Archive 29. July, August, September 2008. Haven't been editing as frequently, so there's more time on the archives now.

If you have a moment, please have a gander at this Jovian moon's recent edits. Thanks. Pinkville ( talk) 01:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hm. Wow. He's been here almost as long as me (more than four years); he logs only about 250 edits a year; some of them (such as on Chomsky) are aimless chatter on talk pages, literally in violation of talk page guidelines, but lots of edits are very useful indeed. Eccentric. He showed up on the Chomsky talk page very recently. Chatter on talk pages is actually pretty common: my experience with it is that unless lots of people respond, making the talk page into a forum, it's usually best to ignore it, and it just sputters out on its own. The warnings on his talk page are just provoking him, and the more I look at them, the more they bother me as being ham-fisted. I certainly wouldn't block him. He seems to be a good, but eccentric editor who's violated policy, gotten riled, made a bunch of personal attacks, retracted some, but no one is giving him a face-saving way out. Honestly I'd just let it go: this kind is best ignored. I hope that was helpful -- not sure it was. Best, Antandrus (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I said more or less the same thing on Pinkville's talk page. It falls into the category of knowing when to do nothing, or at least to refrain from poking someone with the proverbial sharp stick. Acroterion _(talk) 02:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah, thanks. Yes indeed. Antandrus (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

(ec) Stepping back for an even bigger view (this may be unstudied material for an essay) -- there is emblematic of a change in Wikipedia culture since I joined the project in 2004. Back then there was a lot of off-topic chatter and clutter on talk pages, and it was accepted more readily; we're a lot more serious now than we used to be. If you only edit a few sessions a year, you may not pick up on these changes, and having your comment removed from a talk page might be kind of a nasty shock. Antandrus (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree with the assessments you've both made. My reaction also was to ignore it (most of those who decide to tackle Chomsky fail spectacularly without anyone else's help). The Chomsky page is one of those where such chatter continues to happen pretty regularly... so many people have "their own" theories (actually, unknowingly adopted theories) about him, and are self-appointed experts - they just have to share! Following the Red Pen's intervention things seemed to worsen, and I worried they might deteriorate further. I'll have a word with the Pink Plume... Thanks for your insights! Pinkville ( talk)

This is another one from WP:AFC. I was not sure about this man's notability; he seems to have received substantial media coverage, but I'm not sure. [1] What do you think? I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! ( talk) 03:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't think so. "Project manager" is such a commonplace term: where I work almost everyone is a "project manager." Recently minted Ph.D., inflated-sounding resume, no actual Wikipedia-noteworthy accomplishments. If the article lead was "...is a Pakistani archictect" (which is what I'd suggest) then it would have to include a significant accomplishment, like designing a bluelinked building, or being actually famous in some way. My instinct is that it's a promo piece for someone who isn't notable yet. Hope this helps! Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply

On 4 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article McKittrick Oil Field, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- BorgQueen ( talk) 00:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! appreciate that! I had no idea anyone had even noticed I wrote it.  :) Antandrus (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I noticed - as always, excellent work - good reads too! :-) -- Iamunknown 05:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks!! I haven't actually seen the tar pits; I've been meaning to try to find them, but they seem to be on private land. This time of year it's hellish out there. What would have been spectacular is to have witnessed that super-giant landslide, when three cubic miles of rock came down the Temblors all at once. (From a safe distance ... LOL) Antandrus (talk)

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible) system - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 22:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello Antandrus. I´m relatively new here and I don´t have any experiences with the deletion process. I´m rather inclusionist, but I think inserting things like this [2] is unworthy for wikipedia. Can you help me? Thanks for your time... Vejvančický ( talk) 08:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Everything is OK.. I´m sorry for confusion, don´t waste your time with that thing. I started to solve it and I hope I´ll help in a different way.. Sometimes I´m a bit harum-scarum, scatterbrain and confused person (at least I learned these apt and funny english words) Have a nice day :)) Vejvančický ( talk) 13:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem! Let me know if you need any help though ... I'm on "vacation" and only checking in once a day or so. Antandrus (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I see the subject interests you. I don't know if this is from an observers POV or as a practitioner, but in 1976 when I held a vigil at the Liberty Memorial Mall in Kansas City after the Republican National Convention (Ref: Kathleen Patterson, 'Prophet Chooses Park for Vigil', The Kansas City Times, 13 September, 1976, pg 3A and Robert W. Butler, 'Prophet Plans Appeal of Conviction', The Kansas City Times, 2 November, 1976) I enjoyed frequent access to drop into the studio of a local night radio talk show. One time an astrologist by the name of Gars Austin was on the line from Texas giving brief chart readings based only on the birth date of callers. Coming up to a news break and not knowing me, from the studio I asked if he could do a more in depth reading based on my birth at 8am Sunday morning in Montreal May 21, 1944. The talk show host, the listeners and I were amazed with what he came back with. I asked if the charts showed anything significant around February 1, 1975 the date of my Spiritual resurrection. He didn't know anything about that. We were all surprised when he said, "According to my chart, on that date you had a very powerful Spiritual experience." From that time I had to give more credence to what is written in the stars. Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 13:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

…from your break. It's always good to see you around. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 06:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi again, Antandrus! Glad you're back, because: [3] this pianist has received a lot of awards, but I still wasn't sure about his credibility. What do you think? I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! ( talk) 01:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings! I think that he's notable enough for an article. It's close, since he doesn't seem to have any recordings that I can find on a quick googling, and if he really won a Gramophone Award for a 1998 recording of the Ligeti Etudes, shouldn't it show on Google? (It's also not listed here.) I've been looking at his picture and name and trying to place him: I swear I met this guy somewhere, but don't remember where. Is it possible to dig up the Boston Globe reference (the first item on his West Chester University profile?) -- that would go a long way. I'm a little surprised that Ligeti Etudes is a redlink; we need an article on those (I should write it... sigh... hard to do without committing Original Research though). Have fun with KP! Antandrus (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I was able to find several archived news articles from the Boston Globe which talked about him, but they all require a fee to be read. I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! ( talk) 02:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry to butt in. He didn't win a Gramophone Award - the Gramophone Award for the Ligeti Etudes was won by Pierre-Laurent Aimard for Sony in 1997 (and wonderful it is, too). -- RobertG ♬ talk 08:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes: that misrepresentation is bugging me (it was included by the original anon, from the Boston area, that posted at AFC). I wonder if it was a different award for a live performance. He's a young, want-to-be-famous pianist who has done some good stuff, but seems to be right on the borderline of what we allow. BTW I have that Aimard recording ... I love it (never noticed it won the award). Those are great pieces: some of my favorite piano music of the 20th century. Antandrus (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Aw, thanks! Oh, and I forgot to thank you for all your help with the suggestion! Thanks!!! I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! ( talk) 17:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Please, Antandrus, help me save this article! Another user has accused it of infringing a copyright! I thought I had paraphrased the wording enough, but when I tried to further fix it, they said that it has to be looked over by an administrator. You're an administrator, please help me! I don't want my article deleted! I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! ( talk) 07:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh boy. It looks like right now the article is about two different things. The Tierra Redonda Formation is a fossiliferous rock formation in California, and the Redonda Formation is an entirely unrelated formation in New Mexico. So the first sentence of the article is about the place near where I live (San Luis Obispo County, California) but the second paragraph is about Shark Tooth Hill in New Mexico (going on that osti.gov reference). Seems it should be either two articles, an article and a merge, or one article with the extra material trimmed. Was this on AFC? If you want to write about the mountain in California I may be able to help since I have some information on local places. Antandrus (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

You know this and you added information about the New Mexico formation to the California mountain? This is known as vandalism. Cut it out. -- Blechnic ( talk) 22:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Vandalism? Seriously?

OK, so I saw the little "new messages" thing light up ... and knew you were working on Tierra Redonda Mountain ... I was expecting something along the lines of "hey, thank you for improving Tierra Redonda Mountain! I see you didn't finish; you left in that paragraph from the original, about the New Mexico formation." If you study the history, and my interchange of messages with Wilhelmina, you might see I encouraged her to finish, sort out the different sections, and rewrite in her own words.

Here is all I added: [4] There is NOTHING about New Mexico. I did NOT add that part. I left it in for Wilhelmina to fix. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, I see, it was left in there. I apologize. I thought it had been edited down to nothing. Sadly Wilhelmina has too much to fix, most of her artiles appear copied from other web pages. -- Blechnic ( talk) 22:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you ... it is possible she has left the building. I don't know. At any rate thanks for taking out that paragraph; I was going to give it a few more days, and then write up a paragraph in its place on the Tierra Redonda Formation, which is a significant fossiliferous formation in that part of the Santa Lucias. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

How about write up the Vaqueros Formation first? If you're into California geological formations that is, or better yet, expanding the stub I started to address the issue of the shameful lack of an article on the Monterey Formation? -- Blechnic ( talk) 22:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, ... right. I remember now; I was surprised a couple months ago when the Monterey Formation lit up as a blue link; that was you; that's why your name is familiar. Thank you! The Monterey has been on my unofficial to-do list, but the problem with that one is that it's a really huge topic, as you must know, and I don't have all the sources I need (probably a bookstore run could solve that). The formation is in so many places and contexts, and needs a map too. You know there's an enormous list of articles in the earth sciences that can still be written from scratch. I wish we had more people interested in writing, and less in beating each other up on the noticeboards, which seems to be the most usual form of entertainment these days. But as a Wikipedian I think I'm getting old and burned out. Antandrus (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

By the way, thanks for improving the Tierra Redonda Mountain article. You did a good job using the sources to rewrite the article without infringing upon others' copyrights or missing points. I did thoroughly check the edit history to see if anyone else had added that section and was mucho surprised with my conclusion and certainly should have double and triple checked. -- Blechnic ( talk) 23:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd write formation articles with you if you're interested. I'm completely burned out. The geology articles appear to be the least copyviod in most areas, also. -- Blechnic ( talk) 23:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

What do you think is the best general source for, say, the major formations? A lot of stuff on Google is hiding behind subscriptions and such. I have subscriptions, but only in musicology; earth sciences is kind of an aside for me. (I've been writing bunches of oil field articles, not that anyone cares.) My advice to avoid burnout is to take all noticeboards off of your watchlist, and avoid visiting them. They are to Wikipedians what tar pits were to dire wolves. Antandrus (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The best starting source, imo, is the little articles in the California state geology magazine. I don't know what it is called, but a friend took me up to the state offices in Sacramento where I sat around reading the issues. They have good general outlines that would be appropriate for a guideline to writing a general encyclopedia article. Otherwise, start with GSA's Geology and also the USGS has good information on their websites. I think beginning with outlines would be a good start, particularly tackling something as huge as the Monterey Formation. As big as it is, filling in around it might be a good start, but it's so important it's hard to ignore. Also, the oil companies may have a good introduction that can be a guideline for the article's outline (the big article's outline). -- Blechnic ( talk) 23:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

(deindent) Thank you -- that's helpful. Sounds like fun, actually. I live in Santa Barbara and have a card to the UCSB library so I can find good stuff there, including what you list. -- Sorry to be so dense, but I think I just figured it out. Are you retired because of the frustrations attendant on the CarolSpears issue? You did a great job there and deserve a barnstar. One of the things I've learned here is it's incredibly frustrating and thankless to clean up after copyright violations, because sometimes the violators have a bizarre and inexplicable amount of support, and it's absolutely baffling how so many otherwise sane people don't seem to understand basic copyright common sense. Were around during the User:Orbicle debacle? There were others; this happens with persistent regularity here. Sometimes you just have to throw up your hands and let someone else deal with it for a while. Writing articles is more fun. -- I'd be happy to collaborate with you on geology stuff. I'm not an expert, really -- I just have an undergraduate level knowledge (though I know a lot through my job, and do GIS for a living). Cheers -- keep your head up. -- I'm going to be inattentive for a few hours because I'm tending a barbecue in a moment. Antandrus (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

People get downright angry when copyright violating plagiarizing factually inaccurate editors are asked to stop inserting crap into Wikipedia. It's surprising. No, I don't know anything about the Orbicle debacle. I just cannot fathom how good responsible editors would want to occupy the same soup bowl as liars and thieves, which is essentially steeling the work of others, calling it your own, then lying to protect the act. Blech. Hope you didn't plagiarize a kabob! I'm reading up on some Middle Eastern geology, but will try to find time to get back to California formations, and will send you links when I get something up, please do the same. I would rather do something nice and safe like California geology. -- Blechnic ( talk) 05:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I bet Behl worships before the shrine of the Bramlette. My background is in geology, but I work in microscopy and tropical agriculture. I don't like writing in these areas, first, because I get paid much better to do it elsewhere, but second because there are too many people editing on Wikipedia who know just a little, but not enough to realize how little it is they know, and I can't stand getting into pissing matches with them. It's very frustrating.

Ph.D. in 17th century music? How did you manage that self-indulgence? Don't answer! I spent some time in the music industry to put myself through school (some of us had to work to go to school, you know, and had to go to school to get jobs, you know, rather than indulge passions), and I love the early European classical music.

Thanks for the link. -- Blechnic ( talk) 05:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your help with this issue on ANI. However I have a question for you. What tool are you using to see all current contributions from editors in the 71.100.*.* range? If the answer is BEANSy, feel free to send it to me via email. Thanks, Kralizec! ( talk) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

E-mail sent. Cheers! Antandrus (talk)

...could use your photograph! :) -- Iamunknown 02:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Funny, I never even thought of it! I'll have a look ... :) thanks! Antandrus (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

There was already a picture there taken from close to the same spot (strangely enough!) I'm pretty sensitive about replacing other people's pictures, knowing how irritated I get when other people do that to me, so I found a spot for it in the Yosemite National Park article. Thanks for the suggestion! Antandrus (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I noticed how close it was to same spot too. I thought yours might be a good replacement, but I understand why you might not want to do so. Sometimes when I've found photographs that might look good in an article but, for whatever reason, I don't feel like putting it in myself (I think that's happened when I wasn't exactly sure if the photograph was appropriate for the article, and I wanted to get the authors' opinions if they were still active), I just leave it on the talk page. But then I've gotten funny responses from people wondering why I didn't do it myself. Such is the wiki.

Oh, and I'd love to go to Yosemite. Looks beautiful! -- Iamunknown 03:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for opening up a dialog Antandrus. Personally I dont really give a damn about the bigger picture, my only concern is the article is kept; so I'm in the mddle; I want to add cites so the article is kept, but I can can see the counter argument. Hmm. But if this is going to be saved I'll need advice from people such as yourself; my big worry is that instead of offering construcive advice, editors will get bogged down fighting bigger picture issues; and that will lead to nowhere good. The FAR room is a heated place at best, but oddly all there want the same thing; a keep, however inegantly expressed. He, The Irony of it All Ceoil 15:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are only a well-read amateur, thats all I am too; so if you could follow the page and watch my back re the quality of sources added, well that would be great. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 15:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

By the way, my position is that this FAR should never have been brough forward, but I don't have the appetite to couner that bigger issue, so am falling back on so fix it. I have little to no interst in meta discussions on wiki, only specifics (too much meta IRL, this is supposed to be fun). For me this shit is checkers, it anint chess. Ceoil 15:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

For some reason the page history did not load properly for me, so I tagged it wrong, I have undone my edits that hadn't already been undone. Sorry. Ajh16 ( talk) 16:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem! I see our messages crossed. All is well. :) Antandrus (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Sometimes I wonder if being as anal-retentive as I am is worth the trouble... -- Blehfu ( talk) 01:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes ... any edit that improves the encyclopedia is a good edit, as far as I'm concerned. What's really bizarre though is people like me that keep coming back night after night ... what is wrong with me? I really should be watching television like the rest of the human race. Antandrus (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

…I wish you could have seen what I watched last night - Messiaen's L'Ascension (Olivier Latry), Et exspecto… and Saint-Saëns' 3rd from The Proms. They're broadcasting Messiaen's La Transfiguration on Sunday. Fantastic! -- RobertG ♬ talk 06:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The advantage of living on your side of the pond! Oy! Imagine, Messiaen on television. The thought makes me dizzy. -- I've always wanted to see The Proms, preferably live. Some day, some day ... Antandrus (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

[5] I needed that. Appreciated. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL, I thought it was over the top and hoped no one would notice ... I blame the wine ... darn it, you have to have some fun sometimes ... Cheers!  :) Antandrus (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

You should see some of the things that spurt out of my mouth when i drink that whiskey or the rum. :p KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

"And lo, the Vandal was block'd, yea, indeed the vandal was block'd, and it was Good" This one made me smile. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

As I'm sure you know all too well, do this for four years and you just gotta add a little to that "block summary" box ... LOL. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I came across your upload log, and noticed many great images that you have uploaded here. I am thinking of transferring many of them over to commons, and was wondering if you had a preference for how you are credited. Would you like a linkback to your commons userpage, or the one here? I am creating a temporary template here to use (by subst'ing it), please feel free to edit it as you wish. -- Storkk ( talk) 12:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Storkk! I'd prefer the linkback to my en: page, since I rarely use my Commons account (or rarely recently -- most of my activities are here). Thanks for the compliment, and go ahead; if anyone on another Wikimedia project would like to use the images I wouldn't mind at all. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Sounds good... also, feel free to edit the Credit template that I'll be using to your liking. On a tangential note, for future reference if you have a choice, exporting to a lossless format such as GIF (or even better, PNG) is greatly preferred over JPG for most things except photographs, see for example {{ BadJPEG}}. Anywhoo... thanks again for the maps & images, and I'll start transferring them over within the next few days, after you've had a chance to look over the credit template. Cheers, Storkk ( talk) 14:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The credit template is good, thanks! I wasn't sure if .png was one of the export options in ArcGIS, but I'll look again. I've used .png for music examples because I like its lack of artifacts (like those little "halos" in high-contrast areas you get in .jpg) I'll check. Thanks for your help, Antandrus (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

*Rolls eyes*. -- Folantin ( talk) 19:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I know .. I know ... (trying hard not to laugh). Coincidentally (almost!) at the time you left this message I was reading our fine article on The Dunciad. Absolutely a coincidence.  :) Antandrus (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

A propos of nothing, some lines from Pope's An Epistle to Doctor Arbuthnot:

Who shames a scribbler? break one cobweb through,

He spins the slight, self-pleasing thread anew;

Destroy his fib or sophistry, in vain,

The creature's at his dirty work again;

Thron'd in the centre of his thin designs;

Proud of a vast extent of flimsy lines!

Fortunately, things have changed since the 18th century and these verses are now incomprehensible. They clearly bear no resemblance to any aspect of the "Wikipedia editing experience".-- Folantin ( talk) 20:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL. Indeed, LOL again -- that's just too good to be true. Pope must have been a Wikipedian. (Another possibility is that human foolishness and pigheadedness are neither unique to Wikipedia, nor to the 21st century; tell me it's not so!) I'm not sure we've ever improved on the precision of some of those early 18th century writers (and 17th century French). I also find it amusing that the alleged "controversy" exists on that talk page alone, and nowhere else. From Swift, Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting: "When somebody was telling a certain great minister that people were discontented, 'Pho,' said he, 'half a dozen fools are prating in a coffeehouse, and presently think their own noise about their ears is made by the world.'" To which I add: sometimes the noise is made by less than six. Antandrus (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

"I also find it amusing that the alleged 'controversy' exists on that talk page alone". Well, quite apart from Wikipedia consensus, there's academic consensus. The Britannica article brazenly calls Mozart an "Austrian composer" in its opening sentence before moving swiftly on to more interesting matters. We should really start enforcing WP:UNDUE, otherwise we'll have a lot of pages skewed to the "needs" of one or two tendentious editors rather than the general reader. -- Folantin ( talk) 17:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply

How dare they? It must be because of the Anschluss (variously spell'd) and their discomfort over all things German. Perhaps if we spin around this one long enough, centrifugal force will hurl at least one of our number off the project. Of course we might have to change our frame of reference, and see things not from only a nationalistic perspective, but a global one. Antandrus (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I still chuckle when I think of his assertion that Germans are the same as Austrians ("in every single respect") down to Apfelstrudel, yodeling and Schuhplattler. -- RobertG ♬ talk 10:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply

On 27 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cuyama Valley, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! appreciate that. Antandrus (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:30 Seconds to Mars album cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, bot. I did not upload this image. I reverted vandalism to it. You need to inform the earliest name on the upload list. Antandrus (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thnks for revert my user page. :) Caiaffa ( talk) 00:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome, Caiaffa: I like this to be a friendly place, and remove userpage vandalism on sight.  :) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Antandrus, thanks for the comment. I actually am a lawyer, though a currently unemployed one due to the terrible economic climate here on the East Coast. I used to work for McCarter & English. Lately, I and some other editors from Wikiproject Law have been contributing articles about various large law firms, and every so often some snarky deletionist tags it with {{ db-spam}} because he doesn't know what the AmLaw 100 Survey is. I cannot even describe how frustrating it is to have to explain WP:CSD to some high school kid who is just drive-by tagging everything he's never heard of. -- Eastlaw ( talk) 05:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. I've nominated Francesco Portinaro, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on July 28, where you can improve it if you see fit. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 16:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you, and great job on the article. I like reading newly-created non-stub articles, especially when the subject is a historical figure or event, and I really enjoyed your article. Cheers, – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 16:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC) (P.S. I tried to write an alternate hook about the connection to Galilei, but I wasn't comfortable enough doing so since I don't have access to the source.) reply

Thank you for reverting my talk page... First vandalism I've ever personally gotten. I suppose it was bound to happen sometime. :)

Silverwolf85 ( talk) 04:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

You're right about that, and you're welcome. Yeah, I remember the first time I got one too ... it's bizarre that there's someone out there actually motivated to do such a trivial and petty thing, but -- they're there. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

On 4 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Francesco Portinaro, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Mifter ( talk) 01:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you Mifter; appreciate that. Antandrus (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

A couple years ago you blocked my account "User:The Thing" Can you unblock it? I've learned my lesson. TheThingy ^Talk _Website 19:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I can unblock you if you really want, but since you've started a new account, do you really need to be? Do you want your previous contributions all added to your new account, or your new contributions merged with your old? I see you've become a good editor now: congratulations, and welcome to Wikipedia! Antandrus (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, yeah, I'll just stay with this account. Anyway, thanks! TheThingy ^Talk _Website 02:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I was just wondering if you want the infobox in this article. If no one has worked on a NF/CA article for awhile, I usually go ahead and add one but this article has two beautiful photos and is currently being worked on, so I wanted to ask you first. Please respond on my talk page-Thankyou in advance.

Sincerely, Marcia Wright ( talk) 16:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Marcia! I think an infobox would be fine there. While some subjects do not benefit from them, in my opinion, national forests are a category that do. I don't see why we can't have a box as well as the pictures. I could make a map of the LPNF location within California if that would help (those "dot maps" aren't helpful for the LPNF, since it covers a large area in several disconnected pieces). Best, Antandrus (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Very good point!!! I'll take you up on that map offer gladly (I'm a map-maven myself-really miss Topozone). Looking forward to seeing your work.

Cheers, Marcia Marcia Wright ( talk) 06:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

No doubt that this user's actions were definitely blockable ... but indef seems a bit too harsh to me. Maybe a week? Blueboy 96 22:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Feel free to do so; you may wish to check the discussion of this user on User talk:Moreschi; I think it's User:M.V.E.i. (there's a bunch of archived checkuser cases on him, and it sure seems like it to me; it's obviously someone's sockpuppet). Antandrus (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hmmm ... per this diff he's obviously somebody's sock. That's enough for me to decline the unblock. Blueboy 96 22:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL, I just reduced his block to 24. I'm probably nuts, I know. But this guy has made so many socks he won't need to use this account again anyway -- and we can bugswat it if it returns to disruption. If there's a checkuser around we could bug her to have a look and see if the IP is in Israel at bezeqint.net ... betcha it is. Antandrus (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, BWC56 ( talk · contribs) has obviously resorted to sockpuppetry as AK-47, when peace is needed, it works ( talk · contribs), so now you have a chance to reblock him. Colchicum ( talk) 17:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Done: missed your message at first; sometimes we have to check page histories to see we don't miss any. This one is obvious -- even if it's not M.V.E.i., he's 1) someone's sockpuppet, 2) just made another one. Gone. Antandrus (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

...if you have the time: Adam Mickiewicz. User:Galassi trying to push the view that Mickiewicz's mother was of Jewish descent when it's no more than a hypothesis which some major scholars (such as Wiktor Weintraub) reject. I tried to restore a neutral version ("some people say this...some people say that...") but he keeps reverting it as "vandalism". Also, there's some obvious original research involved. Not very communicative either (no response to my statement on the talk page). -- Folantin ( talk) 13:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

All with citations, of course. Galassi ( talk) 13:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, my version was cited to Weintraub and Milosz. You initially removed the reference from Weintraub (a Harvard professor of Slavic Studies and expert on Mickiewicz who also happened to be Jewish) as "BS". Now you are claiming: "Wictor [it's actually Wiktor] Weintraub (who was likely unaware of Balaban's research) thought that the genealogical connection of Barbara Mickiewicz (nee Majewska) to the family of Frankist converts Majewski was 'improbable'". Your speculation on what Weintraub based his view on and whether he was aware of Balaban is pure WP:OR on your part. You also initially used Milosz to claim that M's mother was of Frankist descent when he actually argued the facts were against this. I re-added the Milosz reference to represent his view on the matter correctly and you removed it as "vandalism". -- Folantin ( talk) 13:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

There are some fairly idiotic aspects in the Weintraub bit, such as automatic nobility titles for converts in Lithuania. But I am leaving this in, as a compromise and a gesture of good will. Galassi ( talk) 13:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

No, you restore the neutral version which fairly represents the point of view of Weintraub and Milosz (both WP:RS - and AFAIK their view is the mainstream). WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors". -- Folantin ( talk) 13:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Exactly my sentiment. Galassi ( talk) 13:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

So do it and stop POV-pushing. -- Folantin ( talk) 13:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Meir Balaban is not NNPOV. Galassi ( talk) 13:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Meir Balaban is one source (from the 1930s). Weintraub (1954) and Milosz (1980, I think) are two others in the "opposite camp". You have to represent their views neutrally. -- Folantin ( talk) 13:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings guys. Sorry, it's early here and the coffee's not ready yet and I'm a little hazy.

So the main disagreement between you is the certainty, or lack thereof, in the sources regarding the possible Frankist/Jewish origin of the poet's mother? I read (skimmed in part) the article. Reads well, overall. You have to be careful with sources from the 1930s when there are newer sources; I have this happen all the time (e.g. recently I've been using Alfred Einstein's giant and influential The Italian Madrigal a lot, but many things he says have been superseded or even refuted altogether by newer generations of researchers!) Without looking at the sources myself -- I'd have to do that to verify either version -- it seems to me that Folantin's is a bit more NPOV. You're not that far apart though, compared to a lot of disputes I see.

Sometimes just stating that scholars disagree on a point is the best way to proceed, rather than disputing in the writing which scholar may or may not have known the other's work.

One other thing -- what does Czesław Miłosz really say? Galassi, you have him supporting the Frankist origin in your first footnote; Folantin, you have him refuting it, with a direct quote. (Personally I trust Miłosz since I'm familiar with his work, but I don't have that book.)

Not sure this helps, but that's my pfennig's-worth for now. Antandrus (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

"Sometimes just stating that scholars disagree on a point is the best way to proceed, rather than disputing in the writing which scholar may or may not have known the other's work". That's what I was doing. This is merely a hypothesis, not a "reasonable certainty" and the more recent works I referenced (Weintraub and Milosz) basically reject it. More on the article talk page.-- Folantin ( talk) 14:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Maybe it's best just to state it simply: "Meir Balaban, writing in xxx, claimed a probable Frankist origin for Mickiewicz's mother; more recent scholars, including Weintraub and Czesław Miłosz, have been skeptical of such claims."(cite1, cite2 ...) I'd avoid the "reasonable certainty" phrase since that's an editor's opinion. You could say "Meir Balaban believed he had established with reasonable certainty that ..." but we really can't say "it was established with reasonable certainty that ..." Antandrus (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

It's Frankist (not Frankish!) by the way ;). -- Folantin ( talk) 14:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I generally trust Milosz, but he was not a historian (neither was Weintraub), unlike Balaban, who was in fact a major one. Galassi ( talk) 14:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Weintraub and Milosz were both Professors of Slavic Studies at major American universities. -- Folantin ( talk) 14:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Oops. Fixed. How embarrassing. That was stupid of me. I'll go and get that coffee now. :p Antandrus (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Especially bad considering some of them are my own damn ancestors. Antandrus (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Full quotation from Milosz (op.cit. p.116). Note on context: Milosz is discussing possible Jewish cultural influences on Mickiewicz (esp. the Kabbalah IIRC) and briefly touches on the matter of his ethnicity: “The Encyclopedia Judaica assumes, perhaps rashly so, that Mickiewicz’s mother was of Jewish ancestry. Among the arguments advanced (compiled by Samuel Scheps in his book Adam Mickiewicz: Ses affinités juives, 1964) two are of crucial importance: first the reference in Forefather’s Eve to a redeemer “born of a foreign mother”, and to his name “forty-four”, the numerical equivalent of the Hebrew letters forming the word Adam – assuming of course, the poet had himself in mind (*Milosz’s footnote here: Adam in fact equals 45. Possible solutions through a reduction of the letter A are listed by Abraham Duker in his “Some Frankist and Cabbalistic elements in M’s ‘Dziady’”… [1971]); second , the testimony of Ksawery Branicki, to whom the poet is alleged to have said: ‘My father was a Mazovian, my mother a late convert. That makes me half Lechite [Polish] and half Israelite, an ancestry of which I am proud”. [Milosz’s footnote here: The German memoirist Karl Varnhagen von Ense cites a conversation with Karolina Jaenisch-Pavlova, held after Mickiewicz’s death, in which she is quoted as saying: “Mickiewicz is a Jew.”]

“The mother’s low social status – her father was a land steward – argues against a Frankist origin. The Frankists were usually of the nobility and therefore socially superior to the common gentry….” -- Folantin ( talk) 14:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

So I think it's fair to say Milosz isn't entirely sold on the idea and he outright rejects the Frankist claims in the second paragraph. In other words, we can't present this as solid fact or a "reasonable certainty", merely as a hypothesis accepted by some and rejected by others. My version went "Some sources claim that Mickiewicz's mother was a descendent of a converted Frankist Jewish family [refs to such sources]. Other sources suggest the claim is 'improbable' [refs to such sources]". I think that - or something along those lines - is pretty NPOV. -- Folantin ( talk) 14:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

From what I've seen so far, I agree: and I also think some of this discussion should move (or be copied) to the article talk page.

Mention of the Frankist-origin claim is fine, and even that a scholar or two strongly supports it: but since it is essential to get the other point of view across, we need to show that other scholars disagree. Galassi, can you live with this? I think the "Meir Balaban established with reasonable certainty that Mickiewicz's mother was a descendent of a converted Frankist Jewish family" is problematic -- unless we replace "established with reasonable certainty" with either "claimed" or "believed he had established with reasonable certainty" -- since later scholars (much later) disagreed. Antandrus (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Timeline is not relevant here- I have just talked to Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern, a major historian and philologist, and he endorses the Balaban source, as the only reliable one, with a proviso- no English translation to date. Galassi ( talk) 15:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Galassi, your stub on Petrovsky-Shtern has some typos that would benefit from copy-editing. Nihil novi ( talk) 02:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Be my guest. Galassi ( talk) 02:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Galassi, you just added the incredible assertion that Chopin's mother was Jewish. This appears in no standard reference work on the composer. None. Ever. But yet the source you claim has been around since the 1930s. How would you explain this unbelievable, earth-shattering omission in his biography? Antandrus (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not given to mythopoeia. All this info has been around since 1880's, initiated by a noted Russian anti-semite Osip Antinovich Przeclawski (Mickiewicz's classmate, later the head Imperial censor ). Galassi ( talk) 03:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Przeclawski in fact claims Frankist origins not only for the mothers of Mickiewicz and Chopin, but Slowacki's as well! As a Minister of Internal Affairs and the head of censorship he had to have access to all subversive emigre's dossiers. Also, I checked on Boris Klein the author of he Kaskade articcle, and he is reputable historian, former dissident/human rights activist. Galassi ( talk) 03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

"His mother came from a converted Jewish Frankist family.[1][2]" Could you remove this statement (3RR and all that) from the life section? It's stated as a bald fact and one of the references is to Milosz. As you can see from this very page, Milosz supports no such claim. -- Folantin ( talk) 16:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Cheers. BTW I agree with what a user wrote elsewhere: "I don't care whether Chopin, Mickiewicz or Skarbek were descended from Jews, Maoris or Eskimos. But I do care about the truth". Incidentally, much of Milosz's Land of Ulro is focussed on his relative Oscar Milosz, who really did have a Polish Jewish mother (guess who added that fact to his WP bio? [6]). -- Folantin ( talk) 17:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

see article's talk page on intro being too long

I can fairly say that I have no opinion about the conflict, and I have the impression that the current introduction is too detailed about Russia's motives. This can be solved easily by moving the detailed part to the article text. But for some reason, my edit was reverted with the argument that "Russia's actions deserve intro". [1] I agree that Russia's actions deserve an intro, but none of Russia's arguments were removed... Cityvalyu, can you explain your reversal? Sijo Ripa (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC) although no reason could be found in sijo ripa's first edit to shift the added sections(3 sentences), i assumed it was due to the "length factor"..so, i considered that and reduced by one sentence the added sections(2 sentences)... my edit summary should suffice for explaining my edits (and to avoid serving saakashvill's motive).. in a non neutral manner..nevertheless, a few arguments to consider are below..Cityvalyu (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC) argument1: the whole article and each and every section of it is too long (more than 80 kb- deserves split!?!)..efforts to form collapsible lists (see effort on "aug 9"section) were reverted too..i find the size of intro dwarfs in comparison to the individual sections..so it is relatively small anyway..Cityvalyu (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

argument2: if saakashville's stand on the conflict deserves mention, then why accuse mentioning the russian stand? ... georgia could have had a single lined complaint about russian aggression in the breakaway republic of ossetia because it wanted to hide its own role in the preceding attack on 'its own people' (assuming ossetians are georgia nationalists)....just because the russians used more words (more clarity) to describe their response, it is not reason to delete them. if deleted, it serves the motive of saakashville who wants to hide georgia's preceding 'provoking unilateral acts in ossetia' from international attention and who may be wants to portray the event as "unprovoked", "unjustified", "unilateral aggression", "without locus standi" ..from the russian side..Everyone knows that's not the truth since GOERGIA PROVOKED..and russia was forced to respond(see argument3) ! Cityvalyu (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

argument3: although i didnt add the following, i infact want to add in future the role of

1 refugee crisis (half the population!)--see indo pak war 1971 to get similarities

2 russia's duty to protect its citizens in the breakaway republic of ossetia (passport holders)

3 mandate to maintain peace in the breakaway province as a major regional power and since ossetia has never been integral part of georgia from 1990 s.

in the crisis as part of the intro to help wiki readers understand "why" this armed conflict occured in ossetia "now".Cityvalyu (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

..please add ur view before changing intro.. Cityvalyu ( talk) 23:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings! I think the best way to handle these situations is to take as big and general an overview as possible. The introduction should state the facts, simply: everything in a good introduction can be elaborated later in the article. When an introduction goes into the motives behind so-and-so's involvement in a conflict, or in this case the motives behind someone who isn't even fighting -- it's a sign to back off a bit and look at the big picture.

Remember also this essential point: if you are truly editing from a neutral point of view, it should be impossible for anyone to tell what your political position is. Can you answer honestly that this is true?

Editing articles like the one on the 2008 war in Ossetia is among the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, since many people's emotions are running hot. Sometimes it's best to take a break for a bit and come back later. Editing while angry is risky (I'm not just telling you, but full aware that lots of other people are reading what I write). Regards, Antandrus (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi! I think Theearthshaker ( talk · contribs) deserves some scrutiny (misrepresentation of sources bordering on vandalism by changing the sourced text, agressive POV-pushing). Colchicum ( talk) 22:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I caught him adding some nonsense earlier today, but didn't have time to follow up. If you want to help pick through all his contribs to see if anything got through that would be great ... I'm going to start doing that shortly. I do see he has been warned a couple of times, and stopped editing right after. This upload of his just might give a hint of where he's coming from. LOL. Antandrus (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

He is back and does the same thing. Blockable? Colchicum ( talk) 21:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

[7]. Not cool. I won't have time to watch for a while so feel free to grab someone who might be around to help (Moreschi?) if he does it again in the next few hours. Antandrus (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Indeed he was. :) Thanks for the backup. Glass Cobra 05:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Looks like the range may need to be extended to whichever Special:Contributions/99.141.235.89 falls into. Glass Cobra 05:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks kindly. :) Glass Cobra 05:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

You know, it's almost funny when trolls try to make demands. So you can shuffle your IP, oh noez! Don't they realize we can block them all? Glass Cobra 05:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi my name is mark lebons and I really just wanted to let you know that the vandal known as toofy has returned... I realize that my message will be removed and I will be blocked. But I just wanted to warn you that he is coming back with a lot of "abilities" that may allow him to evade blocks... so you know, keep an eye out. Mr. Mcjack ( talk) 05:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Cool. I'm busy writing an article; that's something we do here. Hope your friend is OK. I'm not paying much attention to recent changes tonight. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

This edit summary made my evening. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome ... I can't help it ... the endless templates and pull-down block reasons take their toll ... Antandrus (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for blocking this ip 71.146.36.195. He was getting on my nerves with his/her altitude and his words. Oh i wish there are some IP can be permanently blocked.-- SkyWalker ( talk) 05:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Great quotation from Mark Twain. This place is certainly getting more humourless by the day. Basic psychology should tell you that lecturing established users (or any users for that matter) on civility in the tones of a Victorian headmaster de haut en bas is likely to be counterproductive. "OK, he probably asked for it but Wikipedia's rules don't allow this and I'm afraid I'm going to have to remove it now. I hope you understand." would have been much more effective. I wasn't going to leave it up for more than a few hours in any case because hardly anybody would have got the joke. On the same theme, I imagine what winds people up about all those talk page image deletion notices is something in the way they are phrased.

The last two ANI reports against me have both involved sock puppets of banned users harrassing me on the board itself so maybe some people should put their own house in order first.

P.S. Sorry if I came over a bit grouchy with you over the Adam M. article but you know how this place and that sort of content dispute can grind you down. Now they want to take the light relief away. I've got a pretty good idea how that's going to pan out. -- Folantin ( talk) 08:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes ... this is actually a very large issue at Wikipedia, and one I've been thinking about a lot recently. We are generally expected to respond to harassment with templates, and abuse with a saintly smile. Some people are capable of such behavior; for others, it's not possible. I wish we could screen admin applicants for knowledge of basic human psychology as well as wisdom, but alas, it's not so. "Basic human psychology" -- inasmuch as Jung is "basic" -- also acknowledges this: if you are abused long and fiercely enough, and suppress all impulse to satirize your attacker, you increase the risk of a torrential, uncontrolled, and damaging outburst. It's kind of the way people are. (See Jung's marvelous analysis of the Revelation of St. John, in his Answer to Job -- suddenly all that repulsive and apocalyptic dream imagery becomes quite clear in its meaning).

Without continuing this comment to essay-length (though this needs to be written about: and Geogre has already addressed some of it), I attribute a lot of the humorlessness of our admin corps, and most ANI debates, to the combination of youth, inexperience, and devotion. Wikipedia is fun but it's just a website. A lot of the kids running the place haven't been through the worst things that life can throw at them. This is nuthin'. Perspective, perspective! when you've lost everything you own in an arson fire; when someone you love has died in your arms, and you were powerless to stop it; when you've escaped death only by the narrowest of chances; then all these "Oh my god, someone called someone else a 'fuckhead'! Call the police!" calls have about as much significance as the barking of the neighbors' dog. It's trivial. And the only weapon you have, the most powerful force, is laughter.

There's a passage in a novel by Milan Kundera -- I think it may be in the Book of Laughter and Forgetting, but I laughed and have since forgotten -- in which a mean and vindictive old woman has lost her temper because someone has failed to care for her flower garden, and allowed aphids to infest the place. In her view, an aphid is so close to her eye that it fills most of her field of vision, and in the distance, small as insects, is a column of Russian tanks entering her town, for it is the summer of 1968, and Czechoslovakia: but the aphid is all.

I find it amusing how often the Wikipedia named in the thread title is actually the one who is the recipient of the named bad behavior, and the thread-starter is the one who ends up shown the door. This is a commonplace on the noticeboards. Consider the presence of such threads to be a monument to your good work.

Regarding Adam M -- you were right all along in your version, but I was trying to see if I could get Galassi to talk with us in a spirit of compromise. Doesn't always work.

Speaking of "work", guess that's what I should be doing today. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

"I attribute a lot of the humorlessness of our admin corps, and most ANI debates, to the combination of youth, inexperience, and devotion." Perhaps we ought to call them the New Model Admins. Some of them certainly come across as self-righteous puritans. Remember Geogre's cartoon about the Giano Civility Police [8]? A classic example of how jobsworth enforcement simply inflames a problem. As you are well aware, Giano is a highly knowledgeable and productive editor and AFAIK he has never disrupted mainspace, but if you ever want to get attention at ANI about any subject just type the magic word "Giano" in the title of your report, regardless of its contents, and I guarantee half a dozen admins will appear almost instantly. "Wikipedia is fun but it's just a website." Yep, it's just an interesting experiment when it comes down to it. Some of the hardline trolls don't get this. -- Folantin ( talk) 19:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Good God, I thought I was the only one who felt this way. --David Shankbone 21:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I feel exactly this way too, even though D.Shank just called me lame within the last hour or two. I'm not anti-anything, except anti-wikilawyering, and anti-grandstanding. It's just a website. D.Shankbone, you've contributed a hell of a lot to this fucking website. I sure wish you'd lighten up on the noticeboards. Keeper ǀ 76 21:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for showing up and defending my talk page! I wasn't sure how much longer I could hold out against the onslaught of porn. NuclearWarfare contact me My work 20:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. I'm thinking a 100-kiloton rangeblock might be in order; let's see if he stops. Antandrus (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I was thinking something along those lines too, but of course, I'm not an admin ;) I do have to go offline for about six hours; could you semi-protect and watchlist my talk page for that long please? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me} _{My work} 20:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Done (both). Right now I'm looking at the last 5,000 edits from his 0/16 range to see if such a rangeblock would have any collateral damage (a check I wish more admins would do -- 5,000 anon-only recent changes is about three hours worth). I'm going off-line in a bit too. Antandrus (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! And 5000 edits! Is there some sort of tool that helps with that? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me} _{My work} 20:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes: just change the number in the URL line, i.e. [9] (you get the standard choices to 500: click one: then change the number in the URL and enter) Antandrus (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah, OK. Well, good luck with your mission and thank you again. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me} _{My work} 20:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Yay, you're are awesome! Block and Semi-Protect Userpage please (temp; less than 1 hour please). NuclearWarfare ^{contact me} _{My work} 18:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem! I semi-d your page for an hour and blocked the IP for three (that range is dynamic; he probably just has to reboot his router to get a new IP). I'm working on an article but every once in a while check my watchlist, which is how I noticed. Antandrus (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Great, a dynamic IP. Well, I guess I'll either have to live with it or use my unprotected talk page more often. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me} _{My work} 19:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Also, I need to write a thank you bot to run every hour or so ;) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me} _{My work} 19:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I think it owuld be best if I deleted the Master's Report. There are other things similar to it. So, If you know how to delete this user subpage, that would be great. Otherwise, tell me who can. BTW, will this hurt me in applying for adminship. Thanks.-- Master of Pies ( talk) 17:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings. I deleted it as you requested (user subpages can always be deleted by user request -- the only exception, and even that is sometimes allowed, is the main user talk page). As of applying for adminship, I'd advise against it. People who start new accounts and promptly apply for adminship are universally opposed. You need to accumulate many months (at least four, but preferably six or eight) of good work, including a mix of article-writing, anti-vandalism, common-sense helpfulness in project space, new user help, and a few other things before your RFA will be considered. Also it's ten times better to do all these things and then be noticed and nominated by someone else. And I need to tell you something else: it's more fun editing than being an admin. Your job as an admin, to quote a friend from the last Wikimedia get-together, is about as glamorous as walking around behind people picking up their garbage. Don't do it for the status -- there ain't none. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks, your awesome.-- Master of Pies ( talk) 22:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

How can I request that parts of an article be seperated into another article-- Master of Pies ( talk) 22:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Great. Thanks!-- Master of Pies ( talk) 22:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

How can i request protetion of a page?-- Master of Pies ( talk) 22:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for uploading Image:1925Earthquake2 SanMarcosAnapamuState.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 02:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello bot. Yes, I have uploaded my first ever fair-use image, and I repent in dust and ashes. Dust and ashes was the experience of everyone here in 1925 when the photograph was taken, for the entire town was destroyed. This is a photograph of unique historic significance, and I placed the appropriate fair use rationale in the image description. Thanks, especially to any humans reading this. Antandrus (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

What about sexy ancient beasts? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL -- I wonder if there's a Yahoo group for that. We could add it to the List of Sects Positions.  ;) Antandrus (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Wow. And your Brother Bot even removed the image from my sandbox page where I'm building the article. I'm impressed! Never having been on the receiving end of the Fair Use Firing Squad before, I think I just learned something. --No t that I think you're wrong or anything, -- I'm only using the earthquake image because it's two years from being public domain, and no free images exist -- but I can really see how this would be intimidating for a newbie. Antandrus (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

The problem seems to be that the image is not being used in an article. See WP:non-free content#policy item number 7. Asher196 ( talk) 03:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks: yes, I figured that out ... the image is just there temporarily because I'm building a long article in my sandbox (image obviously doesn't have to be anything but a placeholder for now). I didn't even realize the bot had come by, since my watchlist doesn't show bot edits. Antandrus (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Some Wikipedians have a note on thier talk page which is a direct link to leaving a message at the bottom of the page. How can I do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master of Pies ( talk • contribs)

Can you adopt me?-- Master of Pies ( talk) 21:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

:P —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:38 19 August, 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Either I was in a hurry or had had a beer too many. Likely both. Antandrus (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, it's him. Thanks for the help cleaning up after him. The Checkuser couldn't find any range to block. Or even any open proxies, so I'm not sure how he's accessing the web. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I really appreciated your help with that ( [10], [11]). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! -- I tried to hit him with the flyswatter but Luna was faster. Antandrus (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply

How do I start a WikiProject?-- Master of Pies ( talk) 01:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks Sam. Always happy to help.  :) Antandrus (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanking you for the great article on the history of Santa Barbara (and per your silent request) I hereby award you this tasty cookie. Yummy! :) - Darwinek ( talk) 10:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for blocking the IP who was vandalizing my talk page "Weird Al" style. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 02:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! Happy to help. Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

At first, I thought it was funny. Then it got old real quick. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 02:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah. User page vandals are about the worst and most stupidly disruptive types we get here. They're like ticks on the deer. I find the best way is to treat such incidents as evidence that you are doing something very, very right. Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I had my userpage protected months ago. Since then, my talk page has been hit off and on. I usually get a laugh out of it. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 02:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Can you help me edit this report I created.Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Blake the Third Thanks.-- Master of Pies ( talk) 03:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I was just accused of a ssp. HELP ME!-- Master of Pies ( talk) 21:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Will you testify for me?-- Master of Pies ( talk) 22:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply

You may wish to check out Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Master of Pies and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Master_of_Pies. Seems our friend here is very very guilty! Its a shame really :-( -- Anyway, good day and happy editing :-) John Sloan ( talk) 11:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I saw that last night before I signed off ... saddened, really. But that's the kind of thing that happens when you try to make a habit of assuming good faith. My take on it is he's a kid -- I'd guess 12, 13, or so -- who really does want to help, but he can't get past wanting to manufacture his own excitement, for instance by making vandals for himself to catch and report. As sockpuppeteers go, he's not one of the nasty ones. Kind of liked him. Oh well. Antandrus (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

It could be that "teeth" deal. I was going by the more general usage. Either way, hopefully that one editor "gets it" by now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks Antandrus! That means very, very much to me. I appreciate the compliments. I was honored to have nominated Gwen Gale alongisde you: she's been a wonderful admin. Acalamari 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your correction. Do you have a source for the 80,000 to 100,000 gallons? The 3 million figure was pure fantasy.

Greetings! Answered on your talk page. Coincidentally, I had just researched this a couple days ago. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

As a followup: 42 gallons in a barrel. That's where the confusion came in. 80,000 barrels is indeed about 3,000,000 gallons, more or less. Antandrus (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I enjoyed reading Wikipedia:OWB. Reading it was fun and calming at the same time. Thanks for writing it. -- Dominus ( talk) 19:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your good work. Did you consider to post the images to Commons so outher language versions could use them without uploading them seperately? -- Matthiasb ( talk) 09:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I should probably be uploading them all to Commons instead ... I usually don't think of it. I'll try to do it from now on. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, i noticed you blocked the user (please add this info on his talk), if you go through his/her contributions, you would notice he has created User talk (with welcome message) of users, who do not have a single edit on wikipedia. Those pages should be deleted too.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 16:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings. I thought about it, but didn't. The huge majority of users in the user creation log never edit (maybe 90%, but I've never done statistics to be precise). "Lovestudy" just put welcome templates in every consecutive user in yesterday's user creation log. Probably the right thing to do is delete all the ones for non-editors, but replace the welcome template with one from a "real" editor for any one of those users who has an actual edit. There's a thread about it here. Antandrus (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply

User:Kâras seems to be a sockpuppet of Lovestudty, she/he is adding the same edit summary and moving pages.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 13:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't worry, it's a great hook and I'm sure reviewers will be keen to feature it :) Enjoyed the article too, he sounds like quite a character! Gatoclass ( talk) 04:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

On 1 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jack Powers, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Gatoclass ( talk) 13:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your email concerning Yda Addis. The reason I want Yda Addis removed from Wikipedia is because those Wikipedian "editors" have encroached too many times on the Yda Addis article when they know absolutely nothing about Yda Addis. Then one Wikipedian "editor" requested the article be delited because there was not enough reference material to suppor the article. This kind of "stupid stuff" really gives Wikipedia a "black eye" and a bad reputation. I don't want Yda Addis to be associated with an organization that is so uneducated and unknowledable. Already the TV comdians like Bill Mahr and Jay Leno are continually saying that Wikipedia is just a bunch of lies. And now, the Wikipideian editors have proved them correct in their assumptions.I have spent many many years researching her and collecting her literature. If anyone knows about Yda Addis it is me, and only me about her personal life. I've researched everything on her from her birth to her escape from Santa Barbara. Yes, she was known as "the crazy lady of Santa Barbara" only when her ex-husband C.A. Storke, I'm sure you've heard of him if you live in SB, smeared her good name because Addis discovered that C.A. Storke murdered his former father-in-law on his Sespe Ranch. So Storke employed the "women are crazy" card to ruin Addis' good reputation. And now Wikipedia is doing the same thing. Addis' literature has just been anthologised in a creditble literary anthology; the L.A. times did an article on her last years; and the book I've written on her will be published soon, along a complete collection of her stories. Wikipedia is not worthy of her entry. On the other hand, Wikipedia can keep the article on Addis' father Alfred Shea Addis. I wrote that article also, and have put a few of his photographs in the article. Since I'm bot interested in photography, let those who are read the truth about Alfred Shea Addis. Regards, 76.0.216.117 ( talk) 18:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Chaos4tu ( talk) 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings -- thank you for your response. For the record, I sent no e-mail: my only note was on your talk page.

I do not see anything in the history to corroborate your claim 'one Wikipedian "editor" requested the article be delited because there was not enough reference material to suppor the article' -- it appears there was good-faith but mistaken speedy deletion attempt since you were the original author, blanking the article, and it had nothing to do with referencing. Unfortunately by the terms of the GFDL license we can't speedy delete an article when there have been multiple editors, unless the article fails our inclusion criteria for other reasons: so taking it to articles for deletion was the right thing to do. Still, I disagree with it being deleted, since even though you may think us "uneducated and unknowledgeable" we are trying to build an accurate and reliable encyclopedia, and Yda Addis is a topic of sufficient significance to merit inclusion. I suggest arguing your case at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yda_Hillis_Addis_(2nd_nomination). I have one other suggestion: if you are writing a book about her, wouldn't you want people to encounter a short but accurate article here to pique their interest? Many tens of millions of people visit Wikipedia, and we are often the top Google hit. Best regards, Antandrus (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yda Hillis Addis (2nd nomination) you wrote "now I'm wondering if it needs this salacious bit to spice it up." I think most articles need a little controversy or salaciousness to spice them up; that's why I included the parenthesis "or deliberate fraud" (supported by the source, of course) and the full title of Walker's translation in Maximianus (poet). :-) Deor ( talk) 01:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, there's an interesting book by R. M. Wilson, The Lost Literature of Medieval England (1952), that deals with what sort of material may have lain behind the bits that survive. Deor ( talk) 01:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I laughed. Thanks a lot. :) Glass Cobra 03:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It's a good thing I went with that and not what I originally typed in the block log ... :) (saying aloud: do not taunt the trolls. do not taunt the trolls. LOL) Antandrus (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Do you know it is quite annoying to see someone's new article is being labeled as "ridiculous" and "stupid"? One user User:Dr. Morbius left a comment in Talk:Crime in Oman labeling the article "ridiculous" and "stupid". I am trying to fill the gaps in Template:Crime in Asia. Can you comment at talk page of the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 03:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I did, and I left what I thought was a polite note on Dr. Morbius's talk page. If my memory of Forbidden Planet is any guide, the Id Monster will do more damage than the pickpockets in Oman, but we do what we can. (Of course his "Morbius" might refer to Dr. Who, which is entirely more pedestrian than the great 1950s Shakespeare paraphrase.) Hope it helps, Antandrus (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Good luck to you: I'm certain you will do just fine! Let me know if you have questions about anything, or need assistance. Antandrus (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for writing such a good piece. It's so good I'm planning to incorporate it into my admin coaching. Keep adding more maxims when they come up. Cheers, bibliomaniac 1 5 04:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:HotTopicLogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah robots. Didn't notice that not only did you not upload it, but that the reason the logo was orphaned was that the article was replaced by a spam marketing copy. Sigh. (fixed)

Hope your summer went well and things are looking good for the fall. Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks! and I hope yours went well too! There's musical projects in the works, and I did some writing here, on the History of Santa Barbara and other things. Good to see you back. -- I wish they'd program the bots to inform the original uploader only. Antandrus (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply

		The Special Barnstar
		For your essay on Wikipedia behaviour, which should be compulsory reading for all Wikipedians, especially admins! Grutness... wha? 00:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Antandrus - I've just found your essay after seeing a link to it on a process page. I would have to say that it is quite possibly the best Wikipedia essay I have ever read. As such, though you caution against praise and abuse that we should - in Kipling's words - "treat those two imposters just the same", I feel you deserve this... Grutness... wha? 00:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, I've just seen this. It's outstanding. Congratulations. -- JackofOz ( talk) 02:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

It may sound a bit extreme, but I'd put a short (2-3 hour) full protection on her talk page, too. It's been one hell of a battle there as well. Kww ( talk) 03:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Time for full protection ... just rolled back Talk:Miley Cyrus again. Kww ( talk) 03:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry no barnstars. Just a good old fashioned thanks to both of you, you're doing a great job. JBsupreme ( talk) 22:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks JB ... the old-fashioned kind is pretty good.  :)

Following on your ANI comment, yeah, it's a delicate issue deciding when to go with long-term protection, since our protection policy advises to keep things unprotected as much as we possibly can. That particular article does seem to be a magnet for disruptive editors, and last night's attack was obviously orchestrated off-site. Tabloids even reported that the rumor "has been published in Wikipedia" -- which is bullshit, because we crushed it like a cockroach -- it reminds me of that scene in The Grapes of Wrath where the troublemakers are caught and suppressed before they can start the fight that the cops already "know" is going to happen. Unfortunately we will see more and more of this kind of thing, since Wikipedia is so widely read, especially on current topics. Antandrus (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

One followup from me ... we basically got a good list of editors that are willing to participate in 4chan attacks last night, but only dealt out one block. That seems like a bit of an underreaction. Kww ( talk) 22:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I blocked Chaosman666 ( talk · contribs) last night for creating Hannah Montana Dead. He had no other edits, but fell into an autoblock. Acroterion _(talk) 22:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The ones that concern me are Burningacorn, Geoking66, and Treenuh: established editors, here for months and years, but acted in a fashion that can't possibly be mistaken for gullible people asking on a talk page. Kww ( talk) 22:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree with you -- Geoking in particular disturbed me with his "little brother" variety of excuse. This is disturbing. I was going to block the rest, but they seemed to give up and go away once her article was protected. Since they were copying and pasting the same text, it was obviously coordinated offsite, probably 4chan as you point out (I didn't go there to see for myself). Google news gives you a bunch of tabloid stories about the hoax. Thanks all of you. Antandrus (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Just found out about the hoax. Good call on extending the protection, though I'm a little curious as to the length. WAVY 10 Fan ( talk) 14:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I made it completely move-protected, but semiprotected for a year, since prior to two nights ago it was already on long-term semiprotect. Would you rather it was different? When unprotected the article gets torn to shreds by anons. Protection policy specifically allows long-term semiprotect in this case. Full protection is really only for emergencies, and the hoax was a good example of one. Antandrus (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Ha ha haaaa! That would be SO sweet! Next let's edit petroleum to say that the price per barrel is $1.50 and then [edit=sysop, move=sysop] it!

I protected the article about the atom smasher (I can't remember its name) earlier today for the same reason as I did CERN, but I decided to actually say what I was thinking this time.

I mean, come on, do you really think we, mere humans, can replicate the energies of cosmic particles that were shot out of supernovae??! Thousands upon thousands of those impact Earth every day, and, well, I'm right here typing this now...... J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Can you identify any of these Renaissance 'type' images on flickr from the Museu Gulbenkian? They are very intriguing and I just noticed that the license is free meaning it can be placed on Commons: [12], [13], [14], [15] or [16] But I don't know if these images are needed on Wikipedia....the Renaissance is not my specialty. Thank You, -- Leoboudv ( talk) 03:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Number four is Saint Martin, French and dated to 1531 (you can read a little about it here); number three is the only one I recognized, Diana, from France around the time of the Revolution [17]. For the others I'd recommend posting on the Reference Desk (Humanities) where there will be a regular feeding-frenzy of people trying to get them first.  :) Antandrus (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Thank you. I didn't know who to contact about such unique images. So I felt I should contact an expert like you. With kind Regards, -- Leoboudv ( talk) 04:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Happy to help, even though it wasn't much -- and thanks for the compliment! -- though my knowledge of art history is not what I'd like it to be. Best, Antandrus (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Dear Antandrus, I figured out the identity of another sculptor in my previous post But my questions on the humanities desk about the identities on these 2 sculptures have not been answered: [18] and [19] That was 12+ hours ago and other people who have asked questions there before and after me have had them answered. Do you know anyone who has an expertise on scupltors or Renaissance art who could take a crack at answering my question? Perhaps you know someone since the arts seems to be your field of study. If you don't know anyone, please feel free to let me know. I have one general rule: never place images whose identities I don't know on Commons...and I always follow it. Why? Because then I couldn't properly catalogue them there....like I did for this image here: Image:"L'amour à la folie" by Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux.jpg and no one could find it. Thank You, -- Leoboudv ( talk) 21:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hmmm. I would try asking one of our local polymaths, for example User:Wetman, User:Geogre, or User:Giano II. An advantage of trying direct talk-page communication is that a lot of people with expertise in the area will be watchlisting their pages: I wouldn't be surprised if someone who chats with those folks regularly would be able to help. (I doubt many people watchlist my page.) Hope this helps! Oh, of course you could e-mail the museum directly ... but I don't know if they have the staff to answer e-mails, especially in English. Regards, Antandrus (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for the kind tip. Regards, from Canada -- Leoboudv ( talk) 22:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• The first image was a portrait of Hugo: Image:1886 Victor Hugo bust by Auguste Rodin.jpg according to a visitor to Wetman's site. No knows about the second image. So, I won't touch it at present. Cheers, -- Leoboudv ( talk) 18:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Excellent -- glad someone there was able to help. The second image just seems so maddeningly familiar, but I can't pin it down. Antandrus (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Just asked Geogre here if he knows who it is. If not, I'll give up...since I mostly edit on Ancient Egypt anyway. This flickr contributor caught my eye because he had some beautiful images of Egyptian objects from Gulbenkian like this: Image:Bronze Saite era art of an Egyptian cat in the Gulbenkian Museum.jpg or this Image:Gulbenkian Egypt5.jpg...and all his flickr images from other places (not just this Museum) are licensed freely. So, I thought I should add his other Museum images here onto Commons like this Image:1788 'Apollo' sculpture by Jean-Antoine Houdon.jpg, Image:Portrait of a Young Woman by Domenico Ghirlandaio.jpg or this Image:Gold and enamel pectoral by René Lalique.jpg. It turned out none of these other images were on Commons when I checked for them there first. That bust is the last one and the most difficult thing to identify. The person looks important but I am not a European art expert sadly. Regards, -- Leoboudv ( talk) 20:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Multitasking-Rn't-Us. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks, you're too kind. I'm sure that's many people's experience, Antandrus. I'd be sad if TV were abolished (not that I watch a great deal of it), but if radio were abolished I think I'd cut my throat. I really meant what I said about what little I know. Sure, I've managed to learn all the core stuff that most aficionados are aware of, but I am constantly finding out about new composers, new works - well, not necessarily new at all, but new to me. See the above thread (on my talk page, not yours, silly) about George Lloyd, for example. I know his name, and a little about his life, but to my knowledge I've never heard a note of his music. About 2 years ago I acquired the score for the complete 555 Scarlatti sonatas. There's a lifetime's study in that lot alone. The vast majority of them I had never heard anywhere. Btw, can you recommend a piano recording of the complete set, if it exists? Various people have done bits and pieces. I know Scott Ross did them all on a harpsichord, but that's not my thing, I'm afraid. (And even if I did enjoy the harpsichord in more than 2-minute stretches, I probably wouldn't listen to Scott Ross anyway because he said that Glenn Gould knew nothing about Bach !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). Cheers. -- JackofOz ( talk) 23:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I really don't keep close tabs on most living composers. The last major new work by Sculthorpe I can recall hearing was his Requiem (2004), with a prominent part for didgeridoo. Fascinating. Not quite my scene, but fascinating. I'm always interested in what Elena Kats-Chernin brings out, though. -- JackofOz ( talk) 23:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Regarding your block comment, I gave a 31-hour block to 209.29.44.0/24 at the same time, so consider him double-blocked:) Will probably hop to his other favorite range, so 209.29.46.0/24 may be next. DMacks ( talk) 03:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

No objection to killing .46. now--concurred that there's nothing useful from that range tonight. No idea how far the guy can hop. Is there a way to see an edit-history from a range (vs having to check each IP in that range)? I'm off for next bunch of hours, so can't deal with it any more now. DMacks ( talk) 04:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, as I suspect you see a fair few pages in your wiki-travels and can see you have thoughts on the bigger picture. In efforts to counteract systemic bias with sticks rather than carrots (and seeing what non-obscure stubs remain out there), i have listed a minicompetition of sorts here, so I'd be intrigued what comes up. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

On 19 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ellwood Oil Field, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt ( talk) 00:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you Cirt! appreciate that. Antandrus (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I am confused as to why you blocked Algarve Fan Person. I don't understand the reason you gave for blocking, which just lists "troll" and some names I don't recognize, and I see only constructive edits in his history. What happened here? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JeanLatore, look at the history of Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia, the contribution history of User:Algarve Fan Person. You could ask for a checkuser, but I prefer to use the duck test rather than waste a lot of time. I've been blocking this person's sockpuppets for three years now -- they quack. Antandrus (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

That makes sense, thanks. Sorry to bother you about it, I was just concerned and confused. I've been on a couple of duck hunts myself, so I know how there can be cues that make no sense to anyone else but are plainly obvious once you've seen the pattern of behavior. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem ... I know there's no way that any individual admin can keep track of all of our persistent troublemakers; I guess we end up being specialists in a few. There are people with ten filed checkuser cases that I've only just heard about for the first time ... Antandrus (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

i am sorry about that i fix it tommow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminzygs ( talk • contribs)

Hi there. I was reading User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior, which I found from User:FayssalF/Civility_pages. The following was interesting: "Conflict is as addictive as cocaine, and unfortunately Wikipedia's civility policies only limit incivility among those who respect them in the first place, and who have the personal strength not to need to retaliate." Would you be interested in looking at or contributing to the discussions at WT:CIV? The threads at the bottom of that page cover discussion over the last few days. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes. I have ideas but no answers. "Civility" is one of the most subtle, tangled, and contentious issues recently on the project, and while I've read Giano and Geogre and a few others on the subject, I still feel it is a "policy". Yet it is one that is undefinable -- there is no "bright line" for what is incivil and what is not, and often that distinction is the difference between a block and a shrug. It seems to me that it is our one policy that is completely on the honor-system; compliance is voluntary; and being civil in one's interactions with other users is a sign of personal strength. Just my opinion. I'll have a look at the discussion. Thanks for alerting me to it! Antandrus (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I missed your comment about "edit of the year" for some reason. Yes, that takes the biscuit. We don't need no stinkin' Koechel Catalogue when we have List of Pokemon Episodes by Number of Pixels. In other news, some people are getting very het up about the colour of paperclips, the most pressing issue of our time (no link - to protect the innocent). Cheers. -- Folantin ( talk) 09:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Paperclips? You mean stubs, surely? :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 11:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry! Butting out now... reply

I'm butting out of there too. I underestimated the amount of "emotional investment" some people have in stationery supplies. -- Folantin ( talk) 12:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh yes. I just read through that last night. (While somehow I got demoted to "inactive" on that project, I keep the page on my watch list.) One of the amazing things about this place is how angry people can become over small things. -- I'm guilty too: I was getting so furious at the <must not be incivil> who insists that we should not list the contents of the Köchel catalogue, and that the catalogue itself is not notable, that I had to walk away so I wouldn't reach for my axe handle next. Which I feel like doing more and more often in general, as we seem to be playing more "defense" than adding new content, these days. Those passionate disagreements over small things are part of having too much "emotional investment" in this project, and it can be quite insidious, how the interest compounds on that investment after years. As long as anyone can edit, anyone does edit, and there will be an inexhaustible supply of ignoranti to infuriate people who actually know something about a topic. Did you follow the recent thread on the Bach talk page, in which we are being advised to look for "rivals to his harmonic and motivic organisation" among 18th century non-western composers? It buggers, oops meant beggars, the imagination. Antandrus (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I'm having to remove various pages from my watchlist because I simply don't have the time to deal with this kind of craziness. "We are being advised to look for 'rivals to his harmonic and motivic organisation' among 18th century 'non-western' composers". And I suppose we should now go to the articles on Matsuo Basho, Buson and Issa and complain that their reputations are being "bigged up" at the expense of 17th and 18th century European haiku poets. The Occidentalism on those pages is outrageous! After all, "I really don't care about Japanese poetry... But consistent enforcement of policy is important". -- Folantin ( talk) 14:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Antandrus, long time no see. My activity level here has become rather diminutive, but when I drop in once in a while it's always a solace to see you still around. In the context of the long-overdue attention to a few behavior-related topics, I have rediscovered your thoughts and would just like to thank you for it. The trigger-happy wikilaw enforcement troops will of course happily ignore such, as it's never been approved through their favourite processes. On a very tangentially related note, your input on this little whim of mine would be much appreciated. Not that it matters much. Cordially, Kosebamse ( talk) 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi! I do not know what the deleted version was like, but I came upon the article hoping to add the information I posted on the talk page as seen at Talk:Nathan Hale (Game Character). I found that he made a top five list, information on who voices him, some comments from a section of an article titled "Getting To Know Nathan Hale" in a published magazine on his development and reception. If this information is worthwhile to somehow add to what was deleted to make it a balanced article, great, if not no big deal, but I hope that helps in some capacity. -- 24.154.173.243 ( talk) 00:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings! Here is the complete content of the deleted article: "Nathan hale is the protagonist of the Playstation 3 game Resistance: Fall of Man he killed like every chimera in england and then he went to america to win again." There were three hard returns after "Fall of Man". There was only one edit, so no missing revisions. Feel free to use that information in any way if you want to recreate the article with more content. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I'll try to incorporate it into my draft on the talk page and if anyone thinks it is worth restoring, I'll let them as I wouldn't want the author of the above to not be acknowledge. Thanks again! -- 24.154.173.243 ( talk) 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, as a previous contributor, pls check out my enquiry at Talk:Virgil Exner#Design work. Cheers, Bjenks ( talk) 05:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Antrandrus, Thank you for your message. I'm pleased to note that you are the first administrator to actually realize that I was never intending to be disruptive. From the outset, I was intending to fix up the centrifugal force article. I have made my position on that quite clear. There should be one single centrifugal force article. It should have a basic introduction as is found in most mainstream encyclopaediae along the lines of ' - -the outward force that is associated with rotation --'. Then there should be sections to deal with simple examples in circular motion, centrifuge machines, centrifugal potential energy, the more complicated elliptical and hyperbolic scenarios in planetray orbital theory, and perhaps even a section on how centrifugal force extends into relativity.

That was all that I was ever trying to do. But I was continually ganged up against by a group who were determined to play down any references to scenarios that overtly exposed centrifugal force as an actual outward acting force.

As for the spurious term 'reactive centrifugal force', it does not appear in the literature and at any rate it stands in a relationship to centrifugal force exactly as weight stands to gravity. It would be dealt with in a special section on artificial gravity in a single united centrifugal force article.

On the Mozart issue, I was only reading it in passing and I noticed that there had been a dispute over his nationality. I happened to know the whole story and I tried to introduce compromise wording in order to give equal weight to both 'German' and 'Austrian', but there was a group who ganged up against me (with the exception of Blehfu who encouraged me and then double crossed me). They wouldn't tolerate any mention of Mozart being a German. The centrifugal force dispute began early in 2007. I used IP servers and signed with my real name, but I didn't use a username.

Let's now deal with the issue of sockpuppet abuse and block evasion. Earlier this year, I decided to tidy up the Lorentz Force, Maxwell's Equations, and Faraday's Law articles. At first I simply used IP servers without giving a name because I didn't want to draw attention to the gang that had ganged up against me on the centrifugal force article the year before. I then tried out a few alias usernames and settled on George Smyth. I engaged in absolutely no abuse with that username. When I was nearly finished on the EM articles, I decided to return one more time to centrifugal force. I decided also that I would use my real name for the purpose. As you can see, I was immediately ganged up against again. Whereas, with George Smyth, I made substantial edits which have remained, with my real name that was not the case. With my real name on the 'centrifugal force' article, not one single edit stuck. There was a gang, often involving editors who had never even before been on the centrifugal force page, who persistantly deleted any edit that I made, no matter how accurate or well sourced that it was. And then the administrtors entered on their side and began blocking. They blocked on spurious grounds and then used previous blocks as evidence of a long block history.

I was finally blocked for three months, ostensibly for an edit on the Mozart page, but in reality it was because of the edit war on centrifugal force. I appealed using the normal procedures, but the appeals were declined on spurious grounds such as that I hadn't admitted liability. I then had my right to appeal removed. Meanwhile, a new user was arguing on the centrifugal force page and he was also arguing that the article should be united. It was only then that I went back to one of those early throw-away usernames from March 2008 in order to speak to him directly on his talk page. I made a deliberate point of not going on the main article in order to avoid engaging in block evasion. When I used an IP server to ask an administrator to unprotect my talk page, rather that look into the issue about why my talk page was protected, he decided to do a checkuser. He saw that I had been talking to Fugal and he blocked me permanently.

It is clear that many admins have lost sight of the higher picture here. They don't appear to be interested in the serious ownership issues which are going on. You can see it all for yourself. Watch how Wolfkeeper guards the article. He is the one that split it all up. He is the one that continually argues that his limited 'rotating frames of reference' aspect constitutes centrifugal force in the main. He was one of the chief offenders who consistently removed all my edits on the main article. Take a look at the end of July. I put in a fully sourced alteration to the introduction and Wolfkeeper swooped in and deleted it. At first he even admitted that he had no grounds to remove it, but after a few hours of deliberation, he removed it. Watch how Wolfkeeper swiftly removed all my comments from the talk page yesterday. And watch how an anonymous with a 71 IP server inserted comments without signing and aligned them with my comments. I tried to de-align them and Brews ohare re-aligned them and inserted my IP server number below them as if to imply that it was me that had written them. The administrators need to wake up to who the real villains are on the centrifugal force page. Your rules say that blocks are designed to prevent vandalism and not to punish. Why have I been blocked indefinitely then? I'm not a vandal. I use many internet cafes in many countries. If I was a vandal, I could easily have done endless damage. When I have been blocked, apart from on one occasion in May when I was blocked by an admin who was involved in the dispute and who blocked me on totally spurious grounds, I have only indulged in block evasion sparingly and responsibly in order to communicate with other editors.

Yesterday, I was compelled to enter the arena because Brews ohare was trying to insinuate that Fugal was alone in his opposition to the article. If I were to be unblocked, I doubt if I would attempt to alter the main article on centrifugal force again unless I saw some kind of consensus emerging for a new way forward. I would however not hesitate to enter the debate on the discussion page again and to make edits on other articles. I'd like the slate to be wiped clean. The other usernames (Smyth and West) are finished. Smyth was never in any way involved in sockpuppet abuse. Anyway, it's up to you. At least you could see that my involvement was constructive. I was trying to give advice on how to simplify the article because the ongoing argument between Wolfkeeper&/Brews v. Fugal was becoming long winded and boring. You must be the first admin who has actually looked at the content of my edits rather than fishing for some grounds upon which to block me. FDT 81.152.104.240 ( talk) 09:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, the debate on the discussion page of centrifugal force which has dragged on now for weeks between Brews ohare&Wolfkeeper v. Fugal is over a single key issue. If I have understood it correctly, Fugal is trying to say that the centrifugal force which occurs in polar coordinates is the same centrifugal force that occurs in the study of rotating frames of reference. If I have picked that up correctly, then Fugal is absolutely correct. And this is an issue which is crucial, because on ascertaining that Fugal is correct, it will remove the basis for having forked the topic into so many subsidiaries.

There can be no hope of creating a reasonable article on centrifugal force until it has all been brought back unto one page, and it is essential that Fugal gets his point over clearly as a first step to that end. At the moment he is being given an endless run around by the two owners who know that he cannot reduce the topic into one article without their consent.

If I was in the debate, I would be raising the point that the centrifugal force of polar coordinates is the one that is used in planetary orbital theory and that it is the one and only centrifugal force.

The arguments being put forward by Brews ohare as to why the two centrifugal forces are different, clearly indicate that he doesn't have a grasp of the subject. Wolfkeeper on the other hand would appear to have a better grasp of the topic, but he has dug in as a matter of principle since he was responsible for fragmenting the article in the first place.

The planetary orbital topic is crucial but as you can see it was consistently rejected on the spurious grounds that it wasn't sourced, even though I supplied very reliable university textbook sources. Administrative action is necessary in that debate. I'm sorry that Trovatore disappeared after his brief intervention two weeks ago. He is a maths professor who had clearly spotted the mistake, but then he disappeared.

If it's against the rules for me to communicate with you in this fashion, then you can e-mail me and we can negotiate the matter. I can no longer appeal the block in the legitimate fashion because my talk page was protected. 86.150.86.57 ( talk) 22:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi [redacted],

I can't overturn a community ban. Only the community can. Please see our guide to appealing blocks and bans.

Having only had two years of undergraduate physics, I am not competent to judge the merits of either side of the content dispute on centrifugal force and its related articles. All I can say about it is it appears to me that you are editing in good faith there, in that your interest is in improving the encyclopedia, but seem to have worn out the patience of other editors in that you aren't listening to them, and seem to be accusing them of various bad-faith activities. Anyhow I don't want to lecture you. Read the WP:GAB link above, for it has very good advice. If you are willing to comply with it you might be able to persuade the community to restore your editing privileges.

Technically I suppose it's "against the rules" to communicate this way, but I don't mind explaining policies to anyone, banned, blocked, or whatever. I'd rather all communication was transparent, e.g. anyone can read this page.

Your talk page was protected by another administrator. One thing I can do is post a note on protecting administrator's page that you would like it to be unprotected, so you can present your case. You are also welcome to e-mail the unblock list (the link appears on the "you are blocked" page). Before doing any of those things though -- please consider the possibility that no one is "ganging up on you", no one is trying to suppress information, there is no conspiracy, there is no bunch of administrators "closing ranks", it just might be something about the way you are coming across. Regards, Antandrus (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, Thanks for your reply. I’ll look into those methods that you advised me about because I want to get back into the centrifugal force debate again. It has reached a crucial stage, and at the moment Wolfkeeper has got an unfair advantage by having the liberty to erase my comments from the talk page at will.

On the issue of ‘community ban’, I’m not sure that that is exactly what I am under as such. I was blocked for three months but it was extended to indefinite for block evasion. I contacted Fugal on his talk page. I did so because if I had waited for the three months, the chances are that he would already have left the scenes in the belief that nobody else supported his position. Hence it was important that I contacted him immediately, and I had no other way to do so since I don’t have his e-mail address. I told the administrator who extended my block to indefinite that I hadn’t actually engaged in block evasion for the purpose of editing the articles. An extension to indefinite for that reason seems a bit harsh. It’s hardly a punishment to fit the crime, but it was no doubt done because he had believed all the allegations that I had been disruptive. I also thought that the standard punishment for block evasion was to extend the block by the associated amount of time and not to extend it indefinitely.

Anyway, the reason for this edit war was because other editors wrongly believed that my objections to the article were based on unsourced original research and they made that allegation loudly and repeatedly to the extent that it was believed by the administrators. But all I was doing was objecting to the distinction that was being made in the introduction between fictitious centrifugal force and reactive centrifugal force. I wanted a simplified general introduction with the details covered in separate sections. I wanted to point out that what they called ‘reactive centrifugal force’ only ever exists when there is centrifugal force to begin with and that it is only the knock on effect just as weight is to gravity. And any attempts which I made to introduce examples that overtly emphasized actual outward radial acceleration in connection with rotation were swiftly erased because it didn’t suit their own particular prejudices. I tried to draw attention to the well known Newton’s Bucket argument which demonstrates that centrifugal potential energy only exists when actual rotation occurs, but it was always swiftly deleted. And there was an editor called ‘Itub’ who actually tried to tell us all that rotation is not needed for centrifugal force, and he was taken seriously and allowed to erase all my edits. I think that everybody can now see that a few other editors have passed by and pointed out the same errors and that the article is indeed seriously flawed. 86.150.86.57 ( talk) 01:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, thanks for intervening anyway. I will now go and talk to the Anome directly. I think I can sort this problem out. 86.150.86.57 ( talk) 13:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Stalking, eh? Be careful, or I'll turn you into an admin. Oops, I forgot, you are an admin. Well, is my face red-white-and-blue, or what? No surprise at all there about the stats. Contrast that with this, which I'm just pleased has a few measly hits: [20] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for your recent participation in the AFD which closed with a snow result of Keep. Unfortunately, the nominator is not content with this consensus and is now proposing that the article be merged. Please see discussion. Colonel Warden ( talk) 20:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I also emailed a friendly CU to see what can be done about a rangeblock there. See if that helps at all... Giggy ( talk) 23:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, I had thought there there was a hope of reconciliation and a second chance. The Anome responded favourably to your request to unprotect my talk page. I genuinely believed that I was about to be unblocked, and I had made it clear that I was not going to go back unto the main article of centrifugal force until a consensus had been reached. I made it clear that I believed that I could direct the participants to that end in a matter of weeks. We all know that the original reason for me being blocked no longer holds. It was believed that I was working against a consensus. The balance on the edit war has now shifted in my favour and I have also pledged to be more mindful of the consensus policy. But then we get an administrator such as Sandstein who comes along and spoils it with a cheap and flippant remark like 'This appeal is too long'. And he further exposes his petty bullying nature by locking my IP server under the fiction that I was engaging in block evasion by having communicated with him. It's editors like Sandstein that destroy wikipedia. I'm writing to you one more time to see if you can overturn Sandstein's decision. I don't see why you couldn't. Administrators like Sandstein need to be stood up to. You have proved yourself to be reasonable. You know the truth behind this edit war. You know that my edits were designed to bring about a coherent and unified article on centrifugal force. You cannot let administrators like Sandstein get away with their flippant childish bullying tactics. I'll leave the matter in your hands. FDT 86.147.189.156 ( talk) 10:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply