User talk:Antandrus/Archive37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 37: October 2011 through March 2012. Please do not edit this page -- use my regular talk page instead, as I will not see your message here.


Help needed for a student class project

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project and consider adding your name.

The scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project is mainly concerned with new articles.

According to the teacher's instructions, this group of students may not create a lot of new articles, but may instead focus more on improving existing articles.

So, there may be little for us to do in the way the Wikipedia:WikiProject China/NNU Class Project required. The students may, however, still call on us for guidance in other areas. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin Preludes

Hi Antandrus-

I have a really dumb off-the-wall question - I'd be happy to accept a wild guess, but please don't put yourself out trying to research it.

Here at Wikipedia, as well as at IMSLP [1], and in any of the recordings that I have access to, the accent acute é is always missing. But if you come down and look at the sheet music at that IMSLP link, it's always spelled Prélude. Nearly every other occasion where a diacritic is called for, it is conscientiously used, both here and elsewhere. Does this make sense to you? Milkunderwood (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I don't think it's dumb or off-the-wall. It appears to be inconsistent. The New Grove, for example, consistently uses "Prelude" without the acute, both in the Chopin article and in the works list. They also use Etude without the acute, while our article is under Études (Chopin). Here are the results as a Googlefight: [2]. I'd go without the diacritic for the Preludes, and I know I'm accustomed to seeing them that way, but I'm not certain why. I believe the word in French is correct with and only with the accent (any of my talk page stalkers have better French than me?) Antandrus (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
En francais c'est bien prélude, but in English, it's indeed prelude. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) If the title is French, then it is incorrect without the acute accent; if the title is in English, then it is incorrect with the acute accent, unless the word is understood as being imported from French. (This can get tricky, and I don't think we need worry about the presence or absence of the accent in Polish or other languages.) "Etude" is slightly more complicated, because in French sometimes the accents are omitted on capital letters for typographical reasons. This could also affect title pages where the page design uses full caps for titles. I hope this helps.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone, for your responses. In the meantime, it suddenly occurred to me that here "Prelude" is being used as a generic term, and thus rendered in its English equivalent, just as "Valse" (or the German "Walz") is normally translated to "Waltz". I think original languages and diacritics are probably retained when specifically used in a title. Would this make sense? Milkunderwood (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow answers come to me better when I'm busy doing something else, away from my computer. Here's a counter-example that I had been trying to think of, as a title: Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Etude is indeed trickier, not only because of typography, but I think because of indecision as to whether it's legitimately an English word to be used generically. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Gwen and JK are spot on. They're generic terms, therefore rendered in English. I also think 'etude' is a generic term, and an English word (though of course borrowed from French). Grove has their entry under "Etude" without the diacritic, although the online Merriam-Webster disagrees: they have an initial acute. Antandrus (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant by indecision. M-W hadn't occurred to me. Seeing that, I thought just for fun I'd check a 1933 Shorter OED, but they don't even list the word at all - it goes from Ettle to Etui. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the problem with étude/etude is one of conservative vs progressive philosophy. Just as with many compound terms that progress from hyphenated to solid spelling, the more old-fashioned will regard "étude" as a word still clearly of French origin, like "cuisine" or "savoir faire", while the more avant-garde will insist it is as English as "annoy", "bastard", or "reactionary".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True. In any case, it seems we have established a general rule, to the effect that a generic title or word accepted as English does not take diacritics, whereas such a word of foreign origin used specifically in a foreign-language title does take its proper diacritics. Would this be a fair assessment? Milkunderwood (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having just seen this discussion for the first time, my answer to that question is Yes.
Let me share my thoughts about etude/étude. There is no such word in the English language as "etude", imo. Why would there be, when we have the perfectly serviceable word "study"? Now, sometimes we desire to refer to works by the titles they have in some other language. This is where "étude" comes in: it's a French word. We can spend all day talking about, say, the Chopin études, and nobody would object. We could spend all day writing about them too, and as long as we acknowledge, by the use of the acute accent, that it is indeed a French word we're using, we're safe. The problem comes when people take it upon themselves to decide that it is now an English word and we can do without the accent. There is no authority for this.
It's not like "premiere", or "role", or "cafe", or "debut", all of which have become fully-fledged English words - and this brings us to the exact opposite problem. Those four words and various others are no longer French words when used in English contexts; they have become fully absorbed into English, and we should NOT use accents when we write them. But how often do we see editors sticking damn accents on them, as if we're speaking French when we say "the film had its premiere on 17 August" or "the main roles were played by ...".
If only these two diametrically extreme camps (the ones who drop diacritics when they shouldn't, and the ones who use diacritics when they shouldn't) would just see things my way, come to the middle and follow my example, the world would be a much happier place. For me, anyway.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, Jack. No one here likes to see you being unhappy. The specific problem here is that we have no reliable authority - Merriam decorates with the acute, Grove and American Heritage go naked, and SOED (Onions) just ignores and skips over the word. So how do you decide the extent of anglicization? What does Macquarie say? For all that I try to comport with WP's recommended style, on talkpages and in other less formal situations I tend toward some sloppiness, frequently omitting things like diacritics, or for instance periods after abbreviations, etc - In fact just a few days ago I got chewed out for suggesting that aka is a better abbreviation than the "official" AKA, and was told that while a.k.a. might be best, "AKA is a thousandfold preferable to 'aka'." It is? Not where I come from - I would say just the other way around. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely. My pen also dispenses with punctuation in "etc" and "eg" except when a sword is held to my throat. Sometimes the sword is mightier than the pen. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a "general rule" for behaviour on Antandrus's talk page, or a Wikipedia guideline, sneaked in under the radar? Personally, I am disappointed that this failed to escalate into an all-out brawl over whether Wikipedia represents the dignity of tradition, or the recognition of present-day reality (the familiar Telegraph vs. Guardian positions).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'd prefer to assume the former. I'll let you guys fight out the Wikipedia guidelines - I'm a stranger here myself. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Well, we could always change venue to one of the combat zones (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style comes to mind; a place where the question of whether or not to space an en-dash can be fought with medieval ferocity). And it has no less than 126 archives! Now there's some exciting reading.
More seriously, I think this is one of those issues that will never be perfectly consistent Wikipedia-wide. For my own part, I try to be consistent within an article, and I'm not even all that good at that. Antandrus (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of combat zones, Antandrus, I don't recall your jumping into this knock-down-drag-out yet. (Nor any of you here.) Anyway, I thought it was pretty funny that SOED listed Etui but not Etude, in either form. How's this for conservatism? Milkunderwood (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo Latin

Hi,

Let me note first that we are almost neighbors. The few facts concerning yourself are remarkably similar to those of a casual acquaintance whom I have not seen for several years, and whose name escapes me. If you have played bridge at the Santa Barbara Bridge Club, then we are acquainted.

I am not happy with your comment. The article is wrong and the fact that it is wrong is not subject to serious debate. I was annoyed when my original correction to the article was deleted. I originally corrected the article at least a year ago and was surprised and disappointed when I reviewed the article a few days ago and found that the article had not been corrected. Hence the subsequent corrections.

My reply to Caleb somebody or another:

Hi.

Lets begin at the beginning.

First, the DATA article contains repeated assertions that the word data 1) originated in Latin; and 2) is the plural form of the Latin word datum. Both of these claims are false.

Second, correction of factual errors in articles by users is officially encouraged by Wikipedia.

Third, characterization of a specific verifiable rebuttal of a false factual claim in a Wikipedia article as vandalism is plainly and simply insulting. You stand in direct violation of the general guidelines which are supposed to govern conduct in these matters.

I expect your apology and restoration of the deleted rebuttal forthwith.

RWM

Cordially, RWM

Greetings. You are welcome to correct factual errors, but keep in mind that you are editing an encyclopedia article and that is what visitors see. What you posted -- this] was a first-person critique of the article -- in the article itself. This is what talk pages are for. Please proceed to the talk page of the article to make your case. Would you want the thousands of visitors to that article to read your first-person comment and threat "Throughout my lifetime, the English word: data has been a collective noun. Usages such as: "These data are interesting." are at best awkward and ugly ... I can and will continue to edit this article to rebut this particular fatuous claim until I am prevented from doing so." That is what you put in the article; that is what multiple editors reverted; and the reason I blocked you, for one hour, was to get you to stop long enough to read the messages on your talk page. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWB#7

Hi Dave -- difficult one. My instinct is of course Muppanar is a sock, but I don't know of whom. Apparently someone else was also hesitant to make the call. Wikipedia has always had swarms of enraged gnats around ethnic and nationalist disputes; my advice would be to keep some perspective. Sometimes it's helpful to log out and read a few longish articles on encyclopedic subjects to remind yourself that we're actually pretty good in spite of a few bugs in the woodwork. Antandrus (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Believe me, I tried... I'm not kidding you, the headache comes and go for the past 36 hours, yet no common sense prevails while nothing's been done. In any case, I think I'll just take a 24 hours break to regain my sanity, and maybe my work will knock me back in the right heading, where a heavy dosage of WP:DGAF is already in existance in my line of work. Best and out, see you in 24 hours! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pro-abortion"

Hi Antandus, I think it is fine and necessary to add on pro-abortion or pro-choice page that it is also called as "pro-abortion". By atleast this line: It is also called pro-abortion. (or) It is called pro-abortion by the pro-life supporters (or) activists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.84.102 (talk • contribs)

Greetings -- if you wanted to do that I'd suggest not putting it in the lede, but elsewhere in the article -- maybe in the "term controversy" section ("The term 'pro-abortion' is sometimes used to describe this position by members of the 'pro-life' movement" -- or something like that). The best way to maintain WP:NPOV on contentious topics like this is to use the terminology the movements themselves use to describe themselves. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sock of the IP you just blocked

changed the .35 to .54 on the IP and continued the vandalism--Львівське (говорити) 04:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know -- I'll lay down a range block if he keeps up. Antandrus (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

advice requested

Antandrus, I am coming to you now simply requesting advice, because in my experience you have always responded to queries (which in itself not every editor has done), but more importantly, with considered thoughtfulness. (How's that for buttering you up? :-) - but it's true.)

My question here concerns the existing article Arthur Rubinstein discography, with which I have expressed discontent both there in two separate sections on its talk page, and on my own User:Milkunderwood page. You will find that I and User:THD3, who has been the primary contributor to this article, disagree on its relative merits, but I believe our disagreements have been and remain friendly, and have not devolved to being a dispute - this is not the issue. You might note, in looking at the history of that article, that the format of the existing discographic table had originally been set up by a different editor, who appears to have since abandoned it. [Edit: There's also this brief discussion: User talk:THD3#Arthur Rubinstein discography, again.

Being discontented with that table's layout, I decided to attempt a different format for a Rubinstein discography in my sandbox, where I have now set up only a number of sample entries, followed by an explanation of my rationale for its organization.

If you would care to look at any of these pages, my first and most basic question is whether in your judgment my sandbox attempt is even worth pursuing, given that continuing with it would necessarily involve untold hours of work. If you believe it is not, I can happily abandon it forthwith.

Or you may have other suggestions, such as how my own effort might be improved; or how, if it is continued, it might be integrated with the present table; or perhaps be eventually posted either as a separate table within the existing article, or as its own separate article.

Then several specific issues have been raised, or at least thought of, for instance:

  • THD3's concern that my layout, even when sorted, does not easily enough display a "minibox" containing the specific contents of a disc (try a sort on the 4th column yourself);
  • his questioning whether a disc physically at hand can sufficiently serve to self-reference itself, as I have suggested, or with a single general reference to three alternative sources (two online plus one book) as I have provided, as opposed to his referencing each disc individually to a single specific source;
  • whether in either case an issue of copyright infringement might arise - the John Hunt book referenced in my sandbox is by far the most detailed listing, but I would propose to use it primarily for verification, along with the two online sources;
  • and I believe there may be other issues that I'm not immediately thinking of.
  • (And incidentally, what is the best format for Rubinstein's name to be used in Wikipedia.)

So if you might care to take the time to investigate any of this, I put myself in your hands. As always, I very much appreciate your efforts. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the formats, I can tell you my personal opinion -- I like it by composer as you have it in your sandbox. Seems if you sort on the last column you essentially get the "minibox" (right?) even though it may be several adjacent cells. I haven't done any table formatting myself, just because I prefer to keep wikimarkup simple, even though I've written some articles where information could have been usefully presented in a table. (I may switch soon; tables are now everywhere, and it seems people find their sortability useful enough to offset the unfriendliness of wikisyntax, especially for newbies.) Regarding the source -- I think having the disc is fine, but there are a lot of policy fundamentalists who will disagree, you know the same people who say you can't look at a map and determine that Albany is north of New York City, that you need to cite a published source that says that. Also I don't see a copyright problem with taking list-type information from a book (I'm not a lawyer, but I think lists of names, dates, places don't qualify). Hope this helps! (I wonder if anyone has tried to write a program to format such a table from a database or spreadsheet?) Antandrus (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of them, actually. The Googledocs to Wiki converter is fairly friendly, but there are others. I've used the HTML to Wiki converter a few times; you have to have very basic HTML for it to work but it works perfectly then. See here for the list with links. Hth! KillerChihuahua?!? 20:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had an edit conflict, and have lost my initial response, which was to the effect that I very much appreciate your having taken the time to look at these, and to have answered several of my specific questions. I'm still left with my question of whether it's worthwhile pursuing the work in my sandbox, and if so, how the question of two different table formats might be resolved. Obviously there's no point in proceeding unless 1) there's some consensus that's it's worth doing at all, and 2) there's a feasible way to actually post it publicly. Perhaps one or another of your talkpage watchers might also want to chime in on this. I might add that one problem I have with the present article is that although the table is set up as being sortable, there's virtually nothing useful to sort by any column.
KillerChihuahua, thank you also for your suggestion. I know zilch about HTML, but I ought to check out the Googledocs - inputting data into a table is a bear. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, I know those tools have been a lifesaver for me! KillerChihuahua?!? 20:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My favorite puppy! Greetings! -- Yes, thanks for that -- I didn't know about the converters (just haven't needed such a thing, ... yet anyway). Milkunderwood -- my sense is that your work in your sandbox is worthwhile, but you might want to make sure on the article's talk page before investing a lot of time in it. I thought the format you were working on (the second, larger table) is quite good. You're never going to be able to query and sort on everything, so anyone making such a complex table will have some compromises to make -- but consider how much more useful it is than a big table on paper. Antandrus (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. Yes, I've already posted at the article's talkpage. Assuming that I would proceed and invest the time, I don't suppose you might have any thoughts on how it could be posted, either together with THD3's table somehow, or as a separate article? He is very understandably loath to see his own hard work go away. I think this issue needs to be settled first, whether or not mine may be worthwhile continuing. This is actually the biggest hangup for me, because I'm just not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and styles on a question like this. I don't see how the two tables can be incorporated into one, and putting them separately together in a single article would be huge. Or if they were separate articles, how might they be differentiated?

Actually, if you (or any page-watcher) have suggestions to make on this matter, Talk:Arthur Rubinstein discography#Suggested alternative table layout might be a more logical place to post them. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a naive question, but why not have both tables? Article length doesn't seem to be much of an issue anymore (compared to, say, 2005). You could always do a separate article the other way; at worst, some wiki-pedant would AfD it, and it would be merged back (I'd vote keep). The encyclopedic value of either table is high, and obvious. This is the body of work of one of the most significant performing artists of the 20th century, not a list of ephemera. Easy to justify the extra effort. Just my opinion, but then I'm an awful highbrow.  :) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For helping resolve the conflicts with 190.163.3.204. Thank you and happy editing. pluma Ø 06:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yeah, I've made embarrassing mistakes myself; it happens. In resolving things like this it's important to start with "oops -- sorry -- my bad" before even addressing the other person's abusive language. Often if the order of acknowledgement is right, the problem resolves simply. Imagine a cop making a mistake: thinks he saw a guy committing a crime, grabs him, "stop resisting! let me handcuff you!" and the guy, who has done nothing wrong (but maybe seemed to be doing something wrong, due to misunderstanding, poor visibility, -- whatever), confused, surprised, shouts "WHAT?? what are you doing? who are you? what the hell? get the fuck off me, asshole!" It's a mistake to try to extort an apology from the non-criminal (Qwyrxian, you reading this?) until the cop backs off and says -- "Oh. I'm really sorry. My mistake. Please, let me help you up." Then and only then, a well-adjusted adult takes a deep breath, and says to the cop -- "Thank you. I'm sorry I yelled at you." Falls into place; everyone goes away satisfied. It's human to err, and heaven knows I get mad enough at people around here. Once again, thank you for the vandal patrolling you do; I do it off and on myself, and have twisted my ankles in some deep gopher holes. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Antandrus/Archive37! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

hey

I didn't bother looking to far into your undo revision on the warmblooded wiki, I'm assuming you're also trying to fix it, I'm just going to let it be because I know there is a way to revert all those bad edits at once. Thanks if your helping clean it up. If you aren't doing that, well.. thanks for being funny and stuff, that was pretty funny actually, I was going to encourage the act but cut it out regardless... the chaos seems to be a sort of free e-tron pool... sort of.. anyway peace to you

Greetings -- I reverted back to 22 July because that looked like the last clean version. I didn't miss one, did I? Check warm-blooded as it stands now. Antandrus (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cotton gin

Thanks for fixing that vandalism on the cotton gin page. It's been getting a lot of vandalism lately - do you think it might be possible to have it semi-protected or something? Thanks, Michaelmas1957 (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It's not a really bad problem, but because you seem to be the only current active editor versus multiple school IPs (this topic being a common school assignment) I think it's reasonable to protect. Let me know if they come back after the protection expires. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, very much appreciated. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands War

Whilst I have no objections to your edit, I really didn't think the previous text was that bad. However, the IP's version changed meanding whilst yours didn't. What exactly was your rationale in editing it, the previous comment included a quote, was that it? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much -- I thought 200's wording was a little clearer. If I borked it feel free to fix it; it makes sense either way, really (maybe I don't see the change in meaning to which you refer).
There's another story here, though, which is much larger. See the barnstar above, and the comment I left beneath it. This particular anon is a good-faith editor, and for the last week or so I've been watching his editing, and his unfortunate collisions with people who revert him, accusing him of vandalism -- look at this, for example -- 190.163.3.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). None of his edits were vandalism, but count the vandalism templates on the talk page! Look at his outrage! Another newly-minted admin steps in, and demands he apologize for his angry outburst, without addressing the cause -- and even blocks him -- two days after his last edit, long after his last bad word -- seriously, what the hell? Out of morbid curiosity I'm watching his subsequent edits to see how many times more he gets reverted for edits that are not vandalism. I'm trying to figure out if there is anything we can actually do, project-wide, to address this issue. Maybe all of us should go undercover as anons from time to time as a reminder of what it is like. Antandrus (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't bork it, as it happens I would have preferred to keep the existing text. But as that was down to personal preference and my familiarity with the original source, well I'm not going to revert on that basis. May I suggest you look again at their edits on Falklands War and read the results - a crucial meaning was changed to infer the Prince was part of the press pack. If I may observe part of the problem is that guy just reverted and people tend to be more suspicious and less forgiving of IP editors who do that; and not all of the edits he made are an improvement. I gave an informative edit summary and his response was less than friendly. Sorry but this is a collaborative project and if he responds as he does, then I have every sympathy with the blocking admin. His attitude is problematic, confrontational and I fear you're encouraging him down the wrong path. See [3] his edit summaries would have me convinced he was a vandal. There is also the other side of the coin, I've seen admins going at an established editor for "biting newbies" when it was an obvious vandal and troll who was eventually indefinitely block within a week. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This particular editor is not always civil; I know that. His contributions from this IP are characteristic. What I'm trying to point out is that he was very specifically wronged, with good-faith edits reverted and tagged as vandalism, and lost his temper. Please look at what happened, in sequence, edit by edit. I believe it is unreasonable to expect the wronged editor to apologize for his outburst without first an acknowledgement that he was wronged. Blocking him after calmer discussion had begun, and blocking an IP that was already inactive for a day and a half, was silly, but it's a mistake I see new admins make. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have PTSD and went through a bad period of mental health in 2009/2010, during which I was bullied mercilessly by a bunch of Spanish nationalist and a British editor till I lost it over the Gibraltar article. I was topic banned for 3 months by arbcom as a result. As regards my edits and arguments, they were 100% correct. I'm still labelled by my topic ban and arbcom still sides with the people who were bullying me and Gibraltar is still an awful article. When another editor took the issue of the bullying over my edits on Gibraltar to WP:AE I got another topic ban.
The civility policy sucks and its too often used as an excuse to avoid looking into problematic editors. However, the guy here is losing his temper for very little provocation, you have to ask is he cut out for editing in a collaborative environment? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens I went back and looked at my watchlist for today. Of the articles on my watchlist several have IP edits. Other than this IP I've only warned one other for blatant plagiarism. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that about Gibraltar; these are the stressful things about Wikipedia. Glad you toughed it out, for a lot of good editors just pick up and leave. We're hemorrhaging experienced and clueful editors and it's a huge problem.
I'm actually one of the defenders of the civility policy, although I do it less and less publicly, not wanting to be pilloried on ANI or elsewhere, getting into it with one of the habitual abusers and their gang of enablers. Perhaps I'm trying to make a more subtle point and not stating it clearly. It's about dispute resolution and the order things have to happen. Even if the editor has a nasty side, he was wronged first, and both sides can come away from the dispute resolution satisfied if the person who falsely accused him of vandalism first says "I'm sorry", and then once that is cleared up, we can talk to him about civility. If the cop pushes an innocent guy to the pavement, and the guy yells at him, it's unreasonable to expect the yelling victim to apologize first. Anyway, maybe I didn't state it clearly.
I've been doing vandal patrol for the last couple weeks -- first time I've done this much in maybe three or four years. I'm observing interesting differences with the way it was when I used to do it more; one is that I think people are less careful about reverting good-faith edits than they used to be. (I don't have data to back this up, only a feeling, based on watching recent changes every day for the last couple weeks.) Not sure what, if anything, to do about it, or if anyone is paying attention. Antandrus (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Antandrus: The IP-switching editor from Chile wasn't polite at all. Wikipedia is collective editing, but unfortunately hiding behind IP addresses sometimes get out the worst in people :-( The "encyclopaedic way" isn't necessarily "telegraphic style". BTW what was exactly the point "(200. has a point)"; your rewriting is more or less the same, besides the exclusion of HMS Invincible. And why do you call Wee Curry Monster's revert [4] "tagged as vandalism", he did explain what was wrong. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't -- I'm talking about another editor two nights ago, when the anon was 190.163.3.204. Wee Curry Monster's edits were faultless as far as I'm concerned. My '200' point was about the phrase "right stuff" but honestly that's minor -- you can change it back if you want. Antandrus (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is disappointing. Granted, two nights ago he was falsely accused of vandalism by another editor, and improperly blocked -- and I will speak up if I see that -- but I'm not going to waste my time helping someone who sees nothing wrong with being casually abusive. (Yes, I see the irony in accusing someone else of not having a clue on "how the place works". The encyclopedia could never have been built, if we had had, all along, the civility-free standards of discourse found on forums, message boards, and Usenet.) Antandrus (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, you stuck your neck out for him, sorry but when someone is gratuitously offensive then they are a problem. I know its disappointing when you reach out to help someone and they respond like that. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that you're disappointed, Antandrus. I'm disappointed that my edits are again being reverted for no good reason. When I've spent time and consideration on them, and someone simply reverts without any thought at all, claiming that I changed the meaning but not bothering to explain how, reverting to a version that contains awful writing, and then starts stalking my edits to other articles and reverting all of those without even bothering to think of a reason, I am very disappointed. Are you disappointed to see edits like these reverts to Ian Gow :[5], [6], and this to Pseudorandom number generator: [7]? Are you troubled by the edit summary "rv IP edits"? He's taken some bizarre dislike to me, and is simply attacking me. That is extreme incivility, and as I see that no-one else seems to think his behaviour is a problem, I am very disappointed, and very pissed off. Should I not be? 200.104.120.204 (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Antandrus but when I see an editor removing sources claiming to improve the article and edit warring to do so, whilst at the same time resorting to abuse I felt I had no choice but to report him for 3RR. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth, I created this template {{Newbie-biting}} as a light hearted way to remind editors not to bite newbies. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Thank you. (As I'm sure you realize, I'm still following the saga. I did what I could.) I have trouble making templates; it gets into wiki-syntax issues where I'm just not an expert. Interesting how we are now producing specialists in things like that. Antandrus (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I have tried to reach out to him as you did but I rather fear it will not be taken in the spirit intended. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@200.104.120.204. I'll suggests that you create an account, it's free!!
@Antradus I'm not an English native speaker. What's wrong with "right stuff?? When selecting a few reporters to a war zone, hard-core war reporters would be logical, not paparazzis. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was in quotes. What did it mean, exactly? Did it refer to The Right Stuff (film)? The book? I think it's best to be absolutely clear, precisely because we may have non-native speakers. It's not bad; either wording I thought was all right. There are probably more elegant solutions, but I didn't spend much time thinking about it -- "not all the reporters were up to the same professional standard, and not all were interested primarily in covering the war: two, for example, were along mainly to cover the activities of the Prince." Or something. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was in quotes because it was (from the depths of my unreliable memory) quoting the Channel 4 documentary on the war with the follow up book on the 10th anniversary. Somewhere along the line the reference got removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "the right stuff" was awful. Its meaning was unclear, it clearly assumes that the reader shares the viewpoint of whoever was deciding whether people were "the right stuff", its appearance in quotes gave it the appearance of being simply a copy and paste of some biased source, and its removal was necessary. So who made a good faith attempt to improve things, and who edit warred to restore this awful writing? And did the latter get sanctioned or even warned for it?
Antandrus, the bit about "same professional standard" is much better than what is there now. 200.104.120.204 (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion but you edit warred to restore a version that was misleading see above and an independent corroborating opinion below. You were blocked for being uncivil and edit warring. I didn't break WP:3RR you did. See also WP:BRD and again this is a collaborative venture being WP:CIVIL is important. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Falklands War article is very long, so "not all the reporters were up to the same professional standard, and not all were interested primarily in covering the war: two, for example, were along mainly to cover the activities of the Prince." is too long. The issue is that there was a restriction of the number of journalists at the Task Force. One would expect that experienced war correspondents, who are used to flying bullets, would be preferred. The two journalists were probably good at covering Buckingham Palace, and were trained professionals. Anyone will agree that royal journalists, fashion journalists, film critics etc. are useless in a war zone, so where is the bias? Furthermore it was only the two "royal" reporters that weren't interested in covering the war.
"Due to the hasty departure, not all of them were "the right stuff"; two journalists on HMS Invincible were interested in nothing but Queen Elizabeth II's son Prince Andrew, who was serving in the conflict." is a precise description.
I don't know if "the right stuff" is American English or 1980s - so since some readers are ignorant of the right stuff expression then "The hasty selection resulted in the inclusion of two journalists among the war reporters who were interested only in Queen Elizabeth II's son..." would be precise too.
The words "travelling with the rest of the war reporters" gave the impression that Prince Andrew was serving in the conflict as a war reporter, hence the "you changed the meaning beyond recognition". 200.104.120.204 displayed his or her lack of cooperativeness by restoring his or her faulty edit with an arrogant "I don't believe I did.". But you did! --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks NE, I'm glad someone else could see it too. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the edit was not faulty. If you think it was, the problem is with you, not the edit. Grammatically it is impossible to interpret the sentence as you suggest, unless you're reading it carelessly. That's not to say it could not be further improved, but "the right stuff" is not an acceptable expression, not having a generally accepted meaning, and inherently broadcasting the bias of the source. Reverting to that version was unacceptable. If "wee curry monster" (a known POV pusher who has been subject to arbitration restrictions) thought the new wording was not precise enough, he should have edited it, and I would have been very happy to see that. Reverting was simply lame, blatantly not in the interests of improving the article, and as far as I can see, attributable in large part simply to a dislike of IP editors (which became unmistakable with his later revert with the comment "rv IP edits". You call me arrogant? I think it's very arrogant for a non-native English speaker to misinterpret a sentence and believe that the fault could not possibly be theirs.
Now, I'll be continuing to edit, and if I come up against any more of this blatant anti-IP discrimination, then I'll be angry about it again. As so many people here see being angry as far, far worse than being prejudiced, the prejudice will continue. Stop the prejudice, and we're all happy. Condone the prejudice, and none of us are happy. Your choice. 201.214.175.96 (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you're heading for another block if you continue as you did before. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very effective fly-swatter but...

Ah, greetings -- yes, I saw your note as you will see by my follow-up earlier today. Just a troll, is my opinion. Judging by the many IPs he used to vandalise Leander Kahney (going back to 4 September), and his sometimes-useful-edits-but-mostly-trolling style at Nachteilig, I'd say he's been here before, is still around, will be again, and may have been bright enough to log in to either sockpuppet with a different IP. No worries ... "anyone can edit" means that we get some, uh, ... Antandrus (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings! (where was my manners!) I must confess that I really love your wit! And thanks for noticing that last one, not many people get we meant when we have it up there for so long. Strange how things work out for these flies, he seem to have a particular obsessive fixation on the line "pathetic failure" that either he is reminding himself of his own pathetic failure or he is fast becoming the part. In any case, OWB point 39 duly applies again! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 04:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- I noticed (the page is on my watch list). I'll block him again if he vandalises again. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My recently deleted article

Hello, you recently deleted William Adams (judge), under the grounds that it was a "article about a living person in a negative tone" and generally unsourced. To begin, this was a page about a living person, who just so happened to be a judge at the time the article was written, (which, by the way, was under a rapid transformation, and was in no way negative, but rather informative). Nowhere in the article did I use undermining words such as "terrible" or "blatant" which may have emphasis on a "negative" page. Please direct me to where in the article you believe I was using undermining language, or a tone of speech that was negative rather than informative. Additionally, you state that the sources were incomplete and generally unverifiable; this is a current event , and sources change all the time. Look at this source, from Gawker, a trusted and official web news provider: http://gawker.com/5855478/reddit-video-apparently-shows-texas-family-judge-beating-disabled-daughter

As news continues to break out about this tender subject, I made the page and placed the "current event" tag on there to make sure that it would not be put up for speedy deletion. Please allow me to recreate this page with updated (and verifiable) sources. Thank you. Touch Of Light (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you created it in good faith; no problem there; if you would like me to e-mail you a copy so you can work on it offline, let me know.
Please read our biographies of living persons policy. Thoroughly and carefully.
I investigated the incident, for I had noticed it earlier in the evening. The video is going viral, and I watched it myself (one of the most horrifying things I've ever seen on Youtube) -- but you must realize that we cannot have articles here which are nothing but "John Smith (judge) is famous as the guy who beat up his own kid on a Youtube video which is now going viral." This is extremely dangerous ground. There is no way we can cover this topic at all unless it gets mainstream media coverage -- and even then we would need to balance that with actual information on his career, or else it looks like a hit piece. The sources in the article were Youtube, Gawker, Reddit, ... For a BLP, we need sources that are unimpeachable.
If you'd like a separate, unbiased opinion, I recommend asking at the BLP noticeboard. Those people specialize in working on BLPs and may have some more useful advice. Antandrus (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For you observations on Wikipedia behaviour. Most of them are totally true, even if we hate to admit it. Happy editing! pluma Ø 21:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Appreciate that. Let me know if that harassing IP comes back and you need some help (the one I reverted earlier today from your talk page). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hovhaness

Antandrus, I wonder if you've chanced to look at my User:Milkunderwood/sandbox Hovhaness, and whether you might have any comments or suggestions? If so, please post there - thanks. That is a very public project, not just for Jerome and me. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wagner

Sorry to trouble you but perhaps you could take a look at Richard Wagner and its talk page. User:Major Torp is causing some turmoil here, partly fuelled by rather miscellaneous gleanings from Google Books and Project Gutenberg, and in both small and large-scale edits is behaving in a manner which might not unreasonably be construed by some as provocative. With thanks, --Smerus 10:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Wagnerian help request

Could you be kind and help with a balancing act so the cornered situation can be resolved in the Wagner discussion page .Thank you User:Major Torp (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys (answering both you and Smerus, albeit briefly). I thought the lede was pretty good as is. When I get a chance -- might not be until the weekend, it's a busy week for me IRL -- I'll read the discussion page which I haven't visited since I left a brief note there a couple days ago. Major Torp I thought you were on to a couple of good things, they just didn't belong at the top of the article, but I'm sorry I can't respond in detail right now. By the way I'd recommend against any major restructuring without getting consensus first since a couple people have labored long to get it up to Good Article status, and that included considerable attention to structure. Antandrus (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francis W. Wilson

Are you familiar with Francis W. Wilson or his works? It seems he designed much of Montecito and a lot of the public buildings in Santa Barbara. I found him tangentially (he designed the Grand Canyon Depot) and found he had no article. Acroterion (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes! Thank you for starting that article. I don't know much about his life, but am familiar with his work as it's all over the place. What's amazing to me is how well his work blends in with the Spanish revival / Mission style which became so prominent after the 1925 earthquake leveled most of the Old West and Random Clutter crap that built up here in oil-and-health-spa-boom years around 1900. I don't know offhand if any of his buildings collapsed in the earthquake. When I get home I can look in some of my books on local history to see if I have more biographical info. Antandrus (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He does seem to be omnipresent. A number of his buildings seem to have been heavily remodeled or demolished, and I'd assume that some fell prey to earthquake and fire. He seems to be appreciated, but not documented in much detail. Acroterion (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, this is more interesting than what I am doing at work, alas. (Hilariously, reviewing demolition plans in AutoCAD.) I have a hunch I may have some info on this guy ... will look later. Let me know if there's anything you'd like me to photograph; I'd be quite happy to do that. Antandrus (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I loathe doing demo plans. There's always something somebody wants to save, and a year later there's a change order to prop it up or take it out when it becomes apparent that it's not really salvageable. It's different for projects where we're doing actual conservation, but for more general work it's best to clean it all out if one can, revealing the unknown drainage lines and conduits right in the middle of the new space.
If you want an excuse to take pictures, that'd be great. The library would be super. The museum has been altered, so it might be hard to decide what was attributable to Wilson vs. Adler, but Adler's a prominent architect too, so you can't go wrong. As for houses, they're apparently numerous.
Following the rabbit farther down the hole, I'm looking for material to start an article on Reginald Johnson, who was a generation later than Wilson and who altered a lot of Wilson's work, as well as designing the new SB Post Office, SB City Hall, SB Biltmore and others [8]. If you pass by some of his work in SB, pictures of those would be great. He was based in Pasadena. Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked my great big book of local biography -- no luck on either architect. Too bad; I was sure that they had more architects in there. I will, however, take a few pictures once the gray skies and rain pass. Do you know if there is any database of houses by these architects that gives coordinates or street addresses? Even a current owner would be helpful (as I can access the county assessor's database). Easy enough to photograph the library, train station, Santa Barbara Club, but it would be fun to have some of the houses. I'll try to look like a realtor. Antandrus (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a rather short list at User:Acroterion/Wilson rather than clutter this page. The main item is this list [9] of Montecito places, which seems promising, but they're probably back from the road, behind a gate and trees. There are a few other odds and ends I've found, but it appears that there's little on-line material.
For Johnson, see my sandbox at User:Acroterion/Johnson and this list at the UCLA architecture library [10], but most of that list is around LA. The Clark Estate/Bellosguardo is Johnson. A list of high-priced real estate is here [11]. There's also Lotusland. I think I'll contact the Architectural Foundation of Santa Barbara [12]: if they don't have a database, nobody does. Acroterion (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oprah's estate, in Montecito
Fantastic lists. I'm sure I can get some of those. He built the Music Academy of the West building?? Impressive -- I've always loved that place. Most of the residences in Montecito are behind hedges and extremely difficult for a casual photographer to access -- less so with Hope Ranch. Santa Barbara is easy, since there are sidewalks everywhere, and most houses are close to the street; I've walked by most of them and recognize them (except for that baffling picture of Wilson's residence! I haven't the slightest idea where it is. But it shouldn't be hard to find if I walk their route.) Some of the places in Montecito are only visible from the air -- for example Oprah's estate, which I took hanging out of the window of a Cessna. Antandrus (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there was ever a place to build a mansion once you'd made your fortune in railroads, copper mining, banks or newspapers, Santa Barbara (or Montecito) was it at the beginning of the 20th century. Looks like the weather's going to be be uncharacteristically gray for this time of the year. I think several people had a hand in the Music Academy. Acroterion (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A number of your pix are included on National Register of Historic Places listings in Santa Barbara County, California; a few gaps remain in Santa Barbara if you're passing by something on the list. Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LA-area Meetup: Saturday, November 19

National Archives Backstage Pass at the Reagan Library
You are invited to the first-ever backstage pass tour and Wikipedia editathon hosted by the Reagan Presidential Library, in Simi Valley, on Saturday, November 19th! The Reagan Library, home to a real Air Force One and other treasures from American history, will take Wikipedians on a special tour of the grounds and archives, followed by an editathon; free catered lunch provided. Please sign up! Dominic·t 20:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

Ignazio Pollice article

The Ignazio Pollice article has been tagged for reference improvement because of the two sources provided one is in Italian and the other is not publicly accessible for review and verification. Please do not remove the tag until additional publicly accessible sources have been provided, preferably in English. Thanks. B.Rossow · talk 18:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement, nor has there ever been, that sources for articles need to be "publicly accessible" (your term-- it is indeed "publicly accessible" if you go to a library -- the New Grove is the gold standard for verification of factual information in this field). Your drive-by tagging is offensive. Do you think it your right to spray-paint "this article needs improvement" on articles when you have no willingness whatsoever to do the work yourself? Or do you think it is your duty to assign such busywork to others? Antandrus (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Admins assuming bad faith, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 17:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

LOL. I suppose I should block the sockpuppet, but I can't remember the name of the original account. Antandrus (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive IP Editor

I'm afraid your IP friend is back and has picked up where he left off at Ian Gow. He seems unable to edit collaboratively and is still resorting to the same WP:PA as he did before. And he won't use the talk page. He's heading for another lengthy block. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on the talk page was to the point. Honestly I don't see why such a trivial change should be the cause of an edit war, and to my eye (note: I haven't studied the issue) the details of the car and house are acceptable to include -- why not? Multiple people have reverted to that version. To be fair -- until your post three minutes after your timestamp above, no one had used the talk page for any reason for four years. IP editor if you are following -- could you either please politely state your case on the talk page, or drop it? I see you are doing good work elsewhere. Edit wars turn out badly, without exception, because one side or the other, or both, ends up angry, frustrated, and lets personal issues overwhelm the thing we should be focusing on, which is improving Wikipedia. -- I'm no saint in this regard, by the way, having yelled at people and edit-warred myself. Antandrus (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see your "wee curry monster" friend is back and has picked up where he left off at Ian Gow. He seems unable to edit collaboratively and is still resorting to the same WP:PA as he did before. He has belatedly attempted to justify his reverts on the talk page but has been unable to say anything meaningful. His grudge continues, and if I had removed the name of Gow's pet hamster from the article then no doubt he would have decided that was "relevant" as well. Funny how he never showed any interest at all in the article until after he'd started stalking my edits. Has anyone yet insisted that he explain his edit summary "rv IP edits"? 190.46.108.141 (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For info [13] in addition to the above personal attacks. User:Black Kite has semi-protected the article, the response in talk was less than civil and as you can see above he presumes this is a "grudge". Wee Curry Monster talk 18:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP edits to composer lists

Thanks for your attention to this. Like you, I assume edits by this IP editor are in good faith, but it would appear not well sourced. I have reviewed some of the edits at List of Medieval composers and see you've looked at some of the Renaissance ones. I'll look back later to see if all is well. (RT) (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- for now I'm assuming good faith on the strength of some that were corrections (e.g. he corrected Obrecht from 1455 to 1457/8, if I remember correctly, since Rob Wegman's article in the current New Grove accepts the painter's "38 years old at death" as authoritative). I think he may be extrapolating approximate birth and death dates from known information (a male singer is indeed likely to pick up his first adult gig around 20 years old, such as Jean Japart). I wish he'd explain. Thanks also for your attention to this! These articles are probably watched by very few people, and even fewer have knowledge in this area. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree, for some purposes extrapolating 20 years back from known information early in someone's adult career is not unreasonable — I've used that assumption for some sort keys in the Medieval list — provided hypothesis is not presented as fact. (RT) (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I've mentioned your name here. What an unpleasant thread. Bishonen | talk 00:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, yes. Agree with your outrage. Perspective, perspective! For chrissakes it's just a website. I wonder if some of these people have actually dealt the harder things. Live a while, and they happen. Dear God they happen. Antandrus (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that Cherubini married Constanze Mozart?

I see that you've been trying to engage with User:24.209.139.161. I've just rolled back a series of edits by this person...... Best. --GuillaumeTell 22:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa -- that's disturbing. Enough of that person's edits seemed to be good faith that sometimes I've been letting them go. Reminds me a little of this person. Antandrus (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I was reminded of the unlamented Italian discographer. I tend to assume, cynically, that such people are journalists who wish to write articles discrediting WP, but maybe I've been reading too much recently about the News International phone hacking scandal. --GuillaumeTell 00:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I do remember that one. -- It's a reasonable suspicion. I would presume there are people testing us all the time. Antandrus (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Thanks so much for your "Observations on Wikipedia Behavior."

It's not only brilliant, but inspirational.

—Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR (USA) /// Carrite (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim; appreciate it. Antandrus (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reverting posts

just because an article is edited by an IP number doesnt make it Vandalism. I actually removed Vandalism and added tons of new and updated content to my High School's page. Be considerate and thoughtful. Prospective students and families will be looking at that page. Do you think they want to see the slogan is "Our Only (student's name)" instead of "Our Only Hope", or that the current student body is 7/8ths of the size listed here? how about that tuition has increased over $500 since the last update? Use your domepiece.. Bro. (IKnowEverythingAboutAnything (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

You deleted the entire article. That's what I reverted. Antandrus (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I was re adding about a half an hours worth of work that Markvs88 reverted and it refreshed while I was updating. But thank you, would have taken a few days to re add everything had someone truly deleted the entire article.

You can pick a revision from the "history" tab, click on it, and make it active (then "edit" and save); nothing is ever truly lost on Wikipedia. No harm done. Antandrus (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're a seasoned editor, probably never shouldve written the first message^, but its just irritating that ive been editing for years without an account and Users revert Everything that are written by IPs. Thanks for the WP:MOS page (IKnowEverythingAboutAnything (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
That's a problem here (casual reverting of edits by IPs, whether they are good or not). I don't know what to do about it, honestly, other than recommend people make an account. Some IP editors tough it out, but it's not easy. I've occasionally edited as an IP myself just to see what it's like. Antandrus (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cotton gin (again)

Sorry to bother you, but could you please semi-protect the cotton gin article again, even if temporarily? As soon as the first protection expired, the IP vandals came back in force - the number of recent IP vandalism edits far outnumber useful edits. Thanks Michaelmas1957 (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings ... yep, anything that's likely a school assignment is a vandalism magnet. Semiprotected for month this time (until after the holidays). Antandrus (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Cowboy128

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Cowboy128 Cowboy128 (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Cowboy128 (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Every single edit you have made since you began editing Wikipedia has been to insert negative information regarding the ex-CEO of Occidental Petroleum, or regarding the company in general. We do not take kindly to violations of the biographies of living persons policy, and I strongly advise you to read it. Antandrus (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the OM shit now on ANI too, in case you're interested. Bishonen | talk 05:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I know. I was just reading that. Creationists make me crazy; I doubt I would be a voice of sanity on that one. OM often says it like it is. Antandrus (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liszt

Please do me a favor and look at the recent edit issue associated with the Franz Liszt article. The editor is screaming at me, in edit summaries, and on my talk page (as an IP) about my removal of sourced material. What he's adding is poorly done, even assuming it's verifiable from the source. I can't just recast it because I don't have the source. At the same time, I don't want to war with him over sourced content. I'll leave it to your judgment as to how this should be handled (if you're willing). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncanny. How did you know I was just now looking at that? I laughed out loud (literally) when my orange bar lit up.
I think a section on the organ music would be appropriate. I could draft one from the Grove article (unfortunately I'm leaving for the day, in a couple minutes). Maybe leave a note on the talk page that we could work one out?
On a totally unrelated thing, I don't know if you are watching the Occidental Petroleum article or not, but ... it's fallen into the mud pit. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I see you left a polite note on the Liszt Talk page. I'm sure you'll handle the situation more deftly than I was. Do you know much about the Watson book cited by the editor? I stopped watching the Occidental Petroleum article a while ago - can't remember why other than the outrageous number of pages in on my watchlist. I'll take a look at it, although your description doesn't bode well.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alas I don't have the Watson book, unless I can find it on Google books. My library is rather sparse with regard to Liszt, but I do have both editions of the New Grove, which should suffice to bang something out on the organ music (a paragraph at most). I'm familiar with the organ music, and don't disagree with Watson on its significance, but we need to start with something more "factual". (I'm late now and must be going.) All the best, Antandrus (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Safa Khulusi - a review of my actions please. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.14.138 (talk • contribs) (Nachteilig)

Haarscharf

Haarscharf has gone to simple:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Admin preventing me from challenging unjust block to try to gain sympathy. If you could go to WP:ANI#User:Haarscharf and explain who you're blocking, it might solve things.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, with this type of sockpuppeting troll I always shut off talk page access right away, because he wastes our time with unblock demands, AN/I threads, and so forth. This one will keep trying to recruit sympathy wherever he can. Thanks for letting me know. Antandrus (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Appreciate the help. With this type of troll I just try to ignore as much as I can. He makes semi-good edits some of the time, but trolling is like a drug addiction, and he's got a rather refined strategy for dragging good-faith editors into his tarpit (WP:BEANS for not being too specific). Antandrus (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know... which is why I've chosen to keep mum after voting delete on that AfD and he had nothing on me to work on. Ignored to the max, baby~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 01:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, he's obviously following you -- how else would he have found that page? -- and trying to get you to react. WP:ROPE approximately applies. Nothing's stopping him from helping us build an encyclopedia except his addiction to trolling, now that he knows he's good at it -- i.e. by doing something that is simultaneously provocative and completely allowed within policy, and which, if challenged, would just result in a lot of aimless drama. Antandrus (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like canvassing to me, though not of an outrageous type (e.g. he didn't copy and paste the same message to ten pages). Considering edits like this, I'd say it's the least of his sins. Keep an eye out for sockpuppets -- they won't relate to his exposed IP, of course, but that guy can't hide his style. Antandrus (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, may I suggest that you carefully read WP:BOOMERANG before lobbing these kinds of accusations? You may find it informative and relevant. (Brought to you by 108.82.100.8 and this announcement is brought to you by Bielle (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Whatever, you want to get on the list of severely ignored trolls then please be my guest... I'm not going to stop you, period. Adieu~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed re cut and paste move

Hi Antandrus. If you're around could you take a look at this? An editor made cut and paste moves from La favorite and Talk:La favorite to La Favorite and Talk:La Favorite with no discussion, after the pages had been at their original location for years, claiming that this is the title on Italian Wikipedia as the sole justification in the edit summary. This was obviously not an uncontroversial move even if it had been done properly. I've requested an admin to move them back over the redirects to La favorite and Talk:La favorite so that a requested move discussion take place without further complicating the histories of the talk pages. The request is here at the Cut and paste move repair holding pen, but I'm not sure if that was the right place to ask.

I couldn't discuss this with the editor who made the cut and paste move, User:Dodecalog, as they have (rather bizarrely) redirected their own talk page to their user page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I fixed this about five minutes before this message.  :) Check out the Donizetti article in the New Grove -- it's always l/c there. And as far as I know, our convention is to use l/c for French/Italian titles, so you'd be right. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. Have you always been telepathic? :) I agree it shouldn't be moved in any case. We'll see if they take it to the article talk page for discussion now. By the way, are editors "allowed" to redirect their own talk page to their user page so that no one can communicate with them? Voceditenore (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I'd just finished lunch and tapped on my watchlist and saw your request on the opera page. -- No, you're not supposed to redirect your talk page to your user page, though people sometimes do the opposite. Looking at the page histories, it seems no one has ever communicated with this editor in the whole time they have been with Wikipedia, so it may be an innocent mistake. Antandrus (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For expanding and rescuing articles on Polish medieval composers (Sebastian z Felsztyna, Mikołaj z Chrzanowa). Sebastian is now DYK eligible, you may want to nominate it for front page exposure at T:TDYK :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome -- funny, I'd been meaning to write articles on those 15th-16th century Kraków guys for some time now -- that was such a splendid flourishing spot, musically and artistically, and I wish the stuff were better known. The irony is that it was a trouble-making kid who kicked me in the ass to do some actual work, because it hurts my heart to see a stublet on a Renaissance composer to be speedy deleted. How's that for a dose of humility? -- Anyway good to see you are still around after all these years! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, and yourself? Perhaps one day we can push the Renaissance in Poland to a GA status. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a pleasure to help with that. It's already got a bit about the music, and it's pretty good; needs to include Luca Marenzio, who was one of the most famous composers in Europe when he went to Kraków at the end of his life. And then there was the production of the opera by Francesca Caccini in Warsaw, which I believe was the first performance of an opera by a woman anywhere in Europe ... but that's a couple of decades after the arbitrary end of the "Renaissance". It would be fun to work on it because I'd get to learn more about the Polish composers (I already know about the Italians...) Antandrus (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
W ostatnich latach jego życia zgromadzenie wikariuszy katedralnych wytoczyło mu dochodzenia z powodu niedbałego wypełniania obowiązków administracyjnych i jakoby nieobyczajnego życia translates as In the last years of his life, the association of cathedral vicars put him on trial, accusing him of poor performance in administrative duties and immoral lifestyle. Could use a source... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crashes

Sorry to have collided with you at Jack's talk page. I hope you didn't have to retype it all. I have learned the hard way to "copy" before pushing "Save".

I am making up my list of favourite Christmas music for 2011. (It changes.) What performances have you to recommend? Bielle (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I always copy text into my paste buffer before hitting save, no matter what page I'm on. Habit, habit! -- Currently I've been listening to a lot of early music group carols -- I don't have the CDs but they play them on the radio where I live -- are you familiar with Anonymous 4? Here's their big set. I find their singing to be stunning. Their performances of Hildegard of Bingen are wonderful as well.
You will laugh at this: but for Christmas this year when my extended family gets together I will be performing carols on the theremin. (I'm getting to be pretty good. You should hear my Meditation from Thaïs.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for Anonymous 4. I have that boxed set now on my wish list. Most of our local radio (with the exception of the CBC) is pop carols, White Christmas and the like. I can take, even enjoy, a few rounds of Santa Baby or Baby, It's Cold Outside well spread over the advent season, but "Jingle Bells" and kindergarten classes mumbling "Away in a Manger" find me switching off in both senses. That's why we have CDs and iPods.
I'd love to hear your Méditations on the theremin. Upload it to Youtube and see if we can make it go viral. Regards, Bielle (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My spouse not only knows of Anonymous 4, but claims to have some CDs. At the moment he is buried from the neck up in the CD closet, muttering "Bach Choir of Bethlemhem, Emma Kirkby - ah, there's 'The Messiah' I was looking for - yes, yes, yes, found one, found two and here's three". So, now I am about to be introduced. He has "The Lammas Ladymass", "The Lily and the Lamb", and "An English Ladymass." That should help ease the pain of Christmas wrapping. Bielle (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have those, and we will all be listening to them in the next two weeks, when my extended family gets together. They're quite wonderful. Don't miss Anon 4 when they're on tour, if they are ever in your city: I've seem them twice. They do a good show, surpassingly lovely. Antandrus (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thereminist

I noticed this - I love the sound of that instrument, how did you get into it? Seems it must be much more difficult to play than the ondes Martenot - but perhaps it's really no more difficult than the cello? I find Waxman's Bride of Frankenstein - particularly the theremin episodes - some of the most evocative of all movie music (a pity about the film). Best wishes, as always, RobertG ♬ talk 09:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert. Earlier this year I ordered one of those professional Moog models from one of the online music gadget shops; I haven't regretted it. I've been wanting to take up a new instrument, just for fun; a theremin is a natural fit if you are a non-fretted string player (you've already got the ear and the vibrato down). Besides, it has a thousand coolness points to drag it out at parties. I think the trigger for me was a comment I saw on a Youtube video: "you know you are badass when you can play a #$%^% theremin!!" I've read it's the hardest of all instruments to play because there are no guides; your hands are waving in the air, touching nothing, and all you have is you ear to indicate where they should be, and microscopic motions can take you off pitch. Shaping phrases isn't all that easy, but you do have very complete control, and it is possible to be very, very expressive. A DVD comes with the instrument, ... and it doesn't hurt that Lydia Kavina is nice to look at. Antandrus (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you ever see Theremin: An Electronic Odyssey, Antandrus? Fascinating stuff. Clara Rockmore, Nicolas Slonimsky, Robert Moog, you name it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not, but now I want to. Have seen clips from it. Clara Rockmore is one of the most expressive thereminists who has ever lived (Leon himself wasn't too bad). It's genuinely a fun thing to play -- try it out sometime, either you or Robert -- it's a real test of ear, let me tell you! You don't have to have perfect pitch, but it helps (Lydia does not, but I do) -- since there is absolutely no physical feedback of any kind. Have to find this film now ...
Happy holidays Jack! Antandrus (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You too, mate. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thread! I've thought about building one from a kit, but haven't quite worked up the initiative to do it. Is Dr. Samuel Hoffman well regarded among Theremin cognoscenti? I only know of him from his pop-related work. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- here's a good example. His vibrato is just a little wide for my taste, and he uses a modified form of the Clara Rockmore fingering technique (it works best for small hands -- I had to figure out my own way because my hands are huge). Building the things is (allegedly) pretty easy; the kit from Moog is well-known. I bought one assembled because I'm lazy, mainly wanting to make weird sounds to bother the neighbors. Antandrus (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Tomasz Szadek, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Communion and Officium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and an observation

Seasons greetings, you may remember we conversed some time ago about that IP editor and how IP editors were being "bitten". I've just oberved it isn't just IP editors but also newbie editors until they have something on their user page. Editors who don't spend time decorating their user pages with info boxes but quietly get on with editing content seem to be treated in the same way. I thought you may find the observation of interest, particularly bearing in mind the essay you wrote about wikipedia behaviour. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. Making a fancy user page automatically gives you some (entirely unearned, I realize) respect. (I owe mine to User:Phaedriel, a lovely person who no longer edits, who used to volunteer to design people's pages.) As I think about this -- and I do, all the time, believe me -- I'm increasingly of the view that it's our long-term, committed editors we need to nurture and support, since we are losing them. If there is any way to sustain people's passion for the project, and that generally means joy, pleasure, satisfaction, and positive feedback, from contributing -- we need to do it. Wikipedia is becoming an increasingly hostile, uncivil, bureaucratic place, where (to quote someone recently -- can't quite remember who said it) it seems like most people now have a stick up their butt. Not sure how to restore that joy. Very few people say "thank you" when you write articles (Piotrus does, above; thank you Piotr if you are reading this). See No. 60 on my observations page. I greatly fear that No. 29, which was true in 2006 when I wrote it, may no longer be true.
Seasons greetings to you as well, from a tired, half-burnt-out, but still-plugging-away Wikipedian. Antandrus (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another classic bit of adminning

[14] (though now resolved). Taivo is actually a professor of linguistics. Go Wikipedia!

Anyhow, Merry Christmas! --Folantin (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oy! WP:RANDY gets better and more accurate with every passing year, I'm afraid. Antandrus (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Occidental Petroleum". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 December 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 12:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. One single-purpose account relentlessly wearing down good-faith editors. No wonder people are starting to use words like "fuck" a lot more around here. Antandrus (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Christmas to you too ... I guess I was showing my frustration this morning. -- It's just a website, and just a hobby. Some people make it a life-or-death struggle to get their jabs in against someone or something they don't like -- and those of us who do this for fun are at a great disadvantage versus those who Know the Truth and want to light the world on fire with it -- we have other stuff to do. Antandrus (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't play the game. If enough people were to ignore this shit fool nonsense then it would cease to have the desired effect, and its perpetrators would fade away. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Cmach7

Hi, I saw your comments on the Jion de Jordan deletion page re this user. Looking at a couple of places where he's contributed, or tried to contribute, he looks like a high school student.

He's tried to add himself (or someone with a remarkably similar name) to List of 21st-century classical composers, and to the births of 1998, and to disambiguation pages listing major musical compositions. All of these edits were undone by other users.

From this and from your experience, he doesn't seem to be following the conventions of WP. You as an admin will know better than I what can be done about him - but at his age (if truly born in 1998) it seems odd that he has scholarship to the extent that he's adding obscure composers. Perhaps he should either be banned, or given an article to write to channel his energies correctly! asnac (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings -- yes, this is one of the most difficult cases I've encountered, because most of his edits seem to be done in good faith, although executed poorly. See User_talk:DGG#Cmach.2F24.209.139.161 and the thread on my page above, User_talk:Antandrus#Did_you_know_that_Cherubini_married_Constanze_Mozart.3F for two places we've discussed this previously. I think most of his imaginary birthdates are obtained by subtracting 20 from the fl dates, arbitrarily (it's not a completely crazy idea to do this), but unfortunately -- this is the bad part -- he never provides sources and never yet has responded to a post on his talk page. (Look at the Cmach7 talk page and the 24. talk page.) If Jion is a hoax, it's nothing short of amazing that a 13-year-old kid could invent imitation Provençal that looks as convincing as that. But there should be at least a mention in the Grove, which is comprehensive! Regarding adding himself -- yes, I'm the one who reverted most of those. Blocking him until he starts to provide sources, or at least explains himself, seems reasonable; I would be embarrassed if Jion (and the other redlinks he's added to the composers lists) turned out to be real people -- but I can't find them in any database I currently can access. Thanks for your help with this. Antandrus (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Btw I may not have a lot of time today and the following days, seeing as I'm with family and it's the holidays here in the US -- I'll try to look in on this later. Antandrus (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you are well up to speed on this. It would be an ingenious hoax if perpetrated by a juvenile since so many adult hoaxes are readily detectable. I've just tried again on Google with odd words from the phrasing of the song names as (I assume) Provençal would not have a fixed spelling system, but still nothing. So I think the presumption is that he's having a bit of fun with us.
Have a good Christmas. asnac (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you -- and a happy Christmas to you as well!
By the way, I just did this: [15] [16] [17]. I know another admin would probably just block him out of hand, and I probably am bending over backward to accomodate him, but ... there's one more try. Antandrus (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antandrus & Asnac,

This is Cmach7's mother. I have just come into this by just happening to check my son's email. He is in fact 13 years old and extrememly bright. He is high functioning autistic and extremely into composer's, and composing his own classical music as well, and quite good at it. So he does think in his mind that he will be a future famous composer. He has a amazing memory, especially for dates, but also sometimes makes up his own, and then believes them to be true.

You are correct in that he has done all of this in good faith, but does not understand what Wikipedia is suppose to be used for. I'm amazed that he figured out how to get out there and edit information on his own out on Wikipedia in the first place.

I did just go over everything you all wrote above with him and told him that he is not to edit anything else on Wikipedia anymore until I review it and we go over together how to actual cite any references on where he has found his information to post. He has agreed.

I will have to look at this all more on how to do all this correctly, because he does like doing this and I don't know that much about it, but he just needs to be shown how to do it correctly, and not the way he was doing it. He now knows it needs to be factual and credible information that he needs to cite. I don't think he understands how to cite a reference yet, until I show him.

Thank you and have a Merry Christmas & Happy New Year! :o)

Wow. Funny, I was just talking this over with various family and others (in "real life", for we are together for the holidays) and we had considered that almost exactly this might be the case. Thank you for helping; I'd really appreciate your assistance in going over his edits first. I was a 13-year-old composer myself once, and remember what it was like, and did not want to pour cold water on his enthusiasm (he wrote a since-deleted article on himself). I need to point out that he has done some good -- some of his date changes are indeed corrections, and are accurate (e.g. to Obrecht on the List of Renaissance composers; and his starting stubs on a few composers (Conradus de Pistoria, Sebastian z Felsztyna, Mikołaj z Chrzanowa, and a few others) has inspired others to help and get those articles started (listing three I did, but a bunch of other people have helped). Thanks again and merry Christmas yourself! Antandrus (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We will look into them at a later time as we are off to our relatives for Christmas Eve now. He would really enjoy continuing to be a part of this, but just needs to be shown the correct way to do it, and understand that there are rules. Once he's shown he's usually good about staying on track with them. Merry Christmas! :O)
Let me add my thanks to you for clarifying this — I too remember what it was like to be a 13-year-old composer! All best wishes for Christmas and the New Year! --Deskford (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So a 13-year-old high-functioning autistic boy with an interest in classical composers invented a 13th-century troubadour complete with a list of fictitious Occitan works? Now I have a story to tell around the table this Christmas. Srnec (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I can't find anything about Jion (which doesn't look much like a Provençal name to me) in JSTOR or New Grove -- it's possible though that it's a variant spelling of another troubadour, but I can't think of who. I looked up Conradus de Pistoria in other sources. Phrases such as "Two of his compositions survive, both three-voice ballades." seemed suspicious for a 13-year-old and possibly lifted from elsewhere, but I can't find it anywhere, so my hunch is that he has absorbed the style of writing of music dictionaries and is writing wonderfully fluent prose. But Jion needs to remain gone unless there's a citation. (any admins have the old text? I might look over it to see if there's anything suspicious). merry christmas. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Hi Myke ... this is the version he wrote... the rest I wrote ... merry Christmas! :)  :) Antandrus (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the old text before the AFD tag. I'm mostly curious about the works list:

Jion de Jordan (1142/1145-1200) was a troubadour from Limousin. His brother was Amanieu de Jordan, his sister was Gormonsa and was close friends with Raimbaut d'Aurenga and Guilhem de Saint-Leidier. 10 of his works survive including 8 cansos and 2 sirventes. But only one of them survive with a melody which is En Parabasia. One of his sirventes he written with Raimbaut d'Aurenga and Arnaut Daniel.

Works

  • A mon e chantar (with Raimbaut d'Aurenga and Arnaut Daniel)
  • Do'ill, ples de vors, men chantar
  • En Parabasia
  • En tolc non veis set're
  • Fort b'e m'anson m'enoja
  • Huemias dieus
  • Ja de chantar e critz
  • La cor vei plantar
  • Tant m'abelis ja no.m croys
  • Un treul' virs e chan

I doubt I could imitate medieval Occitan that well. That's Chattertonesque. Astonishing. Antandrus (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Wee Curry Monster talkis wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you and merry Christmas to you too! Antandrus (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You too

You too, Ant. Here's a typical bishounen — a pretty boy not much like me, who am neither pretty nor boy — daintily helping himself from your citrus orchard. So you too associate oranges with Christmas? If I had a penny for every time my mother has told me that oranges were unknown in her childhood, back in the early eighteenth century, except for one memorable Christmas when she was given one ("Or, well, part of one. I had to share it with my sisters"), then I'd be… well, not really rich, I suppose. Just comfortably off. Bishonen | talk 00:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, and I do indeed! My Valencias ripen about a week before Christmas -- they're tart and juicy and perfect right at this time -- it's a curiously strong association, really ... I should send you a box.  :) The avocados, alas, have peaked, and won't be good again for a few months. Antandrus (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only oranges I associate with Christmas are juiced and mixed 1:1 with cheap vodka... but anyway, merry christmas and happy new year. :) MastCell Talk 03:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, merry Christmas to you as well. Yep, that's a good use for either cheap oranges or cheap vodka. :) May you have a 2012 free of single-purpose accounts, POV pushers, pseudoscience nuts, psychopathic homeopaths, and ... well, it doesn't hurt to wish, right? Antandrus (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas from London...

...and a very Happy New Year, Antandrus! Thanks so much for all your help. All the best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And happy Christmas and new year to you as well! I've enjoyed working with you this year; may the next be even better! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring

You absolutely must stop engaging another editor by reverting and edit warring. It doesn't matter who is right- but you've been around long enough that I assume you know edit warring takes two. tedder (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. If we have a strong consensus, and he restores his version, and keeps restoring his version, someone must restore the consensus version. What is the option? Leave his version up? Currently it is up, and will stay there until -- what is it? Someone 'edit wars' the consensus version back? Antandrus (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you are allowed an infinite number of reverts? See WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. tedder (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted ONCE. Look at the history, please. My previous edit was EIGHT DAYS AGO.
The correct thing to do with agenda-driven single-purpose accounts is to show them the door, and propel them through it with a boot on the buttocks. Are we supposed to have infinite patience? Do you ever wonder why we are hemorrhaging experienced editors? Antandrus (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted once this time. Several reverts last time.
The correct thing is to show them the door, but your issues with civility make it difficult to stand behind you in doing so. tedder (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then. What would you rather have had me do? Leave his version up, and persuade a single-purpose account to restore the consensus version? It's a serious question. When you have ONE agenda-driven account edit-warring his version against consensus, what would you do? Canvass the other editors to revert for you? Post on a noticeboard for yet more people to have a look? NOT edit?
I most deeply regret getting involved as an editor, never having previously been involved editing the Oxy article, when I could have solved this ridiculous, and obvious problem as an admin. Antandrus (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tedder..I see you blocked that editor...good job...as he looks like a single purpose account with an agenda.--MONGO 06:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is another example of a shift of the interpretation of involvement by administrators to encompass any attempts to engage another editor in any capacity other than templated warnings. Reversion of BLP/attack/coatracking by SPAs is not involvement, it's administration; how are admins supposed to do their jobs effectively without perpetually handing off to another admin every time they warn about or revert something that doesn't contain "big poopyhead"? Acroterion (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't someone once make a prophecy about "bureaucratic slime" taking over? Somehow rings a bell...--Folantin (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I'd actually forgotten about that essay. Seems like a hundred years ago ... I was so optimistic once.
Tedder, I do understand where you are coming from -- trying to be even-handed and all. I've played that part too; it's not easy; you want to be kind to the newbie, be fair, show good faith, and so forth. And I make it harder for you by showing just how frayed my patience has gotten after eight years of this place, and encountering one agenda account after another (and I don't work in the truly tough areas, like Folantin and MONGO do -- areas saturated respectively with nationalist warriors and conspiracy nuts). I will try not to bite the SPA's head off, I'll promise you that. There are times though when I have to do what I believe to be the right thing for the encyclopedia; last night that meant reverting to a stable, consensus version of the article free of soapboxing. Anyway ... another day on the Wiki, the great bureaucracy anyone can edit. I do appreciate your work too. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Antandrus. I've dealt with some sticky situations- notably, the absurdity of the climate change factions and some true griefers who were exploiting Wikipedia's policies. It sucks when things like AGF are used against Wikipedia. In this case I wasn't really worried about being fair- it's clear who was in the wrong, but 10% of the problem was that editors were allowing cowboy to get away with it. tedder (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

geld geld geld

Hello. The agenda I was positioning myself against, so many moons ago, was founded upon an absurd sustained abuse of policy, that policy being "Wikipedia is not censored". What I believe my post pointed out fairly clearly was that to characterise said debate as being an issue of censorship is utterly ridiculous. The way in which it was being so characterized was and is a great deal more circumlocutive and ultimately useless than anything I've contributed, being that it essentially obliterated the entire debate in order to replace it with an easily molested strawman. Every sentence but one in my original post on the talk page makes an obvious point with a clear purpose entirely relevant to both Wikipedia policy and the established norms in Wikipedians' enforcement of that policy, and as I said in the reply on Acterion's talk page, which is not circumlocutive filibustering no matter how much you may want to pretend it is: my post was a very obvious attempt at jettisoning the silliest part of a debate in order to move forward. Not unusual in the slightest. To finish, a) diplomatically aimed invective is generally more productive than defiantly tenuous stonewalling, and b) there's a very fine balance between assuming good faith and assuming the lack of an assumption of good faith. Happy new year, --Jemimallah (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way to make your case on the talk page is to speak plainly and respectfully. Not the way you did either there or here. Happy new year, Antandrus (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Piano Sonata No. 8 (Beethoven)#Requested move

Hi Antandrus--

At Talk:Piano Sonata No. 8 (Beethoven)#Requested move both User:DavidRF and User:Kleinzach have requested a "speedy close" to this section, for reasons discussed there: parallel move requests at a number of separate pages. As an administrator, would you mind taking a look at this and see what you think? Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think closing is OK -- someone may perceive me as involved because I've weighed in at the Moonlight page -- but closing in favor of a centralized discussion seems uncontroversial. Right? So far the discussion is at the Moonlight talk page, as far as I can tell -- yes? -- so I'll point people there. (I recognize it may move again to "naming conventions (music)" or "Beethoven piano sonatas" or even somewhere else.) Antandrus (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close 8 and point to Moonlight talk was what each of the requesters had suggested. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done ... let me know if I've screwed anything up (or feel free to remove any stray tags if you see them) -- I'm a bit distracted by RL stuff at the moment ... Antandrus (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That does the trick, with the pointer to the primary discussion at Moonlight. Appreciate your help. Milkunderwood (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - thanks for dealing with this the way you saw fit. I'd ask, as you suggested, that we close the discussion at Talk:Moonlight Sonata and start over. I'm sorry if I muddied things up. As I wrote on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 8 (Beethoven)#Requested move, people were using the fact that "Moonlight Sonata" was the only one of Beethoven's sonatas to be titled by its nickname on WP as a reason to change that title. One editor in particular was asking rhetorically if supporting "Moonlight" meant that people would support changing other ones. So I thought I'd find out, apparently not in the right manner. At this point, I think a new, centralized discussion would be the best way forward. I'm also posting this on the Moonlight page. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think would be best ... maybe discussing this at Talk:Beethoven's piano sonatas? It affects a pack of articles (I can think of about six offhand of the sonatas). This is an unusual case that probably doesn't have an exact precedent in policy anywhere ... if we did that we could, perhaps, copy and paste the existing discussions onto a new centralized page (?). The answer is not coming to me immediately. Antandrus (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No - there was already a proposal made at Moonlight talk to move the discussion, but it was determined better to leave it where it was. The best place for the discussion to have taken place would have been at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Beethoven Sonatas: Wack-a-mole with page-move proposals, but this attempt was aborted. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited David Sacerdote, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Casale and Gonzaga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aad351

After User:Aad351's last outrageous edit, I took her to WP:AIV. User:7 blocked her for 12 hours. Frankly, I was very surprised at the shortness of the block, considering her behavior. I don't know whether I should raise the issue with 7 or just let it go. The only possible rationale I can think of for such a short block is 7 felt Aad351 should be permitted to stick around to contribute to the AfD discussion or to improve the article, but given her behavior, that's awfully tough to justify.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might have done the same thing, actually -- assuming "clueless newbie" over malice -- but noticing the previous deletion of comments (see the diff I posted on the AFD), my AGF has just about evaporated on this one. I'll keep an eye on "her" -- if I'm around -- let me know if you spot any other vandalism. Antandrus (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is 7 didn't spend much time looking at the history (understandable for admins patrolling noticeboards like WP:AIV, I suppose). My AGF on the editor was gone a while ago, but I'm quicker to conclude bad faith than some. I thought of putting "she" in quotes, too - heh.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I didn't even see the previous vandalisms/refactoring until right now. If that editor does it again I'll happily indef. Antandrus (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Btw they gave away their IP address (Jan 2, 1:54). Not NYC; Los Alamitos. Huge surprise there. Antandrus (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5 people, out of over 500 million that use Wikipedia, including you attacked him and his page because he is a U.S. Celebrity and U.S. Combat Veteran, you and they were petty and every-time I tried to make corrections, they deleted my corrections to c

5 people, out of over 500 million that use Wikipedia, including you attacked him and his page because he is a U.S. Celebrity and U.S. Combat Veteran, you and they were petty and every-time I tried to make corrections, they deleted my corrections to cause my page to be deleted.

Herzog was a key and central figure in some of the biggest news stories of 2009, 2010, 2011, Mel Gibson, Herman Cain and many other National and International News Stories.

You and they have violated Wikipedia rules and will be banned from Wikipedia soon.

I have contacted Kris Herzog, his Attorney/s called me, researched this issue and has made an appeal to the corporate Headquarters of Wikipedia http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us, as Kris Herzog's clients have donated several million dollars to Wikipedia.

Kris Herzog's Attorney has asked Wikipedia to BAN YOU and those that attacked his page.

I hope you and those other idiots enjoy being BANNED from Wikipedia for attacking his page. NO ONE ever countered my argument that Kris Herzog is MORE Noteworthy than THOUSANDS of others that currently have Wikipedia pages.

You and the others attacked his page because he is man American Celebrity and United States Combat Veteran.

I, he and his people all feel a great injustice has been done by you and those others, we have all agreed to make it our mission in life to get you all banned from Wikipedia, to make sure you can not abuse any others, as you did us.

Your Power and theirs is about to be taken away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aad351 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 16 January 2012‎

Hum...wow!MONGO 12:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a private website. Its users make the rules and decide what to include or not to include. One right you have at Wikipedia is to download the entire database and create your own fork of the content, containing an article on this person. The other right you have is to leave. Have a nice day, Antandrus (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm me?

As you wish! Did you see my silly graffiti on recent changes during the blackout? (I needed to do a minor act of civil disobedience within another act of civil disobedience. Wikipedians are anarchists at heart, right?) Antandrus (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks~! As Alvin Toffler would have put it: "... deep inside a conformist, there lies an outrageous anarchist; while behind an anarchist, a strict conformist is often at work..." Cheers and have a great day~! (PS:I can't be bothered with the recent blackout, remember my note about WP:DGAF? Also, it was a good chance to break the Wiki-addiction for 24 hours. *grin*) --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohenjo-daro

Hi, do you think you could look into semi-protecting Mohenjo-daro for a month or so? It gets a disproportionate amount of IP vandalism for such a niche topic. Thanks - Michaelmas1957 (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, thanks v. much - Michaelmas1957 (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome -- I'm guessing it's a common assignment for kids in school. Antandrus (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I come from city Larkana (Sindh, Pakistan), which holds worlds most ancient civilization Indus Valley Civilization, I find it semi-protected, while editing it's full name, it has been written 'Mohenjo-daro' however it should be 'Mohenjo-Daro'. 'D' has got to be capital, it is our Sindhi language, these are three words Mohen+(Dead)+jo+('of')+Daro+(Mound)=(Mound of Dead). So, please either correct it yourself, and I appreciate it being semi-protected, as some people from Pakistan, are trying to vandalize this article. Thank You (Indusengineer (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
As this would require changing the title of the article, you need to start a discussion on the article's talk page. Please don't change it yourself as you've just done. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings -- sorry I missed you earlier; was a busy day at work -- if the capitalisation is at all controversial, by all means discuss it on the talk page. By the way the semi-protection does not affect you, only anon IPs. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centenarian

Once again I call upon you (sorry for the inconvenience :p) - the Centenarian [page has received a sudden flood of IP vandals, who are turning it into an edit war zone. Could you please semi-protect, maybe for just a month? Thanks for your time. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, don't worry, it's sorted (for now). Michaelmas1957 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

publishing my page

Thank you for your feedback. I apologize, but I still do not understand what to do. You wrote:

"Just use the "move page" link, or alternatively just copy and paste from the edit box into a redlink like the one below"

However, I dont see any "move page" link, nor a redline below. I feel compeltely lost as to how to proceed.

I'll respond on your talk page. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I was with you until "click on Robert Garcia (California politician), which should bring up an edit box for the new article"

Not sure what you mean by this. Click on that where? It doesnt exist. I tried to cut and paste Robert Garcia (California politician) and place it in the URL window after http://en.wikipedia.org/w but that didnt work.

I am most grateful for your indulgance.


>> Robert Garcia (California politician)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Look for Robert Garcia (California politician) on one of Wikipedia's sister projects: Wiktionary (free dictionary) 

Wikibooks (free textbooks) 
Wikiquote (quotations) 
Wikisource (free library) 
Wikiversity (free learning resources) 
Commons (images and media) 
Wikinews (free news source)

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Robert Garcia (California politician) in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings. Search for "Robert Garcia (California politician)" in existing articles. Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.


You need to log in. If you edit as an anon IP you can't create pages. Log in as Dbrezenoff. Then if you click the redlink you should get a fresh edit box, unless something else is wrong. Antandrus (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project#Checklist for articles

Well, it looks like they're all done (ages ago). If you're still up for it, could you please fly through the articles and fill in the ticks? Many thanks. (If you can't for some reason, please let me know, and I will look after it.) Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to Cmach7

I'll have to tell you something. This is my question:

Do you have an account on YouTube? If not, please create one.

NNU Class Project - Winter 2012

Please consider adding your name at: Wikipedia:School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I enjoyed the last one -- helping foreign students was fun, and I also learned about things I wouldn't have encountered otherwise. Antandrus (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed with OP housekeeping

Hi Antandrus. Could you delete the following pages as "G6. Technical deletions" per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Project's stale subpages.

Old pages generated by long defunct bots
Superceded

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Sorry I wasn't watching the talk at WPO ... usually I keep up but have been busy ... Antandrus (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cotton gin (I know, I'm sick of it too...)

You've been very helpful in stemming the IP vandalism on the cotton gin article but as soon as the semi-protection expires they always come straight back. There haven't been any non-vandal IP edits to the page as long as I've been editing it. So that we don't have to worry about this for a while, could you please semi-protect it for a longer period - two or three months? Thanks very much. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done ... I wonder if many of those commonest school subjects taught to 12-year-olds should be permanently semi-protected (that's probably one of those perennial proposals that never acquires critical mass). Antandrus (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's a big help. I reckon if the IP vandals return after this semi-protect expires you'd have good grounds for a permanent semi-protect - I'd certainly support you on that. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ives

The New Yorker's February 6th issue has an interesting article, "The Flight of the Concord", by Jeremy Denk on playing Ives's music. The imagery is telling even to a non-player like me. The article requires payment, of course, but if the abstract appeals to you, and your local library can't assist, I can send you a photocopy. Bielle (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's fantastic; love his playing. I heard him perform Ives' First Piano Sonata at the 2009 Ojai Festival, which is right in my back yard. A couple years before that Pierre-Laurent Aimard played the Concord Sonata, with readings from Ives' "Essays Before a Sonata" between the movements; it was wonderful. Looks like they're programming it again next year with Leif Ove Andsnes ... reminds me I need to get my tickets (I can get the New Yorker article; thanks for letting me know about it!!) Antandrus (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've never found an issue of The New Yorker that didn't have one article my life would be at least a tiny bit the less for not having read, and usually two or three. You are most welcome. Bielle (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JackofOz says he has never played any of Ives's works himself. Have you? Bielle (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've performed a bunch of things as an orchestral violinist, and also played the string quartets. Never (to the best of my recollection) played his piano music. (The Concord's far too hard for me anyway!) Antandrus (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have, at different times, thought the violin and the piano were your principal instrument. I presume, from the way you wrote the preceding comment, that it is the violin. Bielle (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I'm a bit confused myself. Violin was my first instrument and I briefly tried to make a living playing the thing, but as time went by the piano became more useful, particularly for a composer ... and now since you can play "anything", so to speak, with a keyboard and a computer ... :) Antandrus (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the "anything" doesn't include The Concord . . . :>) Bielle (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear Antandrus,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP Biting?

Hi there,

United Provinces of the Río de la Plata, where there is a fairly new IP editor who is having contributions reverted with little explanation. The contributions seem reasonable to me but I would like a second opinion. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 23:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it briefly -- I'm not expert on the history of Argentina -- it appears everyone is editing in good faith, the IP is making a good point, Cambalachero should probably explain if reverting again. So yes, the IP's contributions seem reasonable to me. Antandrus (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steinway fanatic

Hi Antandrus. I assume that JAL78 (talk · contribs), who has been trying to change the picture on Piano to a Steinway, is the latest incarnation of Fanoftheworld (talk · contribs). I've tried to re-open Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fanoftheworld though I'm never sure if I'm doing what I'm supposed to do in these things. I'll try to keep an occasional eye on things, but I'm not around WP much at the moment. --Deskford (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very very interesting: I had independently, earlier today, come to the tentative conclusion that Fanoftheworld (on Commons) was the same user, after studying the cross-wiki contributions of JAL78 and the history of that photograph. Didn't have quite enough stylistic evidence to go on, but did I found one unidiomatic phrase repetition between the two. I believe the editor has a conflict of interest, as indicated by the ferocity with which he is defending that picture, and the persistence with which he is spamming it throughout other language Wikipedias (see the note I left on Jerome Kohl's talk page). FoftheW uploads copyright pictures with OTRS permission: a relative rarity on Wikipedia, and highly suggestive of a promotional agenda. Antandrus (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: I didn't realize that Fanoftheworld was a sockpuppeteer banned here! Shoot, if I'd known that, the stylistic evidence is now obvious ... Antandrus (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was banned pretty quickly as a WP:DUCK, but I'm sure he'll be back with a new name before too long! --Deskford (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012

Hi folks. The students are going to become active soon. We could use some input in these areas:

(Input)
(Your ticks)
(Improvements)

Many thanks. (For those up to speed, pls consider this post just a CC) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Message

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia talk:School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012#Topic list - duplicate checking's talk page. 13:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anna -- just to let you know, I have been dealing with some rather demanding things in "real life" and have had only the tiniest bit of time for Wikipedia for the last week or so. I do intend to help out on this project as soon as my situation changes. I should probably just declare an indefinite wikibreak, except that I check my watchlist every day when I can. Antandrus (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is everything going OK? Feel free to drop me an email if you'd like. Hope you're doing well. MastCell Talk 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no but ultimately yes. *Ping*. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery

He's back to clogging up DRV. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duly obliterated; it doesn't belong there. I have a feeling a block is coming his way shortly. That soapboxing about slavery being just a form of immigration, and them not having it so bad after all, is something we don't need here. Antandrus (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soapboxing and Whitewashing

Hello, you closed my issue on the deletion review down, and additionaly threatend me if i would do soapboxing and whitewashing again you would block me with any IP adress. Btw i did not personal offend anyone on the deletion review section, i was offended. For the case you compromise the correct logical assignment of who offended whom to favorize the author who offended me, and project this behaviour on me instead, i will not take such behaviour easily. Could you please specify what you mean with soapboxing or whitewashing? and cite where exactly i have done this? Besides this thank you for turning my attention to the Administrator Noticeboard.

Whoops i have just seen that you know User Acreterion on personal level. I believe i can expect no professionall correct logical assignment then, and therefor logical conclusion, of who offended whom. I will report this behaviour also. To favor the contester if its about the reflection of a past event in which a person is a victim and another the contester is morally seen wrong and such persons should not expect to be able to rely on these power positioning in all levels of their lives. So much for this. And for my initial intention to improve the article of slavery and the resulting reduction of mine to "He thinks of slavery as a form of migration": Well you can reduce it to this and belittle the issue. But Slavery in the United States has not been filled with the same brutality and condition of the slavery in Africa, and slavery has been part of the African culture. Africans, free or not free, wanted to leave Africa because of this conditions. Before i do the work and post sources for this, you should first think about this logic and stop believing something because its an habitat. Can you as a moralic human beeing say: That the African culture, with polygamie, forced marriages, cannibalism (in form of bitting as an educational method, which is still normal in african tribes today), female genital mutilation, male circumcision as an initial ritual and slavery as part of their culture, that they receive a good historical reflection because they have been enslaved by "white" whilste a culture which did not practice any of this receives the accusation for beeing responsible for what you link with the word slavery? Even with the knowledge that the inter - African Slavery would be an 8 on a brutality scale, while the so called Slavery in the United States would receive a 3 on the brutality scale? This is even worse than Sharia law in which a girl who was the victim of a crime receives punishment just because she reported the man who did the crime to her.

Standard response...
FYI, I brought the matter up at ANI, resulting in more eyes on the issue, as you and I are busy with other things in real life, and this is the kind of issue best dealt with by several people. Acroterion (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. The only reason I didn't block the anon is that other people seemed to want to engage with him. I think it's a waste of time, but so it goes. These positions are so far to the extremist fringe that we don't even have an article for them -- what would it be? Slavery denialism? Antandrus (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Slavery in modern Africa...is one disaster zone...and I see POV issues in the lede in History of slavery...--MONGO 01:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agh, I followed the links. Blech. As for the IP I decided that a policy of modest engagement would be more productive than direct confrontation, which at least confines the disruption to one place. Three other editors have, however, used up their patience on the IP, so I imagine that the collapse templates will get used tomorrow. I think an appropriate article that expresses the IP's views would be Europeans aren't to blame for the voluntary, benign and ultimately beneficial (to those enslaved) practice of slavery. Their discussion of the etymology of "slave/slav" and "worker" has a few hints of a particular mid-20th century ideology. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exposition of which is illegal in the jurisdiction from which the IPs trace. Oh well. I think your suggested article does sum it up well. As to MONGO's links -- oy veh -- I see that steaming pile was nominated for deletion once. Needs a complete rewrite by someone actually familiar with the topic. Antandrus (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012/Article management

If you are going to add some ticks, now's the time, so the others will know what needs doing. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

operas.com.ar

Thanks for the info. I used the same site recently as a source for Willelmus de Winchecumbe, but other than that I don't recall using it. Can use of it be blocked by an administrator? I've tried to use other sites and gotten a warning message about it being a disallowed source. Sorry, I don't have access to the online New Grove (Oxford Music Online). Pkeets (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argh!! I wrote an article about him back in 2005 -- it's under W._de_Wycombe. I'm going to start fixing the links. Antandrus (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Well, it wasn't linked up in the Music Encyclopedia pages, so I've done it again. I suppose we should merge the articles? Pkeets (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the best approach ... back in 2005 when I wrote that article I wasn't as careful about making redirects (now whenever I start a composer page, I make a redirect for every possible or ever-encountered spelling, so this doesn't happen). There are, probably, a lot of duplicated pages around; I'm sure we haven't found them all. Antandrus (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All merged. Pkeets (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent -- thank you! I need to put in a few inline cites, e.g. from the 1980 Grove (summer 2005 was before we were using cites -- most of us just listed our sources at the end of the article -- seems so long ago now). Antandrus (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antandrus/Archive37&oldid=1143539773"