User talk:Antandrus

Hello! Please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page. I usually notice messages soon, and typically I respond on your talk page, so you get a "you have new messages" notice.

Previous archives:

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/Fighting vandalism? 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]

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]

Quintessential Significance of Dairy Products

File:46907023 a55506424c.jpg

Well, well Antandrus, you are a naughty boy indeed! Do you want some free chocolate with your bucket of pineapples?

I prefer avocados, but if pineapples is all you've got, they'll do. Muss es sein? But the nutshell may not contain dust. Antandrus (talk) 06:36, 21 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]

Deleted article

I would like to know why the aticle I created "Wikipedia Liberal Bias" was summarily deleted moments after it was created. There are a LOT of people that feel that a article on that issue would be helpful; why was it treated the same as blatant attack pages and gay smears? Is this a taboo subject?

A technique that repressive regimes use to suppress discussion on a particular topic is to make sure discussion on said topic stays fragmented and disorganized. By saying that this topic is covered elsewhere you can prevent discussion and the opportunity for people to compare experiences.

This may not be your goal; but how would your actions have differed it it was?

I just deleted it again. No context, attack, inappropriate namespace for such a discussion: there are numerous reasons for deleting it; and the reason that trumps them all is that it was already deleted on AFD. And stop equating us to a "repressive regime", you're playing with a logical fallacy here. Please do NOT recreate your POV attack article again.

And furthermore, I'd delete it whether it were "Wikipedia conservative bias" or "Wikipedia has no bias". All are inappropriate. Thanks. Antandrus (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I* did not recreate the article; and I was not involved with anyone who did. I did not equate Wikipedia with a "repressive regime"; I merely illustrated a common technique used by them to allow you to show how what you did was different.

As for it being deleted on AFD; if Wikipedia is actively sowing disinformation slanted to the left and hiding it as "editorial control" - what are the chances of a article detailing that bias making it through the very same editorial process?

The left has always used ettiquette and protocal to gum up the works when they don't like something. As far as I am concerned YOU are exercising your God-like POV to determine what is out of bounds or not. And don't say that you have earned that by being made an editor - that was also fed through the incedibly biased editorial slant of this page.

The really sad thing is that this is just a continuation of the usual leftist tactic of taking over institutions that are supposed to be impartial in order to propagandized from a perceived perch of "being above the fray".

You can go though ANY of the articles of the Clinton scandals and you will find only *some* of the charges leveled against him - each with some sort of refutation. There is a complete difference in the structure of each page. Any attempt to add another source/reference to even completely non-biased information will be immediately removed if it refers to any aspect of his many scandals that cannot be immediately refuted. Try it yourself and see.

Of course you won't do that - everything is just how you like it; right?

By the way, have you looked into Asperger's syndrome?

Another thing; I was not even done formatting the page yet. I was going to set it all up according to the system you have here. That includes references, examples, and what not.

You know, the sad thing is that you probably assume that I would like it to be the opposite and have the site heavily slanted to the right. Nothing could be further from the truth. This site should be free of bias. Not just free of bias in the minds of the heavily biased. The knee-jerk reaction that I would be interested in slating content here is called projection.

Liberals think everyone is as free and loose with the *spirit* of the rules as they are.

I hope you don't seriously think of yourself as neutral politically. You blow philosophicaly smoke about this and that; but when it comes down to voting I imagine that your true colors show through. Of course, this is where every liberal I have ever had this talk with comes out with the tired, old "There are some republicans I like". Yeah, whatever. Those are the ones to the left of Teddy Kennedy that are in safe districts.

Of course you could be the only Malpractice lawyer in the USA that is not a hard lefty. Why should you support anyone who is for tort reform? That is your meal ticket.

I just love how someone who claims to be somewhat neutral but is actually a hard lefty when it comes down to it - has inserted himself into a position to judge what is bias or not.

You are the personification of all that is wrong with academia today.

I would *love* to see a poll of the *actual* political leanings of the editors on wikipedia. I imagine it would be about the same as the US Media; 85% left.