User talk:Antandrus/Archive28

Archive of May/June 2008. Various requests, conversations, exchanges. Relatively little trolling, as I'm not doing as much recent-change patrolling as I used to.

A help request

Would you help with an irritating situation in the Musical historicism article? A really small matter at that. We have a relevant opinion of a major musicologist apropos a composer (user lute88) which the latter publishes on his site and we cite it in the article. User Jerome Kohl considers it OR and keeps reverting it over and over. (As far as I know it might have stemmed from some usenet irritation in the past) Thanks.Galassi (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Helpful Sinebot

Hello my friend. After your last edit here, it occurs to me to mention that you can add {{bots|deny=SineBot}} to your talk page (like this), and that helpful Sinebot then stays away. I did this on my talk page, because I would much rather add {{Unsigned}} myself if the unsigned post was constructive. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 14:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you....

.... for reverting vandalism on my user page! Pedro :  Chat  13:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! This is important stuff, and one of the things that keeps us together. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New List

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Creator of the American Museum of Magic page thanks its Guardian Angel

I created that page, and have (with a little help from my friends) brought it along. In the first attack, it was a pleasant surprise to have you magically appear and do a revert. Keep up the good work. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Stan

You're welcome; that's what happens when one "magically" loads recent changes, and there's a vandalized article right at the top! Happy editing and keep up the good work as well, Antandrus (talk)

What are admins doing about Hagger?

That stuff is really getting annoying, have you seen anything more disruptive on wikipedia than that nonsense? Since you've been here since early 2004, what are the main major troubles you have come up against, i was just interested. By the way, is it only admins who can fix the problem of moving the page back to its right position? I just dont want to think about if there are no admins around for a time that it goes unnoticed for a while. Good luck to all of you, you need it! Thanks Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 03:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If you bring up the move log, do you have a "revert" link at the end of each item? If so, you can do it too.

Probably the worst vandalism spree I recall was a vandalbot that used a different open proxy for each edit. And even that got cleaned up pretty fast, by good teamwork. Page move vandals are irritating, but fortunately the software is robust enough that you can always undo the move trail, as long as you are careful to do things in the right order, and never move a page so it redirects to itself (haven't seen that problem for a while; maybe there's a warning now if you accidentally try it?)

My philosophy on things like this particular vandal is to deny them recognition, i.e. talk about them only in the most general of terms and not bless them with names like The Big Mean Vandal, since the rush of fame is what keeps them coming back. Treating all vandals as though they are the same vandal is a useful way to look at it, in my experience.

I still find Wikipedia to be a massive proof that there is more good will than bad in the world, since good edits outnumber vandals by such a large proportion. So... like the bad drivers on the freeway, you notice the bad ones, but the hundreds of good ones can completely escape your attention. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes i do have the revert and i will keep that in mind. Of course your right, deny them recognition just like you said, a great explanation. You make it look so so easy. Same to you. Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 04:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry that happened!

It really burns me up when a friend's page gets repeatedly vandalized like that. At least we can be thankful the user was blocked indefinately! And I find the best way to cool down after these occurrences is to enjoy a nice dish of cookies and a glass of milk:

Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Enjoy!!!

Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome!!! Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

That was a quite delightful surprise!!! Thank you very much!!! Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Ae6yrgbrgyg

Thanks for the reverts there.. I think that's the first time I've had a vandal centre his vandalism almost entirely around me... I have no idea whether to take it as a sign that I'm doing a good job, or a bad one. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say hai

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thank you! appreciate that. We need more of this sentiment on the project ... :) Antandrus (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Antandrus!!!

Well, here we go again! It's actually been a while since I consulted you for an opinion, but anyway, I'd like to know what you think of this potential article: [1] Thanks!!! Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. It's a great idea. Is it possible to find one or more of his pictures? (They'd probably be public domain because of their age.) Good work! Antandrus (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and on the French version of this article, there are some links to sites which contain his photos. Thanks again!!! Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good morning, again (or I guess it's evening in Wikipedia!), and could you please review this one as well?[2] (PS, thanks again for your opinion on the previous one!!!) Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wilhelmina! I'm a little less certain on that one. Forums are usually not considered to be reliable sources, though the group sounds notable enough. The article should start with a statement of what they are (band? genre? year formed? members?) along with their overall significance, if such a thing is possible to determine -- maybe an additional one or two sentence opening paragraph would do the trick. Hope this helps!  :) Antandrus (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC) As it turns out, I didn't need to bother, as it apparently already exists in Wikipedia: [3] But one more time: Thanks for all your excellent help!!! Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome!  :) Antandrus (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! This one's a quickie, but I'd like a second opinion on it. [4] Could you please look it over for me, and tell me what you think? Thanks! Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, appears to be notable. "Action movement" for some reason bugs me a little; is it a named organization type I just don't know about? Maybe "activist group supporting equal rights for gay and lesbian residents of North Carolina ..." Good though; I'm glad you're doing these. You're giving them some good consistency and removing promo-speak, which saves copyeditors a lot of trouble (and how often do little articles go up written by COI/SPA accounts that never get edited ...) Good job! Antandrus (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I only used "Action movement" because I couldn't think of anything else; it isn't really a term (as far as I know). But thanks again!!! Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

New sock

New sock of BoxingWear etc - NewBlock (talk · contribs) (see particularly [5]). Just tried to recruit me into the dispute via off-wiki canvassing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, they don't get any clearer than that. You don't need an advanced degree in psychology to parse stuff like this "...And not only on english wikipedia! He was kicked out and suspended from countless boxing forums under different names" -- the accusations he makes are always, to the letter, exactly applicable to himself (GRP has been banned on the Polish wiki and various boxing wikis, for example). Thanks for letting me know, and let me know if you see any others. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, nobody is suspended on polish wiki but only in a negative way to learn polish, bad polish keyboard, bad administrators like antandrus (antandrus.tripod.com)As antandrus never told the truth in his entire life, it would be bad otherwise for his reputation

More info could be found here to the above ignorant replies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NewBlock&diff=212918345&oldid=212918300

But when it comes to truth, not for antandrus

One big difference between you and me, Boxingwear/George Reeves/Projects/Gildyshow etc., is that you are consumed by your own hate, vindictiveness, and obsessive rage, and and cannot seem ever to let it go, while all I want is for you to get over it. Has it ever struck you as significant that I do not need to sprinkle the internet with hate pages about you? That's something you do. Sure, I could make a page at "Encyclopedia Dramatica" calling you a pedophile, or whatever, but I don't need to. What I want from you is for you to abide by site policy: in the two and a half years I've known you, you have done nothing but pour forth a stream of abuse, malice, threats, and some of the most utterly hideous verbal abuse I've seen in my whole time on the project, and all to people who did nothing but try to help you. Unless you change, I will be blocking you every time I see you, for it is quite clear to me you cannot stop.

Can't you see that devoting your life to a campaign of hate makes you small? Don't you want to accomplish something of value in your time on earth? You're not a kid. I can tell. All you have to do is stop. Watching you edit over the last several years is a lot like watching someone hitting themselves on the head with a hammer. It's utterly baffling! You need to seek out someone who can give you some real help, and unfortunately Wikipedia isn't going to help you much in that regard. And once again, I don't hate you: that's all in your imagination. Have a nice day, Antandrus (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's my reply so it does not look i am 'pesonally attacking' antandrus.

Antandrus statement is half true, its not nice to provoke people and accuse me of users i am not! More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antandrus&diff=214485532&oldid=214485256

I just wanted to let you know that I also have been drug into this mudslinging contest. I have recieved no less than 30 EMAIL's from this clown with at least 5 different names. I am tempted to set my EMAIL so every time he sends me one it replies with 50. I saved them so in case someone needs them I have them. I think its gotten to the point where wikipedia as a company takes legal action against this person for making threats against its patrons. Personally I hope he does come and find me face to face as he has threatened, I'll unleash my trunk monkey.--Kumioko (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No! Not that! Not the trunk monkey! Actually, having just recently seen the Indy Jones film, I was thinking that a bathtub full of Siafus would be more fitting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I need to get away from Wikipedia for an evening and go see that movie. Antandrus (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And if you do, you'll find that your user name somehow vaguely relates to what I was just mentioning above. I don't want to say any more, or it might spoil it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I only deleted a couple before my better judgement told me I shouldn't. FYI I also left a note on Jimbo Wales page, given the seriousness of the issue and that he is the one that blocked this user in the first place I though he should know. --Kumioko (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's worth a shot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[6]. He's never gone for long. Antandrus (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I think it's the same guy who emailed me out of the blue. Probably 50 emails worth of incoherent babbling about how evil Antandrus is and how I must stop him, but to be honest it's quite .. well .. difficult to understand what the guy is even on about. Now he's just busy spamming me with more incoherent threats about anti-wikipedia sites and how it's some kind of revenge? Riiiight .. Arkyan 03:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oy. Make sure if you e-mail him back it's from a service that hides your IP. One of his "tricks" -- which he reserves for people who contradict him, tell him to get lost, or defy him in any way -- is to forge a death threat, from YOU to HIM, with a header, containing your IP, sufficiently convincing to fool your ISP into disconnecting your service. Obviously since this is illegal I save these. This guy needs help of a kind we can't give, and he needs it sooner rather than later. Antandrus (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I made a point of deliberately not emailing him back, as that would reveal my email address to him. If you send an email through Special:Emailuser it obviously arrives in their inbox as usual, showing your details to them, but not theirs to you. I would rather people like him didn't have my email address, so... But yes, he did appear to be sending emails out to loads of people, seeing how numerous people in different areas complained about someone sending them lots of emails out of the blue. I almost feel sorry for him. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Iamheretodamage

Thank you! Corvus cornix_talk 02:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome ... I know I should probably use more serious and boring block summaries... Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

About your essay

Hi, I just wanted to praise your essay at User:Antandrus/observations_on_Wikipedia_behavior. It's beautifully written and rings true with my own experience, although I haven't been as involved with vandal- and troll-fighting as you seem to have been. Your advice is sobering and was helpful, and I hope you'll continue to contribute to articles and cool tempers here for a long time. Dcoetzee 03:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I appreciate that. I'm actually inclined to leave the vandal-fighting to the newcomers and get back to writing articles -- it's more fun and less stressful -- and if writing is your main activity on Wikipedia, especially in an out-of-the-way area, I think it's a whole lot easier to maintain a cool temper. Best, Antandrus (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hu12

I have been watching several articles in silence for quite a long while now, and although I am not an editor, nor am I exactly sure how to be one, I must say that Hu12's edits are way out of control. He obviously has some special administrative powers, but he is using them to the detriment of Wikipedia. I often use Wiki to research material and was surprised by what seems to be a level of bias applied by Hu12. Everything appears to be subjective. If he does not like a particular edit for any reason, he seems to react quite quickly in reverting the edit, and if the edit is then re-reverted by another editor, he then calls the person a sockpuppet and blocks them. Not fully knowing what a sockpuppet is, I can fairly well guess at it. I cannot understand why admins are not screened a little more carefully. It seems to me that this particular admin has lost the plot, and I am starting to see some really negative stuff about him on other posts (which appear to be vandalism however) and even on his own talk page. I simply ask that you look into all of his contributions and deletions and spam blocks and general history, to determine if indeed this is someone wikipedia wants as an admin. I have even searched Google and found lots of references to his actions, almost all negative. An admin should be acting by the book, and not write their own set of rules or interpret the rules to suit their style of adminship. Please, seriously consider having a word with Hu12 about this, and see if he should be pulling his head in. It doesn't look good for wikipedia, and I really believe he is now starting to write wikipedia the way HE wants it to be written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.128.152 (talk • contribs)

Greetings ...I'm afraid you're going to have to be a bit more specific. We have ways to address administrative misbehavior, if you believe this to be the case (I have not seen it in Hu12, by the way -- while I don't know him well, I agree with him sometimes, disagree sometimes, and that's all as it should be). If you have a specific issue, you can bring it up on one of the noticeboards (WP:ANI, for example); but if you do so, please be calm and respectful to get a hearing. Regarding some of your comments: a sockpuppet is a second account by one contributor. Google searches are unreliable -- heck, google my name and the third hit tells you I'm a child rapist (no). That kind of thing is inevitable if you are at all active as an administrator, and you actually get more of it if you're a good one. As of screening admins, well, we have WP:RFA, which is a bit of a gauntlet and public caning these days, and no fun at all, but people trusted by the community generally pass with a few flesh wounds. I have no special power -- I'm just another half-burned-out admin -- so I'd strongly suggest lodging any more specific complaint somewhere appropriate. I'd also suggest bringing up any problems you've had with Hu12, or anyone else, with the person directly, before posting publicly -- it's the brave thing to do and sometimes works out better than you expect. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I did do a lot of work to get it going, and it's good to be appreciated. Useight (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Witty

Nice one. --John (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

:) Antandrus (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Likewise

Antandrus/Archive28, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Wikiproject Investment

Hi. I noticed your answer on the Humanities refdesk (regarding royalty trusts) and I gather that you also think it's important for WP to provide decent investment information to casual investors. If you have the time, you might like to consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Investment, where a few of us have recently got together to do just that. Have a look if you're interested. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind I moved your response back here.

Interesting project! I think it's an excellent idea, and Wikipedia could be hugely improved in this area. Thanks for letting me know; I would never have seen it otherwise. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome - glad to have you on board! And I agree - there are loads of potential for this project. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Antandrus, I've sent you an E-mail. Best wishes. Acalamari 23:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

chicago

64.107.3.126 has been brought to my attention, & I have softblocked for 2 weeks. If you want to hardblock or extend it to a range, do as you think best--I think you know this situation better than I do. DGG (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Welcome back

Thanks! That does mean a lot to me; just browsing pages like RfA makes me feel a bit like a stranger--I don't know any of these people. I suppose it'll take a few days to get back into old habits, though judging by the dizzying speed of RC, I'll need to adopt one of those third-party edit monitoring tools if I'm to be of any use. But it's nice to be remembered, and likewise nice to see that you (and a few other veterans, judging by my watch list) have remained fruitfully active. Best, -- Hadal (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

M. D. Antani

Hi Antandrus! This is another suggestion from AFC. This man seems notable enough to me, but I wasn't sure. I've pasted the suggestion into my sandbox; could you take a look for me? [7] Thanks!!! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, hi! It's nice to have a friendly message instead of the ... other kind (see recent history). I think that's a notable figure. WP:BLP issues but nothing that needs major rewriting. Maybe instead of "center of controversy", "has attracted some controversy" or just "has been a controversial figure". Good stuff. References appear to be strong. Acronyms need to be defined (IPS -- Indian Police Service? Public Service? former SP... maybe Google will help, I'm feeling dense). In general, there's an enormous amount of information that still needs to be written about India, which has the second largest number of English speakers of any country in the world ... sometimes when I have nothing else to do I find random pages linked to Indian cities and copyedit. Antandrus (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak - Go!

Now this is what I call dedication to the project - [8] and then this [9]. You get out of here and enjoy your Wikibreak! If I had the tools I would temporarily block you (tongue in cheek, he he...) so you would have to get out of here and enjoy some time away. Now scat! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 05:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:125.255.113.214

I turned this guy in for issuing a veiled threat against you. I actually clicked rollback unintentionally, but I reckon that was OK. He then issued an "FU" type comment to me, and now he's blocked for 3 months. [10] Just thought you'd like to know. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that one. Thanks for your help! Antandrus (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Friendly greeting

Hi, Tandrus? How's everything?

my RfA - Ta!

Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.

Thanks for your wonderful nomination in support of my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:71.107.140.86 - oops

Sorry, I forgot that deleting the page would clear the protection. ~~ N (t/c) 21:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem ... it actually would be nice if they'd add a checkbox on the protection dialog ("retain protection if page deleted"). I forget about that too. Thanks for your help! Antandrus (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Good to have you back here, Antandrus! I hope you enjoyed your wiki-break. Sorry, if this is a little soon after you've returned, but I'd like to know if you think this recent suggestion from AFC is notable for Wikipedia? [11] Thanks!!! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that looks great! Real places pass notability, and the first reference I looked at checked. Thanks for the warm welcome back ... it's a delightful contrast to the message that preceded yours. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and also you're welcome very much!!! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

IP addresses

GRP. That would be "George Reeves Project"? I thought that lunatic had been dispatched a couple of years ago. Do you want to block the latest IP, or would you like someone to turn it in at AIV? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. I am so sick of him I can't even tell you. All I want to do is help write an encyclopedia, and that obsessed maniac has been harassing me for two and a half years. It's absolutely beyond my comprehension how anyone can be so utterly hateful. I could use some help; I can't fight this lunatic entirely by myself. Antandrus (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything about the IP's that he uses that could help block him more broadly? Is there a "list of sockpuppets" anywhere? (I'm comparing this with the User:Ron liebman case.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't see the list of sockpuppets, as I am not an admin, I just find myself gravitating toward that kind of work (a job I would not want, though). E-mail at present would not work as I am on the road. I'll get back to you sometime next week about that. What I recall about this guy was that he was fixated on two things: George Reeves conspiracy theories, and the political leaders of Croatia. He seemed to be a Slavic immigrant, as his English sounded like it, although with characters like that you never know but what it could be a put-on. I thought Liebman was persistent until this GRP guy came up again. I'm unsure how to proceed at this point. It seems like constant vigilance is required, by more than one admin. There are many cases of banned sockpuppets out there. What's the normal procedure for monitoring those? I know there is a heightened awareness and attention toward them, but I'm not sure of all the details. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to have started around December 22, 2005. This is one of his first edits, under a user named Vesa. [12] Later that day he started in on George Reeves, and sometime soon after he switched to a user called "Projects", which is why I thought GRP meant "George Reeves Project". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If he's a long-term socker, he probably knows more than enough tricks to stay a step or two ahead of the hammer. HalfShadow 02:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The one called Gildyshow actually turned up the previous day. [13] He used both user ID's until both being blocked in early 2006. I don't recall if anything else came up in the Reeves article after that. I do recall that he was obsessed with some article about a Croatian President or something like that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Projects turned up on the 28th [14] and was similarly blocked in early January. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the stuff about the Croatian leader, and I'm not real sure I want to try at this point. Too many bad memories about this character. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. Another sock was this, as is this. Franjo Tuđman was the Croatian leader. He must have tens of thousands of edits, even after being banned: pick any of the 2048 IPs associated with the Chicago Public Library at random, and you'll probably find a string of his edits. Sometimes he goes quite nuts, as evident in this spectacular history. Antandrus (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy crumbs! That guy is still around? I just popped in to see how you were doing... clearly the George Reeves guy has outlasted me. And he even got Jimbo's attention at one point or another. Mak (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Boy is it ever great to see you! (neat coincidence with title of next thread). Yes indeedie on that one. He needs help of a kind we can't give, so eh, I just block him when I see him harassing someone, but otherwise I'm just going to ignore him now. -- Miss you around here! How are you doing? Antandrus (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Man, is it ever great to see you!

'Nuff said. It is simply great to see you whacking the vandals. The former Lucky 6.9 now known as --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

• My friend, you have made my day. I gave back the mop and bucket due to some really bad actors around here who, quite frankly, are psychotic. I can't say anything good about them. Thankfully, the really nasty users seem to have moved on. I do some work on smaller wikis as a bureaucrat and/or administrator, but I don't wnat to tempt fate by taking it back here, believe me. I've thought about asking for it back since I left in good faith, but the more I think about it, the more I don't want it. I'm happy to do some "whack-a-vandal" tagging and bagging and to occasionally add to or fix articles. Welcome back, bro! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrea Antico Croatian?

Have a look here: [15], Andrea Antico is the name of the Italian Community of Montona/Motovun! Please, show me ONE WORD wrote by Antico in croatian!

---> Prof. Josip Andreis ("Music in Croatia", Zagreb, Institut of Musicology-Academy of Music, 1974) took over the 'Croatization' of the name of Andrea Antico from the Zagreb scholar Lovro Zupanovic, but admitted his claims are non generally accepted even among other music historians in Zagreb. In fact, the "Muzika Enciklopedija" (Zagreb, 1971) mentions Zupanovic's claims (under the entry 'Antico') more as an oddity than an established fact. See also: Bojan Bujic, "Music & Letters", Oxford University Press, LVI (34), 441 (1975), p. 441.

Now, I'm waiting for your apology (and sorry for my poor english)--Luigi 28 (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasted my time writing the article. I should have just left the space empty so Italian nationalists wouldn't have had to waste their time removing information about those evil Croatians. Antandrus (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If you've got any involvement at all with articles about Croatia, that could explain why the GRP guy is after you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I don't, that's the funny part ... as far as I remember, Antico is the first article I've ever written that has any Croatian connection at all (well, maybe one other another obscure musician but if I mention it another sockpuppet will find it!) Istria was under Venetian control in the 16th century, and it's remarkable how modern-day people still argue over whether someone born there was "Italian" or "Croatian".

Luigi, I hope you understand why I find it upsetting when I spend a lot of time researching and writing an article, and someone comes along just to argue about someone's ethnicity or nationality. You do understand, yes? Antandrus (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's good that you can find a funny part. If you can find it, I'd be interested to see the first time you encountered that character. I just wonder how you got onto his radar. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Istria was under Venetian control in the 16th century?!? The coastal areas and cities of Istria came under Venetian Influence in the IX century! It became definitely the territory of the Republic of Venice in 1267.--Luigi 28 (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to do? The note you added to Andrea Antico only makes sense if you include the Croatian name of Antico, since that what Andries is writing about. If you remember, you came to the article to object to the phrase "of Croatian birth" which is well-sourced -- to Martin Picker's article in the New Grove. I don't even know his "Croatian" name; it's not in the Grove article. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well-sourced? Picker is NOT a primary source (firsthand written evidence of history made at the time of the event by someone who was present). Picker is NOT a secondary source (written accounts of history based upon the evidence from primary sources. For example a history book drawing upon diary and newspaper records). Picker is only a tertiary source: compilations based upon primary and secondary sources. So the question is: who is the Picker's source? --Luigi 28 (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

He's one of a tiny handful of world experts on Antico, which is why he was invited to write the article for the New Grove. That's how it works: you achieve the position of most-respected expert on Topic X, and they ask you to write the article on Topic X. It's the New Grove. Have you ever heard of it? Here's a couple of his publications on Antico: "The Motet Anthologies of Andrea Antico", A Musical Offering: Essays in Honor of Martin Bernstein, ed. E.H. Clinkscale and C. Brook (New York, 1977), 211–38; and "The Motet Anthologies of Petrucci and Antico", Formen und Probleme der Überlieferung mehrstimmiger Musik im Zeitalter Josquins Desprez: Wolfenbüttel 1976, 181–99. Thanks, and have a nice day, Antandrus (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: who is the Picker's PRIMARY SOURCE? Where are the ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS about Antico?--Luigi 28 (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Luigi, we don't do primary sources here. See Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. We report what others have written. I'm reporting what Martin Picker, the world expert on Antico, wrote in the New Grove. Beyond that I can only speculate. What was Antico's native language? I don't know, and it is probable no one knows. The best we can do is report where he was from: and since throughout his life he was "da Montona", and seems to have made a big deal of his origin, it is reasonable to do it the way Picker does. The first thirty years of his life are a blank. This is the way it commonly is for Renaissance figures; and we report what is known, as given by others, without doing original research. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"What was Antico's native language? I don't know, and it is probable no one knows. (...) The first thirty years of his life are a blank" ---> BINGO! So... who can say that Andrea Antico was "of Croatian birth"? The note from Grove online is a FORGERY!--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

So what exactly is your claim? Why are you haranguing me so much? Are you claiming that Antico was of "Italian birth"? Antandrus (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Never said that. But - I repeat - the note from Grove online is a forgery. Prof. Picker made a mistake.--Luigi 28 (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Then take it up with him, not with us. Until he acknowledges his "mistake" we dutifully report what he says. We are peons, he's the fount of knowledge. Ok?

Right, now please take your petty nationalist grievances elsewhere. We don't care about this composer's nationality, and the less we have to waste time discussing it, the happier we'll be. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Petty nationalist grievances? Don't you care about the correctness of the voice "Antico"? Prof. Picker is the only one source you know? I 've read: F.Dorigo, Andrea Antico in Istria e Dalmazia. Uomini e tempi, Del Bianco, Udine 1991; G.Gravisi, Andrea Antico istriano da Montona, in Atti e Memorie della Società Istriana d'Archeologia e Storia Patria, V, 1; V.Levi, Andrea Antico, in Pagine Istriane, 1950; A.Jeppesen, Die italienische Orgelmusik am Anfang des Cinquecento, Kopenhagen, 1943. Do you know Italian or German? Do you know ONE primary source about Andrea Antico? Do you know the Picker's source (a Zupanovic's study)?--Luigi 28 (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion from AFC

[16] I liked that it has so many sources provided, but I'm not sure if the context reads like an advertisement or not. What do you think? The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's notable, and looks good. Probably a few minor wording tweaks would help it sound less "promotional." One quick way to NPOV it would be to add a sentence or two about its competitors: see Pharmacophore#Pharmacophore_Modelling_Software (just stating that they exist, and that they do similar things, would do the trick). Nice work, and happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I hereby award you this Barnstar for your quick, but cool-headed interaction against the vandalism committed by User:DNA to RNA →Christian.И 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Christian! I similarly appreciate the work you did at the same time (along with PPG). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

GIMP

I saw you were listed at WP:HAU, and that you indicated "images".

I'm looking for an experienced GIMP user. Or an experienced graphics designer willing to download and learn the GIMP (it's free, and its multi-layer file format makes collaborating on artwork easy).

Are you one?

The Transhumanist 00:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! I've never used GIMP, but it's on that vague and endless list of things I want to do someday. I'm tolerably ok with Photoshop. What I can do decently is make maps, using GIS software -- you can see some examples at my oilfield and wilderness articles (Dick Smith Wilderness, Coalinga Oil Field, for example). I'm an ok photographer. Otherwise I'm not really a graphic designer. What kind of thing did you need? Antandrus (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A few mouse clicks later, I figured out what you need (I presume what you discuss on RyRy5's talk page is what you are looking for). I'm probably the wrong person for this. You might get some help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Graphics where there would doubtless be some expert users with GIMP or other image-editing programs. Good luck and best regards, Antandrus (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And here's something else I just found: Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Graphic artists.  :) Antandrus (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips.

By the way, it appears the globe stand was from a copyrighted image.

This means we're back to square one.

We need to either find another globe stand, or come up with a new idea altogether for the "Wikipedia World Traveler" award.

I have no idea what it should be at this point. (I'm still in shock from the last 3 weeks' of effort being zilched).

I look forward to any ideas you might have.

The Transhumanist 00:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: I started using GIMP about a couple weeks ago, and it was similar enough to MS Paint that I found it immediately useful.

WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

After reading your essay about behavoir and such, I just wanted to say that I hope I can one day do as much good as you have. Thank you, so much. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind comments! appreciate it! there's plenty of good stuff left to be done around here.  :) Antandrus (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okeedokee! I'll get right on it. (Not really actually, I meant that figuratively. I'm actually working on something in the real world) Leonard^Bloom (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the most certain way to keep from going crazy around here, is to do exactly that -- have interesting projects in the real world. I think the most successful Wikipedians over the long term are those who keep encyclopedia-writing as a hobby, and have their main gig elsewhere: somehow it's more fun then, and easier to keep coming back to. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That actually makes sense, because recently I've found myself... almost addicted to editing. I almost could find a moment where I wasn't thinking "What if I... no that'd be reverted" or "I need to learn how to format this..." Leonard^Bloom (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User page

Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! I see that particular troll didn't last long. As a penance I'd assign him litter clean-up in Cambridge Bay round about January. Antandrus (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

By far the best one...

this is my favorite to date. Spot on. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually I liked your "AN". Iridiscent has done some amazing ones too, as have the page owner and RobertG. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2

Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Kathleen L. Lodwick.

Hi again, Antandrus! This time, I've got another one from AFC: [17] Do you think she's notable enough for Wikipedia? Thanks in advance!!! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, hi! Sorry it took so long; I've been away at a music festival. Considering her publishing history, I think she's sufficiently notable for an article: what you've done looks good. Have fun! Antandrus (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your message

Hi Antandrus, I have to repeat with you that for every single word I wrote in Wikipedia I can show one, two or three source(s) (more books than links). If you see, every time (with only two or three excepions) I wrote something, in few minutes another one (User:DIREKTOR) reverted my work, every time (except you) without any kind of explanation, except: "You are a banned user". For me, this is a real, incredible, personal war that two users (also [User:AlasdairGreen27]) play against me. I've never, never banned in my life from mailing lists, groups, clubs and so on. Thank you for your message and best regards.--Luigi 28 (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:71.107.143.46

wish I thought of that. Dlohcierekim 23:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Great to see you around again. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Likewise! :)

I like that new "salt" button on the deletion page ... you know, one of the silver linings of vandalism is that our tools and methods keep getting better ... if only "Grawp" knew just how much he was helping us, LOL. Antandrus (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is a nice touch, I like all those gadgets in the preferences, I don't use to many of them, but still it's nice to have with just one click. :D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your patience and attitude never cease to amaze me my friend. But alas I blocked that user. Great effort on your part though! :D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) Yah, he was removing sourced but generally negative information, about a living person; usually with a rank newbie I prefer not to consider that vandalism right off, but at least ask for an explanation. Or maybe it's just the pleasure of a brand-spanking-new-laptop that's giving me extra patience. (I'm also really slow on RC patrol because all the keys are in different places! LOL) Antandrus (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, Antandrus!!!

I hope you've been doing well. What do you think of this one? [18] Thanks! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a good stub. I can't check the references though -- the best one, computerworld, for some reason is blocked where I work (otherwise that should definitely be a reliable source!) Have fun! Antandrus (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul C. Kim.

Hi again, Antandrus! Here's another one I'd appreciate your opinion on. Other than that I'm not sure about his notability, I was worried if there might be any other problems with this suggestion. I myself couldn't see any, though. [19] Thanks in advance!!! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! I'm a little more skeptical of this one. It's clearly an important topic, the ultra-inexpensive PCs and the companies that make them, but the article is more about Everex than Kim. Is he important enough for an article on himself, or should he be mentioned in the Everex article instead, rather like the sources have it? Is there anything on him besides his actions as director of marketing for the company? I think it is possible to write an article on him, but borderline ... I know what directors of marketing do, and as they are reportable to the company's upper executives and board of directors, their accomplishments are generally subsumed into those of the company itself. Feel free to try though; I'm on the fence. Cheers, and thanks for taking a crack at it! Antandrus (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Essay

You must tired of these messages, but I really would like to say how much I admire you observations on wikipedia behaviour. The comment on users who leave in anger often coming back to attack those who they lest because of is particularly apt. I have only recently observed this in an editor. Harland1 (^t/_c) 16:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, I love the feedback! Thanks! Yes, that particular observation was based on a memorable incident, which I have since seen happen again and again (I tried not to name individuals, but rather keep the observations as generalities...) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh good. Yes I think not naming individuals is a good idea, likely to do more good than harm. Please keep writing. People like you who are sensible and manage to leave your egos at home are the reason that Wikipedia still exists. I should be thanking you you, you know not the other way around! Harland1 (^t/_c) 12:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Some research is needed

I was writing a short article on Mascherata, and I could find very little quality info on the topic (which accounts for it's stub-like length). I tried using the Grove site you mention here, but with no luck; I don't have a subscription. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind helping out on this one? If you are busy I understand, but I would prefer this article to be more descriptive and accurate. Happy editing, Leonard^Bloom (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! I could e-mail you the content of the Grove article ... that way you could flesh out the Wikipedia article yourself. Turns out it is not very long. The bibliography is surprisingly short. I can look in the Einstein The Italian Madrigal for you (that's the "EinsteinIM" referenced at the end -- I own a copy). Don't know when I'll get to it but feel free to expand based on what I send (Denis Arnold was the author). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Done (glad you had e-mail enabled). Have fun! Antandrus (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the research; it is greatly appreciated. To clarify: any citations you used in the past three years is okay for reuse, or just the citation style? I'm a little confused, but greatly appreciative of the email. Thanks again, Leonard^Bloom (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I wasn't clear: I meant the way Grove asks us to do it:

• Denis Arnold, "Mascherata", Grove Music Online, ed. L. Macy (Accessed June 18, 2008), (subscription access)

The subscription to the online Grove is about thirty bucks a month: I do it because I use it so often, and unlike the monolithic set of books, has a search function. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Leonard^Bloom (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: MVEI and sockpuppetry

When former users want to reform, they reform. They create a new account and avoid doing the things that got them blocked in the first place; i.e. we never know about them because they give us no reason to suspect the new account because it behaves properly. All this user wants to is bring attention on himself by repeatedly creating new accounts and continue his problematic editing with each one. That's not reform by any definition of the word. If he's reformed, then the next account he creates will never be identified as him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, as I presume you know if you read my note carefully (I'm not campaigning for his unblock -- just explaining what I mean by "reform"). I left what I thought was a polite note and explanation on his page, and it's his option and responsibility to behave in accordance with our policies. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How suspect sockpuppets work

When admin checks sockpuppets what tool they use? Don't admins check the perosnal IP, or thier home ad? Because one household can sometimes have 5 persons. A brother and a sister, both have indivual account is not a sockpuppet. In Category we have over 2000 suspect sockpuppets. How does admins know they have similar contributing patterns, and behavior conducts. In some family, they have roomates, so 2 accounts for IP of 2 distinctive person is not a sockpuppet.--Freewayguy ^{Discussions Show all changes} 20:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's usually blindingly obvious -- see the thread above yours, for an example. Look at all four sockpuppets, look at the interests, the grammar, the behavior. It's one person. In cases where it's not obvious we typically ask for a checkuser to see if the IPs match, since regular admins don't have access to that. Lots of us who have been around for a while have developed other tricks. Remember that even if two people share the same IP, they're going to have different writing styles and interests. Some of the most hilariously awful cases on the unblock mailing list have been from obvious sockpuppets who claimed that someone else was using their computer, or whatever, but then that alleged Other Person misspelled the same words, had the same comma splice tendency, went to the same articles, and wanted to get even with the same admin. And then different admins have different thresholds -- I really try to assume good faith as far as I can without being a total fool. Hope that helps, Antandrus (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Byzantium

Yep, that's definitely him. The thing is he may very well be right about the emblem of Byzantium not being the crescent and star (I always thought it was an eagle). So the info in the article is pretty fishy and needs some solid sourcing. But the way he's conducted himself with blind accusations of lying, racism, violation of human rights etc. is simply not acceptable. Some reliable sources would solve the problem without the need for high drama. --Folantin (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering about that too (the crescent and star). I tried to leave him polite notes about how to proceed, with reliable and verifiable sources ... it's on his talk page. If experience with similar editors is any guide, he'll likely do a lot of time-wasting and disruptive things before calming down. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added some "citation needed" tags to the "emblem" section of Byzantium. The one reference given did not back the information given. We need to ask people for some reliable sourcing otherwise it will have to be removed ("extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources"). --Folantin (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"The one reference given did not back the information given." At least I think so. I may be wrong. I'm really too tired to do this properly now. The thing is this article is mainly about the ancient, pagan era Greek city of Byzantium, not Christian Constantinople (which has its own article, of course). So the guy (and I) may be confusing Byzantium with the later Byzantine Empire. I'll have a proper look again in the morning. --Folantin (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's fine for now. Not sure I have anything within reach to verify it one way or the other myself. As with most everything on Wikipedia, it can wait another day. Antandrus (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep - and, as I thought, here's the double-headed eagle on the Byzantine Empire page. So looks like a case of mistaken identity, although some of the facts on the Byzantium page still need verifying. --Folantin (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother. Looks like this is part of some wider Greek-Turkish POV war over who had a crescent flag first (gruesome details here [20]). Another merry day of business as usual in the Balkans. I'm definitely knocking off for the night now. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, looking at last night's activity (early morning for you) it seems he didn't like the page protection. While waiting for the subpoena, and a team from Interpol to put me in chains, I think I'll re-read some of the Devil's Dictionary (e.g. "Flag, n. A colored rag borne above troops and hoisted on forts and ships. It appears to serve the same purpose as certain signs that one sees on vacant lots in London -- "Rubbish may be shot here.") Does it ever strike you that the Balkans and adjacent areas are like a giant room full of kindergarteners, all armed with hand grenades? Antandrus (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well he's going to have to like the crescent and star being a symbol of Byzantium because I've checked it and it's now a referenced fact. He can also try to sort out the difference between Byzantium (city) and the Byzantine Empire (rather bigger) as User:Mike Rosoft advised him on his talk page a week or so ago. I think the Balkans really does win the prize for this sort of thing on Wikipedia. On the other hand, Mr Anonymous signed one of his posts Tiocfaidh ár lá. Maybe he's a member of the Neo-Byzantine branch of Sinn Fein. --Folantin (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent: thank you for looking that up. I wonder how his legal case is going. I know a courtroom in Trenton where he could file it (there's even a picture on the WP:NLT page, easily one of the best in-jokes in project space). Antandrus (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. He can sue Routledge for publishing facts he doesn't approve of in their Encyclopaedia of Ancient Greece. Someone's even posted a link to a picture of one of these coins on the talk page [21]. Obviously a libellous, Nazi forgery. Now I come to think about it there's something else that doesn't quite fit about this guy. Look at this post he made [22]. The religious text is in Latin. Now, no self-respecting "Byzantine nationalist" would use that language, not after the Fourth Crusade and the Latin Empire, which were almost as damaging to the Byzantine Empire as the Ottomans. My guess is we're dealing with an Irish Catholic holidaymaker who can't take his raki and is having a rant in an internet café in Istanbul. Either that, or he's the last of the Galatians. --Folantin (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. This guy is very odd indeed [23]. --Folantin (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between a Vanity article and User talk pages?

can u answer question neway evn tho we wer enemies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.81.16 (talk • contribs)

First of all, we're not "enemies" -- I'd just like you to stop vandalising. Some of us are trying to work on the encyclopedia and you're taking our time by distracting us from that.

A vanity article is an article you write about yourself. We don't allow them here, unless you happen to be someone famous, and even then we discourage it. A user talk page is a page any editor has where you can leave messages for that person, like this page. Hope that helps, Antandrus (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Jew GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Jew and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are multiple issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Voldemore

I created the checkuser request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Voldemore. I'm not experienced in this, and you may want to add comments. Cenarium ^Talk 14:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Yes, I will -- heading off to work in a minute but I will add to that when I get a moment. Antandrus (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed that they all use the same IP. And two others came up. They all have been blocked indefinitely. Were you aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/OldRight ? It seems that this user had a long time of problematic editing. They suspected sockpuppetry in the RFAR but haven't investigated further. Cenarium ^Talk 13:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I had missed that one entirely. Thank you for finding it! Note the talk page: there's a note that Crevaner might be his sockpuppet, which we now know to be true.

Took four years, but you know what they say about the "wheels of justice". Oh well. Let me know if I can help further. Antandrus (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection...

I was very close to IARing and doing it myself. Question, if I delete and restore all but those, will they be totally gone? I don't want to see them in my history. Thanks _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a strong believer in this; personally I like it a lot when other people remove crud from my page. Yes, if you delete those revisions they will disappear from the history; most of us who are very active have done it a few times in similar circumstances. You can then only see them if you click on "undelete x revisions". Best, Antandrus (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh yes, a non-red history. Thanks for the tip. Agree very much with the link but I was half afraid of whether I'd wake up to a ton of those, though I think one of the admins who watches my page might have come online before my morning. Thanks again. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the revert to the vandalism on my userpage and for blocking the vandal! Nobody of Consequence (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Antandrus (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly welcome

Thanks so much for taking the time to say hi. Having read your user page, I'm totally curious as to who you are, but I totally understand choosing to edit anonymously since that's my preference too. I'm still in academia (musicology as it happens). Anyway, I'm keen to learn about the Wikipedia community so please let me know if I overstep some guidelines (like the tilde business). I'm not even sure if I should reply to you on my talk page, or on yours. Azzaiolo (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh

Please have a look at this and this, along with User:Southerndata's talk page and this too. Thanks :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. This person is making very shrill, unreasonable, and entirely inappropriate attacks on you, in violation of numerous policies, not even including the edit-warring. I just noticed that Acroterion beat me to the block by about thirty seconds. The person has been amply warned. It seems to me, looking at it with what I think is an unbiased eye, is that the TIGHAR information is well-sourced, and it certainly matches up with what I remember reading about the case. I haven't studied his interpolation yet, but the formatting clearly indicates a copy-paste from somewhere. Take heart from the quotation from Ms. Earhart which I quite coincidentally have on my user page. Antandrus (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile... uh oh. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw that ... that was the reason for my (maybe too subtle?) comment on Acroterion's page just now. I thought I'd let it sit for a bit. He's being irrational, just admitted he has a conflict of interest, -- and he's blocked anyway. I've seen this before. Often if you don't poke at them too much they just go away; persistent attempts to reason with them only get them to be more disruptive for even longer. Letting them think they have the last word increases the probability of their permanent departure. Anyway, -- oy. Antandrus (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I remember telling you once upon a time, I think those little nuggets do tend to be spot on. Here's hopin he's on top of the bell curve on this one then ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I could have zinged him on the "burning books" crack but guess I'll skirt that altogether for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

:)

Oh well, I just commented on his page anyway. When I re-read it, it cried for a response. I hope that was the right thing to do. I also redacted the nasty part. Sigh. Antandrus (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it is a shame Ms. Earhart couldn't have "rescued" herself.  :) Antandrus (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe recused herself from that flight till she'd learnt a bit more about radios and morse code ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I missed uh oh this morning: a quick trip to the vet for a minor dog-related emergency made me less diligent than usual. I agree that it's best not to poke him with a stick. However, any recurrence will result in a genuine ban. Acroterion _(talk) 17:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And he edited over top of your advice. Acroterion _(talk) 17:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that this morning, and was about to repair the history, but on reflection I decided not to provoke him ... I'd rather he felt he was getting the WP:LASTWORD and could walk away in the way that Usenet flame-warriors do when they feel that they've saved enough face. Antandrus (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's only a user talk page and worth a try. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My friend

I thank you (you know why) and offer you this shiny star thing as an award. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome! (and thank you for giving me a barnstar I haven't seen before! the RickKs are falling out of the back of the drawer.) That particular editor I think was about ten years old. Maybe eleven. He actually came back a year and three months later to vandalize the page of the person who deleted his vanity band page; that's got a certain specialness about it. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You are one of the first to receive this barnstar! It is for all around amazing contributors. :D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate that! thanks! :) Antandrus (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and RAW IP address

First of all, thank you that you noticed my alert. As you see my first attempt was to use the discussion page. Only after 3 months, I decided to put an alert into the article in question. Due to the special sensitivity of the section in question, my original strategy was not to edit it, I will keep this strategy in the future. But if you are an administrator, then you could consult with others in order to protect the diverse articles from this kind of problem. My experience is, that this problem is more frequent in the English part of the WikiPedia, than in the German part, or even in the Hungarian part. The problem itself, naturally, must get ITS OWN SYSTEM OF ARTICLES, but it is not a good idea to pollute ANY ARTICLE WHICH HAS EVEN ONLY A MINOR CONNECTION with the problem in question.

From my side, to be more constructive, I decided to add a section about the more popular sections of the Passion. I played vionlin as a hobby only, hence I observed happily, that you professionally play the both of violin and piano. OK, so you are educated in music and you are a native English speaker, so I ask you to correct my future contributions from the both sides.

RAW IP address: you see a few "80.98.216.80" raw IP addresses instead of "Prohlep" in the [24] history page. Could you tell me, how can I declare, that the dynamical "80.98.216.80" raw IP address in that days are in fact me = "Prohlep"? Simply there was a Wiki-server error, and I was not experienced enough to realise, that I was fallen out of my login, and I simply keeped working and saving page, but did not realise that I am anonymous "80.98.216.80" instead of the well documented "Prohlep". Can I personally as a plain user change that anonymous dynamical IP addresses to my real login name, or an administrator is neede for that?

prohlep (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Prohlep,

Unfortunately it is not possible, even for an administrator, to change IP edits to "Prohlep" edits after they're made. Looking at the history of the article in question, yes, it's quite clear it was you, inadvertently logged-out. (I personally change my "skin" preferences so I will always know whether I'm logged in or not.)

Regarding the Johannes Passion, I completely agree with you that the article is unbalanced with that enormous "anti-Semitism" section which says essentially nothing. It is full of WP:WEASEL words ("many say" "some say") -- I can think of a rather impolite word to describe those two paragraphs, but the better action would be probably just to delete them. I think you have made a good case. What the article really needs -- desperately needs -- is someone knowledgeable on the music to add more content. I don't have a score for that piece, and to do it myself would require a trip to the library, and that won't happen in the immediate future. Nice work on Heinrich Pröhle‎, by the way! Antandrus (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks

With this an indef blcoks; you meant to block them forever for vandalism only account? What about if one day they want to contribute again what should they do? use thir IP? Make new account?--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 19:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! A couple of things: I never block an IP indefinitely (unless it's an open proxy -- but even those I've just been blocking for a year recently). Named vandalism-only accounts -- for example this one -- are just throwaway accounts. After 24 hours, the person at that IP can register a new account and behave decently it he wants (before 24 hours, the "autoblocker" blocks his IP). If someone really wanted to reform and return as a non-vandal, they are free to add an apology and unblock request to their talk page. If it was sufficiently convincing and sincere they might get unblocked, but if a vandal wanted to become a good editor it is easier just to open a new account after 24 hours has gone by. Antandrus (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually whats open proxy and zombie mean? Same as sockpuppet?--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 21:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Our article open proxy explains it pretty well. For example, you could have a virus on your computer that makes it possible for someone on the internet to connect from their computer, to it, and then on to another site. Your IP would then seem to be the originating IP. Many viruses and Trojans work this way: the intent is often to send spam without getting caught. Then someone could edit, or behave disruptively, or vandalize, and it would seem to be coming from your IP address -- the originating IP would be hidden and untraceable. Many open proxies are compromised systems. A zombie is essentially the same thing, but specifically (if I remember correctly) it's a computer that is spewing an endless stream of spam, like a zombie, until someone notices and disinfects it. Antandrus (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out this series of IP vandals (all start with 216.) Was this an open proxy to be indef blocked? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, greetings!

They're all in Brandon, Manitoba. I'd say it's a kid at Brandon University there. Those are proxies, but not open proxies -- one way to identify open proxies quickly (without running a open proxy checker) is to see if they're jumping around geographically. If you have a vandal coming back every couple of minutes with a new IP, and each one is from somewhere geographically remote from the others -- e.g. 203. (southeast Asia/Australia/NZ), 200. (South America), 80. (Europe), 24. (U.S) -- then you can be close to certain they're getting their IPs from one of those anonymizing services or proxy lists. Google "anonymous proxy list" to see some of those evil sites. Antandrus (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked you this. So, one person most likely behind all the edit at the 216 address? Also, if you block just one, how do you make sure that let's say a whole university isn't affected (or can you adjust the block level)? That sounds like a tough call for admins. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's either all one person, or a group of troublemakers all in one location. In my experience the "one person" theory is far more likely. Many of these proxy servers will give you a new IP for every session; AOL used to give you a new IP for each window you opened. A lot of times the only way to shut those down is with a range block, and that would prevent the whole university from editing. If you block an individual IP, the block is pointless once the vandal opens a new window -- he'll never get the old one back anyway. Many people block these kinds of IPs for way longer than needed, and only cause collateral damage. Antandrus (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Some very good advice. I'll need to add some stuff to my sandbox for quick reference. Later... ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)