User talk:AlexiusHoratius

Virginia for FAC

I know you haven't edited the article in a bit, and you've mostly just fought off vandalism, but I wanted to let you know that I was going to put Virginia back up for Featured Article Candidate, and hope that the third time's the charm. I wanted to get in touch with you before I do so in case you remember needing fixing or what not. I was aiming for the end of next week, so just give me a nod before then if there's anything. Thanks for your help!-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 19:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've re-watchlisted it for now (not really sure why I unwatched it) and I'll try to keep an eye on the FAC when it's made. I don't really have any experience with either FA's or, as you said, major editing on the Virginia article, but for what it's worth I've always found the Virginia article to be the best non-FA state article (actually, in my opinion it's better than Minnesota). Hopefully it will pass this time. AlexiusHoratius 20:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and thanks for saying its better than Minnesota, I wonder if that would pass muster today, but yes, hopefully this will pass.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 21:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I'm not quite sure how this could happen, but when you reverted some vandalism at Francis Drake to the last good version, one of the intermediate vandal-revisions was left somehow [1]. I'm just leaving a note here for your information, in case you used a malfunctioning edit-/ patroltool or something like that. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Crap, thanks for catching that. I'm not sure how it happened exactly, although I vaguely remember seeing the same thing happen once or twice before. I was trying to manually revert to delanoy's version, and the vandal looks like he made the edit at the same time. I'm not really sure why my rvv looks like it added the vandalism back, but I guess I should be more careful in the future. Again, thanks for seeing that. AlexiusHoratius 23:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it gave me the suprise of actually finding vandalism while actually reading an article, that doesn't happen very often anymore :) Your rvv didn't add the vandalism back though, you removed all the vandal-edits except the last one. Since you did it manually you should have gotten an "edit-conflict" message - no idea why that didn't happen. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Minnesota Meetup

---

2009

Details under discussion.

Please share this with anyone who may be interested.

---

Jonathunder (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: the meetup will be at 1 p.m. Sunday, October 11, in St. Paul. Click here for more details and to R.S.V.P. Jonathunder (talk)

NRHP pics for Minnehaha County

Hey, thanks for adding all the pics you've taken for National Register of Historic Places listings in Minnehaha County, South Dakota. I must have edited the list-table there as it is on my watchlist. With 16 pics just added, that's around 40 you've contributed i think. Really glad to see this, thanks! doncram (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's really gotten to be kind of a hobby for me - when I first saw the list, I just added a few pictures that I had already taken, then there were the buildings that I knew exactly where they were, and this last time I actually printed out the list and went driving around for a few afternoons. It's kind of cool- I'll bet I've driven by that Rock Island depot about 200 times without noticing the actual building. I'll try to take some more this winter - in many cases it seems to work out better when there are no leaves on the trees. AlexiusHoratius 18:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Pennsylvania GAR notification

Pennsylvania has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Berlin school edit

Nice job reverting this so quickly, it undoubtedly sent a positive message about Wikipedia's ability to revert junk that gets added. I'll be sending a message to the relevant college and instructor about messing around with pages, even as a test. GlassCobra 14:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had just stumbled out of bed for a few minutes and the edit summary tipped me off on that one. Hopefully it sends a message - I've actually witnessed a few off-Wikipedia conversations that lead me to think that while we certainly have the reputation of "The encyclopedia that anyone can vandalize" we also have a secondary reputation of "The encyclopedia that reverts your vandalism really quickly", so reverting those is always kind of nice. AlexiusHoratius 16:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP resolved to National University of Ireland, Galway, as I noted on the IP's talk page. After doing some digging on the school's site, I figured out that the "dm" referred to in the edit summary was probably the Digital Media school. I sent a quick email to the two head people of that department, asking them to please tell their instructors to not use Wikipedia for test edits anymore. Hopefully we won't see any further disruption from them. GlassCobra 17:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Followup: The head of the department sent me back a reply saying that she has spoken to the professor who made the edits, and it will not happen again. Problem solved. :) GlassCobra 16:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for that - I had written out some sort of rant about academia-inspired vandalism to put here, but deleted as preaching to the choir or whatever... AlexiusHoratius 17:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Affiliate link and product that gives NO information to Wiki page

This page:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sign_language_in_infants_and_toddlers

Has an affiliate link! In the References section:

^ a b "Sign Language for Babies and Beyond". http://www.signing4babies.com/?hop=brnorwood. http://www.signing4babies.com/?hop=brnorwood. Retrieved 2008-11-10.

That is an affiliate link, and I'm mortified to see this has slipped through.

Please fix? Thank you!

TJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by SignmomMJ (talk • contribs) 19:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

While at first that certainly doesn't look like reliable source, it is only being used to support the point that advocates of teaching sign language to babies think this or that, so it could be argued that in this instance, it might be okay. I would advise starting a thread on the article's talk page about the issue to see what other editors think. If no-one objects to its removal, then I suppose it could be removed and replaced with a better source if one is found. AlexiusHoratius 20:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Colorado

Hello! If you continue to provide incorrect information, like you did for Mt. Elbrus being the highest mountain in Colorado, you will be blocked!

Femboy123

[2] I didn't say Mount Elbrus is the highest mountain in Colorado. I said Mount Elbert is. AlexiusHoratius 17:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

RFPP

Left a note over there too...my fault for not checking the main page before nominating it! No argument from me about not protecting it! Please accept my apologies for your wasted time, and my thanks for not making me look too silly! Frmatt (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, and nothing to apologize for - it actually has been getting hit pretty hard over the last 20 minutes or so - I'll keep my eye on it; I may end up protecting it for a short time if it keeps going. AlexiusHoratius 06:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Update - I just protected it for a bit, it was getting a little insane after all. AlexiusHoratius 07:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

here we go again...

[3] Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply - it looks like I went offline just as you wrote this. Looking back at the article since last night, the vandalism hasn't been too bad since the article was unprotected - the featured article that gets on the mainpage always gets some vandalism. I was mostly concerned with the vandalism-a-minute stuff, which was being coordinated from another site and usually only lasts a little while. AlexiusHoratius 18:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you-

Many thanks for your patience and help concerning the Roman Catholic diocesan bishops in the South Dakota RC dioceses. One note you may want to keep an eye out for St. Patrick's parish in Lead, South Dakota. The parish was the cathedral for the Lead Diocese and I am not sure if it has a national, state, or local historical designation-again my thanks-RFD (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay - if I can find anything I'll let you know. I've also always been meaning to start an article on St. Joseph Cathedral, which is the cathedral for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. AlexiusHoratius 20:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Practice/practise

Merely changed the spelling from the noun, practice, to the verb practise. As far as I was aware, there was no change to the variety of English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.253.103 (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

US English uses the same spelling for both noun and verb, generally, as in Dr. so-and-so practices in Los Angeles. From the Wiktionary entry on the word, it looks like only British/Commonwealth spelling uses two forms. You didn't do anything wrong - it's not like you were vandalizing the article or anything - and I've done sort of the same thing in the past. AlexiusHoratius 18:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)In American usage the noun and verb are spelled/spelt with -ice, so it does change the variety. Something I'd never really considered before, an interesting subtlety. Acroterion _(talk) 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, one time I changed an '-ize' to an '-ise' spelling on James Cook as I thought it was an obvious Americanism on a British article, only to be told that sometimes, as is the case in Oxford spelling, '-ize' is okay. I had never known this before, but makes sense as I've read a number of papers/articles that seemed to use British spelling except for the '-ize' thing. You do learn a lot by spending time on Wikipedia. AlexiusHoratius 18:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Floomert

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as User talk:Floomert, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. MuffledThud (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

per stile project

the vandalizing IP changes every so often, as you can see in the history. how would blocking one stop the others? wouldn't semi prot make more sense? Theserialcomma (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think the disruption is heavy enough to warrant protection at this time. Within the last month, only two IPs have edited the article - 37..., which doesn't look related to the guy we're talking about, and the 99... editor. The disruption and vandalism would have to be more severe than an edit from one IP every few days or so. The only way to stop this through protection would be to protect the article for a fairly long period, like three or six months, and as semi-protection locks out all IPs, this to me seems like too drastic of a step to take over a few edits. Also, although it appears, as you point out, that the editor has used several IPs, these edits seem to be spread out over several months. You can ask for a second opinion from another admin if you like, but for now, I'm sticking with my original assessment. AlexiusHoratius 06:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

there was nothing wrong with my edit to the forst punic war... wtf.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.36.127 (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the edit I warned your IP about, and yes, there are problems with that edit on several levels. You may not have made the edit, but someone using the same IP as you did, and that is what your IP was warned for. If you didn't make the edit, and want to avoid getting warned for vandalism made by others, you should consider registering an account. AlexiusHoratius 17:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi! I beg your pardon for disturbing you and i beg your pardon for my bad english too, as i'm not a native english speaker. However, i decided, in order to prevent an edit war, to ask to an admin about the article http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Josip_Broz_Tito. I start editing the article one day ago and two users (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:DIREKTOR, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:AlasdairGreen27) deleted my addings to the article, stating they were pov. I imagined that they considered them pov because they were unsourced, so i insert (instead of my previous addings) a new section, which i heavily sourced recurring to books and articles from historians and scholars. But AlasdairGreen27 deleted it again. I noticed (from the talk of the article:http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito/Archive_2) that both users had keep deleting any new section of the article that may be perceived as critic towards tito, supporting each others in doing so against a lot of different users. I also noticed, as i can see from their user pages, they both come from ex-yugoslavia and (from what i can see from direktor's page) that direktor even supports titoist yugoslavia. I tell you this, because i'm starting to think that they may have delete my passage, because of their personal view of tito, not because it was pov. The situation is getting worse because they refuse to discuss the delation and they keep talking agressive to me (even insulting me and in general any users from other wikipedias), so i really don't know what to do and i ask you to please, if you can, express your opinion on the matter, in order to prevent this situation to became an edit war. Thanks. --AndreaFox (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know - it seems like a content dispute for the most part, and as an admin there is only so much I can do. Try dispute resolution, the content noticeboard, or contact some of the wikiprojects involved to get more eyes on the issue. As for me, I don't know all that much about Yugoslavian history, and my real world POV concerning communism and its apologists is probably too strong for me to be much help as a mediator. AlexiusHoratius 18:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

List of casinos in New Mexico

I believe that when you moved the references tag, you actually added to the article that trancludes the text from List of casinos in New Mexico. That should not be done. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nicolas Cage

Nicolas Cage, the actor, has just won a United Nations Humanitarian Award. I was going to add this but found it semi-protected by yourself.

The United Kingdoms BBC published this article on 5th December 2009. None of the details appear on the wikipedia page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Nicolas_Cage

The BBC article is at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8396880.stm

User smiler03 Date 8th December 2009

PS I am not a very experienced editor but would tackle this if given the go ahead.

Smiler03 (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Smiler03 and started new thread on the topic at Talk:Nicolas Cage. Let me know if you have any other questions. AlexiusHoratius 19:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

ND football semi-protection request

Hi Alexius... there is a ton of vandalism going on over at the ND page. Mainly Cincinatti fans wishing ill will on the new head coach. Can you semi-protect? Thanks. Tedmoseby (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected Notre Dame Fighting Irish football for a week as there was indeed some...ill will being shown in some of the edits. Looks like the articles for Kelly and Weis are already semiprotected. AlexiusHoratius 08:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For picking up that mistake. Kevin (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. AlexiusHoratius 06:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're an adminstrator now? Wikipedia is screwed. Bahameenballin shall rise again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!