User talk:Andonee

O'Donnell comments

With all respect to those who are more involved in the 9/11 and twin towers attacks, etc. this section is probably ripe for conversion as O'Donnell has no national forum with which to build much of a groundswell on the issue. Were she still doing daytime talk I have little doubt the subject would be brought up and we would indeed have much more to document but I think it's smarter to convert this to her New York City-centric POV which fostered her love of Broadway and, in part, prompted her to bring on 9/11 rescue workers and to bring up sensitive 9/11 subjects even if her point of view wasn't shared by all. Pretty much all the "controversies" are pretty much non-issues now that she's not on the show. If she had said the holocaust never happened or some wildly outrageous comment then we should document but even the NIST report is taking those conspiracy theories seriously enough to look into them. I see her as simply one of the most high-profile people who voiced that view prominently. It's shared by many and frankly it's just not that big of story as far as O'Donnell is concerned now that she's off the show. Benjiboi 08:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments. Nevertheless, the reason for WTC 7's collapse is a serious one, and her views do not exist in a vacuum. That is, the prevailing theory is that WTC 7 was brought down due to the damage it sustained from the collapse of the two main towers. My edits indicate that the NIST report is not final, nevertheless it does deserve mention in this section because it is the official word thus far. And I've removed the last bit about her planned rebuttal because (1) it never happened and (2) it will likely never happen because she is no longer on "The View", and (3) it was a needless detail that seemed more like an advertisements for the books written by these two "experts".

And I will re-add those "needless details" because she made a point of saying she was not an expert and would find those who were (at least in her opinion) who were - as you state, "her views do not exist in a vacuum". Getting back to my main point, the article is all about O'Donnell so unless we see reliable sources continue to bring up her and the subject or she brings it up the section will probably be going anyway, due mainly to the fact that she's not on air presently so not talking about any issues including this one. Benjiboi 20:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of the 3 revert rule

You are edit warring, using edits done as anonymous editors (user:67.83.28.245, user:74.76.207.141) to violate the 3 revert rule. This is prohibited. Further reverts in this fashion will result in a block. Raul654 (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Andonee_reported_by_User:Stephan_Schulz_.28Result:_.29 --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Fred Singer. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I've attempted to start a discussion (about my disputed edit) on the Fred Singer discussion page. I'd like to be able to edit that page if some of the other editors (with whom I've had this back-and-forth) make comments. Furthermore, if I'm unblocked, I'm willing to leave the disputed line as it was in the hopes that the edit situation can be resolved harmoniously.Andonee (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Andonee[reply]

Decline reason:

You only started a discussion after you had already reverted 6 times, not counting if any of the similar reverts from IP editors were yours. I don't see this as a good faith attempt at avoiding an edit war. Feel free to resume discussion when your block expires. Mango juice^talk 20:36, 6 July 2009 (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 request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Mangojuice is justifiably sceptical, but given your promise not to edit the article and the fact the block has already half over, I'm willing to unblock you with the provision that you don't edit the article until after when you're block would've expired. Failure to do that will lead to harsher actions. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Fred Singer

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Fred Singer, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --TS 09:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Steven Q. Wang

Hello Andonee. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Steven Q. Wang, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There's enough there for A7. PROD or take to AfD if required. Thank you. Ged UK 21:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]