User talk:Antandrus/Archive35

Archive 35: August 2010 through the end of December 2010. Please do not edit this page -- use my regular talk page instead, as I will not see your message here.

Thanks for your typo fixing, etc.

Hi! I just finally noticed your typo-fixing and compliment from 2 1/2 months ago -- thanks for it! The page is currently just a set of gripes and thoughts, but maybe someday I will actually organize it. I think that the key (according to me) is: (1) be nice, (2) know what you are doing, and (3) have fun... which really seems so common sense that no one should need to say it, but alas I find that I often do. Awickert (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, greetings! Some of my favorite people here are the philosophers, and those who step back for the bigger look. I love it when I stumble upon a page of insights like yours. Indeed -- 1,2,3 are it. So many people (including me) start to take this place too damn seriously after a while, and No. 3 goes first, followed closely by No. 1, unless one is inhumanly saintly. We do this for the love of it, right? All the best -- Antandrus (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I'm here at least: it's fun to share knowledge, and I've definitely learned more than I've given out in my time here. Plus, it's a near certainty that more people will read what I write here than my actually scientific work.

Never thought of myself as the philosopher type; I guess that having fun is just my priority above almost all else, and I have trouble understanding why so many people have so much trouble enjoying a place like this. Keep smiling, Awickert (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill

On 12 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and thanks for the ride! ----moreno oso (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you both. -- Sigh. Don't know why that stressed me out so much; maybe because it's one of the first articles I've written in a while on something of actual significance to a lot of people, and is applicable to present-day events? Most of the time I labor in the corner unseen -- I know, who really cares about obscure Renaissance composers but a handful of caffeine-crazed geeks cloistered in concrete towers (banish illusions of ivory, I've lived there, been there, done that, and I know better; nothing "ivory" about it). Drop me a line any time if you've written something you think would be a good nom. Antandrus (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listen buddy, this bear doesn't exactly wear a tutu and dance in the limelight either. I may work on another article tomorrow and give you a shout. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess I should say that I do wear a red cape and dress like a panda. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, PMDrive1061 was thankful you remembered him on my talkpage (although he called you an Ant). I am going to start working on my next DYK make that will improve Roberto Cantoral. ----moreno oso (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great guy. We used tag and bag a lot of vandals and trolls; I'd still remember a lot of them by style, but if they haven't grown up after five years something's seriously not right. I'm trying to go back to writing content mostly. Antandrus (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to say hi on his talkpage. Some of the vandals lately have been returning and haunting him. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I've known PM for awhile (seems like forever as I remember him as a vandal fighter). Like you, I've branched out to article improvement which he now lists big time on his userpage. Never knew he did so much. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, he's written great stuff. Ridge Route is the one I remember best; it was featured way back when in 2004 when we were fighting a ridiculous undergraduate delinquent named "Mr. Treason" whose shtick was to threaten us all with lawsuit in a courtroom in Trenton, New Jersey (see here for an in-joke that the no-humor-allowed crew has since removed). Ah, good times. Wonder what ever happened to that kid. Antandrus (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to tell him. I'm laughing at the Trenton joke and I wasn't even there. He did Ridge Route? Wow! ----moreno oso (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Cantoral article

I'm starting to lose that lovin' feeling. I've been flipping back and forth between Spanish dailies and my eyes are backing up. I want to post my work now as if the history is right, tomorrow which actually began at 5 PM our time, the article needs the DYK make before the day ends. I am not sure what I have to do tomorrow as I've got a couple of irons in the fire. I may try to figure out some DYK hooks for you to use in nominating its creator and me. I really like the two citations I added to his lede and one about his donating a song's proceeds to UNICEF. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to look at the DYK rules but I think Scanlan might qualify for the DYK make too. He just about doubled the creator's work. If anyone might know, he would as he does a lot of DYKs. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I suggest as the DYK nom for Cantoral (please note that you will have to change the time you put it):

Roberto Cantoral

... that versions of Roberto Cantoral's songs have been recorded over 1,000 times by other artists like Placido Domingo, José José, Luis Miguel, Joan Báez and Linda Ronstadt? New, created by Mjs1991 (talk) moreno oso (talk) Nominated by Antandrus (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

ALT1 ...that Roberto Cantoral donated the proceeds from "Pobre navidad" to worldwide children institutions such as UNICEF and his song, "Plegaria de paz" was broadcast "three consecutive years at the Vatican"?

ALT2 ...that Roberto Cantoral won the Latin Grammy Trustee Award and received medals of merit from Adolfo López Mateos and Tito?

Done ... sorry, have had like no time today, busy at work, but hell I'm grateful to have a job in present times. Antandrus (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. And, looks like PMDrive was by. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, shucks...

Thanks for the kind words. While you've been writing, I've been whacking vandals. Damn, I can't believe it's been six years since I did the Ridge Route feature. Need to do another feature. Soon. Thank God that Wiki brah numbskull has been consigned to the dustbin of history. It's bad enough dealing with the ED and 4chan attacks, not to mention the Bambifan101 fiasco. See WP:LTA/BF101 to see what I mean. I've basically given up regarding this individual. I simply don't want to play his stupid game anymore and I am going to be doing some serious writing and updating once I finish some side projects which actually have compensation attached. :) Stay in touch, OK? It was a real pleasure hearing from you. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Michael Hyman DYK nom, Pt 2

I've been working on Eugene Michael Hyman trying to clean it up and provide some more reliable citations that can be used for an ALT2 and ALT3 hooks. Like your nom, I am surprised this didn't get picked up but AfDs will delay the nom until closed. Looks like the nom has been forgotten and my other two noms on more recent days/subjects probably overshadow this one. I had hoped to get the ALT hooks in by 11 am PST today which is a great time for older noms to get looked at. I've been sidetracked and hope to make the 5 pm PST next DYK page change-over time. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my first post here on your talkpage about Charlie Sheen, I mentioned that I had found a URL that detailed what the judge said about his case. Guess what? The URL is dead. However, using Scroogle as per my userpage, I found several other sources to include the Hyman's website where he posted a link to the original URL in his Curriculum Vitae. Two of the links have blog in them but other podcast/video sites also list the same video where he talks about Sheen's case. I post here because it might get challenged and I wanted to use it as one of the hooks along with Chris Brown/Rhianna. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying out Scroogle. Thanks for mentioning it to me as I'd never heard of it. Clever; having looked at their home page now I understand how it works. Like you, it's been bothering me how much data Google collects; in the coming decades privacy will become as endangered a commodity as clean air, clean water, and old-growth forests. Antandrus (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I detest Google's data retention. Next to Microsoft, Google retains way too much info. I really like the way Scroogle highlights the search terms: get max colors, i.e. three for Judge Eugene Hyman, and you're almost golden. You know, I've seen this guy on TV. I get the Bay Area stations and seem to remember that KCBS commented that he made an unusual ruling in February 2010 and defended another judge from the bench which is highly unusual. As per the cites I just put to his article, a judicial boycot usually is frowned upon by the system but puts a "chill" on the judge in question. Their comment if I remember it correctly was that a boycotted judge becomes the "odd man out" and other judges will go out of their way to dissacssociate themselves. Guess this guy has balls. I am going to do the ALT hooks after two more cites. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I demo'ed Scroogle to another editor on my talkpage. He had a couple of stub userspace articles he couldn't find stuff on. Using Scroogle, he got at least two DYKs that he told me about. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read this? Cheezus.

I occasionally baffle my friends with things like ... "I'm going hiking in the mountains for a couple days ... no, I'm not telling anyone where I'm going, that's the point ... not safe? Look, have you ever felt the sheer pleasure of knowing that not another person on earth knows where you are or what you are doing, and no one can stick an ad in front of you, or track you in a database? No? Oh well..." Antandrus (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how much of that is true? Googlestalked, googlecleaner - yup, kind of fits the data retention model. Don't know if you seen it yet, but Scroogle likes to poke fun at Wikipedia and Jimbo from time to time with those cartoons or pictures under the search box. I like the one of Jimbo in the red Nehru jacket and how it ties into their poking of China ala Google's data policies. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the ALT hooks at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Eugene_Michael_Hyman. The page gets action now and til about 5 pm when the next change-over takes place (not that I hawk that). Hopefully, he will get picked up but the competition is fierce that day. I'm really bummed by PMDrive. I wish I had some whiskey. I almost drank myself blind the other night thinking about the ex. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you there. Fortunately I have people coming over for dinner in a few minutes, I have to start cooking, so I won't start up that cycle of thoughts about her that makes me reach for the special cupboard. So it goes; universal pain for a universal experience. In spite of all the platitudes in popular culture about "true love" and "forever" all love ends in departure or death, and that which only ends in departure leaves you alive to be a fool once more. But don't listen to my windy cynicism -- what do I know. Antandrus (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck - you didn't invite me? I'm crushed. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I thought about your words about relationships last night for "too long" a period. A lot of my friends would like to see me remarried and I thought I had found "the one". Yes, love is somewhat fleeting. And, there's a great chance I'll see her today when friends gather. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Hyman got picked up overnight. I was kind of worried about this one being overshadowed by two other DYK noms I made. I actually retracted a sure win one because another editor tripped me up both on the article and nom. I've learned from making noms that when an editor does things like editting an article that is a hook and then going on the DYK talkpage to dispute the hook, is not a good thing that I want to be a part of. Thanks for your help, both with this and PMDrive. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- I felt obligated in that case. Good to see Hyman being picked up; it's become apparent to me it takes a little while. As of next article, I have a few small things sputtering along in my user space, that maybe some day I'll get excited about and finish (I'm up to /temp9 -- I tend to be lousy about finishing stuff I start -- a criticism I vividly remember from a second-grade teacher). I need a couple new article ideas, maybe related to California geography / history. I notice the Rio Vista Gas Field doesn't have an article (that's the largest natural gas reservoir in the state). Most of the stuff I've been writing has been within easy day-trip range so I can go and take pictures. Haven't had much time except on weekends recently. Antandrus (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way I heard it is your kindergarten teacher almost flunked you for finger painting as well. ;) ----moreno oso (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was for hurling the paint bucket against the wall. I'd heard of Jackson Pollock at home, but hadn't quite got the technique down. I got sent to the principal's office a lot in those days. Antandrus (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I loved seeing his work at the Norton Simon Museum. I'm trying to think of the guy who did "At Five in the Afternoon". Might have been him. . . ----moreno oso (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PMDdrive

PMDrive just hung it up again. I just peeked at my Watchlist. Wonder what got to him now. He's been fighting some nasty vandals and socks. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He does that. He has a temper; usually he comes back though. Let me have a look ... Antandrus (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to him. Looks like from his talkpage, someone impersonated him and Wikipedia refused to get involved. Another editor suggested a way to combat the issue. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh. I've been impersonated all over the place -- just look at how many different Wikimedia projects have blocked "me". I know who the miscreants are in each case, but DENY and all that. Mostly I'm too lazy to usurp the accounts though the option is always open. Antandrus (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formats, again

Hi Antandrus. I could really use your support over on Talk:Antony_and_Cleopatra_(opera)#In_line_citations:_see_Use_of_Notes.2FFootnotes. Cheers.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your essay

I liked your essay, by the way; it seems to encourage me whenever I feel let down. Some odd philosophical stuff like "It's easier to delete an article than it is to write it from scratch; just as it is easier to burn your bridges in a single instant than it is to slowly build one over time." Anyways, I was wondering why someone on the project for six years hasn't yet run for bureaucratship? I think it would be great if you did. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 05:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you for the vote of confidence. I don't run for bureaucrat for a couple reasons, the largest of which are that I don't spend enough time at RFA, and secondarily because I'm trying to refocus my energies on writing content and making articles better. Anyway thanks! Antandrus (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington

A Good Article review has started on George Washington. It is on hold for seven days to allow issues raised on Talk:George Washington/GA3 to be addressed. SilkTork *^YES! 23:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Eugene Michael Hyman

On 20 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eugene Michael Hyman, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool -- though I was just the smallest of assists -- credit to the brown bear. (I always wonder why my messages banner can light up when my watchlisted talk page shows nothing -- bot of course.) Antandrus (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Roberto Cantoral

On 25 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roberto Cantoral, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Nuper rosarum flores

Hi there! I just did a revamp of that article and would be glad to hear any comments you may have. Au revoir! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks great, -- based on a fairly quick read. I also appreciate JK's comments on referencing; for what it's worth, I plan to use the parenthetical style myself next time I do a music article from scratch just to see if I can get used to it; I prefer it myself for its clean look and friendliness to newbies (imagine colliding with the '<ref name="blahblah"{{cite blah}}' kind of thing as a rank newbie, say someone with an expertise but only average computer literacy -- oy!) Good article; glad you are still here and writing. Antandrus (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read your essay...

Thoroughly enjoyed it. As a veteran of many political articles (many of them contentious). I think you should add one: the length of a n article is inversly related to the amount of new information (people like to repeat themselves). Soxwon (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes, it's ridiculous how repetitive some articles become -- I've found that the worst are often "breaking news" stories -- occasionally I've seen the same tidbit four or five times in an article, particularly on extremely high-profile happenings (Hurricane Katrina, Deepwater Horizon, various political scandals, etc.) added "helpfully" by a new user. Edit conflicts often drive you away, and by the time you've removed a redundancy someone else has added the same factoid to a new section! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to put a little side note into it: A good indicator of partisan editoring, a battle mentality, and meaningless content is if the discussion to add a single statement (172 KB) more than doubles the length of the article to which it is to be being added (82 KB) . Soxwon (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ese vato

You going to nominate Vaqueros Formation for a 5x? I turn my back on you for five minutes and *poof*, you're prolific. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Sespe Formation I put up a couple days ago might be more interesting (I did take a couple pictures -- couldn't find a single damn outcrop of the Vaqueros over the weekend that didn't involve either tramping through poison oak or getting shotgunned by one of our local anarchist ranchers). I also put up Mesa Oil Field but the time limit may have expired. Yeah, writing again. Had to stop watching the drama boards; there's just so much bullshit there and I needed some fresh air. Antandrus (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOF should be very current. Remember the game plan: you created it on the 4th; probably nominated it a day or two later and it would have about 10 days left if it has left the active list and moved into the old one. I'll take a look at your nom in a minute. I got some fresh air myself today. Took the day off, rented some vids, hit the all-you-can eat Hometown Buffet and rolled home. My shirt smells like vanilla ice cream. I can do whatever noms you want. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, are you trying to confuse me? Did you mean you just create/wrote MOF? I can't find a nom for it. I interpretted "put it up" as DYK. I can do whichever one you want first and then move onto the next. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like it, MOF. Funny, that acronym sounds like it should be something fun, like MILF, but alas. No I haven't nominated anything. Man I'm tired tonight. Must be the wine. Yeah, I think I wrote three articles very recently (MOF, Sespe, Vaqueros) -- I usually scribble the drafts in my user space. I have a fourth ready to go (Rio Vista) but I need to make another map for it. That one would have an easy hook -- and simple -- "the biggest natural gas field in California." Let me know when you have another one ready you're pleased with! Antandrus (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start with the MOF. I was thinking today about this MILF I *ahem* knew (in a Biblical way) about 20 years ago. I saw her about a 1.5 years ago and man she looked almost the same which would be great for pushing 70. If she hadn't told me she got married, I would have um, err, asked her out. Yeah, that's the ticket. Too bad the Sespe Form doesn't have more of paleo aspect or ref because that would be a ringer. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How's this look:

Mesa Oil Field

... that Mesa Oil Field was formally abandoned in 1976 and sits on a mesa in Santa Barbara, California? Created by Antandrus (talk) Nominated by moreno oso (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

ALT1 ...that Mesa Oil Field was first drilled in 1922 and produced 3.7 million barrels of oil during its brief lifetime?

ALT2 ...that Mesa Oil Field is similar to the Ellwood Oil Field which is on a mesa bluff twelve miles west of Santa Barbara, California?

Don't know if you winked out on me but I waited 20 minutes which is an eternity for a bear. MOF pretty much reads as per above. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vaqueros Formation

Hope you don't mind but I added a ref for the Oligocene era. I wanted that to be part of the DYK nom. Plus, it has some info about the Sespe Formation. Hey, why don't you take a pic - what's a little buckshot in the arse compared to fame on Wikipedia? ----moreno oso (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the USGS might have some maps or pix that you save you some buckshot. The online citation I found through Scroogle pulled up a USGS quadrangle listing. Man, us bears like the USGS. ----moreno oso (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vaqueros Formation

... that the Vaqueros Formation and its fossils in the Simi Valley date from the Upper Oligocene epoch? 5x expanded by Antandrus (talk) Nominated by moreno oso (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

ALT1 ...that the Vaqueros Formation has weathered to a clay soil which supports chaparral on the southern slopes of the Santa Ynez Mountains?

ALT2 ...that the Vaqueros Formation along with the underlying Sespe Formation is the second-most important producing petroleum horizon in Southern California?

Template_talk:Did_you_know#Sespe_Formation

You don't get a vote on SF's DYK nom since you're making love to your pillow. If I could be so bold, I'd suggest you visit Rlevse and ask him about how these three similar DYK noms could be combined. Tell him that you've heard or seen DYK noms combined but are unsure how or why it's done. Generally, if my read on the combining of noms is concerned, similar articles created or expanded within several days of each other, stand a way better chance of making it to the frontpage and you could rack up all three DYKs in a quick manner. Mind you, you're not asking for favoritism but knowledge from the master. Chances are one of your pix could be picked up too along with all three DYKs. All this should cut down on your anxiety level. PMDrive was right: you guys could drive a bear to drink formented honey. Good luck, Mr. Phelps. . .this nom will self-destruct in seven days. ----moreno oso (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I added some online refs to this article as well. It's generally my experience at DYK that most reviewers like online cites. However, some will WP:AGF some noms. You, could probably get away with assumed; me, well, let's just say they would laugh and throw away the key. ----moreno oso (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is a coincidence. A milf, I know casually and would love to know better has an article here. Grrrr. ----moreno oso (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could present yourself as the defender of her reputation... yeah, I'm afraid to look, past milfs in my life probably do have articles here. So it goes. Antandrus (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I jumped out of order here. Let's attribute to the first Tanqueray. I think there's another one here but she was really distant. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder when Rlevse became a bureaucrat? ----moreno oso (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool -- thank you -- nice thing to wake up to! (Other than that, headache, and long work day ahead -- have to drive up to Santa Maria, and dammit, I wanted to locate a Vaqueros outcrop before I went so I could stop and shoot it.) I did find some good pictures here from the early 20th century. Need to double-check with a current geologic map that the formation hasn't changed, since they didn't have either plate tectonics or modern geochronology to guide them in making interpretations. Vaqueros may indeed be gravelly in Kern County. Rlevse's a great guy; he's been a bureaucrat and arb for a while. He took over the "Awesome Wikipedian" award show from lovely User:Phaedriel a while back. Appreciate the noms -- you got good hooks -- when I was writing these none were coming to me. Antandrus (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. BTW, Scroogle located some Flikr URLs. Simi Valley is probably the closest one along your route - depending on how you get to SM. I just logged in to see your reaction. I agree with Rlevse - he set one of those Wikipedian days for me about a week ago. I've been busy elsewhere, mostly fighting two cellphone purchases that were not as advertised and not here due to doing work for my charities big time. My Morenooso Day came on a night I was just going to check in and then blow off. Kind of perked me up. Now, if only Allison would nominate me for something. . . ----moreno oso (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You back from SM? I made it once there while I was at Vandenburg AFB. Solvang was the place to go on the weekends and an officer I knew in L.A. had a house there. About combining the noms, all three tie into each other but I think only one, the VF ties into SF. Since MOF is oil producing, maybe a link to one of the other articles could be found. That way, another ALT4 could be suggested for all three that would make them a combo nomination. A threefer!!! ----moreno oso (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...that the stratigraphy of the Mesa Oil Field, within the city of Santa Barbara, California, included both the Vaqueros and Sespe Formations -- together the second-most prolific oil-producing unit in southern California?" .... hmm ... Antandrus (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would need an online ref. Find it and I'll add it as ALT4 to all. ----moreno oso (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a cross-section of the Mesa field in the big DOGGR report, which I don't think is available online (I bought the CD from them direct). You used to be able to download it from their FTP site. I couldn't find it on Google but I didn't look very hard -- maybe you can try -- it was "Dtasheet.pdf" and it's called California Oil & Gas Fields, Volumes I, II & III. The cross-section showing Vaqueros and Sespe is on page 278. I use it for all the technical writing on oil & gas. -- There is this great bookstore in Solving; I think it's still there. Speaking of MILFs. But I'm not drunk enough to tell ex-girlfriend stories. She was hot. Antandrus (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's hot? There is one mention of all three articles in the MOF one but it's cited to the Dog report. Maybe you could ask Rlevse about it inre the combo listing/ALT4. If he would be willing to assume GF, it would wrap up all three nicely with a bow. ----moreno oso (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done searches using my YTrikc method but nothing promising came up. Scroogle had some luck but all the good sites required payment and/or membership to access the reports. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go if you think it may be worth the trouble: [1] -- page 7-8, mentions Vaqueros on top of the Sespe so you don't even need a cross section. Oops -- silly me! -- I didn't provide the online link in the ref. Will fix in a minute. Those are the individual reports they compiled into the giant 100 MB DOGGR file I bought. Antandrus (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That should work. I wonder if the fact and citation need to appear in all three? ----moreno oso (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you go to sleep on me? ----moreno oso (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think so -- considering how widespread the rock formations are, it's even a stretch mentioning the tiny Mesa field in their articles (honestly there are probably ten bigger oil fields with each of those formations -- I just happened to need to link MOF to more articles so it wouldn't stick out as an orphan -- you know how that goes). I'm busy trying to figure out what to write next, after having verified there's no college ball on the tube tonight. Antandrus (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put it in the MOF article and I'll add it as ALT4. Football game my @$$!! I was watching the same game and am having a productive night. Tag a meatpuppet, nominated some CSDs, and even had an anon IP get uppity with me. I bet you were thinking about some MILF. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was. ... Reference added. LOL. Antandrus (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

While doing one of the searches, I came across Ellwood Oil Field. I wonder how that field stacks up? It looks pretty close by. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've had some pretty good luck with milfs starting with an eight grade parent. Then, there was the nice lady, who asked for directions, and I offered to show her the on-ramp as it is pretty tricky near where I used to live. First time in a car. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed writing that one. Think it was a DYK. The best part was that it was the target of the first attack on the mainland US by a foreign power since the war of 1812 -- and all because the skipper of the Japanese sub wanted revenge on the oil workers who laughed when he fell in a prickly-pear cactus! According to the local historian, he was bent over by the doctor who pulled spines out of his ass while the workers on the nearby rig hooted and whistled. No different from with field crew I deal with every day, I tell ya. Antandrus (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a coincidence! You and PMDrive have some literacy skills in you. Me, I'm a sucker for a lady in stockings. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was thinking about that mom - wow - and did not notice you posted the cite. I changed MOF DYK nom. Now, there's the story about the gal who wanted me to be a kept man because I used to go to the opera and the um, er, gal who wanted a regular night time friend. Like an idiot to the first, I let my pride get in the way and in the second case, moral conscience. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ... funny you should mention it; just got my LA opera tickets today. I should shut up because she might be reading this. -- On the other topic, won't contradict you there. Short skirts and heels don't hurt when added to the ensemble. I wish those skirts with the slit up the side would come back in fashion. Antandrus (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I've been careful not to name names although three could be relatively easy to discern if someone knew me here. You should see some of the outfits gals wear to church. Those side slits are still out. Have I mentioned the N word? Three of them and it was almost too easy. Ah, nymphs. . . ----moreno oso (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings for the evening. Actually I spent part of the day at the UCSB library, and came away with a pile of books to use for my next writing "assignment"; I was reading about deposition environments and carbon-13 dating of petroleum reservoirs when you dropped by (have you ever had the experience of friends or family in real life just not "getting" your hobby, and wondering why you bother with this writing-for-Wikipedia thing?) Using an geologic map on a USGS quad (as a matter of fact) I found a good outcrop of Vaqueros that's along a hiking trail at Gaviota State Park and will go out there soon. USGS is great; they've got so much good stuff. May go for a walk tomorrow morning, unless the fog is dense. The other rock formations I'm going to write about all outcrop on the beachside bluffs so they're even easier. One's on our most infamous nude beach. That will look interesting with me with a camera pretending to be interested in the rocks. Antandrus (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

have you ever had the experience of friends or family in real life just not "getting" your hobby, and wondering why you bother with this writing-for-Wikipedia thing - are you trying to drive me to drink? Did you miss that about two point five months ago my ex-girlfriend/flame dropped me because I am "on Wikipedia all the time"? That's partially why I've been reminincsing about older flames. Gosh, if I could go back 18 years to be that gal's kept man, I'd probably be on easy street. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, the gal here kissed me at a conference, invited me up to her room and if she had not been seeing a friend, I'd of, er invited her to the next Church social. Yeah, that's the ticket! ----moreno oso (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's more like it. Antandrus (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec--in resp to comment 1) Oh I dunno. Hope I'm not being too serious, but ... that kind of arrangement is hot and fun for a few months, then it's ego-crushing and eventually turns you into gray goo. Women hate it when men lose that drive-thing they don't have, and once it's gone the attraction dies and it's all downhill. But don't listen to me, I'm just a pompous battle-scarred fool. Antandrus (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All foolishness aside, I even offered to drop Wikipedia just before she dropped me like a hot potato. Then, a couple of nights later, I'm at a nightclub drinking myself blind, well, actually just wetting my whistle. I see a gal, asked a waitress to take a drink to her and she says, "I don't have any Daddy issues.----moreno oso (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Women hate it when men lose that drive-thing they don't have . . .". What a curious observation! Women don't have drive? Only driven men are attractive? 'm eavesdropping -and lost. :-) Bielle (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're in there! Yoninah is a pretty good reviewer. Now, let's see if you all three credits! ----moreno oso (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool -- I must have been sleeping -- just suggested a copyedit in accordance with usual geologic terminology. (Could have done it myself, but I'm not sure that's kosher after something's been approved. Never hung out at DYK much.) Oh, I realize I never responded to Bielle. Join us for a beer! This is a happy place. There's lots of drive to go around, and it's various and diverse. :) Antandrus (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A c.e. is always appropriate provided the editor knows what he/she is talking about and does not invalidate the nom. I have a couple of editors repudiate noms which basically knocked the noms out. In one case, the editor redid an article after seeing my nom and I pulled the nom as he had reverted me after I went to the trouble of tidying up the article, c.e.'ing it, adding citations, wikification and then doing the nom. As you can see, going with three hooks usually is a good thing as it gives the reviewer several thoughts to look at while reading the article. Then, if they want to mix and match to come up with another hook is also allowable. Plus, as per one of your earlier comments, it's easier for me to read someone else's article and come up with hooks. I'm glad you corrected the hook because I tried to condense the last citation you added by working MOF into it. I'm outta here as I have a charity event to attend. Wish I could at the airshow where um, er, somebody I'd like to know is gonna be. I sent her an email last night. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mesa Oil Field

Thanks for your note. I put it into the discussion on the DYK page and approved your hook there. Good job! Yoninah (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need a help

Can block the user named Geoff B he continuously reverts what I made on Jill Valentine title though provided proper references.? or at least don't allow him to edit Jill Valentine page. I asked this cause he is doing an edit war. Thanks. Avaloan (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err... I'm not an expert on that game, in fact I know nothing about it -- but on looking at the respective talk pages and article edits, Geoff has done nothing blockable (if I were him I wouldn't have labeled this vandalism -- that's not necessary, and just provocative -- these kinds of conflicts are best solved by being kind, or at least bland). Looks like a content dispute; are you sure you are right? Work it out on the talk page, and remember if you turn out to be wrong it's no big deal; being wrong is a part of life, and heck I'm wrong about tons of stuff. Keep in mind that "death" and "non-death" of imaginary characters is a bit more nebulous a concept than the other kind of death. Antandrus (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mesa Oil Field

On 14 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mesa Oil Field, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 18:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sespe Formation

On 14 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sespe Formation, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 18:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Vaqueros Formation

On 14 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vaqueros Formation, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 18:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block extension

Just a suggestion that User:Noobhunter156465165 be indefinitely blocked since he is almost unquestionably a sock puppet of User:Noobhunter who has a lot of sock puppets to his name and also commented extremely offensively (and with no relevance) to appeal his block attributing the comment to the very sock master himself. Thanks in advance for your help :) Jay-Sebastos (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already did it -- and I also saw what you added to his user page, following the link to his list of sockpuppets. Good catch. Antandrus (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Elgar's Enigma Solution - (Pi solution is confirmed by Elgar's 1929 notes)

My paper, Solving Elgar's Enigma, is currently published in Current Musicology, Columbia University.

I think the following would be a appropriate addition to the Enigma section of Elgar. What do you think?

The Pi Solution Pi is a constant in a circle (circumference divided by diameter.) It is usually approximated by 3.142 as a decimal or 22/7 as a fraction. In 2007, Dick Santa observed that the first four notes were scale degree 3-1-4-2, decimal Pi. Fractional Pi can be found within the first four bars by observing that two “drops of a seventh” follow exatly after the first eleven notes, giving us 11 x 2/7 = 22/7. Elgar included a “dark saying” into his first six bars by using “Four and twenty blackbirds (dark) baked in a pie (Pi).” The first four and twenty black notes each have “wings” (ties or slurs.) Thus Pi fits all the clues given by Elgar in 1899. Viewing “theme” as the central idea/concept explains how Pi can be the “larger theme which 'goes', but is not played.” Pi “is never on the stage.” The 'dark saying' which must be left unguessed, turns out to be a pun from a familiar nursery rhyme.

As if to confirm Pi, there is a Pi hint in each of the three sentences Elgar wrote in 1929 at the age of 72, when no one had guessed the enigma after 30 years. In the first sentence he referred to two quavers and two crotchets (hint at 22) and then in the third, he referred to bar 7 (hint at /7.) Putting them together yields another 22/7. In the second sentence he wrote, “The drop of a seventh in the Theme (bars 3 and 4) should be observed,” which leads us to find fractional Pi, 22/7, in the first four bars. Elgar said the solution was “well known.” Pi is taught to school children as part of a basic education.

Elgar wrote his Enigma Variations in the year following the very foolish Indiana Pi Bill of 1897 which attempted to legislate the value of Pi. Years later,in 1910, Elgar wrote “the work was begun in a spirit of humour.” Elgar enjoyed such japes, as well as codes, puzzles and nursery rhymes. No other proposed “solution” has offered any relevance to Elgar’s 1929 hints including his “drop of a seventh in the 3rd and 4th bar.”

Dnlsanta (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll never hear those opening four notes the same way again :) It could be what he had in mind. Speaking for myself, if you've gotten this independently published in a reliable source I'd see no worries about citing it in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Gwen. It's quite convincing, but what's important is that you've gotten in published in a reliable source. I'm impressed, frankly, because over the years I've seen so many theories and so few have had any merit; I've become a bit jaded about this particular enigma, but your solution is easy to follow and all the pieces fall nicely into place. Yes, I support the idea of putting it in the article. I suggest posting the same thing on the talk page you posted here, and then putting it in the appropriate section (cited, of course). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Dnlsanta (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

IP vandal at A Knight's Tale. Slightsmile (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, already blocked. Slightsmile (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of old Bull

Hi Antandrus. I just noticed your recent reversion of 90.4.108.63's edit of John Bull (composer). You may not have checked the recent edit history, but this anonymous editor has been persistently changing "English" to "Flemish" for some days now. Repeated messages of the type you left have not discouraged this behavior. Perhaps he will give up in a while. I don't believe any action is warranted yet.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He seems somewhat inconsistent in his nationalist squabbling. From this one could infer that he believes a composer acquires the nationality of his new residence; but once a German, forever a German, apparently. Since the person is Parisian I'm a little surprised he hasn't made Chopin French yet. Antandrus (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Or perhaps in this case something has gotten lost in the translation, and he really means that he has information that Bull suffered from catarrh. A pity he did not provide a spring.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Clearly English is not his native language, so he will need some cleanup. I'm putting the other composers on my watch list. Antandrus (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Year-category pages

Hello! I've added extremely stubby pages for the Violin Concerto and the Flute Concerto of Carl Nielsen, but I discovered that the "year-category" pages for music don't have very consistent titling, and the one for 1926 (for the Flute Con.) doesn't even really exist as such. What's your take on regularizing that corner of WP? There seem to be more category pages called year-compositions rather than year-works, so I guess I'd lean that way myself, but I have no idea how to change them all, or even how to find all the likely variations on that rather pedantic theme. Let alone take the time to do this chore for what Samuel Johnson called "a harmless drudge." --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to try to establish come consistency -- I've never tried, preferring to leave that type of work for those inclined to such fidgety things (I'm just not made that way...) In cases where there isn't much to populate a category, one may never have been created, and everything might be lumped into a higher-level one. Which might be fine. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elgar

Hi Antandrus/Archive35! an article you have contributed to has been selected for the Wikipedia Version 0.8. offline release on DVD and iPhone. If you would like to make any last minute changes or improvements, you are most welcome to do so. Deadline is midnight UTC on Monday, 11 October. See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire/Archive 1#Worcestershire articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release for other articles you may wish to update.--Kudpung (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your user page

Hi, it seems quite a lot of us use the same basic format for our user pages, but I must admit, yours is by far the nicest version of it and the nicest content I have come across :) --Kudpung (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The designer was the lovely Phaedriel, who seems to have left the project. I know a lot of people have used it as a template, and I suspect she is the originator of this type of design. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giles Farnaby

Do you know the classical allusion behind his piece Daphne on the Rainbow? If you and the visitors to your page cannot help, I shall move the question over to the Ref Desk. Just in case the lyrics are not on the tip of your tongue:

Daphne on the rainbow riding

When all the gods were chiding

Fell suddenly amazed

Full ghastly when she gazed

And presently the god of anger frowned

And in his fury,down

He flang her.

Thanks, Bielle (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, without searching too hard (or digging through my bookshelves for Ovid and others) -- and presuming this is before her transformation into a laurel -- I confess I'm stumped. If the rainbow, the chiding, and the hurling-down by the god of anger are allusions and not just Giles' invention, of a pre-chase not-so-innocent Daphne. If anyone would know it would be User:Wetman. Antandrus (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid is not on your bedside table? Shocked, I am, shocked! Next you will be telling me your buried copy is in translation! (Right, and like I even own a copy.) Thank you for forwarding my query; I shall possess my soul in patience in the meantime. Bielle (talk)

I think there is no classical connection between Daphne and the rainbow. Daphne is a river's daughter, not a sky creature at all. Pseudo-classical. Perhaps Daphne has a personal connection for Giles Farnaby, like Celia for Ben Jonson, etc etc.--Wetman (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable. Common enough in lyrics of the period. (Celia = Catullus's Lesbia, if I remember correctly.) Thank you Wetman! Antandrus (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. The free concert ticket goes unclaimed then. Bielle (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheynhertz-Unbayg and 121.115.68.130

Hi Antandrus, The SPI investigation just closed here, with 21 more socks confirmed. Is it possible to block 121.115.68.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for more than 31 hours? Once his block is up, he's bound to start making a whole new pile o' socks. Best, 16:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And he's at it again on his talk page [2]. Best, 16:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly; done ... I had no idea what a long-term problem that one had been. Seems to be a relatively stable IP so I re-blocked for a month (the same length of time it's been active). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It will at least give some breathing space. He and his alter-egos were producing stuff like this at a furious pace. Voceditenore (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Russia

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Russia/GA2. I have de-listed the article but it can be re-nominated at WP:GAN when these concerns are addressed.. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking your input on my approach thus far

Evening, Antandrus -- Carthan here. As a relative newcomer here, I came across your WP:OWB essay, which has been a solid primer on what to expect and how to approach interactions with others in the pursuit of building an encyclopedia together. It also held my attention throughout, despite its depth, which is a feat of its own. I've begun to explore a few different topics here, and after noticing that you have an experience/expertise in articles that fall under the topic of Wikiproject Energy, I was hoping that you could take a gander at my initial thoughts and proposed infobox that I've discussed on this article's talk page. I have inquired with a handful of other editors over the past few days; however I am realizing that this is not the most fascinating topic under the sun for some folks, and haven't been able to receive much of a response. Just looking to get some guidance from a more experienced Wikipedian to let me know if I am going about this in the best way possible, and hoping that you may be able to lend a hand in doing so! Cheers, Carthan (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such a prompt and welcoming response. I've gone ahead and implemented the infobox, along with a follow-up message on the article's talk page. It may seem prudent, but as you mentioned in your note on my talk page, I recognize the fact that this is a naturally contentious topic - so therefore my plan is to approach this one section at a time (instead of making sweeping changes). I'll do my best to work independently, while hoping to seek your input in the near future when it comes time to address the more controversial portions of this article. In the meantime, I'll heed your advice on striving for the utmost in neutral phrasing. Appreciate the hospitality! Kind regards, Carthan (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antandrus, having taken your advice from a few weeks ago, I've progressed along in contributing to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity article, making incremental changes up to this point. Anyways, given your helpful insight in the recent past, I was wondering if you could take a gander at this post in which I explain a more thorough draft that I've put together and proposed. The ACCCE article talk page does not seem to get that much attention, so if you get the chance to add your two cents on there, I feel that would be beneficial to others coming across the conversation in the near (and distant) future. All the best, Carthan (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hi Antandrus, A dreadful thing has happened, or may have happened, involving the subject of an article I started, Richard DeLong. You can find it by Googling "Richard DeLong" on Google News, getting e.g. http://www.ajc.com/news/police-carroll-teacher-sent-682433.html. Do you think Wikipedia:NPF#People_who_are_relatively_unknown is applicable here? Or should we report it? I raised this issue on the article talk page. Thanks very much, Opus33 (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. This is why I avoid writing about living people (at least nowadays -- there are a few articles I started years ago I now rather regret doing). Personally, I would not put any of that information in the article. Someone else might, though. Watch the page, and if it happens, make sure that it's kept trimmed to just a single, neutrally-written line with a reliable source, and does not overbalance the rest of the article. The way I read this policy is that we may be able to keep it out entirely. Antandrus (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Antandrus -- this sounds sensible to me. Opus33 (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Powers

I'm half inclined to revert all three articles, and I will unless there's a darn good response from the editor. Will Beback talk 02:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. "...the still virulent racism by the larger Mexican community against Americans" really fails to describe Santa Barbara in the 1850s. That was not it at all. Antandrus (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at his other contributions, I see similar problems going back some time.[3][4] I'll revert the new edits. Will Beback talk 02:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I have all the sources for Powers in hard copy (some are local, hard-to-find publications) so I can back up any other parts of that article with additional cites if necessary. Antandrus (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Was experimenting and hit 'Save' instead of 'Sandbox'. Still getting used to this. Will add decent adds soon. Thanks for fix.

No problem. There actually was a composer of the period who likely used hashish -- see Solage and the infamous Fumeux fume par fumee. If you listen to it, it's pretty obvious they're on drugs and getting completely lost. Antandrus (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telekom Austria rangeblocks

Recently I reviewed unblock requests from 93.82.0.49 (talk · contribs · count) and 188.23.184.50 (talk · contribs · count). I declined both as the only edit from the IP in question, both of which were part of Telekom Austria ranges you had blocked a week ago as used by a banned user. In both cases my declines were reverted (and then I reverted back). Does this look like your banned user trying to come back? He does seem to have a grudge against you. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel -- absolutely certain it's the same user. Same fingerprints ("death to wikipedia!"; bumbling use of the "autoblock"; "rvv" of the reviewing admin, and a few other things). He's also the only user on this range, and the only user on this range too. He'd been editing every single day since his banning, evading his blocks, and I suspect his grudge against me is that I figured out who he was (Thomaskh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ThomasK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some interesting reading -- his last "last chance" discussion on ANI in July: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive623#User:ThomasK. Prior to that, his "last chance" discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#Unblock_request_from_ThomasK. Antandrus (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... I had heard the name once upon a time. I suppose I shall let the two user pages be as marking them as IPsocks really wouldn't be fair to others who might get them. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

Hi Antandrus. WP:WikiProject Opera could use your help with a page move if you are willing. Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Capitalization?, we would like Emilio de Marchi moved to Emilio De Marchi. Thanks for any help you can give. Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! I was skeptical at first -- "De" doesn't look right to me, but then Italian capitalization (and spelling!) rules always confuses me. Antandrus (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 05:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Another request

Hi Antandrus. Thanks for the help in moving De Marchi. We could use your help with a move again. :-) Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Odd redirect. Thanks in advance.4meter4 (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sisquoc Formation

On 26 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sisquoc Formation, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tks

Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. I was trying not to answer 'cause I didn't wanna start a lot of side-bar discussion, but then Malleus said something I had to answer. Thanks! • Ling.Nut (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. I have a lot to say to the opposers, but I've been biting my tongue to the point of pain. As Wikipedia has changed from a town where everyone knew each other, to a city with its impersonal and random conflicts, it has developed factions, political parties, dissidents, anarchists, the disaffected and the addicted and the insane. And yet more kinds. At RFA I see people -- like you -- who have some wisdom clearly acquired by life experience, and here is an 18-year-old who "presses the red button on Huggle alot" calling you immature? -- but I'll shut up; I said I'd bite my tongue. If people can't see how someone like you would be a benefit to the project with admin tools, I just shake my head in bafflement. All the best ... Antandrus (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia "is what it is".• Ling.Nut (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How Dare You

WHy did you deltesdlked me pageek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunty634 (talk • contribs)

Hi, if you want to write joke pages, nonsense, or things to make your friends laugh, I'm afraid you're on the wrong website. We're trying to write a serious encyclopedia here. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict in Article of Andre Geim, winner of 2010 Nobel Prize

Hi, I am a foreigner and a simple reader of Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your job. Frankly say, Editing article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Geim, is in a wrong way, by colluding of some editors and admins there. Their IDs are: Therexbanner, Gladsmile, Narking, Christopher Connor, RobertMfromLI, NickCT, Beetstra, 7. These Users are trying by reverting correct edits of the article, and doing a sort of anagram and "misusing" information in sources, show Mr. Andre Geim (winner of 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics) is not a Jewish and he has another ethnic. They seem like pure (but a bit hidden)vandalism. All correct RS sources, like:

- http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1,

- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/,

- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/

- http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2010/10/07_a_3426604.shtml

- http://www.kfki.hu/chemonet/osztaly/kemia/ih.pdf

- http://onnes.ph.man.ac.uk/~geim/pt.html

- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/

- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/

- …

clearly show that Mr. Andre Geim is a Jewish (he repeatedly mentioned about his Jewishness, [subject of self-identification]) in ethnical point of view and his family was originated from Germany(he also several times mentioned that his family are German [origin]). Nowadays German is a general word, which could means: Citizenship, Nationality, Origin, residentship, and so on. When Geim is taking about German being of his family, clearly and logically he talks about their origin before emigration to Russia. There is the same situation about Richard Feynman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman. By the way in a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andre_Geim_interview_to_Yedioth_Ahronoth,_Oct_15_2010,_p._25.jpg, (that several times misused by above Users) Geim also said a story concerning Jewishness (clearly in religious point of view) of his grandmother, that of course it doesn’t mean that only his grandmother was a Jewish. Now in article as I checked the history of the article, above Users by reverting the correct edits there, try to present and show by their wrong way Mr. Geim an “ethnic” German person. The point is that in any RS sources, Geim hasn’t say that he has such ethnic, and he never used word “ethnic” there. Andre Geim won the Nobel Prize in the beginning of October; unfortunately, right after his winning until now, above Users kept the text of the article in a wrong position. In any case, if you have time, please check this Users carefully. By the way USER:Gladsmile, repeatedly reverted and undid the edits there, without any explanation(even wrong one). Personaly, seems like an extrimist Vandalism. BestAlexander468 (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relevant policy is WP:BLPCAT. Since his Jewishness or lack thereof is irrelevant to the reason he won a Nobel Prize, I honestly don't think it's a big deal. Looking at the article talk page, I see a good-faith attempt to work out a compromise (see the proposed draft language, which addresses the issue, while keeping out of a category -- an admirable compromise in my opinion). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's raining thanks spam!

Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome; I appreciate your intelligent, original, and insightful approach to all things Wikipedia. Really. Hope to get to work with you at some of those places you mention! Antandrus (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Heads up: I took your name in vain here. While I chose you as someone who would in fact be the diametric opposite of the words I used to describe you, there's a chance that people won't catch the ironic intent. So feel free to delete the whole thread if you want. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thread (the one to which you appended it, I mean). I have more opinions but I suppose I shall stifle them now! Oh well. Or express them on ANI or in some circus-type place where all can be entertained. (I've been called disruptive a couple of times in the last seven years; I'd name the last user who did but for damnatio memoriae.) And yes, never underestimate people's inability to understand irony. It's all in the dialectic amongst the workers. Antandrus (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative terrorism

You posted in my user page

"You do understand that deleting a post on a website is not terrorism, yes? Please have a look at our policy on edit-warring. Content disputes -- which this apparently is -- are never vandalism. Calling disputants "vandals" cannot ever make a situation better; be the bigger person and stop first, OK? Just a suggestion, Antandrus (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)"

I just want to thank you for your attempt at soft negotiation and things you have attempted to teach me. I would to point out that the things you point out apparently only apply to the users and not the administrators. Edit warring requires two combatants and was initiated by an administrator. (your perrogative, I guess).

In another case posting comments referring to "All Canadians" is very bad logical error and should have not ever have been typed in the first place. Some admin training needs to be in place. Attempts at discussion regarding article issues were deleted, I was labelled a "vandal" and threatened to be "blocked". (all this history keeping and not one admin person ever read it) This appears to make your statements

   "Content disputes -- which this apparently is -- are never vandalism"

look pretty ridiculous to a user trying to correct an article.

The "Long and Short Scale" article has become a mess due to many edits and administrator deletions, without reading, of valid information. Three different areas attempt to display the same information about each country, repetitively. When I attempted to point this out another administrator reverted it and put it back in, saying it was valid. The multiple ridicules inflicted on many pages about this incident reflect more of this arrogance toward users.

This technique rears it ugly head in many places in life. Smear the honey and then kill the flies that come because they deserved it and we can.

It quickly becomes apparent that no user input is wanted in this article (at least) for some possibly hidden agenda. Good luck with your quest.--174.118.149.54 (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thank you for fixing my page however i think a user logged out to make that vandalism is there any way to be sure thanks SunHwaKwonh (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, but it's certainly not LiteralKa. Any topic remotely related to GNAA will attract that type of behavior; you almost have to expect it if you comment on anything related. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how do you know its not? because they vandalize my page before. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this, no -- that's not vandalism -- he believed it was a fair use image and not eligible for user space. However since it's on Commons that may not be the case. It's also my opinion, just having been an admin here for more than five years, that it's highly unlikely someone with LiteralKa's reputation would do such a thing. Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok because when i ask literalka why they remove image and not put explanation they were rude and would not explain it. how do you know thats why they remove it, because they didnt put explanation there? so this user already was being rude to me, and this vandalism happen right after i ask on their talk page. so you are not 100% sure i guess but cant do anything. probably say same for User:Michaeldsuarez . SunHwaKwonh (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

may i ask why you think literalka is an ideal user? acting rude and using foul language at me here [5] . thank you. i know he will see this because he stalk me SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have every right to, you're accusing me of sockpuppeteering. LiteralKa (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - give you right to be rude and use foul language or right to stalk? you did both for long time thats why i accuse you. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Long time" being less than 24 hours, I take it? LiteralKa (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - yes long enough long before i accuse you of anything or know you are a user on wiki SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        What? LiteralKa (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        you stalk me and rude and foul to me before i even know who you are. so you do that before i accuse of sock SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you going to do anything but repeat that over and over? LiteralKa (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        you say thats reason you stalk me and rude to me , but you stalk me and rude to me before that reason happen SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions aren't private. Wikipedia is open and transparent. Please read Wikimedia:Privacy_policy#User_contribution for further details. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes is fine but also WP:HOUND . also doesnt explain rudeness. and i only ask why he watch my edit i not say it wrong .SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is "hounding". By claiming that the vandalism is somehow connected to LiteralKa and me, you have invited us to participate in the discussion. Should the accused be tried without being in the courtroom? If you mention us in a discussion and accuse us of wrongdoing, we have the right to defend ourselves. I'm not fond of your excuses to try to exclude us from discussions concerning us. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - i dont care if you watch my edit but just ask why you do it before i accuse you. thats why i accuse you. it circle. but now you just distract from my question to this user. also i dont mention you on this page at all but you follow me here after admin tell you stay away. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you be so kind as to link us to this? LiteralKa (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - to what SunHwaKwonh (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ok i do mention you above i forgot but i not accuse of stalking i mention watching edits and ask why. get accusation straight SunHwaKwonh (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "i know he will see this because he stalk me" LiteralKa (talk)
      - you confuse my english and being hostile. i know you watch my edits and it accept by policy so i only mention it . not accuse in a bad way. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You have repeatedly accused me of stalking. Do not lie. LiteralKa (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        no im confused you say youre stalking? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You have repeatedly accused me of stalking. LiteralKa (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        why do you remove my edit here [6] SunHwaKwonh (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:EDITCONFLICT LiteralKa (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Also, after a second look, that had nothing to do with me. LiteralKa (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ask again

i ask again please only antandrus answer: may i ask why you think literalka is an ideal user? acting rude and using foul language at me here [7] and many other place. thank you. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP that harassed you. What kind of resolution beyond that do you want? Antandrus (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/173.30.186.89 and User_talk:Tnxman307#hi. SunHwaKwonh wants a sysop to go fishing for sockpuppets. He probably won't be happy until he gets me or someone else banned. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What foul language? LiteralKa (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SunHwaKwonh, you need to cease this now. LiteralKa did not leave that deleted message, LiteralKa did not direct any bad language at all towards you, Michaelsuarez did not breach the rules on canvassing, no one is stalking you and no-one is hounding you. You need to drop the stick and stop making accusations. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for tidying up my userpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Might be the same person who is currently trying to troll RH&E, but sometimes I think it's best just to consider all trolls as one small, persistent, and undifferentiated unperson. Antandrus (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI

Please see this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Busted!

DavellB5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You're welcome -- classic example of number 7 (though with two redundant edits) by the way ... love it when they do that ... :) Antandrus (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That OWB is like a FBI profiler, spot on and accurate everytime. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol, thanks! :) Antandrus (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Molcorp

Molycorp Inc. is the reincarnation of a former Molycorp Inc. (short for Molybdenum Corporation of America) that used to own the Mountain Pass rare earth mine. The original Molycorp Inc. got its name from its primary source of income, the Questa molybdenum mine in Taos County, New Mexico. Molycorp was swallowed up by corporate mergers in the 1970s, ultimately becoming part of Chevron-Texaco, which I believe still operates the Questa molybdenum mine. However, they sold the Mountain Pass property to a new Molycorp Minerals, which is now becoming Molycorp Inc. As far as I have read, Mountain Pass is their only property. I'm glad to have someone else join me in the Molycorp Inc. article. Plazak (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TB

Hello, Antandrus. You have new messages at Imzadi1979's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Imzadi 1979 → 03:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied again. "Remember only statements that are challenged, or statistics, or quotations, are required to have cites." I tagged a direct quotation twice. He removed it, twice. You've just backed up my point exactly. Imzadi 1979 → 03:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Who is this person?

Based on the playback singer focus, I think it's Dr.Mukesh111 (talk · contribs) again. --Geniac (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt. Your rangeblocks (remember that AN/I?) kept him down for a while a couple of weeks ago. I think those were followed by a /16 checkuser block by MuZemike on much of Pakistan. Acroterion _(talk) 03:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OHHhhhh... that's the same person. I remember that now. In that case I rather doubt he's inclined to be reasonable. Antandrus (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Casfern needs a block as well. Them From Space 21:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Favonian got him. Watch for the next one(s), which probably won't be long in coming. Antandrus (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you, yes, I understand after reviewing how wikipedia works. I also see that you were just doing your administrator duties. You have a great page going here. We have had problems on other sights involving interests, and negative writing, but I can see that is not the case here, I'm sure you understand :) Everything on this end is done in good intentions, as I'm sure yours is also.

Some advice please

I wasn't sure if it was just me, so I ran this past User:Dave1185 first. I first ran across User:N2e some time ago. All he appears to do is add {{cn}} tags to articles, then if no one responds he goes back and deletes elements of articles. The stuff he tags is usually well known and uncontroversial. You ask him what he hopes to achieve and he responds by templating you about good faith and lectures about WP:Burden. I find it irritating that he makes work for other editors but is never prepared to do the donkey work himself, he is also careless with the use of tags adding them at the end of Paragraphs so it is difficult to see what he actually has a problem with. You ask him about that and he accuses you of bad faith. I can't make my mind up whether its a sophisticated form of trolling, or just someone misguided who has a bee in his bonnet about a remark Jimbo made some time. Do you have 5 minutes to take a look and tell me what you think? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings -- unfortunately this is a sticky issue. I've seen him around for a long time and can tell you he's not a troll; this is all done in good faith, although his philosophy regarding tagging for cite-needed is very, very different from mine (I believe only genuinely controversial things, quotations, statistics, and things specifically challenged on the talk page should be tagged if not already supplied with footnotes). You could remove his tags but that would come to no good, and if it went to a noticeboard consensus would be with him. Policy, particularly WP:V, is on his side. It's rude, of course, to spray-paint tags all over the place without being willing to do the hard work of finding cites oneself, and I've said so many times in many places; it's rude and arrogant, even when someone has policy on their side -- since doing so is just assigning a lot of thankless busywork to other people. See here, starting at the top of the archive, for the last time I played Don Quixote on this one (although that involved the giant ugly top-of-article banners, the concept is the same -- someone drives by and hurls that tag through the window, then leaves someone else to clean it up). -- Anyway I sympathize, but don't know if there's a better answer. We could try another discussion at WP:VP Policy, but it's an uphill battle in the rain, versus a well-entrenched opponent.

By the way, sometimes you can reword something to eradicate a tag; I picked one of his many "cn"s and did so here. Another thing you can do is let some time go by and quietly remove tags from non-controversial statements, particularly if there is no talk page discussion. I do it all the time. If the tagger hasn't had the minimal courtesy to explain why a tag is needed, you don't need to respond with any equivalent courtesy in obliterating it. Antandrus (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. For information I did try removing tags when I couldn't see why they were there. He has everything on his watchlist and reverts any such change. After a certain period he returns and then removes whole paragraphs if a cite isn't provided. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish they would just take their philosophy to its logical conclusion and put "cn" after every sentence in Wikipedia without a cite and after 7 days delete them all. That'd make the encyclopedia better...or force a change in WP:V. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would show the absurdity of it, no?

We had an editor here once who insisted that labeling Beethoven's Fifth Symphony as being "in C minor" was original research, since that wasn't in the title, and required looking at the score to determine (or required -- somehow even more galling to me -- reference to a "reliable source" stating it was in C minor, like the New York Times). Antandrus (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm Luke, you're Yoda

I just wanted to let you know that several of your comments have been shamelessly included (and attributed to you) as part of my Nuggets of Wiki Wisdom . You also have your own "Top 10" section. Thanks, it's nice to meet you, and if you object then let me know :o) Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! appreciate that. You have a lot of great stuff on that page, much of which I haven't seen before. Regarding "stop drive-bys", have you seen Jorge Stolfi's marvelous page? I think those templates are brilliant. Antandrus (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for the link to Jorge Stolfi's brilliant page (which I have now devoted a section to as well). Since it seems like we have a similar humor, if you have other pages in the future that you believe I would enjoy, feel free to throw them my way (and if you'd like I can do the same). Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! Do you know this page? Malleus started it, but it's a group effort; I've written a bunch of them. Some are just side-splitting. Enjoy any time your mood swings toward the cynical. Antandrus (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re:'rv vandal' on Wagner

I made the revert based on the user's other contributions, ex. [8], [9], and insertion of inaccurate information removed by another user here. Call me assuming bad faith, but I had a hunch he wasn't up to constructive editing by putting in such a contentious statement up at the beginning. I did look up the controversy at [10] which did not support such an outright assertion. Perhaps not the best of edit summaries, but I felt the revert justified. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings -- yes, yesterday I looked at the other contributions too, and had to double-take more than once. This type of disruptive user is rather unusual; they usually do all one or the other. The bit about Garcia Marquez and Faulkner -- eh, maybe, but that sounded like sneaky vandalism -- the Wagner edit was just a bald, ugly, and inappropriate introduction of Hitler and the Nazis in the worst possible position in the article, and the exact influence of Wagner on Nazi ideology is controversial anyway. So I don't mind your revert at all. Curiously, I was working on the edit summary for my own revert when you reverted yesterday -- but you beat me to it! (If you don't mind, keep the article on your watchlist in case he comes back; seven years here gives me a spidey-sense for which trouble-makers are going to be persistent.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Greater Paradox

Hello, Antandrus. I have just found A Greater Paradox. Have a look at its history, if you would like a laugh - a triumph of form over substance! ...seriously, though, that it's been here since July 2009 has made me think! Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 14:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow -- right you are. Obvious hoax. Note the recaptioning of the picture (in the original he's reading the Emancipation Proclamation). I notice that all the other contributions of the creator are vandalism, without exception. Antandrus (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the "African-American Academy of Science. History of Modern Philosophy" was published in ... Albania! Antandrus (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you and another contributor agreed with me so clearly, I speedy deleted it.

Shows how important it is to check a vandal's previous history after reverting! And it will make me think twice before blocking this sort of occasional, harmless vandal in future. If they had been blocked, they wouldn't have vandalised again, I would never have checked their contributions, and so would not have found this hoax - and who knows how much longer it would have been before someone else questioned it?! Very best wishes as always, RobertG ♬ talk 09:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks -- indeed I am glad you checked the history. Makes me wonder how many more hoaxes languish on Wikipedia unnoticed -- a dozen? a hundred? I've deleted at least three hoax composers from the medieval era to the Baroque. By the way I just removed the backlinks to "A Greater Paradox" from the mainspace and portal space (I think the others don't matter). Have a very fine Christmas/New Year! Antandrus (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done - thanks, I should have done that. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philosophy/Modern/Popular_pages, number 412 as I write - ouch. --RobertG ♬ talk 19:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Post Edited

The post i made on the site that you removed is actually not libelous or slanderous it is actually CORRECT, legal information, that is PUBLIC ACCESS knowledge that the public has a right to know. I would be more than happy to fax or scan and post a copy of the arrest warrant since the number of the warrant was also posted. This is public knowledge not confidential information. The only information that can be considered libelous or slanderous is if its false!! So i respectfully request you undo the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamguardian1 (talk • contribs)

Hi, if you wish to edit Wikipedia you must read this policy and follow it carefully -- we take this quite seriously here. No unsourced negative information about living people, and no original research. Unless the information has been published in a reliable source -- such as a major newspaper -- no way. Sorry. Antandrus (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]