you said the edits I made were spam? How can something be spam when it is 1. a statement of fact and 2. a referenced source from several credible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmediate88 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The company was founded in 1999 by William H. Oberlin and a group of other telecommunications industry veterans whom sought to provide nationwide, high-quality, cost-effective, integrated telecommunications solutions to the business customer. <-- this bit seems too biased towards the company. Even though you may have sourced it from somewhere, that source could still be biased and this kind of language isn't permitted on Wikipedia. Please see WP:NPOV for more info. Feel free to re-insert the text but make it sound neutral. The point is that many people may not agree that it's "a statement of fact" and may hate the company, but some people may love it, writing text like this, and people don't expect Wikipedia to be biased on things. Also on a different note, if you didn't see it written all over the page, please post messages at the bottom of talk pages. Thanks. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 20:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You just did the opposite of my advice. Please stop spamming Wikipedia. It's meant to be an article, not a page full of links. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 20:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing templates

Hi Andy, thx for the advice earlier re the article. However, I feel I have already made those changes (i.e. to add links and to improve the introduction) - what I really want to know is how those comments now get removed from the article if they no longer apply due to my rectifications? thx Andrew J Barker (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey and thanks for leaving a message. To get rid of the maintenance tags, click on 'Edit'. At the top of the box you should see two lines, saying: {{Orphan|date=April 2010}} {{context|date=May 2010}}. Just remove them, save, and the templates are no longer there. Hope this helps :) --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woh - that was easy! thx (I was expecting some kind of assessment or test of worthiness before they got removed!) Andrew J Barker (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BZTMPS&oldid=493097625"