User talk:Andy Bjornovich/Other

Anna Politkovskaya article[edit]

Hi Andy, thank you for posting the Russian article on Anna's English article talk page. I'd like to incorporate that information into her English article; however, all of the references are listed in Russian, of course. I was thinking I could at least add a link to the translated article in the external links section. What do you think? *momoricks* (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Rhiannon Thomas[edit]

I've restored the article, as allowed by the Proposed Deletion policy. This does not mean that the article will not be deleted via another method, such as Articles for Deletion. I invite you to try to work on the article and correct any problems possible, especially relating to notability. The 'jd' stands for a nickname that I've had for quite a while. Thanks for asking. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

image deletion[edit]

Go to the image and click edit then put {{db-self}} at the very top. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Rhíannon Thomas[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rhíannon Thomas, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhíannon Thomas. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Klein zach 02:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Erick Rowsell[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Erick Rowsell, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Deor (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Erick Rowsell[edit]

I have nominated Erick Rowsell, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erick Rowsell. 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? seicer | talk | contribs 01:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you put up Rhiannon Thomas for deletion. Could you explain why it's being deleted? Also, could you reply on my talk page instead of this one. Thanks.--Andrzejestrować Zajaczajkowski Plecaxpiwórserafinowiczaświadzenie Poświadczyxwiadectwo-Bjornovich (talk) (contributions) 08:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhíannon Thomas. Thanks. --Klein zach 09:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

You can take edits however you like. That said, though, actually calling good faith edits vandalism, either directly or in edit summaries, is uncivil so please don't. _Gb^T/c 18:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:NOT applies to everywhere in your userspace - simply creating the family tree as a sub-page doesn't make things any better. I'm pleased that you're showing off, but it's still inappropriate content. Perhaps your talents would be better turned to improving the encyclopaedia? _Gb^T/c 18:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I suppose I meant that I'm pleased you are good at wiki markup and the relevant programming-esque skills needed to construct a family tree of that nature. _Gb^T/c 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Wikipedia is not a free webhost, it would be appropriate if you were to request deletion of User:Andy_Bjornovich/Family_tree and User:Andy_Bjornovich/Jones_family by tagging them with {{db-u1}}. Are you prepared to do that? _Gb^T/c 20:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not prepared to delete them.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) 08:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, another user is asking for their block to be reconsidered, User:Vandal.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) 08:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the other user? And why, since they are clearly an inappropriate use of your userspace, are you not prepared to delete them? _Gb^T/c 09:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, go on, delete them.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) 09:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)OK...but who's the other user? _Gb^T/c 09:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was requesting unblocking the same time as me.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) 09:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:RFU is empty at this time... _Gb^T/c 09:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I had to wait an hour or so for my request to be handled. The other geezer's request didn't take him as long. Also, on the discussion for my signature, there was a list of problems listed about me. Could you list them all on my task list because I could probably explain nearly all of them.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) 09:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN thread[edit]

As is customary, I am informing you there is currently a thread at the administrators' noticeboard that may involve you. The thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User signature. –xeno (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you because of repeated incivility, willful disruptive editing, promises to disrupt further, and unwillingness to correct your behavior when prompted. It does not appear that you are here to help build an encyclopedia, which is the only reason Wikipedia exists.

I (or another administrator) may unblock you, but that would require, at the very least, shortening your signature significantly so that it no longer is disruptive and modifying your behavior. In particular, incivil, dismissive and agressive comments are not appropriate; nor is promises to wilfully violate guidelines and policy in the future.

You may request that this block be reexamined by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} to this page, but be prepared to acknowledge the problem and promise to correct your behavior. — Coren ^(talk) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Signature much improved, inappropriate userpages deleted. Any further disruptive edits of the sort leading up to your block and you run the risk of being reblocked. Thanks. _Gb^T/c 09:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: _Gb^T/c 09:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Your signature is certainly substantially better. Would you mind answering my proposal (under "Edits" a couple of threads up) about marking certain of your sub-pages for deletion. Is that something you'd be prepared to do if unblocked? _Gb^T/c 08:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Articles[edit]

Andy, I see you're keeping a "backup" copy of the Rhiannon Thomas article at User talk:Andy Bjornovich/Sandbox. Given your comment at the deletion debate, I thought it might be helpful if I clarified something for you.

If the result of the deletion debate is "Delete" then that will apply to the sandbox version as well - the only circumstance in which a user would be allowed to keep a copy of a delete article in their userspace would be expressly when they are working on it to improve it sufficiently for it to merit inclusion in the main article space. If your intention is to improve the article, then I'd suggest you do so to the actual article to give it a chance of being kept at the deletion debate. If that's not your intention, then bear in mind that the sandbox will be deleted if the article is deleted. I hope that's clear, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. _Gb^T/c 11:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Sinebot signed it because it was on a user talk page and it thought it was an unsigned comment. That's what sinebot does. _Gb^T/c 11:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, which page do you mean? The Sandbox? _Gb^T/c 11:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Sandbox talk page deleted and redirected to Sandbox. _Gb^T/c 12:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages[edit]

I reverted your talk page comment here. Please use talk pages only for relevant discussion of the article. Friday (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert this? Wikipedia is not your personal playground. Surely you don't believe your joke is helpful to the project in some way? Friday (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, I'll just ask you outright then: do you have any intention of contributing usefully? Friday (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think putting back your off-topic joke is a good reason to violate policies? That's not good. Please make some effort to learn what we do here, before continuing to edit. Friday (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have already been blocked once for Incivility and wilful disruption, threatening to violate policies is really not in your best interest. Note that the unblocking admin specifically told you "Any further disruptive edits of the sort leading up to your block and you run the risk of being reblocked." I urge you to take this into consideration when considering further edits to Wikipedia. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhiannon Thomas: raising a matter that was already settled[edit]

Hello. I noticed you thought I created the article. Check the history section of Rhiannon Thomas (without the link). If you still thought I created it, I suggest you go on Wikibreak or something. Also, reply on my talkpage if you're going to reply at all.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) (email) 14:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was clarified two days ago! I replied to you on 29 August on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhíannon Thomas: "Thanks for the clarification. This case has been confusing - hence my wrong assumption about authorship - but anyway we're making progress here." I don't understand why you are raising this again. Also "I suggest you go on Wikibreak or something" is WP:UNCIVIL. For your own sake read the WP policies so you won't get blocked again. --Klein zach 23:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Rhíannon Thomas.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Rhíannon Thomas.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright tags are explained here with 'free use' tags listed here. However, you may want to take a look at the reply another editor made on my talk page regarding this issue. J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silvana Franco[edit]

She may in fact be married, but (1) you've supplied no evidence that she's known as Silvana Fitzpatrick and (2) a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a source for information in another Wikipedia article. Also, you can't just make up your own stub notices at the bottom of articles; you have to select a template from the ones in the lists linked here, which will put the article in the proper stub category. Before you create any more articles, it might be a good idea to read the Tutorial and the other helpful pages linked in the welcome message above. Deor (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names[edit]

Afternoon, Mr Bjornovich. You may find these names interesting.

1268 Alwredus
1298 Edith Prideaux
1309 Richard Pollard
1333 Nicholas Herloe
1349 John de Mertone
1355 John de Monceaux
1362 Roger Rome
1404 John Drayton
1408 Thomas Rule
1416 Walter Boway
1421 Walter Twyneowe
1438 Stephen Wylle
1596 William Vigures
1647 Milo Phaier
1649 Nathaniel Crabb
1684 Thomas Donne
1726 Richard Eastwa
1733 William Barton
1790 John Lethbridge
1831 Charles Lethbridge
1841 Francis Briggs
1853 George Harrison
1875 A. E. Clementi-Smith
1879 Wm Hugh Montgomery
1887 Richard Davies
1891 Charles Ravenhill
1902 F. G. Scrivener
1913 A. J. R. Wheeler
1917 W. H. T. Ravenhill
1956 H. S. Fussell
1963 Harold J. Roche
1999 Harold J. Roche Jr.

Any questions see me. Take care. As for the image, you own it, don't you?--79.73.87.222 (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Rhiannon Skye[edit]

A tag has been placed on Rhiannon Skye requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 07:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhíannon Thomas[edit]

Please don't re-add inappropriate external links to the article Rhíannon Thomas. Neither the imdb nor the myspace link are the person in the article. We also don't link to mirrors of wikipedia because it's redundant. If you disagree please comment first on the article's talk page before edit warring. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Wikilove templates[edit]

Apparently, someone had been messing with the template, and it caused it to add pages to the category when someone used the template. It's fixed now; thanks for bringing it to my attention. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 13:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Céline Dion[edit]

If you really want that page moved, try to get a consensus for the move first (others have tried and failed in the past, but you may succeed), and then get someone that knows how to perform a page move correctly to do it.Kww (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Warning people isn't the point. Getting their agreement is. This has been discussed many times, and the decision has always been to keep the article at the English form of her name. Like I said, if you want to discuss it on the the talk page, and you can get everyone to agree to a move, go ahead. Don't move it before then.Kww (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks[edit]

It is the initial for my first name. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pl:User talk:Andy Bjornovich[edit]

Hello. Don't use translators, they make text useless (it doesn't make any sense in Polish). You should check what kind of edit I did - look at diff. Even on en-wiki there is Template:softredirect. Cheers. Invisible Idiot (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you again. DO NOT use translators. pierdolić is very offensive word and I am not going to let it be on my talk page, so I have reverted you. Invisible Idiot (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 week block[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Oh no you can't, mate, if you are unable to edit. Please spend your enforced wikibreak studying what is and what isn't expected of a contributor to this consensus regulated encyclopedia project, or you next block is likely to be of a longer duration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Andy Bjornovich (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason I find it difficult to be civil is because of the fact I have aspergers. I recommend you read the article on it.

Decline reason:

If having a particular disorder prevents you from following our rules and guidelines then that is a reason for you not to edit here. — Golbez (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your behavior is not compatible with Asperger's, and I find your pretext extraordinarily insulting given that I have been diagnosed with the syndrome and you'll notice I do not behave randomly. — Coren ^(talk) 12:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what's probably happened is you've learnt to deal with it. I deliberately make no effort to learn to deal with it and only admit it if I'm backed into a set of corners, such as in this situation.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) (email) 13:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's your choice. What isn't your choice is that if you're going to edit here, you have to make an effort to follow our expected standards of behavior. This is not optional. Playing the "someone else made me do it" card only hurts your case. Friday (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that's just blatant trolling. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the off chance this is not trolling, here’s my take on the situation: While I have sympathy for your condition, Andrzejestrować, it’s important to note that Wikipedia is not for everyone. If you have a medical condition or other circumstance that prevents you from conducting yourself in a civil and collaborate manner, then it is not appropriate for you to remain in a community that absolutely requires civil and collaborative behavior from all of its members. Wikipedia simply could not function if we permitted such behavior, regardless of the underlying cause. I wish you well personally, but it would be best if you found a new hobby to occupy your time and energy. Thank you and good luck. — Satori Son 14:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how it is the "someone else made me do it" card, however I know it's the aspergers card I'm playing. Also, I noticed you mentioned trolling on my talk page. I feel like I'm being trolled by a large number of administrators. And I'm happy to list them.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) (email) 18:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason many people have commented here is because getting discussed at the administrator noticeboard tends to put one's talk page on many watchlists. You're not being 'trolled' more than anybody else in that situation. justinfr (talk/contribs) 20:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Andy Bjornovich (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've noted the comments above. I feel that I am being trolled. Could someone list all my problems somewhere so I can explain them all?

Decline reason:

This is not a request for unblock, it is merely a request for information. As the reviewing admin, I can only reply that, according to your block log, you were blocked for editing in ways that disrupted the process of creating the encyclopedia, and for interacting with other users in ways that were not polite. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This block is meant to change your behaviour; in my opinion, both your unblock requests and your comments since the block demostrate that you are simply still not getting it, as does your description of your Wikistress meter (I have moved it, and the user boxes, to the top of the page, by the way. Such items are really more suited for placement on your user page, and shouldn't clutter the discussion area of your talk page).

You are not being trolled; you are being given an extraordinary degree of latitude. Users who do not, or cannot, abide by Wikipedia's policies and norms are blocked. In cases where the behaviour continues despite repeated blocks, users may be permanently excluded from contributing.

The community has been remarkably patient with you, but this patience has limits. If you are serious about contributing usefully, I suggest you use the few remaining days of your block to review our policies. You might begin with:

Please understand that if the disruptive edits continue, future blocks will be longer. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why they are not on my user page is because my talk page is the only page I can edit; they'll be moved after I become unblocked. Also, it's not because I don't want to not vandalise wikipedia, it's because my idea of useful is a little bit different to usual. It's also because I'm not used to having privilidges in the first place. I hope you'll understand.Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) (email) 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. The remaining few days of your block will give you a valuable opportunity to explore our policy pages and learn exactly what it means to contribute to Wikipedia usefully and civilly. Happy reading. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Rhíannon Thomas.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Rhíannon Thomas.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright tags are explained here with 'free use' tags listed here. However, you may want to take a look at the reply another editor made on my talk page regarding this issue. J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silvana Franco[edit]

She may in fact be married, but (1) you've supplied no evidence that she's known as Silvana Fitzpatrick and (2) a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a source for information in another Wikipedia article. Also, you can't just make up your own stub notices at the bottom of articles; you have to select a template from the ones in the lists linked here, which will put the article in the proper stub category. Before you create any more articles, it might be a good idea to read the Tutorial and the other helpful pages linked in the welcome message above. Deor (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names[edit]

Afternoon, Mr Bjornovich. You may find these names interesting.

1268 Alwredus
1298 Edith Prideaux
1309 Richard Pollard
1333 Nicholas Herloe
1349 John de Mertone
1355 John de Monceaux
1362 Roger Rome
1404 John Drayton
1408 Thomas Rule
1416 Walter Boway
1421 Walter Twyneowe
1438 Stephen Wylle
1596 William Vigures
1647 Milo Phaier
1649 Nathaniel Crabb
1684 Thomas Donne
1726 Richard Eastwa
1733 William Barton
1790 John Lethbridge
1831 Charles Lethbridge
1841 Francis Briggs
1853 George Harrison
1875 A. E. Clementi-Smith
1879 Wm Hugh Montgomery
1887 Richard Davies
1891 Charles Ravenhill
1902 F. G. Scrivener
1913 A. J. R. Wheeler
1917 W. H. T. Ravenhill
1956 H. S. Fussell
1963 Harold J. Roche
1999 Harold J. Roche Jr.