User talk:Antandrus/Archive8

Archive 8, November 8, 2005 - December 20, 2005

Thanks for the revert

I guess somebody doesn't like me --Doc ^ask? 17:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage vandalism

Thanks for reverting the vandalism [1] on my user page! He hit me because I reverted his vandalism on John Kerry, where he did exactly the same thing. Interestingly enough, I learned something by going to those categories... Tito xd^(?!?) 04:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hey Antandrus! Here are two fresh idared apples just for you - for being the great administrator that you are. I heard that they are great for making pies and applesauces, so if you are short of ingredients, I'll drop by with some fresh cinnamon sticks for you next time. See you around! --HappyCamper 03:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psy guy's RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. It recently closed with final tally of 51/1/2. I sincerely appreciate it and I hope I can live up to your expectations. I will try my best to be a good administrator. If you ever need anything, just let me know. Thanks! -- Psy guy ^(talk) 05:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

You're welcome! It's really not so bad ... and welcome to the cabal. :-) Antandrus (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hora staccato

Antandrus - we have no article on Hora staccato! This calls for a future collaboration, you think? --HappyCamper 01:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine, in the key of E-flat: The piano

E, G, B, D-, B, G, E ...

And in a grand fashion: The violin

G A- A >cbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbc....ab eeddccbbaaggffeedafadafadafadafa ... :D

I've taken the liberty of asking a Romanian for the translation. Let's see what comes of it! --HappyCamper 02:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hora

Hora is a traditional Romanian dance and is not a gypsy one!!! --Dacodava

Hora is the name for the large circle dance and is the most widespread dance in Romania, partly because any number of participants of both men and women, of any ability or age, can join in. The term Hora is also used for the Sunday village dance, even where the Hora dance does not form part of the dance cycle. In southern Romania and Moldavia Hora is the introductory dance to the dance cycle.--Dacodava

Yes, for once Dacodava and I agree. Nothing particularly Gypsy about the hora. It's pretty much the Romanian national dance, at least outside of Transylvania. Pretty much the same thing as the Ashkenazi Jewish dance of the same name that a lot of people think of a folkloric Israeli dance. Your basic big circle dance, with relatively simple steps (certainly simpler than, for example, a Catalan sardana). -- Jmabel | Talk 17:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Giustini?

Hello Antandrus,

I hope this finds you well and that your musical premiere was a success. I continue to follow and admire your work on the Wikipedia.

Might you be interested in working your early-composer magic on Lodovico Giustini, the first composer for the piano?

Yours very truly, Opus33 22:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antandrus:

My name is Gary Matsumoto. I am the author of the Science article to which Wikipedia refers in its erroneuous entry on the 2001 anthrax letter attacks. I have been trying without success to delete my entry for several reasons. First, because it is incorrect. The Science article I wrote did not suggest that the source of the Senate attack material was a "hidden U.S. government anthrax program." I did not write that in the Science article or in any other report that I have written or broadcast. Second, I wish to be deleted because I object to being the only journalist on a list of Internet conspiracy theorists who have advanced their theories on unregulated, unedited websites. I am a staff reporter and producer for a major U.S. news organization. I do not have a website. Everything I have written on the subject has been for the so-called MSM (ABC News, Washington Post, Science). I gathered most of my information this subject while working on staff at ABC News, specifically with the ABC News Investigative Unit. Yet, there are no other MSM journalists on this list. Judith Miller, Bill Broad of the New York Times have written far more about the attacks, but they are not listed. Joby Warrick and Marilyn Thompson of the Washington Post have written extensively about them (Thompson even wrote a book about it); yet they're not on it; neither is Guy Gugliotta, my co-author of the Washington Post article that ran on the front page, above-the-fold in October 2002. Mark Hosenball of Newsweek is not on this list; Brian Ross of ABC News isn't either. So what gives? I do not wish to be listed in this Wikipedia rogues gallery of anthrax Internet theorists, especially not with patently incorrect information attributed to me, about my work. Please get me off this list; and try to get your facts straight. Providing information is a public service; disseminating false information is a disservice, not just to me, but to everyone. If you wish to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me at witzend@nyct.net. Sincerely, Gary Matsumoto

Reviewing the case--i.e. looking at the article you mention--I reverted an edit from you because it looked like vandalism (we get a LOT of vandals who just drop by an article and delete a random section). As the article currently stands, you are the last editor, and the section remains deleted, so I'll leave it that way. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I incorporated Gary's changes (minus the inappropriate boosterism), which should satisfy his factual accuracy objection. Mirror Vax 16:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MIRROR VAX: I have deleted my revised entry, again. In all fairness, I am, as far as I can tell, the only journalist on this list. I object to you making me an exception. I did not propogate a theory, as did everyone else on your list. I reported facts that had been, my Science magazine article, reviewed by scientists as well as editors. This specific article was also supported by footnotes and a bioliography. That is lot more than I can say for all the journalists who did propagate theories, but have been spared the ignominy of being on your list. For example, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times wrote several high profile columns in America's newspaper of record, accusing "Dr. Z"/Dr. Steven Hatfill of being the most likely anthrax mailer. Marilyn Thompson did the same in the Washington Post Magazine; NYT's Judith Miller implied as much in a front page piece she wrote on Hatfill's work in constructing mock BW labs on wheels. Brian Ross of ABC News said Hatfill's arrest as the anthrax mailer "was imminent." These are bona fide journalists who not only advanced theories on how the anthrax was made, they advanced theories on who mailed it ... all without providing verifiable physical evidence or testimony to link Hatfill to the crime. All the individuals that I listed above have more in common (Hatfill) with Don Foster and Barbara Hatch Rosenberg than I do. Yet I am on your list. Scott Shane of the Baltimore Sun broke the story that a U.S. Army lab was actually making weaponized anthrax, but he is not on the list.

So I object to Wikipedia's inaccuracy; its inconsistency and the arbitrariness in its choices. Putting me on this list equates my work with anti-Semites, with Internet conspiracy-mongers and with people whose work is now the subject of litigation. As I pointed out in my previous message, I have no website advancing a theory behind this crime. My Science article was reviewed by a half dozen Ph.D.s and vetted by nearly as many senior editors at one the most highly regarded science journals in the world. My Science article is cited in formal papers published in peer-reviewed science journals and is also cited in Ph.D. dissertations written by scientists working for U.S. government laboratories doing biodefense research.

Your entry for Gary Matsumoto was, for many months, grosssly inaccurate. Now, the revised copy - an alleged sop to a disgruntled subject - fails to provide context that would enable a reader to distinguish me from individuals whose work has been discredited as inaccurate and defamatory (and is the subject of litigation), or from individuals whose work should be discredited for its substandard quality. Inclusion on your list is a dishonor. Kindly leave me off it, or in fairness, add to it every journalist who has written or broadcast about the 2001 anthrax attacks. Sincerely, Gary Matsumoto

Hi Mr. Matsumoto: I copied your text above to the talk page of User:Mirror Vax, since he otherwise may never see it. You probably should discuss changes to the article with people who work on it (my only involvement with the article was a single click on my rollback button, on what I thought was a vandalism revert).

An even better idea might be to go to the article's talk page and make your case there. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for reverting the racist vandalism on Hazleton, Pennsylvania. I happen to (reluctantly, 'cause culturally (I'm a punk musician in a country/Southern rock/classic rock world) it stinks) live there. There was a shooting (non-gang, non-drug related) a month ago between two members of Hazleton's Latin community and all of the white trash and rednecks around this shit town have been having a field day and a half with what is otherwise an isolated incident. Cjmarsicano 01:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do the same thing when I see an anon edit on any article I'm watching. :D Much repsect. Cjmarsicano 04:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for catching the vandalism to my user page! -Satori ^(talk) 19:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please check contributions when reverting

Hello Antandrus. Thank you for reversing one of the many instances of vandalism made to the [[George W. Bush] article. If it is not too much to ask, please review contribution histories when rolling back the edits of a potentially malicious contributor. 201.154.253.38 had also vandalised the György Ligeti article four minutes prior to bush, and based upon the relative obscurity of the subject, the edits might have remained there for weeks. By the way, have you had an opportunity to read the ongoing discussion at Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 34#Protected...? Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anything faster than a one-hundered twenty eighth note?

Is there anything faster than a one-hundered twenty eighth note? --Member 01:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

user page vandalism

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. I appreciate it! -- Psy guy ^Talk 03:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome as usual, it's the least I can do, and thanks for the star! :-) Antandrus (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for supporting me for adminship. The RfA passed today. I look forward to working with you to make Wikipedia a better place. --Nlu 03:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Halibutt

Since you have supported me during my RfA, I wonder if you could review and comment on the RfA for Halibutt, the first person I have nominated myself. There seem to be a heated debate and votes of experienced, unbiased editors would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I counted, he had 68% support. That is quite close to the required 70% - so we may yet be suprised. Still, I find it an excellent example of Wiki eRulemaking at work :) If you are interested in Polish historical music, I found an interesting site recently: [2] --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibu tt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Giustini

Hi Antandrus,

It's nice. I added a little bit from the book I own by James Parakilas (Piano Roles). Thanks for filling this gap.

Opus33 16:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:1136 Broadway

You did a rollback on Talk:1136 Broadway, but the page shouldn't exist-- the article1136 Broadway was deleted some time back. Could you finish the job someone apparently left undone? TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 13:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IIPM

Hey bro, Thanks for the revert on Indian Insititute of planning and management! Appreciate it!

Take care --Drnoamchomsky 05:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Blair

Thank you for your prompt action. Andy Mabbett 16:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drums...

Hi Antandrus! Do you think you could help out with answering this question? [3] --HappyCamper 02:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Vandal

Since you seem to be experienced at this, could you check out User:Dark Lord Farley, User:Jake. Remington, and User:Jake Remington? Just blocked Jake. Remington for 3RR and vandalism at elitism. The edit history strongly suggests they are the same person, and probably the NC vandal. But I don't know much about the vandal other than that bit I saw on ANI a week ago. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 05:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coming out

Indeed; if I don't write in article space every so often I stop knowing whether I'm coming or going! And I see your article list is truly of Biblical proportions. :-) (Hm, didn't know that was filmed at an archaeological site; cool.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King michael of australia

don't delete stubs needlessly please

Edward the 4th has been proved a bastard so geneologists traced the true line of succession to an ordinary australian man called michael. Because of the rules of succession, edward being a bastard contradicts the current monarchs' right to the throne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.247.172 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for clarifying. The redirect looks good to me since there's a pretty well written article at Michael_Abney-Hastings,_14th_Earl_of_Loudoun. Antandrus (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam links?

Hello, Antandrus. Can you look at Special:Contributions/80.61.78.75? - the site that this user has linked composer pages to has advertising, and I think it qualifies as spam (indeed another contributor has already removed some), but there is no doubt that the site does eventually link to free sound samples. What do you think? Should all these links be removed? I'll gladly do it, but thought I'd ask for a second opinion first. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother, Raul654 has already reverted them all, which I think probably gives me the second opinion I'm after :-) --RobertG ♬ talk 15:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whole hog

I see you found my secret identity... or not. Thanks for the userpage revert. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Piano piece by Rzewski

Hi Antandrus

Do you play any piano work of Frederic Rzewski? As I have seen your a professional pianist.

helohe 09:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunaely most of his music is also quite above my current playing level. helohe 16:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

Temporary 15 minute Mark Twain page protection good? --HappyCamper 01:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? That never occurred to me. We'll see what happens a bit later... --HappyCamper 01:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That vandal...

Ah, I see now. They are all related! See User talk:Aq3w4e8g9nesrmb9smrb09e - I suggest we block these permanently on sight. --HappyCamper 03:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Vandal

Yes, I've had 63.19.* on my CDVF RegExp watchlist for a while now, I just didn't know he had a name... Should I be using Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Jake_Remington? I just sent everything today to Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_WaW. Owen× ☎ 03:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time to act

Do we know which company is in charge of that IP range? It's high time that we sent a letter requesting that this predictable vandalism cease. --HappyCamper 03:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job

Hey, I've been a long time Wikipedia user, and I've never been familiar with how good the admins are at deleting vandalism. I'd like to commend you on your work, and just let you know that I had no mal intentions, just unbridled curiosity. Thanks again.

OK, thanks for your offer, tell me how I would do such a thing?

Robert Young vandalisms

Thank you for your prompt attention to the guy who is continually vandalizing that page. I tried to stop him but I am new to this. Should the page be write-protected? I don't know how to do that either. Thanks for all your help. Firestone a12 03:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Range block...

I saw you blocked 63.19.128.0/17. That seems to be a rather large range to block. Any reasons? --Nlu 05:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been busy with RC patrol...

[4] Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Monteverdi

Hello friend! I just wanted to ask you something. Do you consider Claudio Monteverdi a Baroque composer? Marcus2 22:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Ph.D.!

I'm impressed. Your contributions in the field of musicology are stunning--and written language-appropriately for an encyclopedia article, which is a sign of a good educator. (Well, at least in my experience.) It's always nice to see material from experts mixed in with material from we hobbyists. Bravo! Tom Lillis 23:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A few more questions

Hello again! I have a few more music history questions. Since the Baroque period is said to have begun in 1600, were there musicians composing in the Baroque style before Monteverdi? And can Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, son of Johann Sebastian Bach, be considered a composer of the Classical style and period as well as the Baroque? Marcus2 23:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

I would like to thank you for your support of my recent successful RfA. If you have any further comments or feedback for me, my door's open - don't hesistate to drop a note on my talk page. Happy editing! Enochlau 11:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from Paris

Hey, thanks for the revert to the Paris page. Come often! Tons to do : )

ThePromenader 20:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You who likes geology, I'll be uploading some "underground" pictures later tonight - Ill put some thumbs in my User Page gallery.

thanx!

Thanks for clearing up that vandalism. Any idea why that guy targeted me?--Mike Selinker 20:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Response: Andrewin

11932850239485709287520938475984577937409275983475984759879029847585784230942923570498579847598949867 290587920487508923757-3475-23498758927458968746398645786298695248765982746529875698342875649875693745 Andrewin 22:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Found Out Who Andrewin Is

Hey, you remember me? You blocked my account because someone from my IP adress was vandalizing articles? Well, I found out who it is that's doing it. It's my little twerp of a brother. I guess he was snooping around and found a copy of my book and thought it would be incredibly witty to wreak havoc under a false identity. I'm sorry for the trouble he caused. If you could close his account or permanently block that access name that would be great. Roygene 22:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C. P. E. Bach's Solfeggio

Hi! Do you consider Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach's Solfeggio in C minor (1766) to belong to the Classical era in style? Here's a source that says Classical: [5]. I hope you don't mind the questions. Marcus2 22:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi. Our paths haven't crossed much, though I see you've been here a couple of years. It seems like a lot of people go off to do more admin-style jobs when they get fed up with the actual editing. But for me the editing is the fun. I learn something new every day - for example, I didn't know anything about Leclair before I started fiddling with his page. Deb 12:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Johann Michael Vogl

Hello, some time ago you added a fair bit of content to Johann Michael Vogl. As you may be aware, we are currently trying to improve Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability by making sure articles cite the sources used to created them. Do you remember what websites, books, or other places you learnt the information that you added to Johann Michael Vogl? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP 17:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for your kind words and your support on my RfA. -- SCZenz 18:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Book suggestion

Hi Antandrus,

I'm glad you're thinking of beefing up our coverage of an early American composer. Re. your query, you might try:

Irving Lowens (1964) Music and Musicians in Early America. New York: W. W. Norton.

Available used and (does this help?) in the library of UC Santa Barbara.

Yours very truly,
Opus33 19:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My User Page

Thx for catching that vandalism on my page. Olorin28 21:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Giaches de Wert

Hello, good work on Giaches de Wert, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Giaches de Wert? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or see WP:CITET if you wish to review some of the different citation methods. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 03:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I had a feeling that was going to bite when I warned him. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for catching the vandal on my page. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my userpage. xaosflux ^T/_C 03:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Antandrus (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Man after your own heart?

"Among the surviving records are the receipts for the wine that the two consumed during the three days it took to tune the instrument." ::grin:: Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're too quick for me! Heh. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocks

Hi Antandrus...you seem to be an expert on range blocks...could you visit User talk:128.253.117.62 and see if you can put one, for say 24 hours, or whatever you feel is appropriate? The vandalism seems to be ongoing from these IPs. --HappyCamper 04:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Such the quintessential admin! I was under the impression that the vandalism was quite persistent, but I didn't follow up with those IPs quite as thoroughly as I should have. I trust you and your judgement. Thanks for that mask calculator too - by the way, I have never actually tried one of these range blocks before. I might do one when the NC vandal comes back :-) We'll see. I'm going to get lunch now. See you around! --HappyCamper 04:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat Vandal

I am relatively new to wikipedia so I apologize for any dumb questions in advance.

205.247.112.2 has repeatedly vandalized the article San Andreas Fault

Is there anyway to block him from editing this page?

Thanks for any help you can provide. --Malix

Re:Gandhi

Thank you for defending the article from vandalism.

Jai Sri Rama!

Rama's Arrow 17:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user page! Mushroom 03:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

quite welcome, as usual! Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Gandhi

Hi,

I've been searching for a Gita edition myself, but can't seem to find a good one. I rely upon the Mahabharata book written by a British Hindu, Krishna Dharma for the Gita Updesh.

An English-Sanskrit text back-to-back is ideal. May I enquire of the name of the author, publisher and exact name of the Ramayana you've got?

Even though I'm fluent in Hindi, its tough to learn Sanskrit. Virtually nobody in India speaks it, and only an extremely small fragment know the ancient language. Even back then it was too complicated, so other languages like Prakrit arose.

I'm trying to learn Sanskrit myself. Good luck to you, and you better get coaching, for doing it yourself will take an awful lot of time.

Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 04:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks holmes!

Rama's Arrow 04:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For the revert on my user page :) Alf ^melmac 12:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin now!!

Thanks a ton for your support on my rfa, the final tally was 50-0-0; I'll try and live up to the expectations of others and do my best in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. I hope to be a good admin, if not an excellent one. --Gurubrahma 14:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RFA

Although my RfA is not over yet, I figured that since so many people voted before it had been posted, I may as well start thanking people before it wraps up. It'll take me that long to thank everyone who voted anyway! Thank you, Antandrus, for your support - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 16:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for the prompt reversion of my user page. I think I deleted his vanity page :-) Best wishes. RobertG ♬ talk 17:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

207.236.126.85 vandalization

I have noticed several recent incidents of vandalization coming from a user: 207.236.126.85, who has previously been warned repeatly for blanking and vandalization. Nothing more than a notification.

Jaguar Article

One of my main projects at this time is an article about Jaguars(animal). An unregistered user has continued to falsely edit the article declaring the jaguar as the most powerful of all the big cats. I have been deleting his edits but he comes back every couple of days to change the article. He did so again yesterday and added 5 references that he believed justified his point. I took the time to look at all of them, 3 sites did not mention the jaguar as being the strongest cat, 1 site did but was an ordinary dot-com cited created by a novice that displayed many erroneous facts along with some truths, the last site was somewhat credible, one I actually visted before it was referenced here, but its a website about a cat sanctuary and some of the statistics on this page are erroneous as well. I have done research personally on both the web and from my substantial library of big cat books, and the books and credible sites I have obtained state that the tiger is the most powerful cat. I would like to cite one of my animal encyclopedias as a reference for the tiger's strength on the tiger page. My question for you is, is this appropriate, how would I go about doing this, and finally after I have done so what can I do to deter this individual from misleading wikipedia users. I have great faith in this cite but I have a very low tolerance for false information, misinformation, and especially vandalism. Thank you so much for any help you can provide me. Malix 1:12 EST December 8, 2005

User:Chaosfeary

I've just received an e-mail from User:Chaosfeary claiming his permablock for vandalism is against policy. I don't know enough about the situation to make comment or to do anything about it (I'm about to block a few people for vandalizing as well), but I thought I'd let you know he's sending PMs to people about it. Cheers. 23skidoo 17:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

huh

Why did you revert Ridnik's edits to pages?03:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It's hard for me to trust you when you've vandalized us thousands of times. Do you seriously expect me to fact-check every edit you make, when the vast majority of your edits have been vandalism? Are you going to "go straight" now and stop vandalising? Promise to do that, and I'll leave you alone. Antandrus (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dismas

Thanks for the speedy revert of my user page.... That was some quick revert action!! Dismas|^(talk) 16:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome--my pleasure! :-) Antandrus (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A thank you from Ann

Hi, Antandrus. I just want to thank you for voting to support me in my RfA. I know I'm very late thanking you, but I've been a bit caught up with college work. I hope I'll live up to the expectations of those who voted for me. Please let me know if you ever have a problem with any admin action that I carry out. Thanks again. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 20:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Nlu (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (the sequel)

Thanks for getting that vandalism on my user page too! Peace, delldot | talk 04:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure; anything to make Wikipedia a better place. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Frankie Valli's birthdate and a few more questions

Hi! This user 801greg keeps reverting my reverts to Frankie Valli's correct birthdate, 1937, when there is enough evidence that he was born in 1937 (i.e. The Internet Movie Database and The World Almanac). And Wikipedia is supposed to be devoted to displaying the most accurate and relevant information. I don't always want to be the one reverting his changes, so please help me. Also, I have a few more questions for you. Would you consider the entire works of Heinrich Schutz to belong to the Baroque period? And I now consider Beethoven's Symphonies 1 & 2 to be late Classical and his Symphonies 3-9 to be early Romantic. Do you think this is true? Marcus2 12:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Buffalo Skull of Diligence

File:Mandan hunter with buffalo skull.JPG

You have been presented with the Buffalo Skull of Diligence for reverting vandalism on Mandan while it was on the Mainpage, December 9, 2005. Thank you for your watchfulness and diligence!

Thanks for your work reverting the vandals on Mandan while it was on the mainpage yesterday! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's 3

Thank you very much I do believe that is the 3rd time that you have reverted vandalism to my user page. If your an admin could you check WP:AIAV just listed a vandal there. Thanks KnowledgeOf Self | talk 00:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oikopleura

You've never worked with these animals have you?

You must be referring to this [6]. If what you wrote is true, please write it in a way appropriate to an encyclopedia; when I saw it I thought it was vandalism. Antandrus (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better? I may have been a bit flip, but if you've ever had any hands on experience with these animals you would agree my first assessment was the most accurate.

Excellent! Thanks. Welcome to Wikipedia! Antandrus (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dos Pueblos High School

Would you mind a look at this article (Dos Pueblos High School, Goleta, California). Thanks! --Member 04:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a redirect. Thanks for telling me! --Member 05:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dingdingdingdingding! I mean Thanks! re:my RfA :-D

Hey Antandrus/Archive8! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (57/4/3), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, have a question, or just want to chat (or if I get out of line!), please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D

Tom e r ^talk

Thanks

Thank you for the revert on my user page--Jcw69 16:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite welcome! It's an occupational hazard for those who do anti-vandal work. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for revert on my user page

Thanks for catching the joker identifying me as "Willy on Wheels". Willy is my real name; I have nothing to do with the page vandalism. Willy Logan 23:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome as well; reverting userpage vandalism is pleasure. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit discussion

I have stated my case on Talk:The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion#Qualifications please respond accordingly with your edit objections in mind. thanks 69.248.237.88 04:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I responded there. Antandrus (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza elections

File:Voting box clipart.gif

Hi Antandrus/Archive8: This is a quick note just to let you know that there's an election under way at Esperanza. If you'd like to become a candidate for Administrator General or the Advisory Council, just add your name here by 15 December 2005.

Voting begins at 12:00UTC on 16 December and all Esperanza members are encouraged to join in.

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please contact Flcelloguy. Thank you.

➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 09:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Award

I'm sorry for giving you this rather silly thing, but you've already got two anti-vandalism barnstars ;-) Izehar (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

I'm too used to them being Anonymous. El_C 03:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Holocaust deniers

Can you help me keep an eye on User:68.45.21.204? Postings to Confederate States, pre-war Germany, and, Protoccols of the Elders of Zion, Holocaust topics, etc. I am getting fed up, given the recent User:Mark Twain incident, and could use some back up. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great!

I was expecting complaints, thanks for liking the template! Have at it:

This user thinks that the Communism vandal is acting like an ass.

Let's create similar ones for Willy on Wheels and Milkman! ....εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You really deserve a barnstar for all your work here. ....εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Opera

Thank you for correcting the categorization of Un ballo in maschera.

Most of the entries on the WikiProject Opera were posted many moons ago. I didn't realize this at first. It's confusing seeing a section called "Recent Work" and then seeing it was written in April. Would it be possible for me to clean up the page, not by deleting anything, but by moving entries to a section marked "April/May 2005" or whatever? (I have already done this with one stray 2004 item).

You are evidently a senior Wikipedian so doubtless you will know how to deal with this. Regards.

Kleinzach 09:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a list of 680 operas to the Talk page to show presence/absence on Wikipedia. I am wondering whether I should put this on the main project page. You have more of structural sense about this than I have as a newbie. Do you have an opinion?

I am also wondering whether I can develop some of the sections on the main page. Is there any etiquette to follow? I'd prefer not to offend any of the old hands in the process!

Kleinzach 14:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for setting up the page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/Operas. That's splendid.

The list was originally compiled for a different purpose (I have an online opera magazine) so I have edited it to be more useful for Wikipedia.

It is performance rather than history oriented. Almost the composers are still performed (but not all the works) so it might be an idea to add more historical stuff. It would be great if you could add Baroque works. The list is probably rather weak in that area. (Perhaps we could gradually up the total number cited as we do this?)

My only concern is about the accessibility of the page. I may try to make it more prominent. Please let me know if I do something which is 'un-Wikipedian'. My background is in publishing but I'm new here.

One further point. I have been listing the complete works on the {jacques Offenbach]] page. There are about 100. However I will only list the major ones on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/Operas. Does that seem reasonable?

Kleinzach 12:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Glad you are using the New Grove. Is that Music and Musicians? I am using the 4 volume New Grove Dictionary of Opera. Presumably Macmillan used the same house style for both, which should help consistency over the whole classical music/opera field.

Kleinzach 20:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (part 3)!

Thanks for getting that newest round of vandalism to my user page! delldot | talk 17:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira vandal blocked

I blocked the guy who kept reversing you at Shakira. I gave him plenty of chances to avoid a block, but watch out, its only for an hour. So, he might need a longer block later.--File Éireann 17:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts compromise

Thought you would like to know that the article has been rewritten based on a link provided by User:Billbrock. Please revisit the article and reconsider your vote. Thanks. howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism. It's good to see the people are helping me on a day that I'm too ill to do it myself... --05:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure! Hope you are feeling better soon ... Antandrus (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great Pic

I like to spend a bit of time each day looking at other wikipedians' pages and when I saw the picture on your page I wanted to scream Great View! (g) Thank you very much for uploading it. Chooserr 05:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Thanks. It was a hard climb to the top. :-) Antandrus (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the move

Thanks! I have heard stories about such things, but I don't quite believe them... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, we've recruited a friend. To help us go upstairs to the 4th floor. In a breezeway in icy weather. I assure you much fun will be had by all! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

News from Esperanza

Hello, fellow Esperanzians! This is just a friendly reminder that elections for Administrator General and two advisory council positions have just begun. Voting will last until Friday, December 30, so make sure you exercise your right to vote! Also, I'm pleased to announce the creation of the Esperanza mailing list. I urge all members to join; see Wikipedia:Esperanza/Contact for more information. All you need to do is email me and I will activate your account. This will be a great way to relax, stay in touch, and hear important announcements. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members by our acting messenger, Redvers. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please list yourself at WP:ESP/S. Thanks.

Vandal

Could you have a look at User:Stati0 Radi0n vanalising Japanese media, with a view to block him? Thanks. --BadSeed 00:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus link

I noticed you remove a link I posted on the Jesus page; it is called "Jesus, a historical reconstruction". First let me tell you I spent seven years developping this website.

It is:

- not commercial in any way

- presented only as A reconstuction

- fully researched and utterly documented

- the size of a small book

- covering many related topics affecting our understanding of Jesus

- posted on about 20 websites, some Christian, others not

- strictly about Jesus, the one credited to start Christianity

- under "historical Jesus", on the top 10 on Yahoo! and Google

- without hate against anyone

- warmly recommended among some of my readers (see below), including a few scholars (from different sides).

I also noted on the link list a posted website called the "Jesus puzzle", which is highly controversial, and against the existence of Jesus. So I am very perplexed about your standard of rejection or acceptance.

It does not matter if myself or somebody else posts my website, you or Izehar removes it. I sent Izehar emails requesting some answers, but I did not get any so far.

Excerpts of comments from my readers (complete texts in "my best review" and "... readers' comments" pages)

"Congratulations! ... easily the best documented & most objective piece of Jesus research that I have found on the internet in almost a year of surfing. ... independent evaluation of the historical evidence that you demonstrate so well. ... such historical clarity ..."

"I really appreciate your efforts to your homepage. It's great and informative."

"I am fascinated and impressed ... This is a fantastic effort."

"You have done a very thorough job researching your material."

"You are to be commended on your extensive study of these matters."

"I have just stumbled across your work, and have spent a few hours reading it. Most impressive!"

"I was researching some information ... and sifted through 10 or 20 documents before finding yours. The others were not helpful in the slightest, and your site was clearly and concisely organized and had the information I needed."

"I have visited your website on the historical reconstruction of Jesus and I have found it very interesting. You have done an excellent work on it ... Your website has helped me understand a great deal of Jesus and life of early Christians."

"Your work is impressive, and valuable to those like myself ... but have immense difficulty accepting all the add-ons ... Again, thanks for your work, and for sharing it with others who care to explore the truth of religious matters."

"This is where your rational approach is most helpful ... by using historical research and factual information. It really takes a careful eye to spot these things, some of which are buried under layers of "over-familiarity". This is not a criticism, rather more a compliment, but I do want to say that your site is demanding careful attention."

"Good Work. I have been reading your account of the life of Jesus, and I find it very insightful."

"I have just finished reading Jesus a historical reconstruction ... What I found in your online book is something very believable ... Thank you very much for your dedication to these matters."

"You have an excellent site. It's obvious you have put a lot of work/thought/effort into its construction."

"Bernard D. Muller provides a beautifully presented picture of the historical Jesus ... he brings to the table, mostly, a lot of common sense. It's a deep site, with a lot to think about and ponder over. Highly recommended ..."

"Your history of Jesus is fascinating! Very thorough and impressive. I was just surfing through the net and came upon your site, and I must say, I spent a lot of time going through everything you wrote ... Again, congratulations on your work!"

"The author clearly writes with a great deal of knowledge ... Furthermore, Bernard does not break any academic rules ... The amount of valuable resources available at the site is exceptional and should not be ignored ... this website should not be overlooked in any study on Jesus."

"I recently found your site and I am very impressed, you did a lot of work! I never read about the events at Cesarea before and I can see how they could inspire John the Baptist and Jesus to do what they did. ... I find your reconstruction very believable ..."

"... the eloquent cases you make for a later (and real) 'Q', 'Thomas' and the like have given me pause over taking John Crossan's opinions as the last word ... I really think you are closer to disentangling the NT mess than most."

"I just read your website about "The epistles of Ignatius: are they all forgeries?". I was absolutely impressed. Zwingende Argumente! Great work! Will this be published in a "Fachzeitschrift"? ... I appreciate good scholarship - as you call it: "highly inquisitive" ..."

"... what I found most refreshing about your work is its objectivity and impartiality. I've been searching for some time for someone who could help fill in the gaps and mostly have found Jesus bashers full of the same sort of hate and prejudice I see in the world religions. These people are no better than those they criticize. Thank you for bringing me closer to the truth without inciting bad emotions. And thank you for providing such a gold mine of information. Your site is at the top of my bookmarks! ... Keep up the good work."

"Here he does a good job of logically reconstructing the life and ministry of Jesus. It's a fascinating read whether you are a Christian or non-believer."

I want to believe in wikipedia, but you must understand my feelings now are mixed. At times, I even think I am considered a p.... of sh.., to be blunt. If this problem is solved, I might even contribute.

PS: I am a lover of classical music, more so violin pieces, such as in sonatas, quartets and concertos. I am very fond of Spohr (I know, he is ONLY the best of the minor German composers, but I do not care). Of course, I am not a multi-talented genius like you. But I was greatly influenced by existentialism (and Sartre) from my days in France and I think my research on Jesus reflects that in its "down to earth" and human approach.

Best regards, Bernard

Hi Bernard,

I answered you on your talk page. My edit was a vandalism reversion 58 minutes before you inserted your link, and your link was removed by an anonymous user from AOL. Thanks for your understanding, Antandrus (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus link (again)

Antandrus,

Sorry, Sorry, I looked at the history sub-page too quickly. Of course, it was not you. But now, when I try to identify my deleter, he looks anonymous: this what I found:

This IP address, 205.188.116.73, is registered to America Online (AOL) and is shared by multiple users. Comments left on this page may be received by other users of this IP and appear to be irrelevant. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking. If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that this is not the IP address of your machine. 205.188.116.73 is the IP address of a proxy server that communicates between your browser and the Wikimedia servers. These and other proxies are shared among thousands of AOL users. If you are frustrated by irrelevant comments appearing here, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself.

Since you are an administrator, can the posting of my website be protected, or am I at the mercy of some anonymous? Can you do something on that matter?

Thanks for your very quick answer anyway. I was not expecting anything that fast, more so I am not getting anything back from Izehar.

Best regards, Bernard

My RfA

Thanks for voting on my RfA! The final result was (36/1/1), so I'm now an administrator! Shanel 19:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I heart the rollback button. :)--Shanel 03:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Navidad

O.K. Antandrus, so you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world and the best new year ever. Your friend, Tony the Marine 04:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi Antandrus. Thanks for your support on my recent RFA. The request was successful, with a final tally of 33/0/0. I'm delighted that you decided to support it and I hope that I can live up to your expectations. Nice view on your userpage as well! Leithp (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My grand idea

I think it would be a good idea if we got rid of all admins and give everyone full power, with jimmy having a veto, this would be a good experiment. [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuartetPracticedInThePark (talk • contribs)

Did you intentionally blank my entire talk page? I'll assume good faith and presume it was an accident.

Our community has developed over several years by consensus decisions of its members, and the model of editors, along with another echelon of users with slightly greater powers (administrators), has served reasonably well for those several years, without any heavily-supported movements for change. In other words, the community seems to be OK with it as is; it ain't broke, it don't need fixin'.

To answer your question more philosophically, whenever people gather themselves into large groups, hierarchical structures emerge naturally. I haven't studied this myself except informally, and to note that it indeed does happen; it may be a default characteristic of human nature. Some community members in any large group tend to be seen as "elders" and become leaders of the community; and in some cases there is a single leader over them all (we have such a model, though our leader minimises his day-to-day involvement). The number of levels of the hierarchy, not its existence, is usually the most contentious point, as is of course the occurrence of, and nature of, promotions from one level to the other.

If you want to join the community by all means do. I see that your blanking of my talk page was the only edit you made. Make some good edits and you're on your way. Antandrus (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ianbrown's RfA

Thanks for voting in my recent RfA. I was overwhelmed at the turnout and comments received. Ian ≡ talk 07:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Thank you for the award ^^, not much to say there isn't it. --山本一郎 03:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese media

My bad - didn't realize the vandal had snuck in another shot before I protected the article! BD2412 T 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]