User talk:Antandrus/Archive34

Archive 34: from the very end of 2009 to early August 2010. Lots of varied stuff. Please do not edit this page -- use my regular talk page instead, as I will not see your message here.

Muris meep!

Ack! I just stumbled across the article Jean de Muris and I have a bit of a dilemma: I don't have time to rewrite it, but it's actually hard to find a single thing in the article that is correct! It doesn't give any sense of who he is or what his principal contributions are (to music, astronomy, or math). The French version isn't bad, just out of date -- if this were a BLP, I'd wipe it as slanderous! Even the title mixes the French with the Latin forms. The lines about it being unclear if he wrote the Speculum Musicae are hilarious -- it was disproved 85 years ago. (Grove: "The most famous misattribution to him, that of the Speculum musice by Jacobus of Liège, was rectified in 1924, after having given rise to much (now quite useless) scholarly discussion.") btw -- the Grove article is wrong too though: Liege bit of Jacobus de Liege is wrong; that was always hyperbole, and it was discovered last year that he's actually Spanish; but that's not in print yet, so we have to remain incorrect for another couple of years until it's all set out in print.

So, I'd prefer to wipe the article, but I know that that'll get flames thrown. And the 1911 EB is still online, so the "knowledge" is likely to reappear. I suppose it'd be best just to write it.

I'm just writing a little paper on what a terrible prophet he was. Good to know that the world didn't actually end in 1345.  :)

Merry Christmas!

-- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. -- did you see that our friends at CiterSquad made a massive effort this month and automatically tagged all the remaining uncited articles on Wikipedia, leaving for the little content writers the easy work of finding citations for 111,000 new articles with Uncited Templates on them. But it's hard to notice the tags below that giant "save us from having to run ads" ad at the top of every page.

Hi Myke! Oy veh, what a horror the Muris is. Perhaps we should treat it as a BLP, and stub it for now. I don't have anything on him right now except for Grove and the usual out-of-date stuff. -- Just wait until you decipher his numerology and discover that "1345" is really "2012"! (1+3 is 4, 1+4 is 5; 2 to the 0 is 1, 2 to the 1 is 2 -- oh no -- I'm scaring myself!)

I noticed our helpful CiterSquad doing its thing, but it seems rather hopeless to me. Those who play tag-a-mole outnumber writers and researchers by at least ten to one on the project at present, or so it seems. Periodically I am civilly disobedient and assassinate some of those tags, and will continue to do so, but 110,000 is a large number. I still think we need something like a third workspace -- in addition to "article" and "talk" -- that contains meta-content like article maintenance tags. I daydream though. Hope you are having a great Christmas! Antandrus (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I did a wipe and move, now I'll gather some info and try to make at least a reasonable stub out of it. I don't know about adding a 3rd workspace; I sort of wonder what would happen if WP deleted every page that wasn't an article or image (incl. all talk, user, etc. pages) and just kept the encyclopedia. Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wallumbilla

		The Recent changes Barnstar
		A Recent Changes Barnstar for pouncing on Wallumbilla Formation and adding useful information mere seconds after its creation. Abyssal (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL -- thanks! I was indeed idly watching recent changes, and wondered if I could find something useful to add. Turns out the Australian government maintains a pretty good geologic database. :) Antandrus (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

new photo

Kinda makes me wish I was back on the California coast :) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gwen! We've been having fabulous sunrises and sunsets here. Characteristic of the time right around the winter solstice. Funny, I was just wishing I was in Europe.  :) Antandrus (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was indeed thinkin', the grass is always greener... and I saw an amazing, startling swath of moonlight over the Alps last night ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

To all my friends in Wikipedia. After so many years I have decided to take an extended leave from the project. My continued participation in the project has become less enjoyable as I have explained here. I thank God that I became involved in the project in the first place because not only have I used it to educate others, but I have also learned a lot from friends such as yourself. Try to maintain a high standard in your contributions and make sure that the truth is always told in what you write. I would like to wish you all a Happy New Year, may God Bless you and thank you for your friendship. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oy, hate to see you go. If you do decide it's no fun any more, I wish the a very happy new year but I'm sad to see you depart. Tony, you've done absolutely spectacular work on this site; it's truly some of the best, and in six years I've seen some damn fine work from a lot of people. I haven't looked in to the dispute underlying this but remember -- you always have to do what is right for you, and if it gives you no pleasure to contribute, I can understand ... personally I have stayed because of that sense of duty to put something accurate in that top Google hit on whatever I'm writing, and so far it's been worth the trouble of dealing with the, uh, occasional bullshit. All the best to you and your family, Antandrus (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Viola organista

Just noticed you wrote this article. There was a piece on NPR a few days ago about what I think may be the same instrument; they called it a harpsichord viola or somesuch. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I heard that. Incredibly. I remember being faintly annoyed that they didn't reference "my" article. I'd forgotten until you mentioned it! Was only half-paying attention so I don't remember it very well. Wasn't it on "All Things Considered"? Antandrus (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Found it.[1] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool! And you know about the Mazda Marimba! I miss Harry Partch. Picked up a copy of his Depression-era diaries recently at a used book shop; it's fun reading. Antandrus (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

PTSD on the plains of Troy

Since I seem to recall a discussion about PTSD among the Achaians awhile back, I thought I'd mention that I recently re-read On Killing. It's an imperfect book - the thinking is insufficiently critical at times, and it seems poorly edited and a bit repetitive. But the ideas contained therein are really quite extraordinary, thought-provoking, original, and fearlessly explored. Anyhow, not sure why it reminded me of Achilles and his case of combat fatigue, but if you haven't read it, I'd recommend it. MastCell ^Talk 06:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to read that book. Add it to the next pile I order online ...

One thing that strikes me, standing back and looking at human evolution in the big view, is that we are not adapted to war. The incredible percentage of war survivors who have no physical injury, but are crippled for life by PTSD, seems to me to be evidence that war is a new thing in human evolution. Either it is already obsolete, or we are, to paraphrase Buckminster Fuller. Organized human war probably only goes back about 10,000 years: prior to that there was violence but not in a sustained, organized fashion, with groups of warriors isolated from the rest of society for an extended time. In my darker moments I wonder if Carl Sagan was right, and that intelligence in the universe is self-limiting, and always destroys itself. There's a nasty little story by Frederik Pohl called "Fermi and Frost" that studies this. (Wondering if that link will light up blue.) Antandrus (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dos Cuadras Offshore Oil Field

On January 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dos Cuadras Offshore Oil Field, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats, very good article. And thanks for your work on other California oil fields. Plazak (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate you finding that structural map, by the way. We can add that to the Rincon Oil Field too, in order to make their relationship clear. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Goose Creek Oil Field

On January 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Goose Creek Oil Field, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Not sure if I'm thanking a person or a bot, but I do appreciate it. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

AOL vandal

got one for you. Momo san ^Gespräch 04:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

you did indeed! Thanks! He's just an attention-seeker. Gosh, somebody just blocked him.  :) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll bet he will be back, this is around the time he has been on, usually until around 05:00 or 6:00 UTC. Momo san ^Gespräch 04:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he's trying to avoid doing his homework due tomorrow. I can sympathize; I always put it off too. Antandrus (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello

You will have little difficulty figuring out who this is. Don't peek!

Yep. That's who it is. I wondered what had become of that guy. Antandrus (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I usually let him alone if he's just diddling, but when he goes berserk/becomes continually abusive I block his socks and shut down his ranges. It's impossible to keep him out completely, as all banned users who have huge amounts of free time know. Antandrus (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For being an awesome Wikipedian. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Random as the above may seem, I admire your excellent work and hope you keep it up. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Appreciate it. No, not tired of Wikipedia yet ... it's still a kick getting that top Google hit for anything we write. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nom

Thanks! I've accepted and answered the initial questions. Feel free to transclude at any time. Everyking (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• A little over two years ago, you complimented me on the quality of my own nomination of Everyking. I think you've done a great job with your own statement for him. :) It's wonderful. Nice work. Best. Acalamari 03:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, yours was the last one I read before I wrote mine; I even borrowed one of the links from it. One of the things I've noticed as our project ages is that our community is forming into "political parties" with rather hardened positions, even though holding them may be somewhat irrational, and is certainly based more on personalities and old conflicts/grudges than what is best for the project. There's also the psychological subtlety, which I didn't try to explain, that when someone contributes to the project for many years, having admin tools taken away feels like a kick in the teeth -- getting them back may not be essential, in fact they may not need them to function, but getting them back is the kind of honorary redress necessary to keep a good volunteer from giving up in disgust -- we're only human. Antandrus (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The nom has been closed as successful. Before I thank anyone else, I want to thank you for your support and for writing such a great nomination. :) Everyking (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome; I'm honored to have been the one. All the best -- Antandrus (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your statement did a superb job in Everyking's RfA, and it helped get him through. Congratulations from me again. ;) Acalamari 00:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

From me too! I'm glad we can stop rolling that boulder up the hill. Haukur (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I'm happy it's done -- honestly I thought it would be more disrupted and drama-filled than it was, and drama tends to attract opposers and obstructionists by its very nature, so I wasn't overly optimistic. But I'm pleased. See my comment above about keeping good people on a volunteer project, which is the key, for me. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing vandalism to my user page, and for the kind words you left in your edit summary, while I was on a wikibreak more than a year ago. (here). --BaronLarf 07:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Yes, I remember the good work you did several years back. Cheers and good to see you around again, Antandrus (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

we-ell.....

maybe I'm talking out my arse but then again maybe not..anyway, worth discussing...Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

why was my edit deleted?!?!?!?!?1/1/!?1?!?1?1?1/1/1/1/1/1/1/11!!?1?!?1/1?1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/

You mean this one, back in November 2006? Probably because you didn't cite a source, and also likely because commentary on the possible extraterrestrial origin of your classmates is inappropriate for the lead of an article on a 19th-century composer. But I can't remember for sure. Antandrus (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Message to all members of WikiProject Opera

Hi Antandrus, you've probably already seen this, but just in case...

Please see our project's talk page for a discussion of the possible changes to Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons and the implications this will have for many articles under the project's banner. This is especially important if you are looking after or have created unreferenced or minimally referenced opera-related biographies of living people. Voceditenore (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- yes, I spotted you adding it to various talk pages on my watchlist, and went to that RFC just now to add an opinion. This is going to affect a bunch of projects broadly under the "classical music" heading. Antandrus (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

1812 Overture

Hello. Maybe you could help me with adding references to this page. Thanks. Brambleclawx 16:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have pretty many already; are there particular passages for which you are having trouble finding references? I'll read it through again and see if I can help. IMO, once you have at least ten, or about one per paragraph, that tag can come off the top. Antandrus (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Under recording history, there are a few points that I can't find references for. Brambleclawx 17:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

One of your blocks

I've brought up at ANI not your block but the editor as he's emoting at various Arb pages, I probably should have asked you first. See [2] Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ignore that, I see you've explained it to Matt. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Feelin' the love. Antandrus (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Better safe...

I've preemptively suppressed the revision that had links to that external attack site given the nature of the bile that was on it; if you feel it best restored, just ask. — Coren ^(talk) 00:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I have no need to see it; little does he realize how much he reveals about his own suffering. Sad, really. I wish he could get some help. Antandrus (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings and structures in the world

I'm a little curious what prompted your rapid revert of my edit, and equally rapid self-revert back to my version. Astronaut (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. It's the hazard of looking at recent changes on a laptop with a twitchy touchpad. Lots of screen real estate is taken up with "rollback" links, and it's awfully easy to tap on one while moving the pointer around. I fixed it as fast as I could. Antandrus (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Arts discussion

We have been having a discussion here about high-level categories. It's gone quite well, though inevitably it's detailed and complicated. There are 7 proposals. I expect it will end this week. It would be good to have someone uninvolved close and summarize the discussion in order to give it more authorit. Is this something that you might consider taking on, or perhaps you can suggest someone else who might agree to do it? Best. --Kleinzach 23:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've started to look at it -- there are complexities, as you recognize. I'd like it to remain open for a bit (i.e. I wouldn't want to shut down discussion after only a week on something as wide-ranging as this). Reading through the proposals, I do not see an obvious answer. It would be good to have some more people commenting. Antandrus (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this. I am hoping that the discussion will produce some results (on a proposal by proposal basis) rather than any kind of single comprehensive solution. In that sense, I don't think an 'answer' as such will come out of it, just a movement in the 'right' direction towards and a more practical system, which will then facilitate smaller changes later on. (There is general agreement that the present categories are unsatisfactory.)

I'm doubtful about our ability to attract new people at this stage. I previously notified the Visual Arts, Music, Classical Music and Contemporary Music projects about the discussion. I'll think about adding some other projects but I wonder if I'll get much response. We could make it a centralized discussion or an Rfc, but there again I think it's a bit too technical to attract uninvolved parties. What do you think? --Kleinzach 22:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've listed the 9 projects now notified here. --Kleinzach 04:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I wonder if you think this has now been open for long enough? --Kleinzach 03:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably long enough. I'm not really sure how to "close" these things -- have you seen recently a sample "closed" discussion? Is the prevailing trend to put a template around it and then an independent summary separate? I'll try to get to it soon. Antandrus (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the trend is certainly to put a template around it. Wikipedia:Closing discussions is maybe a bit basic? There is also this: Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Conclusions, but I can't find any similar examples there. There probably won't be many examples of a discussion involving a series of closely inter-related, and yet separate issues. --Kleinzach 04:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Elbert Hubbard said "If you want work well done, select a busy man . . ." Or is it a case of being too busy? --Kleinzach 02:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a hard assignment. Categories are utterly non-trivial. It's a little like org charts in large firms -- it's never completely Aristotelian, as there's always dotted and dashed lines connecting people and groups here and there, and you always end up representing something in a way that just really isn't the way it functions. Antandrus (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The final twist was a bit unexpected but at least it's closed now. --Kleinzach 10:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Merged (then deleted) articles don't get attributions?

I was just looking at Combinatoriality which is a bit of a mess because it merges an existing article with what looks like was a much stronger article at hexachordal combinatoriality before it was deleted. I was going to compliment the creator of the women's dress metaphor, but it looks like all the attributions are lost. A shame, and probably against CC-BY-SA. Ah well. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, it appears to have originated here. Even worse, in our current environment of Policy Fundamentalism, such a creative idea is likely to be tagged as prohibited "original research" unless the editor can find someone who used the same metaphor elsewhere. (It's becoming very difficult to do actual writing on Wikipedia, as the Scylla of plagiarism and the Charybdis of Original Research seem to be getting closer and closer together.) Antandrus (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"the Scylla of plagiarism and the Charybdis of Original Research" - I've noticed this too. Can we form a lobby group of grumpy old editors or something? Haukur (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should. The problem becomes most acute when an article defender is so doctrinaire that they attack everything you write as being one or the other -- it's not that hard to do, if you have source in hand. Certainly easier than writing an article! One recently banned editor was a master of this particular style of sophistry, though I shan't name him. There seems to be a Scylla and Charybdis separating almost every "WP:OWNed" article from the mainland, alas. Antandrus (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You describe it well. I think this is part of a more general trend of seeking to minimize editorial discretion, usually in favor of mechanistic one-size-fits-all solutions. Half the time it feels like I'm dealing with robots and cyborgs. And don't even get me started on all the pointless busy-work going on with all those tags and templates. Kids these days... Haukur (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably a history merge would retain compliance with cc-by-SA. Maybe I can remember how to do it ... Antandrus (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

François de La Rochefoucauld (writer)

Hello. I am trying to modernise the prose of the above article and could use some help. I see that you have shown an interest in the past. Would you like to be involved again? Rumiton (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has noticed the irony that the prose style in our article on one of the greatest aphorists ever to live is so tangled, overgrown, obtuse, and pompous. Disentangling citeable facts from 1911 Britannica prose is really, really hard. I just gave the article a quick read-through. Maybe the best way is to cite the Britannica article as a source, rewriting factually, quoting on occasion. I don't have any other good sources on him other than the translators' introductions in my various English editions. Antandrus (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest catch.

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

Thankfully, like most socks, he doesn't appear to have the intelligence God gave fish, so he shouldn't be hard to keep track of. Not necessarily by me, granted, but in general. HalfShadow 03:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. There was a time when I laughed. Now I genuinely pity this person. I suspect he had, at one time, intelligence; he has some shreds of knowledge of history, and some ability with languages; but ravaging it is some terrible, terrible disorder, the nature of which I can't speculate here, that's left him ... well, non-functional. Brimming with unstoppable and irrational hate. I wish he'd get help, more than he's already getting. I know a lot more but can't state it publicly. Antandrus (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a list of specific targets? Does he have a pattern? HalfShadow 03:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

His actual edits on Wikipedia aren't all that disruptive. Minorly disruptive, easily repaired. They tend to be just a word here and there, changing a date here and there, often pushing conspiracy theories for deaths of famous people, and at least 50% of the time they introduce grammatical errors, as his native language is not English. But what happens again and again is that he collides with people on the talk pages. He cannot express himself intelligibly, and in short order becomes viciously abusive (for a recent example see this exchange, which is typical -- he is "ChessMasta" -- there are hundreds of exchanges like this). Usually I block him when he starts to waste a lot of other people's time, as commonly those who try to talk to him just don't know what has hit them. (Never under any circumstances give him your e-mail address, IP, or real name; if he e-mails you, I strongly suggest ignoring it; he reserves his fiercest hate for people who try to help him, as I did once.) Antandrus (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinion/help requested re Susanne van Soldt Manuscript

Hi Antandrus, and happy New Year to you if it's still appropriate so late... I am flummoxed over what to do about this edit. Whoever Bigdog348 is, s/he is no longer, and s/he has modified a considerable amount of data without providing any sources, and deleted one of the few sources that was there.

But this edit, although awkward, strikes me as possibly bona fide. The source on which most of the article was based dates from 1961, and there may well have been new discoveries since then. Do you think it should be left as is, unsourced, or should it be reverted, losing Bigdog348's information?

Your opinion would be most welcome. Many thanks, Nick Michael (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings -- after some thought I decided to revert, with a descriptive edit summary. At first I just took the last two sentences out, -- but it disturbed me too much to have a referenced portion replaced with unreferenced. Doubtless the edits were done in good faith, but ultimately they have to be verifiable. Just my opinion ... Cheers and happy new year to you too! Antandrus (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I can't find any recent information about the MS in JSTOR; it seems likely to be true, but with no sources I think you did the right thing since it did remove a version with references. (Also, it shouldn't affect anything, but the username 'Bigdog' doesn't inspire confidence in letting something slide). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this will be seen by anyone. I am Bigdog348 and my name is Armando Framarini. I do not care for the communications format here and very new to Wikipedia. My information is accurate and verifyable. I do not know how to add source on here yet and just thought I was editing the information. I wish I was alerted that someone had a problem with it. If anyone would like additional information on Susanne van Soldt and her family or would like to help edit this page they can contact me at armando348@gmail.com. I happen to be descendent of the van Soldt family. Interesting piece about Susanne van Soldt is that she may have been a Musical Savant! Based on incorrect genealogical information it was surmized that she could not have written the music and credit has been given elsewhere. But the correct genealogy provides this possibility! If you are curious about this family just look into my photo album for documents at this link> http://picasaweb.google.com/armando348/VanSoldtGenealogyStamboomWapenWappenFamiliewapenBlasonCoatOfArms?feat=directlink

Hi Armando. I also got your e-mail, which I think duplicates this message exactly. I believe you; it sounds like you've done some considerable research on the family, and found a lot of good information. What I would suggest is to read our policies on inclusion of information -- particularly verifiability, reliable sources, and no original research. If you have published this information in anything that can be construed as a reliable source by our guidelines, then by all means include it. As you can imagine, we've developed these policies to make sure that everything that gets added to Wikipedia can be independently verified (otherwise you could never believe anything written here!) You might also want to leave a note for Nick Michael, who is the one who initiated the thread. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

See my reply to Bigdog348 on the talk page of the article in question. Nick Michael (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Antandrus/Archive34 - Thank for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:McGrathWell1218.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:McGrathWell1218.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello bot. I repent in dust and ashes; I seem to have neglected the little pull-down menu part. Glad to see Wikipedia takes copyright seriously. Not as seriously as it takes drama though! Can we have a bot to automatically warn people who are generating too much drama? How about a bot that detects when good editors are getting so stressed out that they're about to leave? How about a bot that can detect fringe nuttery, POV-pushers, and can lock up the computer keyboards of paranoid psychotics and wingnut trolls? One can dream. Antandrus (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that's our job!  :-P — Coren ^(talk) 03:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL ... glad I checked "page history". I guess we won't be automating the job of arb any time soon alas ... by the way, speaking of bots, I love that "Coren search bot" -- very useful!  :) Antandrus (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

CTM scope review

Following on from this discussion, I have started to review the scope of WP:CTM's coverage on WP. There are two main possiblilies, so far:

1. We refine our scope according to the "written in the last 50 years or so" statement agreed upon a few months back and included in the Overview - Scope section on the main page.
2. We redefine our scope to include only living people and their works (while retaining the other relevent articles such as contemporary classical music etc).

The former position was agreed by consensus, of course, so redefining our scope to the latter position is a radical shift that needs full discussion and consensus. In essence, the question of redefining arises from the recent mass sourcing drama:

1. It has been suggested that CTM take full responsibility for all composer BLPs.
2. If that goes ahead, WPComposers may wish to unbanner composer BLPs and leave them to CTM (see here for example).
3. Therefore, CTM simply focusses in on those people relevent to our project but not bannered by other projects eg composers with BLPs.
4. Other articles on people are then treated in a similar way ie we would then cover BLPs only and their related articles (plus any other contemporary-music-related articles, as appropriate).

The full review and discussion is found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Scope.

I am also looking more generally at our project's focus, especially as regards the notability criteria etc: User:Jubileeclipman/CTM. Thoughts on that are also most welcome!

Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 14:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Renaissance

Hi! Please read my entry on the discussion page more carefully, and at least respond to it before reverting. I will not revert your revert, because I wish to avoid an edit war. But I believe you should give a better answer or response than your edit summary. Classicalfan2 (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I did read it. You are mistaken; there was minimal Italian influence on the development of northern musical styles during the period. The ars nova was a French development, and the Burgundian style -- what we commonly call "Franco-Flemish" -- came from that. Those are the musicians that the Italians hired in their courts during the 15th century, at a time when almost no Italian composers were known at all anywhere outside Italy. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Then it looks like I stand corrected, and I am sorry. Perhaps I was being a little too presumptuous, given that at least most arts of the Renaissance began in northern Italy; that northern Italy sprung new ideas; that the northern Italian city-states had access to foreign trade from which the first Renaissance ideas developed; and that it was in northern Italy that the Baroque era began in art, architecture, and music. What's your take on the facts I have given you in this message? Best, Classicalfan2 (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the main problem is one of typical chronological divisions. The music of the Trecento -- the 14th century -- is classified by musicologists, maddeningly for some of us, with the Middle Ages, while the Trecento was clearly the beginning of the Renaissance. But what happened musically was that that incredible efflorescence of creativity -- see Landini -- disappeared back into an oral tradition (most likely) after 1400 within Italy, while the northern styles developed from what was going on in France. The native music of 15th century Italy is a bizarre black hole still for musicologists; for many decades it just doesn't seem to exist. There are a few very obscure names, and a lot of work (digging through archives, comparing fragmentary sources) still needs to be done. If there was influence on the French ars nova from 14th-century Italy -- indeed, because of movement of people and trade and ideas -- then where is it? This is another question needing a doctoral dissertation. The scholarly exploration of Renaissance music isn't anywhere near complete! But the main outline is there, with the Italian trecento music in the 14th century parallel with the ars nova, and then the 15th - early 16th century domination by northerners. Then when the Italian styles finally re-emerged in force it was through the native form of the madrigal, and Italians were once again dominant. It's interesting and inexhaustible stuff. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Man, Antandrus, you should write the entry for Italy for the Cambridge History of 15th-Century Music! I don't think anyone has ever summed up the issues and problems better in so short a space. More and more information about Italians and music in the 15th c. has been coming to light lately, but nowhere near enough to be anything but a footnote on the totally correct summation on what Antandrus said above. What is changing slowly is the view that Italian music wasn't influential outside Italy in the 14th c. For Paris and many other French centers, the conventional wisdom remains solid, but for Flanders, Spain, Germany,...even Avignon and England, the idea of a complete lack of Italian influence is diminishing. (Oh, and my colleagues here at the Center for Italian Renaissance Studies are baffled that the late 14th c. is considered medieval by musicologists, but that's where we are). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mike. That's a delightful compliment. I love this stuff, and I know you do too! It would be great to talk about this stuff over a bottle of fine wine in Florence, no? Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll buy the wine if you will let me just sit and listen. Bielle (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your attendance would be a delight! Need to get to Italy soon ... between us all we could probably afford some decent swill indeed. :) Antandrus (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

September? We could ask JackofOz to join us. Bielle (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be fun. Always wanted to meet Jack. Antandrus (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Me, too! Bielle (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

He sounds like an interesting chap. Count me in, too.  :) We could sit and discuss what we know not, both individually and collectively. Eh, Bielle. If nothing else, it would inspire us to massively increase our Wikipedia To Do Lists. Ah, la dolce vita firenziana settembriana. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If you moved up the visit date to before June 10, I'm sure a Wikipedia Florence Med/Ren music drinking party could easily be housed a casa mia.  :) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Unhappily, I have been in Italy in June and narrowly escaped becoming an unattractive grease spot on a sidewalk in Rome. Nonetheless, you have no idea how tempted this old (in both senses) traveller is by your invitation. Bielle (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Walt Disney Company

Think it'd hurt if I listed it for a shortish SP? Someone that tenacious might try socking... HalfShadow 05:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the sheer amount of vandalism over the last few days, I went ahead and did it (just 48h). I think you're right -- it was a good idea. Antandrus (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the Disney stuff seems to be a constant target, though a fair amount of that can be attributed to one IP in particular. HalfShadow 05:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CTM guidelines regarding infoboxes

In the wake of the proceedings at the Composers project, I am reviewing CTM's guidelines regarding infoboxes: at present we simply follow all the other CM-projects on this issue. I propose that we simply leave it to editors to use common sense and avoid policy-violations. Thoughts welcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music#CTM.27s_advice_to_editors_regarding_Infoboxes. Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 22:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocks on other wikis

Hi, how's it going? Are you aware that your account has been blocked on several wikis? On most of the wikis, it is clear that the account named "Antandrus" has been blocked for impersonation of you. However, on two of the wikis, the English Wiktionary and MediaWiki, it appears that the account was created by you, and then was broken into by an impostor. My source: Special page SUL. What do you think we should do? Classicalfan2 (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That was done by two separate impostors. One (the worst of the two) is discussed on this very page above (User_talk:Antandrus#One_of_your_blocks -- follow the link for some amusement); he's a lunatic, living in Chicago, who has been harassing and stalking me since early 2006. The other is a relatively harmless kid in North Carolina, who hopefully has grown up by now; I haven't seen him around recently. The reason that some of the accounts seem to be "hacked" is that the contributions assigned to me I actually made on a different wiki (probably here) but the contribs were transwikied -- I never made a login under "Antandrus" on those wikis, as that was before SUL (sometimes I am "Antandros" or "Antandrus1" on those -- can't remember for sure). I think there are about seven wikis where my username has been stolen, always by these two, but I haven't gotten around to asking a steward to give the impostor the boot. I'm only an admin on this one. Thanks for asking though! It reminds me I probably should do something about that. Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

For example, here is where the impostor made the login (notice the date!) and here are the contribs -- every one before that login creation date is by me, originally on Wikipedia but moved to Wiktionary by the transwiki process; the two on the login creation date are by the impostor; the block was on that date; and the one on 25 March 2007 -- when I was "blocked" on that wiki, so it would have been impossible to edit there -- was again by me, here. Antandrus (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

• User:Peter Damian (old)
• User:HistorianofLogic
• User:Logicist
• User:Here today, gone tomorrow
• User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I must say you've chosen your sisyphean avatar well. I would like to see you return and do what you clearly do so well -- contribute quality content. All else is just noise anyway. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Observations on Wikipedia behavior

I have just found User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior, and I thought I would drop by to say that, as far as I can tell, I agree with it totally. Well done. "As far as I can tell"? Well, yes, because unfortunately it suffers a little from the WP:TLDR syndrome, but that is my only criticism. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! ... one of the reasons I decided to give them numbers was that then I thought people would be more likely to just read a few and not be compelled to read the whole -- additionally they aren't in any kind of order; you can start or stop anywhere. Besides I like to keep adding to it ... Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny. I was just about to drop in and point out that I, too, just stumbled on User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior, and was equally impressed and tickled -- and here's Mr. Watson from 6 days ago doing the same thing. Well, I follow in wise footsteps, then. Astute, useful and often amusing stuff. One of the best bits of writing about Wikipedia I've seen on here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ginsengbomb -- appreciate that! :) Antandrus (talk) 06:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to come here and praise you for it (just read it) but I believe one of the articles warns against praising. So I thought I would just come here instead and say something funny, but one of the articles says editors who just go around making jokes are dangerous psychopaths or something like that. So instead I'm just saying - I read it. OK? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL -- but I did say at the end I was as vain as anyone, if not more so, so praise appreciated! But seriously, I know my own burnout-moments are most likely to occur when I put a lot of work into something, and no one seems to give a damn -- they're all giving each other anti-vandal barnstars, haggling over the placement of 'ref' tags on a "Good Article" public beating, or getting into food fights at ANI. Oh, and I think the "comedy contingent" is absolutely essential -- we have some editors who make funny comments on noticeboards and reference desks more often than not, and I think it keeps the rest of us from taking ourselves too seriously. Cheers, and thanks for reading it! Antandrus (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Good. Now I lulled you into liking me, I am going to steal your identity and commit acts of egregious wickedness on articles to do with small bits of fiddly stuff, old manga characters and TV soap "personalities". As they constitute 88.2% (last count) of all known Wikipedia content. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nrswanson back as 4meter4

I see that you and Voceditenore have been instrumental in allowing Nrswanson back to WP. I can understand the reasons for this, although I think it's misguided. (He's been given a second chance again and again, and each time the temptation of role playing/vote stacking has been too much for him.) However what I don't understand why he has been allowed to assume a new identity as 4meter4. Surely he should be required to stick with the name of Nrswanson so we all know what is happening, rather than allowing him to slip in under the radar? --Kleinzach 02:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm a forgiving sort. I also suggested keeping his former name, but he was fine with the new one. My hunch was that his apology was sincere, and personally I'll almost always bend in favor of a prolific content contributor (see my note above to Peter Damian, for example). If I'm wrong -- well, it wouldn't be the first time, or likely the last. "It is more dishonorable to be suspicious of one's associates than to be deceived by them" -- more or less -- La Rochefoucauld, of course. Antandrus (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think La Rochefoucauld had multiple deceptions in mind. The fact you are a forgiving sort is to your credit, however Swanson's apologies have always been sincere - the problem is that there have been so many of them. Anyway my point is really about the username. Surely it's contradictory to tell him not to make sockpuppets, and then allow him to use one?

Regarding Peter Damian, I assume his problem is heresy. Is that right? Has he done anything other than argue against policies? Perhaps plain dishonesty is more acceptable on WP than having ideas that 'the community' dislike? --Kleinzach 03:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that User:4meter4 is again starting large numbers of new articles based on single sources. He seems to be working his way through the Canadian encyclopedia and consulting no other sources. The articles are also poorly formated and over-redlinked. Then, to avoid them getting the orphan tag, he adds links to the new topic in other articles, also without a reference. I and others have asked him to slow down and add more referencing, but he is again resisting efforts to help him. You may wish to look into his contribs since he came back. I'm sorry that this is happening, because I also hope that he'll do better this time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh ... I was just looking at that. On a quick look I don't see any too-close paraphrasing. The first one I looked at (Alexis Contant) does have an article in Grove, so it does appear that some other sources are available at least some of the time. Antandrus (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Antandarus. Just thought I'd throw my thoughts in here. First, I no longer have access to Grove or a number of other resources I used to have access to, so unless it's in my personal library or I happen to make a special trip to one of the better libraries in my city, I am mostly relying on free on-line sources. Second. I am being very careful to avoid close paraphrasing. Third, I don't see what is wrong with doing what I'm doing. These articles are on notable people. They are based on a reliable source and I am writing the articles in my own words. I agree that more sources is better, but my intention with these articles was just to create stub/start class articles with the hopes that they might some day be improved by other editors. I think this is useful. Case in point being Muriel Dickson which Ssilvers took the time to greatly improve. I have seen over and over a small article I started inspire other editors to make something better of it. I think of it as sowing seeds. If I am wrong in thinking this way please let me know. Sometimes I do take the time to write much more indepth articles but sometimes I prefer to do something less involved. If I am somehow hurting the encyclopedia by all means I'll change what I'm doing but so far all I see is that I'm not contributing in a way in which Ssilvers likes.4meter4 (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a fair question, and Antandarus can give her own opinion, but I can't imagine that you are proud of the way you are doing this, 4meter4. I looked at a couple of dozen articles you have started just in March: they are all slapdash and badly proofread, and nearly all are over-redlinked and use a single source. Why not take 10 minutes more to format the articles a little; and why not do a google search and use more sources, at least where they are readily available? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec -- on my own talk page -- that's not an everyday event!) If it is a notable but not extremely well-known person, a single source is fine for a start. I've written articles on obscure Renaissance composers just using the Grove article, for there was nothing else (sometimes only the doctoral dissertation, on microfilm somewhere, by the same person who wrote the Grove article)! So as long as you are being careful in your writing I think it's OK. I sometimes pull the facts out of the article in outline form, close the Grove, and then write; it avoids the temptation of using the same wording. Usually I try to beef up the article with something else, particularly in the way of general background. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you take a look?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pfistermeister

Errr, yeah. Had a rather nasty collision with that chap myself, about four years ago now. Here is what I wrote about it. It was around that time I decided the job of "civility policeman" didn't really suit my personality, so I'd just try to ignore it. (Oops, I realize that by writing this I may have contradicted the first line of that link.) Antandrus (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedian's Prayer can also be helpful in this circumstance ... Antandrus (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

:D

nice reason for deletion :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup -- you do this for a few years and you get really tired of templates and choices from pull-down menus, I tell ya ... :) Antandrus (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

John Bull (composer)

Hi Antandrus! I was looking over the John Bull article, and particularly my last edit on it.

Looking back through the years I see that it was originally you who posted the info about Bull 'breaking and entering' and his trial in the Star Chamber.

This info intrigues me, and I know you would not have written it without there being some source for it. Can you by any chance cast your mind back - or have a look through your documentation, to see if you can locate it? I think that if it could be included, it would add value to the article.

With many thanks and all the best, Nick Michael (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! Responded there. Antandrus (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts

I just stumbled on your User:Antandrus/thoughts subpage. I must say I found this very refreshing. Have a great day! Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Appreciate it! Wasn't sure if anyone ever looked at that page. Antandrus (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Messiaen

Remember Lutoslawski? Well here we go again. LOL. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 22:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh NO. That's about as much fun as having to periodically swallow a box of thumb tacks. Honestly ... this is why I completely avoid "featured" and "good" stuff; I just don't have the patience it takes. (It's helpful to remember that the anonymous readers, the real audience we write for, don't care whether it's "featured" or not -- they may never even notice.) Antandrus (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor1

b:User talk:Editor1 has references to you. It seems similar to content I found here. I am not in the loop on this but thought I'd let you know. -- Adrignola (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Feelin' the love! Man, that guy just gets better and better. You ought to see his web sites. Antandrus (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WP Composers in the Signpost

WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Composers for a Signpost article to be published April 12. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, feel free to share this with them. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Likely will. When I get a moment. Thanks! :) Antandrus (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Due to ah... recent events, the Signpost has agreed to postpone the feature. Please see Mabeenot's talkpage for full details. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 19:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, is there much point letting Sketchee know? --Jubilee♫clipman 19:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the heads-up on the delay. Regarding Sketchee, I haven't seen him around for a long time. Antandrus (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Edward Elgar's Enigma Solution

Hi Again,

In mid-2007, I edited Elgar's Enigma to reflect my proposed solution which was aired on Performance Today. I edited the Wiki page to reflect this new information, however my edit to Wikipedia was deleted because it was original research (despite the fact that it was correct and would change many encyclopedias). Anyway, at the time you suggested that I needed to get the theory published before it could be part of Wikipedia. Well, alas, my article is in the hands of the Journal of Current Musicology (Columbia University)and may be published in the spring.

After my article is published what is the best place in wiki for me to add my revisions to the Enigma Solutions section? Should I just add it to the page or is there a more appropriate place (ie: talk page, etc.) to put it for review before it is entered on that section?

"The cultivated person's first duty is to always be prepared to rewrite the encyclopedia."

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Dnlsanta (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Once it is published in a peer-reviewed journal, you can add it to the section -- being careful not to overbalance with the other theories there -- but adding to the talk page first would never be a bad idea. I'm looking forward to reading the journal article. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Current Musicology is a well-respected journal; if the article appears there I'm sure there will be a push to make sure the Elgar Enigma article reflects your contributions. But it's best to wait until after it appears (even if you have acceptance letters, proofs, etc.) before adding it. Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy first edit day!

Happy First Edit Day, Antandrus, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

File:18th Birthday.jpg

-- œ^™ 10:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! You're right, I'd completely forgotten. Six years; good heavens. We've changed a bit in that time. Antandrus (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

F*****

I left this note for you in the Discussion section of the Mendelssohn article:

To Antandrus:

Regardless of how it's actually rendered in your source, it has always been much more usual to indicate an old-fashioned abbreviation of a first name with a dash or dots rather than with a row of asterisks. Certainly these days when "F****" or whatever looks inescapably obscene, you might want to change it to "F--" or "F...." I don't think you would be doing violence to your source. Or perhaps, even better, you could put "F**** [i.e, Felix]". If for no other reason that it's always going to get changed if you leave it as is. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I liked the [i.e.] suggestion, so added it. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Smerus has subsequently changed your dashes back to asterisks, and I have left the following note at his talk page:

F**** vs F----

Smerus, maybe the source print publication did use asterisks as you say, but Heyse almost certainly did not in manuscript. *No one* at that time, when using only a first initial as was not uncommon for various purposes, would have written out a bunch of asterisks--they would have simply have made a single dash of the approximate length of the missing letters. At most they might have made dots. But the thought of anyone writing out little asterisks is absurd. If anything, the source book is wrong. That in turn raises the question of, when it's clear that a source is in error or at the very least, questionable, (especially on such a picayune point as this), just how literal must a Wikipedia article be in slavishly following and posting any error or questionable detail? The only real solution is to have access to Heyse's actual manuscript. My guess is that either the author or the printer decided to render Heyse's abbreviation of Felix in asterisks pretty much at random, or because of some printing convention.

I may be an ignoramus about Mendelssohn's Lieder, but that doesn't mean I'm always wrong about everything. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smerus"

Anyway, Antandrus, I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm going to leave the whole matter be. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it (which I said I wouldn't), what I would do if it was my own contribution would be to change the **** back to ----, put a note in your footnote reference noting the change from your source, and post a brief note back to Smerus saying how you had fixed the problem, so he won't keep getting upset about it. Good luck. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind which way it is; in fact, I'm not the one who put it there originally. It's just that I've had the article on my watchlist for at least five years, and replacement of those asterisks is one "correction" I keep having to undo. I have found that inline cautions are useful on repeated good-faith but incorrect changes, so that might be a useful approach if someone changes it again (examples would be widely disseminated misinformation, such as Vivaldi's birthdate and father's occupation, Itzhak Perlman's birthplace as "Israel" when it didn't exist until he was 2 years old, etc.) Antandrus (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, i'd like to ask why I was warned for vandalism. Thank you very much... :|

Because this was vandalism. Don't do it again please. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry I didnt mean to i was just playing, i wont do it no more

Just wondering

Do you like michael jackson? I love michael jackson. I would like to edit his page. why cant i?

Because it's semiprotected. You would need to register an account, then you can (after you make some other edits). Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection of User:Snowolf

Thanks, had not even realized how much I got vandalized today lol :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar

		The Userpage Shield
		For reverting vandalism on my userpage. Thank you! The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I like Wikipedia to be a friendly place -- and the more bureacratic and fractious we become, the more important it is for those few of use who feel this way. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Bach Prelude in C: triple coincidence

Hello, Antandrus. This might appeal to you. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That is pretty amazing. Have you gone back to the piece to see if there is an insight there? (serious question.) I love synchronicities. It's almost like it's saying -- look at me; I have a treasure for you. (As an aside, Bach would appreciate the "threeness" of it.) Antandrus (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for help with 121.214.175.157

I wonder where that anon IP came from? It only had a couple edits and none that I have reverted. --Morenooso (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not obvious to me either ... I didn't spot any Australian IPs in your recent reverts (e.g. 58, 202, 203, 121...) Sometimes it's someone holding a grudge from a while ago. I get people coming back after more than a year sometimes to leave little special presents. Anonymity makes a certain kind of person feel powerful and invincible; getting their nastygrams is an occupational hazard of reverting vandalism here. Antandrus (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are there not more articles like this?

Talk:Blue Thunder (truck) demonstrates a gaping hole in coverage now getting filled. What about the red moon light, the yellow dawn, and green fog bank truck articles? It's obvious that the world needs more information on these items of enduring historical import. How many cylinders do they occupy? What litres do they displace? Decibels do they emit, and from whence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.165.28 (talk • contribs)

Aw, come on, ya mean ya nevuh wannted wonna dem big blew monstah trucks? Thinka da wimpy liddo Prius's ya kin crushinate! Antandrus (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk page protection

Hi Antandrus, may I please ask you to semi-protect my talk page as it was done here? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz -- done. Let me know if you'd like a different time (I picked a month), and let me know any time you'd like it lifted. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It is kind of you. BTW you took a very nice wild flowers image that is displayed at your talk page! Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an absolutely stunning wildflower year here in California. Stunning. It was a wet winter, and then there was just the right amount of warm, sunny weather. There are miles and miles of these flower fields; the air was sweet out there ... Antandrus (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at your user page. WOW! Your images are incredible. Have to look at these some more. Antandrus (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I am glad you have not looked over my block record :(. BTW I live in California too. Here's the image I took few weeks ago in Pacifica File:Erosion and spring in Pacifica.jpg. This year is not just stunning for wild flowers, it is a really bad year for errosion also. No wonder, there are so much rains.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Latest Kubelik edit, etc.

May greetings, O wise one! (And many greetings, too.) I'm wondering if you could please look at the latest edit on the Rafael Kubelik page. Was he in fact prosecuted under such laws? The article states he had at least two wives (successively, not concurrently!) and at least one child. As I noted in my discussion post those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, of course, but I still wonder...and I also wonder about the value of that category generally. But hey, what do I know. I'm just a guy staring dumbfounded into the abyss of sending my only child off to one of the best—and most expensive—music schools in the country this fall. Who needs a house, anyway. I'll just sleep in the car. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 12:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, the Hindemith article strikes me as being...well, not incomplete, really, but maybe a bit of a hodge-podge, or something like that. The Nazi paragraph (especially the first sentence) caught my eye at first, since I had always understood him to be pretty anti-Nazi, but as I read through the whole thing it just seems to flit from this to that without being really all that comprehensive. Or something like that. What do you think?

And I'm floored at how many of his pieces don't have their own pages. This whole inquiry got started when I was going to look up the Nobilissima Visione page to see what it said (just re-acquired the marvelous old Martinon/CSO performance) and lo, there was no page. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 12:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to have a go at that Hindemith article and make it better. I don't doubt the accuracy of the paragraph, but it needs citations. The topic of Hindemith's music is under-represented on Wikipedia; frankly I think it's one of those cyclical things in musical fashion, as I haven't been seeing his music programmed all that much in the last decade or so. Regarding Kubelik and that category, I took it out. That kind of thing needs a mention in the text with a citation, and I'd never hear that.

I haven't been doing much editing. I check my watchlist once in a while, rollback vandalism and nonsense, avoid noticeboards, occasionally remove spray-paint left by one of the project's many "taggers". Maybe I'll become interested in writing again. Right now I'm doing other things ...

Good luck with the music school! That's exciting, and you may see it pay off wonderfully. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Accusations on my talk page

Hi. User:Pank x tagged my talk page with a sockpuppetry tag (I removed it) and then made a vandalism accusation against me. I have no idea what he's talking about. Can you advise me? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be a troll or sockpuppet of some banned user. He's already blocked; just delete it and ignore it. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That was weird and a little scary! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a composer

Hello, Antandrus. I remember you mentioning a composer at one of the reference desks a few years ago. 18th or early 19th century, I think (certainly not 20th century). The only other things I remember are that his music as well as his biography were distinctly "different" from typical compositions and composers at the time. I also think he spent a lot of time in the wilderness. Sorry, that isn't a lot to go on, but I'm quite sure it was you who wrote about him, answering a question on unusual classical music, or something like that. I searched the archives a bit, but found nothing. Do you have any clue what I am talking about? ---Sluzzelin talk 08:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, I think I found him: Anthony Philip Heinrich. Obviously a bit later than I thought, and the question turned out not to be about music after all, but it appears I was right about you, the strangeness, and the wilderness. Now all I need to find is a recording of some of his works online. :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 10:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's him! Here's an example (The Ornithological Combat of Kings, or the Condor of the Andes). Even better than the music itself are the titles. No one in Europe was writing anything that bizarre, at the time, that survived. He's also likely the only person known to set to music the Migration of American Wild Passenger Pigeons. Antandrus (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Don Byrd pointed me towards him years ago -- he uses the smallest notated durations anywhere: 2048th notes. See the image accompanying a blog post I made about note lengths a little while back. Wonderful weirdo. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, both, for the links. Right now I am only able to listen to the brief samples, and unfortunately Mscuthbert's blog won't show up at all here. I will check out both when I get back home in a few weeks. While searching for Heinrich, I happened upon another strange nugget you presented at the desks: Fumeux fume par fumee. Thanks again! ---Sluzzelin talk 08:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Just popping in to say hello. Glad to see that you are active, it is always a pleasure to read your articles. :-) I'm not very active myself, but I occasionally lurk about; earlier I stumbled upon File:Eliot Bible.jpg in your contribs ... hopefully the information template I added will be satisfying to whomever tagged the image. He or she certainly seems adamant about tagging images ... then again, I was at one point, so I can't be too critical. Anyways, just saying hello, --Iamunknown 12:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! Appreciate the compliment. I'm not very active these days, other than checking my watchlist; busy in "real life", for those of us who remember that place. It's also not as much fun here as it used to be. I'm a little baffled by people who leave tags on images that are perfectly obviously in public domain -- I mean, what is the chance that the image is a modern forgery of something that looks that old? I sense a huge violation of WP:AGF in the tagging activity, which is why I get a little bent by such bureaucratic gnat-bites; a little common sense, and presumption that a long-term contributor is not deliberately uploading a copyright violation that looks like a public domain image, is not out of line. Tagging an album cover or professional photo of unknown provenance is another matter. Anyway. Thanks for adding the info to the image, and keep up the good work! Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I lost interest in and any sense of fun from Wikipedia a while ago. As I said I still lurk though... think I might need to stop that. Just dealing with images again is a headache. It's quite ridiculous: his (the tagger of the Eliot Bible) only contributions are tagging images. (Yes I am using hyperbole by stating 'only', but frankly it's not quite off-mark. <_<) I just added information to four more, and it took less than 10 minutes. Of course, tagging them would have taken less than 2 minutes or so! Sigh. It would several man-hours just to double check the images in his most recent 500 contributions; not to mention the many other images in past contributions. Disgusting. --Iamunknown 18:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Britten page

Bonjour M. Antandrus! Could you please take a look at the Britten page and let me know if my rewrite of the first paragraph makes sense? Merci! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 14:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: I've added a stub for Hindemith's Nobilissima Visione, as well as cleaning up that corner of his works page. Your thoughts always welcome! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 22:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! Sorry it took so long to respond ... good opening paragraph. That's an improvement! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Antandrus. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 14:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 14:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Card of thanks

OK, first, thanks for supporting me on that vandalism edit. I like the message you left on the user's talk page. Second, your user page is way cool. Did you do that from scratch or is there a tool somewhere to help? kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 00:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the personalized messages get through faster (try using those textx or uw- messages every day for six years! LOL) My user page was built by User:Phaedriel, who used to do that for other editors. Unfortunately that most delightful of all users is no longer with the project. Feel free to steal the formatting; a number of people already have; I kind of suck at page formatting, so I was happy to have the help. Antandrus (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I will, but it looks a bit above my paygrade at the moment. Interesting. I just saw for the first time today someone else's comment at Phaedriel's being gone. I think it had to do with subpages of his that keep coming up delection when the shouldn't. I didn't pay much attn at the time but I'm starting to see that W is a much smaller community than I had previously imagined. (Or maybe that's just my imagination.) kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 01:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The long-term, super-dedicated people are not that numerous. I wish they valued each other more, but that's just a personal, subjective observation. Anyone who has been here two or three years -- or more -- is in a tiny minority of editors. There's a lot of research on Wikipedia and what makes it work, and what motivates its editors; I'd like to see a dedicated study on what makes people burn out and leave. If we're going to improve the thing from its present level -- I have a hunch it's flatlining in quality, though it's pretty good overall already -- we need a way for it to be fun again, and improve the feeling of camaraderie. Antandrus (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

deleting the "scum" in Talk: Jews

Great response! Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Frankly it's disturbing to me just how much of that particular type of trolling we get. Antandrus (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ockeghem's Missa prolationum

Is there a recording you could recommend? (Aren't we supposed to be in Firenze about now?) Bielle (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Firenze. If only! Need to get someone else to do my job ... Regarding the Ockeghem, I love the Hilliard Ensemble recording -- the voices are clear and clean and with that incredible unfailing intonation that is so much their trademark -- it's EMI CDC 7 49798 2 (reading off the CD -- I was just listening to it). Every time I look at the score or listen to this piece, I'm just in awe that he was able to write such a thing. Getting voices to work out in canon is hard enough -- but in a canon where they're all singing at different speeds -- whoa. Antandrus (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am an admiring listener, but not, to my embarrassment, a reader or performer of music except in a most elementary fashion. (Do you know of the Patrician who kept his music pure? He never spoiled his enjoyment by listening; he only read scores.) I am about to order the Hilliard CD. I would love to see the piece conducted on video. I can imagine turning off the sound and just watching the choreography. Thanks for your quick response. (I'd prefer October for Italy anyway.) Bielle (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! Is it really, really good? Bielle (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Heavens. I had no idea it had become out-of-print, rare, and expensive! And to think I've left that CD roasting in my car in the California summer. Silly me.

It's the best recording I've heard, by far, but maybe there are new ones? This review (the one by "Giordano Bruno", presumably not the one burned at the stake in 1600) indicates there are only four. I'm surprised the Tallis Scholars haven't released one. Yes, it's really good ... Not everyone loves the Hilliard, typically because of the bright male falsettos, but I think they're great. Didn't know about Havelock Vetinari! LOL -- I can imagine the person though! Antandrus (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this the CD? I don't usually buy whole albums on iTunes. If I like the collection that much, I want "hard copy". And iTunes can't be played on the house system, which would be a great shame in this case. Christmas is a long way off, and my birthday even further . . . decisions, decisions! Bielle (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a different CD (different selection) but I imagine the recording of the M.p. is the same (recorded in 1989). Downloading is certainly one way ... I've always preferred music in "hard copy" myself. Their recording of the Requiem is wonderful too. Antandrus (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh heck, I don't think that was overly self-indulgent ... I do that myself, only on the computer in my music studio rather than a pocket-sized gadget ... :) Antandrus (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the ear plugs, which seem to send the sound straight to the pleasure centres of the brain, by-passing a lot of distractions, result in a stronger emotional response to the music. On the other hand, Emma on the house system can bring me to tears while I paint. That's another case where the thinking brain is in by-pass mode. Bielle (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Patrick W. Shakespeare

James Joyce was a prophet (scroll down). Now to find Brian Confucius...

(Hi, Antandrus. Hope you are keeping well. Real life constraints mean I'm having to reduce my Wiki activities to routine maintenance but I was just having a look at some of the lunacies of the "Shakespeare Authorship Question" and came across this gem. Enjoy.) --Folantin (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Good grief -- I'd never heard that one. -- The "Shakespeare Skeptics" give me a royal pain. They've always struck me as a gang of reactionaries, hanging on to the world-view that only a person with "aristocratic blood" could have talent, genius, insight, education, which often hilariously contradicts their present-day politics. Anyway good to see you around, if only briefly! I haven't been writing much myself; mainly I've been wiping corrosion off of things on my watchlist, and having occasional conversations with interesting folks. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I thought the Comte de Saint-Germain was the author of the plays. (It was right after he got done playing Jesus Christ.) Antandrus (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please be gentle with your expressions of "royal pain" (a bad pun perhaps) as our dear friend Jack is a strong propopent of the Earl's authorship. I have no view, myself being insufficiently well-studied, though reasonably well-read and well-viewed, in the corpus. Bielle (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Bielle, but no need. If people feel the need to comment on the argument-makers rather than on the arguments themselves, that's ok by me (as long it doesn't descend into abuse) but it adds nothing to the debate. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"They've always struck me as a gang of reactionaries, hanging on to the world-view that only a person with 'aristocratic blood' could have talent, genius, insight, education, which often hilariously contradicts their present-day politics." Paradoxically, they're very keen to make Shakespeare part of the Elizabethan Establishment while they themselves rage against the "Stratfordian Academic Establishment" which insists that Shakespeare was, well, Shakespeare. Conspiracism is the crack cocaine of the internet. --Folantin (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"Historically informed"

There is a question in which you might have an interest if you are of a mind to be your usual helpful self. Bielle (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for letting me know. (I don't watchlist the RDs; maybe I should.) I gave it a go. Personally I have always had trouble with period instrument recordings, especially the big ensemble ones; it's like they haven't quite got the balances right, and are often out of tune, and that lowered pitch really bothers me (particularly for early 19th century when it's an annoying quarter-step low) but that's just me. Everything after 1800 I buy modern instrument recordings. Antandrus (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(Re your aside, you should be watchlisting the Humanities, Entertainment, and Miscellaneous desks, as all three often get musical questions where your expertise would be most helpful, and your responses most interesting to us selfish readers). ---Sluzzelin talk 06:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't, we will just "orange bar" you into insanity. (Do you know Tafelmusik? Do you have any opinion you would like to share?) Bielle (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea! Alternatively, we could turn this talk page into a pocket-sized music desk (as Bielle and I have done before, and here's my next question: I recently watched Hesperion XXI on TV, and was fascinated by the ensemble's percussionist, Pedro Estevan. Not only because of his wonderful old green drum, druid-like appearance, and seemingly nonchalant attitude, but also because he seemed to be improvising his part. Were percussion parts written out at all for this early music, do you know? If they weren't, how did he work out what to play in historical accuracy?) ---Sluzzelin talk 08:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your antidote

I ended up at your talk page, probably following a comment you'd left elsewhere. I've just read your 'observations' and wanted to thank you for writing them. I've stopped contributing to any articles, other than via high-school-level grammar and syntax edits, after one too many demonstrations that the original name of Wikipedia was (as someone else put it) "Unemployed Ph.D. Death Match." Your thoughts are a reminder of what's best, despite the nonsense, and I'm glad to have come across them.

I don't know much about early music, so as a token of appreciation I hope you'll enjoy the first of the four airs in this clip, Buddy MacMaster playing Niel Gow's 'Lament on the Death of His Second Wife.' --- OtherDave (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow -- thank you for the clip -- enjoyed that!

Regarding the "Death Match", well, yeah. It rather is that way, isn't it? If writing ceases to be fun, you need to stop doing it; it is more likely to become fun again if you don't burn out completely by forcing it. And as an aside, more and more when I find someone wrecking one of "my" articles, commonly by riddling it with opinions in the form of "maintenance tags", I just take it off my watchlist. It's almost impossible to fight all those unemployed PhDs, -- or high-school students, one never knows. Fortunately as of this writing I still have a job. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Down home in Cape Breton, they say there's nobody like Buddy. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yo-Yo Ma B-Day change

Im sorry, but I think that my friends logged onto my account and changed that. Im sorry, If you want me to change it back to the seventh, I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesleythomasward (talk • contribs)

Recission deletion for User talk:IronGargoyle‎

Hello, could you please do a Recission deletion for the recent edit summaries to User talk:IronGargoyle. TIA ----moreno oso (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing -- 'tis done. I do like that new feature. Antandrus (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not too shabby. I gotta visit Bubba Hotep and wish my bear tracks wouldn't show. He's on vacation and I'm helping myself to the beer in his talkpage. ;) ----moreno oso (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oy, poor guy was rooting for England. That's gotta hurt. And his beer will be gone. Antandrus (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe he's going to let me change his soccer thingie to Mexico if they lose. I'm actually cheering for England now. BTW, since I have you on the phone to speak, could you look at recent edits to Jon Bon Jovi and Bon Jovi to see if the edits there qualify for the recission deletion? I think JBJ does and the second one is iffy. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Edgar181 took care of it and blocked the anonIP. Bear's paws make typing not a speed demon affair. Hey look, there's some beer here too. Psssst. Slurp. Thanks. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been otherwise occupied ... a couple of beers would do well about now I think. Bears love beer as I remember all too well from numerous Yosemite trips. You ever see one of them peel the doors off a car as though opening a can of tuna? It's something to behold. And often it's the beer they want. Antandrus (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that. Plus, I know they take dumps in the woods too. We did a camp-out with friends and a buddy awoke me by shouting to stay still as a bear was in the camp. Not only was he in the camp but when I raised my head I saw his business end pumping out the stuff like an ice cream machine stuck on pour. It stunk to the high heavens. He helped himself to our trash and left shortly thereafter. Never *want* to see or smell that again although I hear Half Dome and the streams look beautiful because of all the water we got this year. I may have to swing down there and visit my "cousins". ----moreno oso (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

SO, where's your busy soccer ball? Or, are you just trolling? ----moreno oso (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My busy soccer ball? With the elimination of the US I'm not sure what to do now, but I'm afraid I'm hooked until the end of the series. But I have to work next week so won't be able to watch anything until next weekend, dammit.

I never used to enjoy soccer -- didn't understand it, as I grew up on American football and baseball -- but once I started watching closely, I started to see it's an incredible game. That non-stop clock thing is an interesting twist; unlike American football there's no huddles; the team really has to understand what everyone is doing and thinking, and damn, they can come totally unglued. It's fun to watch, but agony when it's your team. Not sure if this answers your question, but I ramble a lot ... Antandrus (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the non-stop action gets me too but flops ala basketball are starting to creep in. Used to they toughed it out. The team needs to be in sync in advancing the ball. Germany versus Argentina next Saturday should be a great game. I already jinxed Argentina with my "busy soccer ball" on my talkpage. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Philadelphia Orchestra

Bon jour! Someone seems to be repeatedly vandalizing the orchestra's page with a snarky image. Anything to be done? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! For now I put it on my watchlist -- if he comes back I can semiprotect or try the new Wikipedia:Pending changes feature (I'm not sure if we can add new articles to the trial list or not). Antandrus (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI -- I wondered how that could have happened so fast. Evidently Markhh noticed the problem at the same time you did. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be an ongoing problem, alas...maybe a semi-protect or something. You da MAN! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wilmington Oil Field

I was looking at a map you created for the article. I noticed a circular field in Rolling Hills Estates centered on the Chandler Sand and Gravel Quarry and the Rolling Hills Country Club. This is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway on the north, and Palos Verdes Drive North on the south. I have lived here for 50 years and never seen any evidence of a field there. Where did you get the specific data showing that field, and does it have a name? I am having password trouble, could you answer here? Thanks, KMB.

Greetings! I got the field boundaries from the California Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). That's the old "Gaffey" oil field (abandoned). I see six abandoned wells in the DOGGR database within its boundaries; the companies that own them were Chevron, Home-Stake Production Company (those are right under the Rolling Hills Country Club), Tidelands Exploration, and Petroleum Securities Company. They haven't digitized the well records yet, but if you click here and then click on "get well map" it should bring up the map of where they are. It was a tiny field in the Pico and Repetto formation abutting the Palos Verdes Fault on the southwest, discovered in 1955 by Tideland Exploration Company, and abandoned in 1967. It only produced 10,000 barrels of oil total. Peak production was in 1957. Hope this helps! I could write a full article on it if it has any significance (for example if the field's existence is a local issue for any reason). Antandrus (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a mention too. The only (minor) mistake there is the 1966 abandonment date; that's the date it stopped production, while the last wells were formally plugged and abandoned in 1967. 13:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Mahler

The Mahler article has been flipped back and forth several times over the past couple of days regarding the alleged POV of the unpopularity of the German and Jewish population in Bohemia. I've tried my hand at a revamp of the sentences in question...what say you? Thanks! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's probably all right. I didn't want to change it myself without having Deryck Cooke's book to check to see how it is worded there (Google books has no preview, and Amazon's stops at the preceding page) -- if the book supports the idea that both Germans and Jews were unpopular minorities in Bohemia in the 1860s, which I think is obvious and essential for understanding Mahler's permanent sense of having-nowhere-to-call-home, then I thought it was worded fine as is (and I dislike people who splatter tags on articles expecting other people to fix the problems they allege, when really all they are doing is finding a way within policy to pollute an article with their opinions!) Do you have the Cooke? The cite was to page 7. I won't have time to get to a library in the next couple days. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I don't have the Cooke, nor will I be able to get to a library anytime in the foreseeable future to look it all up. And I'm with you on the question of tags and getting others to fix problems that may well not be problems. C'est la guerre. But on the brighter side, I seem to have some folks backing me up on the whole no-"notable-recordings"-sections issue, which grates my cheese more than it probably should; see the first two Mahler symphony articles for my small (and probably temporary) triumph. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 21:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

De:Josquin

Dear Antandrus -- do you do any editing on de:wikipedia? I can't seem to find the magic words to get the citation of David Fallows for "Plus n'estes ma maistresse" on Josquin removed, nor can David. He's removed it, I've removed it, and it keeps coming back without a citation. David assures me he's never believe it to be by Josquin. The en: article lists it without citation of who has attributed it -- that's better than an incorrect attribution. Thanks! Hope you're doing well. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now. I don't edit de: much, except to add a few interwiki links. My ability to write in German (as well as French and Italian) is limited at best, though I can go the other way most of the time. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Badami-chalukya-empire-map.svg

The file Badami-chalukya-empire-map.svg has been protected so that only admins may edit it. I created a picture identical to said file, cropped it, and cleaned up the edges. I am not permitted to upload it because of the protection placed upon it, and I request that the protection might be lifted so that I may improve the image. --DidgeGuy (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't want to do it on Commons? I notice that the image is in use on a lot of other language Wikipedias, and your improved image could be used on all of them then. (I'm not an admin on Commons.) I've gone ahead and done it for you anyway though. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollback Rights

Hello, I am kindly requesting that you grant me rollback rights. I have learned from previous mistakes with Wikipedia and have taken time to reflect and improve on these problems. I now think I am ready to use the rollback tool. I have read the vandalism guide and know the difference between good and bad faith edits.

Thank you --Ratinator·Talk 17:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! I always do a little due diligence before granting rights, and I found the thread on Edgar181's talk page, which is quite recent. I believe you on your comment above, and I'd be happy to grant you rights, but not right away -- let's say in a couple weeks if you do good edits. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI: [3]. Regards, • CinchBug • 18:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard Wagner at WP:GAN

For your information, User:Smerus has a drive to get this article to FA status. I would normally want to put you as a co-nom when we go for FA, due to your being one of four editors with over 100 edits, and more than me at present. However, I note your stated reluctance to get involved in such processes. Do you object to your name being mentioned at that stage? Or is it okay provided we don't expect you to respond to nitpicking demands?--Peter cohen (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter -- you can mention me -- I'll help out as time allows. I've been casually watching you guys improving the article, and it's looking good! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the favourable comment on the current state. Even if things go smoothly with GA and PR, I don't think the FAC would be until near the end of the year as Smerus is in Eastern Europe until then. I'd want him to have access to his library at that point.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User you blocked almost three years ago wants back in

See User talk:Todd Daring. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Was a serial hoaxer (see User_talk:Googler459). Probably a kid; three years older now. That can be a lot of time between, say, 14 and 17. What do you think? I'm ok with giving him a second chance. Antandrus (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I really can't see a reason to deny this one. Daniel Case (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you -- let's see how it goes. Antandrus (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

ESRI/Esri

ESRI is now Esri after the re branding that they have done. Their logo has changed too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.62.255 (talk • contribs)

Looks like you're right. When the heck did they do that?? I didn't even notice it at the conference. Go ahead and change it back if you want (but try to preserve case where it doesn't change). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it -- thanks for letting me know. Antandrus (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

To any talk page stalkers

If you have a few minutes, please have a look at the big article I just wrote on the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. I need another set of eyes to look at it. Did I leave out anything obvious? Another thing I really need are more images, but (surprising for something that received massive, continuous media coverage for weeks) I just can't find any public domain ones. I could make a map or two. Antandrus (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Event was before my time so I won't know if anything is missing but I'll give it a read through (as much for my benefit as yours) and see if I catch anything. If you want some eyes on it, nominate it as a 5x expations at T:TDYK. That way it should get views from reviewers and when it gets on the main page. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool -- thanks! By the way, the field is six miles straight south of the shore at Summerland (where I took the picture of the rig) but eight miles southeast of downtown Santa Barbara, i.e. city hall (distances from a city are usually measured from the center of the city) -- that accounts for the difference in mileage between the two articles. I may put it up for DYK this weekend when I have a moment to think about it) Antandrus (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest two maps if you can do them. The first would show the overall geography of the platform to the coastline, the relationship to the San Miguel Islands and Santa Barbara/Los Angeles. The second one might be a little more difficult but doable: what was the flow or ebb of the oil spill. In fact, a macro could show the overall spill in stages as highlighted by diffent colors and days/milestone events. A micro one could depict what the platform's initial effects were on the ecosystem.

As for what you might have left out, within the past three years there has been much interest in re-opening the California wells. Several presidential candidates spoke on the issue as one that would relieve the nation's reliance on foreign imports. It was very apparent to me as a California that they had no history of this spill or how Southern Cal disliked this event and future oil exploration/redrilling efforts. Some of the local California politicos seized on this issue and it was championed at the State Capitol by Arnie. Last year several CA candidates made an it an election issue and I think the Republican governor candidates had a go at it too. The governator has done a slight about-face since the Gulf incident. You touched very lightly on this by mentioning what happened in the 2009 State Lands Commission vote. The state legislature and senate took a dim view of the vote. It would be nice to see a citation or two regarding that as well.

Don't know if you want to contrast it with what's happening in the Gulf. What were the lessons learned? You covered the consequences but has any commission revisited the overall spill issues besides the State Lands Commission? Even their report might have interesting information that could add to lessons learned concerning business, legislative and eco-cleanup/animal issues.

Nice job on the expansion. I'd be glad to do the DYK nom for you later today if you wish. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you -- that's all good advice. I started to write a section on comparison with the current BP spill, and then decided not to, at least right away. Some things really jump out though (oil company at first denies any oil is spilling, then grossly underestimates, then struggles to take control of the public perception; wide use of dispersants, that in some ways makes the problem worse; use of low-tech "straw pile" method to clean up; etc.) If you have time to put it up for DYK I'd appreciate it! I prefer it when someone else does that, and I'm happy to reciprocate. On the current stuff -- yes, there's a lot that can be added. I left it slim for now. "Lessons learned" could be an entirely new section. So much of offshore drilling politics in California comes right from that event. Oh, and the maps -- I'd be happy to do that; don't have time right at the moment though. Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll do the nom in about 3.5 hours. I have an appointment in 30 minutes with a stuffing of the face thrown in for good measure. Yes, it's kind of amazing how companies can come in, low-ball or steamroll others to get what they want and then when things go wrong, play the "we're not the bad guy" card. BP is a classic PR nightmare: deny, deny, oops we got caught, deny and hold off the process. Granted, they are trying to cap the well but they would have had to do that anyway. I was really glad to see the commission take the stand it did last year. Most people do not remember this spill, its consequences or even a lot of the issues we've touched here on your talkpage. For awhile I was scared that presidential asperations might influence or reopen this wound. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, my older Brother got married at the Santa Barbara Mission in 72. While the full ramifications were still not known then, it was very apparent to me as a kid that the local populace still hated what took place three years earlier. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a great place to get married! The rose garden just outside on the east side is stunning; sometimes people do it there .... Antandrus (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Silly him. He let his wife talk him into being married in the Mission itself. Then she talked him into buying a mansion in Pasadena. They're still laughing all the way to the bank. ;) ----moreno oso (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've read through it and it was an interesting piece, especially in light of recent events. I know about as little as one can (a few wikilink clicks and skim reads) about off-shore drilling and the oil industry. I've left a few notes and please feel free to revert any rewordings (which may be unintentially BrEng stylistic or just plain crap). General comments are. Is the Platform Hogan spill in background worthy of another line or two. Did it have consequences, I imagine (if it was the first spill in the area) there may be a bit of reaction/outrage carried through into Platform A spill. The very last paragraph of "The spill" (in the Nixon section) seems isolated. It just seems completely unconnected to the rest of the section. Perhaps it belongs in the section before. Also, in Background the mention of leases in para 5 needs revisiting as they aren't covered until the next para. The only other concern is where the line is between factual and emotive writing. I do not disagree this was a monumental disaster but things like "thick bubbling oil slick" and "eerily muted by the thick layer of oil" while referenced (AGF on offline refs) facts could be percieved as fairly persuasive writing. Finally, after lots of nitpickin, I want congratulate you on a very thorough and excellent expansion on an article with important significance. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, I was trying to capture the tone of some of the references, especially Easton's book, without having to use too many direct quotations. The silence of the incoming waves is well attested; I can only imagine (I wasn't there) as evidently the six-inch covering of crude made the sea entirely silent ("eerily" was the word one of the writers used). The paragraph in the Nixon section I had moved as an afterthought, as I decided to try to keep things roughly chronological, but maybe I should move it back; good catch. I'll go back and do some more editing as time allows ... Thank you for the copyedit! That's exactly what I was hoping to get from one or more people watching this page .... Antandrus (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the nom (sorry that it took me a while. I got sidetracked on a raging debate elsewhere and lunch has slowed me considerably. Never, never eat an all meat marvel pizza with beer on a hot day. ;)

• Template_talk:Did_you_know#1969_Santa_Barbara_oil_spill

You're free to modify the hooks or add another. I wanted to include one that said it's the largest but couldn't find a cited fact of that. The nom probably won't get picked up for a day or two. Good luck but this one should be in the bank. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been stalked by a mountain lion (an unforgettable, spine-tingling experience) but never by a bear. Bumped into them accidentally in the Sierras though (they're not too aggressive there). -- Thank you! The first hook is probably the easiest to verify without having the books I used -- which are hard to find, as Easton is out of print -- since there's probably dozens of ways to verify that Nixon did something on a certain date. (I think it was only a ten day respite, before the oil companies persuaded Hinkel, the DOI guy, to back off.) I'll try to fix up some of the article over the weekend ... busy day at work. I will make maps but may not be able to do that before the nom gets reviewed, as I remember seeing a time-series set but damned if I can find it now. Probably on my laptop which ain't with me at present. Antandrus (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the generic big macro map would be the easiest to make first. One time while I was bivouac'ing with friends near the Washington/Idaho border, a friend awoke by yelling a bear was in the camp next to my tent. I had staked out a blanket over a log and lifted my head to look out the opening. Right in front of me was the business end of the bear pooping out the nastiest stuff I ever smelled. He was like an ice cream machine stuck on open for two minutes. I've heard somewhere that you don't stare bears, eyeball to eyeball, as they interpret that as a challenge. With all the recent bear attacks if I ever go camping, I'm going to take pepper spray with me ala Jack Hanna in this URL. Don't tell anyone as I could get kicked out of the bear club. . . ----moreno oso (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If the article does not get picked up for a DYK nom by Sunday morning, I'd suggest you come up with an ALT 4 hook of your (and make it a good one) as well as suggesting the picture of the well taken in 2009. Basically, this gives you 1.5 days to come up with the ALT 4 hook. You would plug it after your comments on the DYK nom talkpage and reset the indent by copying one of my hooks along with the picture file statement. It would take the form of:

• Picture file statement
• ALT4 hook
• General comment saying you came up with a better hook (and infer that moreno oso can take a hike in the woods).

If you could time it so it gets in 10 am PST, this would be great time as editors should be back from morning obligations and looking for something to do on a Sunday on Wikipedia. It would also show you have pride in your work and want the nom to go forward. I can't believe it has not been picked up. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Good ideas. Work has been a blizzard today; no time for thinking about anything else. If I can think of another hook, I may try, though yours were fine. All the superlatives associated with the spill are weasely in the sources, i.e. "many consider this to be the spark that ignited the modern environmental movement" -- I quote -- gad, I hate dead metaphors. "Did you know that the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill killed at least 3,700 sea birds, more than the total to date of the Deepwater Horizon spill?" (3,054 according to that article.) I dunno. It's funny that I've had lots of stuff on DYK, but it's kind of random because I almost never nominate stuff myself; some of the least significant topics are the ones that have made the cut. Antandrus (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The competition either side of your nom is full of other good noms and they have pix too. Normally a good nom with a pic gets picked up right away. This way you have some time to work on a hook. What I might recommend is that you look at the 2009 commission ref and see if you can pull another great ref from it that can be added, cited and used as a hook. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I probably should root for the Bruins as they're my cuzes but you're right about USC. With all the stuff about Reggie Bush and the NCAA penalties, I have a feeling that they are not going to be on the tube too much. I usually watch ABC all day long because they carry the PAC 10 and Big 10 games. Kind of doubt I will watching either now. . . ----moreno oso (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

streetauthority.com

I noticed you added streetauthority.com as a reference here [4] while following up on this. Do you think it's a reliable source? --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure now. The basic information there on the history and general structure of royalty trusts was accurate, so that's probably why I used at as a source in 2007 (don't honestly remember -- Investopedia might be a better source today). In the last couple years I've gotten more skeptical of the paid "we can help you make money in the stock market" services. If they're spamming us that's a bad sign. Feel free to remove that link if you've had a problem with them; I can always find a better reference if need be. Antandrus (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In the cases where it wasn't spammed, I'm leaving it, hoping someone will come along and replace it with a better ref sometime. --Ronz (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom for Eugene Michael Hyman

Antarndrus, maybe you can repay my DYK nom with a nom of Eugene Michael Hyman. I found this article while going through the WP:CAL deletion sort. I have provided reliable sources to it and it should pass the AfD. Before I began my AfD save, the article was at 1397b but is now at 2290b and DYK elegible. It can be DYK nom'ed even though at AfD and its creator and I would receive DYK Makes. ----moreno oso (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Normally I'm skeptical of BLPs but that's an impressive shout-out on the 60 Minutes segment. He's got something unique -- the first court focused exclusively on teenage victims and perpetrators (if I read that correctly). Looks like the AFD delete votes are before your improvement of the article, which looks quite good. So yes. I don't work on BLPs myself, much anyway -- though I wrote a few four or five years ago -- maybe I'm just lawsuit-paranoid. Community consensus seems to be drifting towards a harder line against marginal ones, but the CBS segment should keep your guy out of the margins. Let me think about how to word this ... after I do a little Saturday outside stuff. Don't know if you live on the coast or not, but this has got to be the coldest drizzliest damn summer in my memory. Antandrus (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Move further north and east. We are in the midst of the best summer since my childhood (which is more years ago than any two of you are old). It has been 21 to 31 degrees C since mid-June, with ample rain for farmers and gardeners alike, but long, sunny spells, too. Today is bright sunshine, with a lively breeze, and 22 degrees in the shade. Lovely, just lovely. The corn and the sweet peas are amazing. Bielle (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- Canada's the place to be this summer. Wish I could get away for a bit. Haven't even had time for my annual hiking trip in the Sierras. One summer I had a memorable driving trip across Canada, visiting places like Flin Flon and Prince George and Banff and Jasper. It was a delight -- especially hiking among glaciers, and later the same day, giant trees at night in the mist. Antandrus (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)

Thanks for the comments. If you look on my userpage, you'll see the search engine method I use to find refs called YTrikc_Search. Several years ago on lifehacker.com (a really cool site that has lots of interesting tech/lifestyle tips), it featured Scroogle] which is an anonymized seach engine that uses Google to find results. What's really cool about Scroogle twofold:

1. Whatever term is typed in, i.e. Eugene Hyman Therapeutic Jurisprudence will show the most probable results and light up individual words in colored blocks. Since Eugene Hyman Therapeutic Jurisprudence is four words, you see the same four colors in any returned search item and chances you are onto a good site/citation. That search provided the majority of citations I listed.
2. Anonymized. Supposedly when you first come on the site, you can see that it stores no cookies or search records, and somehow has a tie-in that deletes the search to and from Google within 48 hours. One of the things I don't like about Google is they are too intensive on storing info about anybody, any search term and keep it long-term. I like my privacy when I do searches.

The funny thing is that you do the Yahoo, Scroogle, Google News searches as outlined on my userpage, if you have a valid topic, Yahoo and Scroogle will begin the index of search terms that Google will notice. Usually by the time I hit Google archive, stuff is just waiting to be found.

I found the AfD relatively late last night - just as Letterman was coming on taped to the West Coast. In answer to your question, I am in the Central Valley (California) and hit the Bay Area frequently. It has been a very nice summer as we have seen only 8 100 degree days when it's very easy in July to rack up a full straight week of 100+ days. Normally, the heat comes on quickly and stays late unless the Delta breeze from the bay kicks in along the I-80 corridor which acts like a funnel into Central California points in a 180 degree fan past Crockett, CA.

I digressed. My initial desire was to see if Hyman got ghits and boy did he. Then I looked at the more prominent citation needed tags and knocked them off one by one. I was beat from an all day affair (wish it had been with a female bear type) but in the two point three hours I spent on his article, I put together some great refs that should dispell he is a nominal judge. He gets lots of hits as the press seeks out his opinion on notable cases. There is a URLs for the Brianna (spelling?) and Charlie Sheen incidents. Plus, he was pretty notable in the 60 Minutes segment. To have his bio read into the Congressional Record is very impressive. That alone could form his article here on Wikipedia. I have to leave for another all day affair in about 20. Catch you later. I will try to put some thoughts together for his DYK. The number one nom should be the direct quote from lede that was part of the Congressional record.

BTW, User:Morenooso/Typical DYK nom has what I use to do a DYK nom. It can be used by you for putting in the ALT 4 hook for the Santa Barbara oil spill. Basically you copy the image file statement as indicate above, and then one of the hooks renamed to ALT 4 and you're off to the races. For a new nom, I usually just fill in or overwrite "bear" and my username as applicable to do the nom:

ALT4 ...that moreno oso is a California grizzly bear?

---

moreno oso (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Change these two lines to get your ALT 4 hook. Then insert it at 10 am PST if able tomorrow:

[[File:Grizzly Bear Alaska.jpg|100px|right|alt=moreno oso is a [[California grizzly bear]].]] :ALT4 ...that '''[[User:Morenooso|moreno oso]]''' is a [[California grizzly bear]]? ----moreno oso (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, greetings ... check it out, I had already put it up under August 7, earlier than I thought I would (turned out I was too lazy to get out of the house). I went for the simple approach. I dunno, feeling a bit annoyed at "DYK" at the moment. At work I have a big (tightly capped) jar of crude oil on my desk. Maybe I'll spill some in the Channel and take a picture of it. Antandrus (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I just checked on yours and saw your nom of mine. Sometimes you never know how a nom will go. I had one that was picked the next to last day. If anything, everyone might be burnt out on the BP thingie. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Santa Barbara got picked up overnight it appears. Looks like we should have stuck to the faith. Congrats. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool -- let's see is someone adds it to the queue. I have that map half-done somewhere; I did find a source that gave the extent of the slick on February 5 and digitized the boundary. I just have to put it on a decent basemap and add some callouts. -- Hopefully Hyman will get picked up as well. DGG is a class act. Antandrus (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There is progress. I wish patience was one of my virtues, but it never has been and likely never will be. Hopefully someone will pick up Hyman next. As you say, stick to the faith. Antandrus (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The oil spill nom went a little longer than I *really* expected. Still, it was up against other good noms on the same day all with pix as mentioned above. Normally, I won't do an ALT4 unless I know that it's getting late in the nom period which is why I suggested it to you. However, once it got picked up or "ticked" by a reviewer, it was just a matter of time before it made its way to the prep area. As I said before, I had one that went almost to the last day too and it got picked. Then it went into a special holding area once it reached the "event horizon" as you put it or its day passed off the template talkpage. It took two days in the holding period for it to make it to prep and then another two days to make the front page. Hyman will have to wait until the AfD is complete which is now just procedural. He fits both WP:ANYBIO qualificatons as well as meeting GNG. If I had been worried about it, I would have added about six more URLs I have on him but I've been busy this weekend with my charities. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Charities -- cool! I'm just a damn corporate drone. I've been too busy at work to do most of the stuff I wanted to do this summer, including a hiking trip in the Sierras. Maybe in the early fall if it doesn't snow too soon. Don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to the college football season. A glance at your user page leads me to suspect we may not be rooting for the same teams.  :) (Got in to USC for grad school, but ended up not going there. Complicated. Always wonder how life would have turned out differently had I taken their offer.) Antandrus (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Not that you're watching this like a hawk, but the oil spill is Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Queue_3 and will hit tomorrow afternoon at 5 pm PST. No autograph booths, please. ----moreno oso (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I still have time to make that map ... you know what they say about good intentions ... Antandrus (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Better hurry. I've seen snails run faster races. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm done with his Judge infobox. How you coming with that map? ----moreno oso (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't have the software on my laptop. I hope to have it done before I go in to work tomorrow (oh, 9am if I'm lucky). I already digitized the spill area; it's just a matter of making a few callouts and making sure all the layers I'm using are public domain. Antandrus (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'm slow, I know, but here it is ... can tweak if necessary but this should do for now ... gotta go to work now ...[5] Antandrus (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not bad. Wow, didn't realize it extended to Pismo Beach and Silver Strand. Those are some pretty beaches! ----moreno oso (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Antandrus. You have new messages at Dave1185's talk page.
Message added 02:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Who really deserves the thanks

User:Michael Bednarek is the one who deserves the real thanks. As to abuse, well, what do you call this:

JIM: The article content is taken from Grove. OPUS: Shut up, you're way off base. You don't understand that the source for that article is in fact Grove. JIM: That's what I just said. OPUS: No, you were editing recklessly.

And I suppose back in the 18th century you would've sided with Gregor Werner when he accused Haydn of laziness. James470 (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Straw man, mixed with sarcasm. Try again, honestly, or I'm not interested. Mind WP:CIVIL, which is a policy, not a suggestion. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the Wikipedia policy designed for selective enforcement. And I'm not one bit surprised that you would use it. Indefblock me right now, it's not going to change the truth.

If you're going to completely mischaracterize Opus33's actions, at least have the decency to WP:OVERSIGHT the article history to match your version of events.

You can also oversight my comments to completely expunge them.

At least I know I don't go around plagiarizing Grove articles and expecting to be congratulated for creating "fine free content." James470 (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have open Opus's first draft of the article, and Gregor Werner in the New Grove, and I've gone down line by line, and see no plagiarism, let alone the "cut and paste" you claim on his talk page. At this point I'm not interested in arguing with you, since you are 1) clearly wrong, and you must know this; 2) grossly overreacting to something I don't understand. If you were more civil I'd try to get to the bottom of it, but life is too short and I have other things to do than argue with people who are behaving irrationally. Antandrus (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Try asking Hubert Unverricht, whose name is suspiciously absent. Or try asking the author of the Haydn entry. James470 (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. According to Karl Stolley and Allen Brizee [6], "plagiarism, ... is the uncredited use (both intentional and unintentional) of somebody else's words or ideas." Doesn't say anything about replacing the real author's name with your own. Leaving out the author's name is enough to constitute plagiarism.

However, James is wrong on one count: Opus33 did more than just copy and paste Hubert Unverricht's words, he also reworded Hubert Unverricht's text while largely maintaining the meaning.

Both of you ought to take a look at WP:SHEVERIFY before it gets deleted. Incarnatus (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Good essay. Why would anyone delete it? Antandrus (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is, Hubert Unverricht would be less than thrilled if he knew of how his Grove article was taken without credit and no one caught it for three years, or even knew his name. James470 (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)