User talk:Antandrus

Hello! Please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page. I usually notice messages soon, and I usually respond on your talk page if it is something urgent, so you get a "you have new messages" notice. For casual banter I am just as likely to respond here.

Previous archives:

Help! AfD

Hey Antandrus, I put Nikola Šećeroski up for deletion, because I suspected it of being a hoax. It seems that it's not. I tried rescinding my nom., and asking for an admin.'s attention in the edit box, but there's been no notice for a while. Is there a step I skipped? Thanks, Makemi 03:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Makemi 03:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:66.138.150.228

I notice you previously blocked this user for vandalism. Just to let you know, he's been at it again. Ifnord 04:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messiaen

Hello, Antandrus. I hope things are going well with you. I've just remembered that when I asked for help with the Lutosławski FAC you expressed frustration that you had been too busy to notice that a composer article was up for FAC. In the light of this, and in case you've not noticed it, can I bring this to your attention? I watch the article quite closely, and the initial nomination took me by surprise! Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 10:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user talk. It was pretty funny that the block notice was under the heading "Welcome". Perhaps we should adopt that - "Welcome! You're blocked!" :) Makemi 04:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Italy

Hey, just noticed Music of the trecento. I'm going to go put it on WP:GA, but have you considered FACing it? Unless there's something missing I don't know about, it looks ready to me (maybe some audio samples would be nice). On a related note, I fumbled on that due to a conversation on talk:Music of Italy. Any help or guidance you could provide there would be very valuable. Tuf-Kat 17:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Roch

I am so sorry about the article San Rocco di Venezia. I didn't realize there was already an article on him, because I only ever heard about him in Italy, never knowing he was known as Saint Roch in the English world. Since the old article is more extensive, I'll just delete mine.Devahn58 04:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also confused about the dates, and I added his birth and death to the pages at 1340 and 1378, about which I'm now having second thoughts! Anyway right now I'm getting frustrated and must go to bed. Wikipedia is dangerous to my health. Just kidding. Devahn58 05:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Project

Hi, my name is Federico (alias Pain) and I am creating a section for nominating th best user page, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the project.

The project has just started, and we need help to spread the word and ameliorate it.

Wikipedia:Votes_for_best_User_page

Best regards, Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Need a bit of administrative advice. A new user, User:Brainhell, insists on posting what seems to be little more than link spam to an author's website. I'm trying to be helpful; guy is being nasty. Sure enough, the article is back...and there isn't any biographical info on this individual to expand it beyond what it is. I don't want to get in an edit war, but I really don't appreciate this guy accusing me of vandalism when I'm trying to help. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 05:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Help! A user deleted my in-progress article three times without warning, and then called me "bubbie" -- which is offensive and demeaning -- and treatened to 'block' me. What is that? How does arrogant, high-handedness, threats, and talking down to contributors help buold wikipedia? IS THERE A COMPLAINT MECHANISM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainhell (talk • contribs)

Re. the above: See what I mean...? :) Thanks for the help. Life goes on. - Lucky 6.9 09:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SQL request

143.231.249.141 is the only ip that has edited from 143.231.*, not including deleted edits. As for 156.33.*, see User:Phroziac/156.33.0.0/16 ips that have edited --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC) (copied from RFCU)[reply]

RatR

I will not vandalize anymore if you unban Remington and the Rattlesnakes.VOTR 16:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that once. You promptly made a username "Antandrus the gullible admin" or something similar, and continued to vandalize. LOL. Try someone else. Antandrus (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC

If you actually unban the account, this will all be over.VOTR 16:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coomplaint procedure?

No doubt there is a lot of link spam. But no doubt many contributors of good articles start small and then build the piece in layers. That's completely human and completely understandable. The better recourse would have been to insert that tag about possible deletion, rather than deleting within such a short period of time. I had just created the stub. I am new to Wiki and perceived that I was up against a vandal. Indeed I was. How much more disturbing to learn that the destroyer has some form of administrative rights.

I'm new here, and it's not a paying job, clearly. I'm not sure I want to learn the ropes of Wikipedia politics and egos, as the obvious value of Wikipedia is compelling enough, and the ugliness of personalities warped by power within a volunteer effort is unhealthy to that effort. The impulse to characterize someone who stands up for their contribution as "nasty" or "threatening" ... the see-what-I-mean response to a contributor not aware of the emotional satisfaction some may draw from arbitrary deletions, from deliberately provoked confrontations to assure themselves of their own power, is sad. All my foregoing comments no doubt cements some of you more firmly in your smugness and self-satisfaction. Regardless of the barnacles that cling to its hull, I assert that the Wiki concept is, fortunately, apparently more powerful than the base human dynamics it nurtures -- but does not ultimately tolerate.

i am asked to let it drop. I don't claim to be a Wiki expert, but I bet there is a complaint procedure. Anyone care to point me in the right direction? The article stub was summarily deleted three times, but after that, the vandal chose to insert an alert of possible deletion instead. This indicates to me that the proper procedure was not followed the first three times. What's the complaint procedure? My further complaint will be regarding the dynamic of portraying someone who stands up for themselves in a reasoned and civil way as having an attitude problem. That's probably the most corrosive thing to a volunteer effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainhell (talk • contribs)

Hello & HELP!

Hello,

You appeared on my watch list when you edited an article I had tagged. I went to your User Page & decided you might be someone who can help me with some (very likely) basic operating questions about Wikipedia. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. My edits thus far have been mostly adding birth & death dates, places of birth, quotations, and re-wording sections of articles that deal with psychological and psychotherapeutic issues to make them more clinically objective. My main question (for now) involves Categories. I reviewed the information on Categories and it appears faily simple. However, when considering elements of an article for categorization, how can I know the exact wording of the Category without having to review the huge list each time? Michael David 13:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the input on Categorization. I'm still stumbling, but I will perservere. Yes, the Pirsig is from ZAMM. As you will see I couldn't resist putting in another one. There is a great deal I miss about Berkeley - most especially the PASSION for questioning things. Am I getting old, or is that missing today? Regarding the second Pirsig quote: You're so sure you'll do everything wrong because that's what you were taught very early by some very important people in your life. Kids take notes!

Faure

Thanks for noticing. I feel like the whole music section could still be beaten a bit (four years of music school really killed my writing abilities), and I don't think I'd feel hurt if the bio section was pruned a bit, but I think it's a bit better. One thing I found out which was cool, but I couldn't figure out how to fit in, is that apparently he put some of his pieces on player-piano rolls, some of which are extant. I wonder if it's even conceivable to get a recording of it not under copyright. Maybe when I'm feeling really energetic I'll look into it. Cheers, Makemi 05:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shelagh Watkins

Antandrus, I'm looking for a second opinion on this article. It seems a little self-promoting, especially as the creator seems to be Watkins herself. She's also added her name to the list of children's authors, and written an article about her husband James Watkins. Both articles seem a bit borderline to me. What are your thoughts? Joyous | Talk 13:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rauschpfeife

Hi Antandrus, I'm relatively new to wikipedia. I've written an article on the Rauschpfeife and was just wondering if, as a fellow early music fan you'd be interested in enhancing it. All the best, Mattmm 21:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smashing - thanks for the input. Re: photo, I've got a friend who actually owns two of these instruments (we have to be careful where we play them, they're so loud!), I'll see if he'll let me take a picture or two! :) Mattmm 13:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trecento music redux

You may have already seen it, but if not, look at Wikipedia:Sound/list. There's some links to external sites that have various free recordings that may be helpful here. Tuf-Kat 08:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Countship" (sic)

User:Fastifex is rapidly changing "county" to "countship", i.e. County of Foix, at every appearance. This strikes me as a particularly foolish Wikipedianism. What do you think? --Wetman 14:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

I know you probably didn't have any bad intentions by reverting my user page, but that was actually a test made by me when I wasn't log in to find my IP.--Ac1983fan 19:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I didn't feel comfortable just leaving a headline saying thanks...So I'll throw in this useless text amuse you :-P. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 21:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mars Volta

I don't know how much longer I could keep up with the anon, thanks for reverting the page. :) Iffer 22:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCV

Think we can get him for violating Verizon's ToS (Since UUNET is part of MCI is part of Verizon)? He's definately getting to be worse then WoW or any other vandal. 68.39.174.238 16:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he's on Verizon's AUP, we've got him. Verizon's AUP sucks. It seems to be inherited from UUNET (!) in that it goes off about "making the text scroll faster then users can read it" and other IRC/USENET specifics, but says nothing about, say, fraud, ID theft, impersonation, etc, etc, other then under the vauge rubric of "unlawful, improper, or illegal purpose[s]" (Which is redundant in two parts, and disconcertingly vague in the third.

Anyway, if this is it (Which it is according to WP:ISPS (I might also add it's extremelt hard to find via the Googles I tried)), I think he's violated these:

2
- (d): is objectionable for any reason,

3
- (a) for any unlawful, improper or illegal purpose or activity; — Assuming we can define "improper"
- (b) to post or transmit information or communications that, whether explicitly stated, implied, or suggested through use of symbols, are obscene, indecent, pornographic, sadistic, cruel, or racist in content, or of a sexually explicit or graphic nature; or which espouses, promotes or incites bigotry, hatred or racism; or which might be legally actionable for any reason; — Something of a stretch, however his "eliteism" crap may count (Again, this may be stretching it).
- (c) to access or attempt to access the accounts of others, to spoof or attempt to spoof the URL or DNS or IP addresses of Verizon or any other entity, or to attempt to penetrate or penetrate security measures of Verizon or other entities' systems ("hacking") whether or not the intrusion results in corruption or loss of data; — If trying to evade Ipblocklist is "hacking" per them.
- (d) to bombard individuals or newsgroups with uninvited communications, data or information, or other similar activities, including but not limited to "spamming", "flaming" or denial or distributed denial of service attacks; — If Wikimedia counts as an "individual", then he has been bombarding us(/it/them) against our wishes and has probably been specifically requested against it.
- (h) to interfere with another person's usage or enjoyment of the Internet or this Service; — I suspect he's interfered with many peoples enjoyment of the Internet (I also suspect this clause is NEVER enforced in the 1st part, rarely in the 2nd part)
- (r) to use the Service or the Internet in a manner intended to threaten, harass, or intimidate; — Depends on exactly how/why he's using the name "Cunio".
- (t) to use the Service to disrupt the normal flow of online dialogue, — So does his crap AfDs of eliteism count as a disruption of the normal flow of dialog here?
- (u) to use the Service to violate any operating rule, policy or guideline of any other online services provider or interactive service; — Using sockpuppets to evade bans, etc...
- (x) to install "auto-responders," "cancel-bots" or similar automated or manual routines which generate excessive amounts of net traffic, or disrupt net user groups or email use by others; — Has he run a vandalbot?

If he's on Verizon's Buissiness TOS (Which is what uu.net redirects to) then we're just about sunk. It's SO LAME. About all it says is "You can't break the law", and some Email/USENET stuff.

68.39.174.238 17:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proxies

I would block all of them. I googled the IPs and I could access the compromised computers, so they're most likely open proxies. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam redirect vandalism

Hat's off to you, that revert was impressively quick. 88.111.11.186 02:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please contribute constructively! :) Antandrus (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to.. but you guys keep reverting the pages.. You cannot claim any religion is the largest or smallest.. It is simply un-factutal.. Heresay as they call it.. I vote to remove this line in addition to saying it is the fastest growing.. This is also not factual... I would say the fastest growing would be atheism or the like... although it is not necesarily a religion..

Please explain your actions so that i can understand your argument.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.63.203 (talk • contribs)

I'm totally new at this.. i give up.. it's too much effort... you guys want to keep ficticious information on your pages that's your business... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.63.203 (talk • contribs)

gracias!

Hey, thanks for reverting vandalism to User:Adrian. Appreciate it :)

User:Adrian/zap2.js 23:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding test-n

Could you please regularly add a warning in form of {{test}} for cases like this? In my experience vast majority of such jokers stops when warned quickly. TIA Pavel Vozenilek 02:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorising classical pianists

Hello, Antandrus! I remember we had some discussions about classical pianists in the past, so I wanted to let you know about this: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 11. I do feel that the 'Classical pianists' category works just perfect right now and would like to keep it as it is. Vote if you wish :) --Missmarple 10:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Missmarple! I looked at it, and I'm not sure--it seems it could go either way. Many other categories pertaining to people are being subdivided -- "sharpened" -- by nationality, but there's a point where doing so becomes an unnecessary level of detail (kazoo players by nationality, sexual preference, and hair color). When I'm unsure or on the fence I usually don't vote... but I'll think on it some more. Antandrus (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have been quoted

In the Boston Globe article on Wikipedia. Took a bit of searching to find you, as the article does not mention your username... (Er, I hope you were not trying to keep this a secret.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Brainhell's attacks

Ant, this Brainhell's entire user page is a personal attack. I blocked him over a 3RR and the guy went absolutely nuts. I listed my hobbies, my cars and (at one time) my political affiliations. If this is the kind of user we want here, you don't want me. That's it. - Lucky 6.9 06:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Esperanzial note...

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Celestianpower ^háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick action on the various vandalisms by Jonathanbender (talk • contribs). I appreciate it very much. --Hansnesse 02:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks II

Same here for Noar Hill! -- Puffball 10:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Jonathanbender (talk · contribs)

While this user has been listed as blocked since 02:49, 14 February 2006, they've still managed to participate in a revert war on User talk:Jonathanbender. Any idea what's going wrong? --Christopher Thomas 17:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up how blocks affect editing. However, this user is still repeatedly blanking the warnings on his talk page. Would it be reasonable to protect that page, given the lack of non-vandalism edits by this user? --Christopher Thomas 22:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...

Quite something hmm? Are we assuming that all these are open proxies at the moment? --HappyCamper 05:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Yeah, it was nice for me to skip out on As The Wiki Turns for a bit and write something again; saw that redlink like an itch in need of scratching. ;-) (Ever play the piece? Did that one with a chamber group at college and just barely managed to get it put together in time for the concert, but a lot of fun...) Cheers, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thank you!
Hello Antandrus, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 98/2/0. If there is anything I can do to help you, please leave me a message on my talk page! -- xaosflux ^Talk

Thank you so much

Thank you so much for reverting the vandalism on my Bootleggers game article.

You're welcome! I had to go back a ways to find a good version. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:12.210.1.200

Our little friend has been vandalizing pages having to do with African Americans again. He's asked for three admins to look at the case and make a decision; so I wanted to know if you would like to look at the case. He promised ME he would never vandalize again, I don't like it when people come back on their promises; he deserves a permanent ban. As I said I am going to ask three admins: you, User:Flockmeal, and User:Nlu--Holocron 15:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]