User talk:Antandrus/Archive31

Archive 31: mid-January to the end of March 2009. Various stuff. Compliments, trolling, requests for help, thank-yous, informative discussion, and some genuinely funny stuff, including an accusation that I'm part of the Great Apollo Coverup, and part of the Obama Propaganda Team. All in a day's work.

Thank you

I followed that link, it was wierd. Thanks for clearing it from my talk page. How did you notice it? Alastair Haines (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a vandal/spambot, which harvests open proxies and then tries to add a disguised link to the page it is spamming. Right now they all have the edit summary "R9v" and I've been rolling them all back, and blocking the proxies. We've had this sort of thing a bunch before. Antandrus (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I hope this doesn't cost you a lot of time. It's not fair to be restricted to manual tools to fight bots. I'm cool with copping a bit of spam to keep Wiki open for people who don't want to register, but I'm not so cool if that takes generous people giving a lot of time they could spend on other things. I'm sure everyone's working this out, but I still reckon you're a hero, I could easily have slept throught the whole thing and never know it had happened. :) Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! No cost. It's early in the morning where I am, I have a cup of coffee and a laptop, and thought I'd start the day by looking at recent changes for a few minutes before I get to my usual round of writing about composers dead for five hundred years, or obscure treatises in languages no one can read. I leave bot-writing for those inclined, of which there are many. :) By the way I enjoyed your user page: it is full of wise commentary and we share many interests. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antandrus, your user page was still on my watchlist today, so I checked to see why we interacted. I had a glance through your own comments about Wikipedia. I share your love of the project, possibly for some similar reasons.

I'm dropping this note because I'm involved in a difficulty, which I believe ultimately comes down to unspoken personal motivations. I could be wrong, but there are things about my user page that would raise objections in the hearts of some people. That's fine, so long as it doesn't lead to interfering with co-operative editing.

I find myself in need of a level-headed administrator with generosity, discernment, patience and courage. Those things are easily said. You've volunteered to get involved in messes to clean them up. That's a generous contribution to the project if it is done properly, because it is often time consuming getting a real grip on people and topics outside one's normal comfort zone. But from what I can see, you make a point of living up to your promise of assisting the project, committing a portion of your time to helping others get on with the job, as indeed others have given us the opportunity to do something both worthwhile and enjoyable.

What I need is someone who is not worried about advancing their own personal status at Wikipedia and hence not concerned about votes, majorities and perceptions. What I need is an encyclopedist who understands how people work in any community, and is willing to defend the foundational principles of Wikipedia in as gracious a manner as possible.

To be very honest, I need someone other than myself, and someone who doesn't know me, to broadly address matters that others have been unwilling to address. One reason I feel comfortable asking for your help is because I see your committment to investing time in resolving issues. My experience of calls for outside parties to be involved has so far been bad, those who've responded haven't made time to think through what is going on.

I'm being honest, I'm not neutral about what is going on. Most of my Wiki friends are too gentle-hearted to get involved in a discussion that pulls no punches. I need someone tough enough not to be surpised by the environment, but neutral enough not become personally involved, but to simply point out simple facts.

So I'm not looking for a mediator or neutral party (I don't think one "side" will ever "kiss and make up"), but someone who is willing (to be fair) to explain to me where I (and others) are wrong, or alternatively to explain things to the other "side".

Please feel free to decline my request with my admiration for your work completely unsullied. If you accept, but find you change your mind about being involved, again, please feel free to opt out. It may take me a while to find another administrator I can trust, but I'm quite sure there are many--it might not happen overnight, but it will happen.

I do hope you are not now regretting helping me out after a spam bot post at my talk page! Alastair Haines (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to offer a third opinion, if that's what you'd like. Without looking into the background of this (resisting the temptation to click on your contributions link and "figure it out"), my general advice, in editing conflict situations, would be not to start looking at people's motivations, especially once you've got an emotional investment in whatever is going on, because that clouds the perception. Focus on the article, the readers, verifiability, and neutral point of view. (I love writing about people's motivations, like I have on my nasty little observations page, but those only hit the target when I'm not an involved party.)

As of "advancing my personal status", I doubt if many of the current very active noticeboard addicts even know who I am; most of my heavy anti-vandal and anti-troll activity was between 2005 and early 2007: now I mainly write, and wipe graffiti off of my watchlist. I have no interest in rising in the Lilliputian world of Wikipolitics. It's really just a website. The articles are important, because of their Google rank, and because people really do come to them for accurate information: but the site's divisions, conflicts, processes, and politics have largely become a distraction and obsession for those who cannot write articles, as doing so has become so much more difficult in the last few years. But that's just my opinion. If you really want to find people who obsess over Wikipolitics, go to Wikipedia Review, and study the writings of those who make the most strident claims that they do not care. Antandrus (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What an excellent reply. As it turns out, I completely agree with you about motives, people are complex and making claims about other's motives in talk page discussions has very limited value in my opinion also. I've shared a general kind of guess I've made merely to be honest, not to sway you.

I so appreciate your not checking my contrib history, it only proves further you are the sort of person I was trusting you to be. LOL, I'm guessing about your motives, but at least we're not arguing ... yet! ;)

OK, here goes, I hate to launch you at this talk page full of heat without light, but I'm not exaggerating to say someone special is needed to help out here.

Please help at Talk:Gender of God. I repeat, I'll think no less of you for declining the request.

Also, if you'd prefer to advise me rather than engage at the talk itself, I'll be listening, though not promising to agree.

You're a champion, even if you end up backing the "other side".

Cheers, Alastair Haines (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a look when I have some time (i.e. not at work ... so be patient ...) I will also start by reading the article; once I have a general feeling about how it reads, and what its NPOV and sourcing status is, then I will look at the talk page. I have found that it is way too easy to get involved in personality clashes and start taking sides even without realizing you are doing so, if you don't look at the content in dispute first. Conversely (obversely?) if you are involved in one, sometimes it is helpful to consider what it would look like to a completely uninvested outsider. Have you ever encountered a talk page comment you once made, wondered "who the heck wrote that" and then seen your own name at the end? It's a little like those experiences of seeing your own reflection in a mirror across the street, and thinking "who on earth is that?" but not knowing it's you at first. Very useful kick of reality. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

211.79.36.249

Just a quick note to say cheers for reverting this edit. I'm always suspicious when soneone parachutes in a link like that, having fallen foul of one shortly before Christmas. Thanks again. TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The explanation is in the section immediately above. I wish we had a way to block open proxies automatically, since there are many thousands at any given time. Antandrus (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling for Kondrashin

Hi there! Could you please take a gander at Grove and see what they have for spelling his name? The article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiril_Kondrashin) cannot make up its mind...I see at least three versions, without even going through it that closely. Merci! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling for Kondrashin

Hi there! Could you please take a gander at Grove and see what they have for spelling his name? The article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiril_Kondrashin) cannot make up its mind...I see at least three versions, without even going through it that closely. And by the way, does he count as a "Soviet" conductor or a "Russian" one? I suspect that distinction (or lack thereof) arises a good deal around here. Merci! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! They have Kondrashin, Kirill (Petrovich) -- double ll on Kirill. The article is by Russians -- I.M. Yampol′sky and Victor Ledin. As of "Russian" versus "Soviet", Grove has "Russian" (they tend to identify by the more traditional nationality). Antandrus (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see our article has "Кирилл Петрович Кондрашин", which would be the first time I've ever seen a Russian named Кирил employ a double л. However, the Russian language article also uses Кирилл, so it seems this is how he really spelled his name - and this is supported by his entry in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (I can't link it because of a spam filter, but you can access it from the Russian article @ Примечания). Hence, the only correct romanization would be Kirill. Except, most English language sources refer to him as Kiril. Odd. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thankspam

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denbot (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bar Jona Madelka

Hello Antandrus. Thank you for a bit of copyediting of my imperfect English in this article. Have a good day! --Vejvančický (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome -- thank you for writing it! Let me know if you want me to look at other articles on composers. There are still a number of Czech composers of the Renaissance that need to be written, for example Trojan Turnovský and Jiří Rychnovský. I see someone has already gotten to Alessandro Orologio, a foreigner who worked in Prague. Also feel free to add to Kryštof Harant if you have a good source in Czech (I wrote the article more than four years ago now). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strange revert

this, [1] was odd, I was actually trying to revert the IP, and apparently we both edited at the same time, and yet no edit conflict came up--Jac16888 ^Talk 04:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had that happen too. Not all that often, but it's happened. Usually it is when an edit creates or removes a section from a large page (like a noticeboard) at the same time as another editor changes a different section: but I think an edit that completely blanks a page can also sidestep the edit-conflict warning (not sure, just guessing). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart recordings

Hi! I hate to be a pain, but I told Brianboulton that I'd try to get some early works by Mozart to illustrate Mozart family Grand Tour and Mozart in Italy. There are a few piano compositions from the periods in question, and, well, I was wondering if you'd be able and willing to help out with recordings?

Thank you either way,

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, in the five years I've been here, I've never contributed a sound file. Not once. I think I did a midi file or two to illustrate something but never an actual recording. I presume you mean something self-recorded rather than a found-sound that is freely licensed? -- It's not as easy as it sounds; to polish a performance of a Mozart piece might be more difficult than writing a featured article. Let me think about it, but I doubt it -- I don't think I can play Mozart up to my own performance standards in a place as public as this; I'd probably record something and then decide it wasn't good enough. Antandrus (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only as an aside, I've always thought Mozart sounds much more thrilling on the instruments he wrote for, which were not the same as we have today. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, absolutely. I think I have some convincing samples of fortepianos on my gadget-rack, ... but then again, Mozart didn't write for digital samples in a gadget-rack exactly .... Antandrus (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yes, something tells me he would've gone down other paths with a Radias. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed the reply for a little bit. That's fine. Just that Idid promise to trry and find recordigns, and not contacting known Wikipedian pianists would be a bit of dereliction in that duty =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing through...

...but I couldn't help noticing this:

"I have no interest in rising in the Lilliputian world of Wikipolitics. It's really just a website. The articles are important, because of their Google rank, and because people really do come to them for accurate information: but the site's divisions, conflicts, processes, and politics have largely become a distraction and obsession for those who cannot write articles, as doing so has become so much more difficult in the last few years. But that's just my opinion. If you really want to find people who obsess over Wikipolitics, go to Wikipedia Review, and study the writings of those who make the most strident claims that they do not care."

Heh heh. Wise words as usual. I've never been into Wikipolitics much, but pay the most innocuous visit to ANI and you seem to end up being sucked into The Drama. My New Year's Resolution is to avoid such hotbeds of histrionics at all costs. Of course, there are plenty of fights on Wikipedia which are worth getting a black eye over, but they're related to content rather than personal feuding so most of our brightest "stars" avoid them. Now I'm back to creating and improving articles in a big way, I'm enjoying this place a lot more. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and amen -- and "hotbeds of histrionics" is a nice alliterative phrase, in addition to being accurate. Yes, about a year ago I thought I was very close to burnout, but now that I've de-watchlisted the Drama Zones, and gone back to writing (mostly), I look forward to logging on in my free time rather than dreading it. Might take on Palestrina next. It's increasingly clear to me that a lot of people, -- unfortunately, many of them admins -- are here for the drama, and nothing else is much fun to them. The drama is not only entertaining, it's addicting. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It's addicting" - and there are a lot of junkies around. I'm also planning to experiment by reducing the amount of Wiki-jargon I use, e.g. using "impolite", "discourteous" or just plain "rude" rather than the ubiquitous "incivil" (sic). "Biased" is clearer English than "POV" too. If people don't get what policies these words refer to then what do they understand? --Folantin (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah -- slide on over to WP:WIKISPEAK. I bet you'll enjoy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Tanertan" accuses Wikipedia of telling lies

Ya well calling people vandals for taking the time and trouble to edit some lies out of your encyclopedia is way worse than calling people "crackwhore" with good reason. I don't want wikipedia or any other organisation committed to objective research and reasoning to regurtitate this urban American myth about live subjects landing on the moon in the 60s and such. That sort of thing never happened on this solar system. If such a technology existed once upon a time why can't we re-utilise it and send something to the moon nowadays and acquire video evidence of this that does not look like some blurry out-takes from a crappy 70s sci-fi flick?? All these crappy videos NASA has to show for the Appaller moon landings nowadays constitutes proof positive to the better initiated players of this game that the whole thing was as fake as it gets.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tanertan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanertan (talk • contribs)

Look, NASA is a major source of our funding. Do you seriously think we'd jeopardize that? Wouldn't you keep quiet if they were paying you? We get paid pretty well, you know. You don't think we'd put up with this abuse for free, do you? Antandrus (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikimedia Foundation" is even an anagram of "I aid, I wink at, moon feud". It's obvious, once you see it. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... and some folks say William Shatner isn't holding a ray gun in this picture, or even a prop, but only a folded-up microphone stand. Oh. Tee hee, it is William Shatner holding a folded-up microphone stand. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A microphone? That's even more dangerous than if he was holding a gun. You've heard his mellifluous interpretation of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," of course? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have, and for the love of all that's holy that's an earworm I don't need this early in the morning. Oy veh. Antandrus (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know acquiring a brand new IP address and getting around your so-called "blox" is merely the flick of a switch away from me. More to the point, the real ellusive scientific question here is: why are you maniax so deeply offended by Apollo having been proven to be a hoax in our lifetimes?? What is there in it for you to reprise this Armstrong/Aldrin lie endlessly?? Those two are dead men walking that's for sure. Why do you have to join them? --58.170.96.179 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we didn't go to Mars either. And those pictures of Neptune are just bubbles in a lava lamp. Now shut up because I want my check from NASA and you're getting attention from several agencies that are too secret even to have acronyms. Antandrus (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie!

Maddie! has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Maddie talk 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

41.248.140.160

I believe you will find that 41.248.140.160 is another sock puppet of banned user User:Historian19. Why do I think this? Editing the same articles and inserting the same content that Historian19 and identified socks did. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings -- you will see I already figured this out. It wasn't hard (just a few clicks in article histories). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VANDALISM AND CENSORSHIP

My source had a NASA DOCUMENT THAT WAS SIGNED IN FRONT OF IT. SOURCES 65 and others ARE YOUTUBE SOURCES! Why don't you go bother them about that? Stop the hypocricy; create a talk page. Sfvace (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So this is what is has come to; answering a question with a question and IGNORING? My source had a NASA DOCUMENT THAT WAS SIGNED IN FRONT OF IT.

AND AGAIN, let's pretend that is not enough. SOURCES 65 and others ARE YOUTUBE SOURCES! Why don't you go bother them about that???? Stop the hypocricy; create a talk page, leave an answer, but stop the edit war and stop pushing your POV and censoring the truth already. Sfvace (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I hear the word "truth", I reach for my "block" button. Be warned. You have been edit-warring, and you are stubbornly refusing to read the policies I have linked. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It never fails -- the credibility of an editor's points varies inversely with the TYPOGRAPHICAL EXUBERANCE with which those points are expressed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you are on to something there. There is a very strong correlation indeed. Squared by use of the word "truth" and cubed by "censorship." Antandrus (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS HYPOCRACY AND A VIOLATION OF ALL THAT IS SACRED! STOP CENSORSHIP AND TAKE A STAND FOR THE TRUTH! I'VE ALREADY LISTED 43 YOUTUBE SOURCES FROM ALL THE TELEVISION NETWORKS! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU??? Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

Could you move Les Nuits d'été back to Les nuits d'été over the redirect. The latter is simply the system of ‎French capitalisation we have chosen to use (at Project:Opera at least - I'm sure it applies to classical music too.) New user is going round making these changes to many pages. While the alternative spelling they use is acceptable, all these moves are going to cause chaos on Wikipedia. Might be advisable to have a word with them about it. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I completely agree -- caps in French make my eyes hurt. I capitalise that way as well for titles, both for article titles and within the text. I suspect there is a fair amount of inconsistency within Wikipedia though. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sure there is - but it's not really our problem. We capitalise that way in the opera articles because that's how Grove and other reliable sources do it. The other method is of such Byzantine complexity it's best avoided. There's a very thorough (and very tedious) discussion of all this in the archives of WikiProject:Opera somewhere. On the other hand, just as bad are the people who insist on translating all foreign titles into English. I believe Project:Novels is one of the worst offenders. I expect they'll be moving Les misérables to The Glums any day now. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed -- and we can see Così fan tutte moved to "They're all that way" or whatever the heck it means. LOL. Nothing wrong with a little inconsistency. (Conversely, -- or is it obversely? -- does French Wikipedia de-capitalise English words in titles, e.g. A child of our time just because that would be the way they would do it in French? An no, they don't -- they allow the English capitalisation rule -- they de-cap when they translate it to un enfant de notre temps. Sensible.) Antandrus (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me again

Could you semi-protect Domenico Mazzocchi? Some Spanish schoolkid has been vandalising the article today using various IPs. The main one is blocked but he's returned in sock form at least twice. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry, only sporadically checking my watchlist today. Come to think of it, that composer article could use some significant expansion. Antandrus (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I created the article on his opera La catena d'Adone but I've never really worked on his bio. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marysville

Thanks for your note. Some information of gazetting of names in Victoria can be found here, the Murrindindi map shows the boundaries of Marysville. The Shire of Murrinindi (the local government area) refers to Marysville as a township [2]. Melburnian (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. I figured it was roughly similar to the way it is in the U.S. but with different terminology: you can't abolish a town here without a vote to deincorporate and a number of other legal procedures. By the way, the complaint incredibly has made its way to the public whipping post. Antandrus (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The User:VivaNorthCyprus socks

Since you, like me, have been actively blocking these prolifically generated socks, I thought you might like to consider and comment on my suggestion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VivaNorthCyprus that this user be considered under a community ban in accordance with WP:BAN. I know this is a bit of a technicality, but another admin, User:C.Fred has questioned the line between considering this puppeteer blocked vs. banned (and thus using CSD G5 as a basis for deleting the material this puppeteer creates). By having the discussion at the sock investigation, it will allow, if all agree, this person to be listed as actually banned. Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and thanks for your help with that one. What astonishes me the most is how stupid he thinks we are -- that we'll buy the idea he's more than one person. All one has to do is look at a spectacular history like this one, and compare the style of his rants with the latest. Antandrus (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. If you want to see a detailed analysis of this person's patterns (btw, I'm thinking this user is actually female), check this out. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, that's impressive! I had just reached the point where I could identify the person whenever (s)he showed up on recent changes, based on stylistic features; you've pretty much got them all. I don't suppose that (s)he has noticed that my user name is a place in Asia Minor -- settled by Greeks (shh! don't tell) Antandrus (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rez88

Single purpose account almost solely dedicated to removing the image on Giovanni Boccaccio for no rhyme or reason. Attempts to communicate with this editor have proved fruitless. Time to pull the plug? Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very strange. It's not like it's an image of Muhammad, unless some cult has decided Boccaccio is his reincarnation. (I wish. I could use a chuckle today.) I left the user a note and put Boccaccio on my watchlist. Antandrus (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have no idea what this is about either. Maybe it's a belated Byzantine Iconoclast. --Folantin (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It's back again and has expanded its scope to removing the image from Mercenary. Time to say goodbye, I think. --Folantin (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre vandal; on this I'm guessing it's a kid. I sent him to reform school. Antandrus (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Yes, that edit really settled it. --Folantin (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

warning template

I issued a warning to a user who made an edit that consisted only of removing 10 references and nothing else. If he wants to be constructive he should attempt to reword, or try to do something rather than remove content. Removing references is none of the actions that I would consider benign. It doesn't mean I was looking to get anyone blocked or labeled as a vandal, I just wanted for this user to pay attention so he would know that he made a mistake and hopefully in the future he will make constructive rather than destructive edits. If he couldn't contribute to the article, if the only action he came up with at that moment was to hit the delete button ten times, then he should have refrained from making that edit. That's all. Hopefully this clears my position. And regarding that essay, this part sums up my view "They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template." plus if I post the official template that correlates to the event it's better than if I only claimed the user did something wrong in my opinion. Too many claims and too little sources sometimes destroy Wikipedia articles.--Avala (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avala -- perhaps you misunderstand. It wasn't the references we objected to (or me, anyway -- I can't read Melburnian's mind -- but I suspect his rationale was similar to mine): it was the change of "is a town" to "was a town", which is HUGE, and inaccurate, since the town charter/articles of incorporation/legal status has not changed. In cases of revert-wars I would suggest talking with people politely using your own words rather than dropping templates; the probability of a achieving a mutually-agreeable outcome is much, much greater in that case, since warning templates are universally perceived as insulting, by experienced users, and insults always push disagreeing sides farther apart.

As a side note, do we really need eleven cites on a single line? That must be close to a Wikipedia record. One or two, for the way the opening line of Marysville, Victoria is currently worded, would be fine. What the article really needs, by the way, is some expansion of detail from those other cites. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't see those templates as insults before so I suppose that was a misunderstanding. Regarding those references, no absolutely not we don't need that many. The reason why I put them was because initially some users said that the devastation was a journalist exaggeration. So I added many sources to show them that the news report is verifiable. It is undoubtedly hard to accept such news but if all papers wrote about it in the same manner then there is very little room for us to say different while abiding to WP:OR.--Avala (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Systems Development Life Cycle

Hi there! I'd be glad if you had a moment to take a gander at this entry to see if my edits make sense. Hoping you are well. Merci! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job -- looks good -- you've cleaned it up a bit and the writing is much improved now. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Library

Will do! I can't claim credit for the whole thing; User:Narson came up with the idea, I just acted on it. I'm trying to decide whether I should keep it in userspace or move it to Wikipedia:Library or something; your thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it a bit ... probably develop it in userspace and then move it into project space when it's fleshed out. I like the idea of subpages linked from the main page. This could be quite a useful resource. Antandrus (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it seems there is already a project at Wikipedia:Library, albeit underused and badly set up. I'll just put everything in there, I guess. Ironholds (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, Bias, and Abuse of Power

Wow your good at ignoring and repeating stuff that isn't needed to be. Did YOU read that section you sent? No where does it say it's ok for anyone to block me without warning... Did you also ban the user who started the edit war? Better yet, did you block the user and delete the entry where the user sourced an entry, on the same moon hoax page, using a YOUTUBE video as the source? No? No wonder people critisize wikipedia. Sfvace (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism, Bias, and Abuse of Power"? LOL. Your section titles are quite exceptionally wonderful. By the way, you were blocked fully within policy and you had plenty of warning. If you need further links to the appropriate policy pages I'm happy to provide them; and if you misbehave, edit war, or abuse other users, I'm happy to show you the door. Have a nice day, Antandrus (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or a nice week, actually, as he just bought himself a 7-day block. I'm at a loss to see who turned him in. Maybe a friendly admin was watching the situation and took action without being asked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had just opened a block tab, but Tim got there first. Using the word "censorship" in an edit summary on the evolution article is about as subtle as a goat at a Cubs game. Antandrus (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as smelly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not dreadful

Actually, "user page stalking" can be very useful at times to the user page's owner ... Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! It's often the best way to know what is going on project-wide, especially in a particular subject area. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones

I don't think I ever answered the question of why your user ID reminded me of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It has do with a confrontation between some jungle ants and some Russian agents ("ant and Rus"). I'll skip the gory details. Let's just say the ants won. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand a certain vandal name made to impersonate me. LOL. One of my favorite Far Side cartoons shows people sitting inside an office, with one opening the door to let something in (all you see is the shadow of the Thing outside the door), preceded by his introduction: "it's Them, gentlemen." Antandrus (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I remember that movie well; one of the classic "giant bug" movies of the 1950s. My favorite was Tarantula, where a young Clint Eastwood destroys a gigantic spider with napalm bombs. In the Amazon they roast tarantulas and it is said they taste like shrimp. It would have been shrimp for everyone when Eastwood roasted that critter. Indiana Jones demonstrates that size doesn't matter as long as the quantity is sufficient. I like that movie poster, with the ants' eyes looking more like cats' eyes, and the non-existent scene portrayal of a Fay Wray-like victim being held in the ants jaws. Edmund Gwenn, better known as Kris Kringle, must have wondered at this point what his career had come to. Meanwhile, this film had one of the more prominent cameos by the Los Angeles River prior to Terminator II. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Bredemers

Hello,

I just wrote an article on Henry Bredemers and then, searching for suitable external links for it, found out that you had the article on your to do list. I thought I'd tell you the article exists now—you know, just in case—and maybe you'll want to change or add something to it.

Best,

--Jashiin (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I'm glad to see that. If I remember correctly, there was a decent writeup of him in Honey Meconi's book on Pierre de La Rue and the Grande Chapelle (Honey Meconi, Pierre de la Rue and Musical Life at the Habsburg-Burgundian Court. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 2003. ISBN 0-19-816554-4 ). I hope that's who I'm thinking of. She wrote nice capsule bios for everyone in the group in the decades around 1500. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've located Meconi's book at Google Books ([3]), but the search there returns no hits for "Bredemers" :( There is a section on La Rue's colleagues, but it seems that Bredemers isn't included. --Jashiin (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, maybe my memory is faulty ... I'll have to check when I get home to see where I it was (I'm at work at the moment) ... I know I saw a capsule bio of him in something I had; that's how he got on my to-do list. But you did a nice thorough job so it may not have additional material. Sorry about that. Antandrus (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German spelling query

Hi there: Can Richard Wüerst really spell his name that way? I would never have thought one could have "ü" followed immediately by "e" in German. Is that really right? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 14:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that a couple of times, always with old names. Hans Müelich (who did the late sixteenth century portrait of Cipriano de Rore) is the one I have seen most recently. See the article on the German wiki where they give his alternate spellings -- [4]. You'd really need to consult an expert on German language and spelling; I think it's an archaism. Antandrus (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project banners

I don't know whether you've noticed that the project banners have been changed for Template:Composers [5] and Template:Classical music [6] (now renamed Template:WikiProject Classical music) using {{WPBannerMeta}}. The latter was protected by you in October.

WPBannerMeta caused problems for the Opera Project banner when it was introduced by the developer Happy-melon, in May last year. It was subsequently recoded by Alanbly and others, and new ones made for Composers and Classical music, not using WPBannerMeta. These were stable and designed for the needs of the individual projects.

Happy-melon has now lifted the protection on the templates (he has admin powers) and changed all the banners. It's difficult to see the effects clearly but the Classical music banner (possibly in conjunction with other WPBannerMeta ones) seems to have caused the display of MagicPiano's assessments in the wrong places (see the brief discussions here and here). The Template:WikiProject Classical music is showing B class, this may (or may not) be no problem but the banner it replaces was perfectly stable and obviously there are a lot of pages involved.

I don't know what you think. I don't want to be lured into a time-wasting argument about this, but I also think protecting pages should not be used an licence for admins to make changes with impunity. Maybe the best thing would be to lift the protection on the pages? Regards. --Klein zach 05:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones would you like me to unprotect? (i.e. down to semi.) If you'd like to edit them I'd be happy to change the protection level. (I'm worthless at template syntax -- well, I can figure it out, I just prefer to leave it to other people more interested.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Classical music and Template:Composers. Thanks. --Klein zach 07:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm not quite sure why they were fully protected in the first place -- there is no vandalism in the history at all, and they only appear on talk pages. Am I missing something? Antandrus (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are then that's two of us. I'm going to talk to Alanbly about the coding. --Klein zach 23:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed concerning article improvement tags

I'm new to some knotty issues and I need some advice. The South Korea article needs work. I've never contributed, but I've read the discussion archives; there are problems that have never been solved and the article is stuck at well-deserved C rating.

Here's my problem. I started a discussion topic to deafening silence. I didn't tag the article, but when another editor added tags, I agreed that tags were a good idea. Immediately, the tags were reverted; a tag-war began. The issue seems to be, should the article be tagged or not. I find myself attacked because I defended "yes." Others say "no." But the discussion isn't about the article, it's tags/yes versus tags/no. How can we bring editors into a discussion if an article can't be tagged?

Can we have a ruling? It seems bizarre to call for mediation to decide if an article can be tagged. The situation baffles me. What to do? Thank you. --Mtd2006 (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia trench warfare at its finest. For what it's worth, I've observed that issues regarding South Korea are unusually touchy, and it doesn't surprise me that the article on the country itself is one of the touchiest of all. I read through some of the discussion on the South Korea talk page, and on the pages of the respective editors, and my initial take is that you've collided with some rather dug-in editors who don't want their article rewritten, or even tweaked substantially. This is one of the hardest issues to deal with on Wikipedia, and the main reason I personally avoid the contentious, high-profile articles -- especially those defended by nationalists and chauvinists.

I'm no fan of big top-of-article tags, and actually try to remove as many as I can; I think they are acceptable if the problems they call out are severe, apply to the entire article, and compromise its integrity sufficiently to require that every visitor be immediately informed of the problem. On the other hand, you've made a substantial effort to explain the problem and suggest corrections (when someone tags and article and walks away without comment, I remove the tag without compunction; if they discuss in detail, as you have, then it's time to address the issue).

Clearly if you tried a major rewrite of the article one of its defenders would start reverting. I'd suggest trying rewriting one paragraph, with citations, and posting it on the talk page. Since one of the problems is the writing style itself, that should be possible. It also looks like you are gettting agreement from Rjanag. Regarding 68.40, he has a bit of a problem with civility and assuming good faith, but you're doing a good job of not snapping back.

Regarding specifics of the military -- is it possible to get the numbers, rankings, and types of equipment from Jane's?

Good luck ... these are among the hardest things to edit. Antandrus (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. I hope I can make this work. A cool, objective look is what I needed. Mtd2006 (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for reverting the recent vandalism to my userpage! -down load | sign! 04:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! You must have done something right: always consider userpage vandalism to be a reward for work well done. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony No. 4 (Shostakovich)

Hi there: If you feel like it, I'd be glad to get any feedback you may have on my recent rewriting of the above...rewriting which will continue as I have the time. Merci! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's done. I think. Whew. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for finishing that repair on Camille Paglia. I feel pretty dumb after not knowing how to fix that photo.TravisAF (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and no problem -- syntax within those templates is not trivial at all. I reverted to an earlier version after verifying that all the other vandalism was gone (there were four separate vandals, possibly the same person, or several kids all in the same class; I just blocked two of them). Antandrus (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Badass. You wield a mighty fine boot. TravisAF (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart's nationality again...

Worth checking out the other contributions of our latest promoter of the "Mozart was German not Austrian" line. Especially this new article. I doubt that meets notability for books and I suspect there might be a conflict of interest going on there. AfD? Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention it. Before I signed off last night I did a little research, on a hunch. Why did this article not exist on de:? Well, this is interesting. That was an attempted article on the author. He also got himself blocked. So, follow the trail to here. Jawohl? Unfortunately I'm not an admin there so I can't look at the edit histories of the five times the page was created (to see if there is a banned user there ... golly gee, where's my AGF-weed I should be smoking?) Antandrus (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's also contributed to an article on another musician who died in his mid-30s, just like Mozart (although there the resemblance ends). Might be a clue about his political leanings in there somewhere.--Folantin (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Coins

Thanks Antandus. As I told Black kite. The light bulb is starting to burn a little brighter. I didn't mean to rant but I do believe what I wrote. Editor:Mateo has been a bit of a mentor to me over the past (almost)year. FWIW...I have always found him to be the kindest most co-operative editor I have met. --Buster7 (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth -- I also greatly appreciate Miguel, as he does great work in the numismatics area, and I also personally like the coin images; I just -- well, I explained that part elsewhere. Regarding the opera, I considered explaining on ANI but it would have just lengthened that thread and dragged it farther off track, -- there's actually a reason why crinkling of wrappers is a bad thing and drives us crazy, and it's not because "we" are snooty snobby people. For example, especially in nineteenth and twentieth century opera, the dynamic contrasts are huge, and often the most emotionally powerful moments -- those that require your full attention, and ability to listen in to the orchestral textures and exactly what the vocalist is doing -- are quiet. Really quiet. During those moments you can sometimes literally hear a pin drop (in a good hall) and -- obviously -- a candy wrapper coming open. Those disruptions, during scenes of great emotional power, can make aficionados crazy. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Glums" again

Um? How frequently do you see that title? Ever listened to Games, Woodcuts or The Slower than Slow? --Folantin (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Unfortunately, here in the States we hear that one in ugly English almost always. I hate it. I suspect it has to do with a local phobia of attempting French pronunciation on the air. (Funny, when I first read your message, I did not recognize the last three as pieces by Debussy. LOL)

In other news, and very far from the immortal Frenchman, I just bought tickets to the LA Opera Der Ring des Nibelungen. This ought to be good. I've never seen the whole thing live. (I know if I sneak a camera in, the aisle gorillas will kick me to the curb, but is a photograph of a production free under our policy?) Antandrus (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I envy you the Wagner. However, don't ask me about the Byzantine world of Wikipedia policy on images - I mean pictures. --Folantin (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update I notice someone has tried to AfD that book I mentioned above but the entry is not showing in today's AfD page. Could you fix it? The nomination process for AfD is way too technical for me. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, I think I borked it. Now I have to leave to go to the ballet (Prokofiev, Cinderella) in about two minutes. See if anyone fixes it by the time I get back ... Antandrus (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed it more or less. In any case, the debate is now live. Hope you enjoy the ballet. --Folantin (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coins (more)

Thanks for the link. I do dislike the images - particularly the gold ones - but that's not the point. IMO the real issue is trivia (whether it is or isn't) — albeit with a commercial twist because these collectibles are bought and sold in an open market (and MM admits to being a collector). As suggested by DavidRF I'm going to suggest a guideline. It'll be difficult to word so I'll be grateful for your input! --Klein zach 00:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Input

Hey. I've been asked to make a wikipedia article for a band and I'm not sure on their notability. I wanted to get your input, as a frequent editor for the music wikiproject so that I can either make the article or have sources other than just myself that think it's not notable. As I'm new, I'm still not clear on where the line is drawn for reliable sources regarding notability. Here's the info.

Band: Needmore References: The only source I found that I would consider notable is from ourstage.com which is apparently an AOL music website that I've never heard of. You can see the awards given there. I'd link their website and their label's website but they essentially provide no information. It looks like a myspace band to me but the only thing I question in their favor is the ourstage.com reference.

I appreciate your time. Let me know what you think. OlYeller^Talktome 18:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I like your user page. It's very clean and full of info.

Thank you! Appreciate it. The design was by User:Phaedriel who unfortunately no longer edits.

I'm a little pessimistic about that particular band passing the notability test. There are two things I can see: their lack of coverage in notable media organizations (unless you can find something -- if they get coverage in the mainstream press or industry publications, or are mentioned prominently in interviews with famous musicians, -- that kind of thing), and also you are fighting a general trend I have observed in Wikipedia in the last couple of years which is a tightening of notability standards on bands in particular, since we get so many local and Myspace bands self-promoting here. Band articles often get speedy deleted. If you are able to find good sources I'd strongly recommend writing the article in your user space first, and then moving it into mainspace, references and all, when it's ready. (I've never heard of them, but that doesn't mean anything.) Have more famous musicians within their genre ever written about them, or mentioned them in an interview?

Hope this helps, and good luck! Antandrus (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your personal view on WP:Music regarding notability? I haven't been around long but it seems to me that the standard view of notability with regards to WP:RS is slipping. In my opinion, what passes for a reliable source is slipping. For instance, if a composer has a profile on allmusic.com, they automatically pass WP:Music. I had never heard of allmusic.com until I became a Wikipedia editor (not that my knowledge of something implies its notability) and I question its notability let alone what it declares notable. I have no idea how to crusade, so to speak, for the tightening of notability requirements (especially when it comes to music) or if I even should. Any suggestions? As for this band, I'm washing my hands of it for the time being.OlYeller^Talktome 05:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to get things to change around here, and making a concerted attempted to do so is a frequent cause of burnout. Personally I don't think Wikipedia conforms carefully to its own standards ("multiple reliable sources" are commonly invoked, and a "reliable source" is one that is peer reviewed; how many of our current band articles have a references section with "multiple reliable sources"? It would be interesting to do a little survey.) I mainly work in the classical music area, and I only use scholarly sources (books, encyclopedias such as the New Grove, articles in journals); but that is a very different area from ultra-current popular music, where it is not reasonable to expect coverage in, say, books. Regarding Allmusic -- I hadn't heard of it either until I came to Wikipedia -- this page suggests two levels of coverage: anything gets added to their database, but not everything gets reviewed. Are they important enough a resource for their choices of what-gets-reviewed to establish notability of those choices for us? If consensus at WP:MUSIC is yes, then I suppose we live with it unless someone can make a persuasive argument to the contrary. Antandrus (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fidelio

Three different IPs have in turn removed recordings! A bit bizarre. Can we protect the page, I wonder? --Klein zach 09:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on my watch list. It appears that 24.82 and 24.86 are the same person (Shaw Cable in western Canada) and 99. might be; traceroute isn't giving me a reliable city, but is also in Canada. It's a content dispute, if you read the edit summaries, so my protecting the page to keep anons out would be a really bad mistake on my part. I see you posted on that talk page; that's the right thing to do. I'm not familiar with that particular recording; is there something strange or controversial about it? Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this. If it is a content dispute it's a strange one - and two different recordings (1962, 2006) were deleted, not just one. IMO it's closer to vandalism. The 1962 Klemperer is often regarded as the leading one, though the 'conoscenti' prefer his live recording with lesser-known singers — but this is pretty marginal given that there is no discussion of the recordings on the page. --Klein zach 23:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motet

Yo Ant! Was this article one of the ones that got worked over in a misguided undergraduate assignment? Anyway, I went to consult it and found the thing unreadable so I reverted back all of the changes. Let me know if you think that was overkill. I would have rewritten it, but frankly it would be a time consuming process and the earlier version seems clear enough. Eusebeus (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- yes, it was one of the ones on the list, and I completely agree with the reversion. I've only had time to rewrite a few of their class projects. (If you think that was bad, read Juan del Encina and Florentine Camerata -- but keep your air-sickness bag close at hand.) "Music should mimic the ancient roots of the Greeks." That's a gorgeous image! Carrots anyone? They're way in the back of the fridge though. "...their pieces became rife with monotone sonorities." Someone fell asleep in class during a monotonal lecture on monody, methinks. I've redone Cipriano de Rore, Ockeghem, (both last year), Jacques Arcadelt, Luca Marenzio, but haven't gotten to the others yet. Some, like Claude Le Jeune, I just reverted.

That motet article needs a good rewrite, but it's a big job if it's to be any good. It's such a huge topic. Antandrus (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol. "rife with monotone sonorities" is a good description of a lot of modern music though. Those are classics. Eusebeus (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though a pretty good example of a university project producing something pretty great for W.P.: Lucia Dlugoszewski. Though this project involves graduate students in music library school and creating pages for composers that don't yet have pages. So it's at a much higher level.

Two or three years ago, these projects were great ideas, I still think. But now, they're so tricky that I wouldn't recommend them. I definitely won't do them for composers between 1750 and 1950 -- there's so little that an undergraduate can add to W.P. in these fields any more. There are individual pieces though that I think a smart, smart undergraduate could still add to. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nice work! I missed that one. Would that the Union U. students could write that well, or that their professor would take responsibility for cleaning up their mess. Some day when I'm annoyed at the world (or if my football team blows a big bowl game again) I'll just revert them all.

I wish an expert on early German music would show up; I've concentrated for so long on 15th- and 16th-century France and Italy that some other areas are lagging. A class of graduate students with a serious interest in the subject matter, under the direction of a professor who checks their work (or even better has them write in user space, as was the case with Dlogoszewski), and with some writing skill, -- now that I wouldn't mind. Good to see you around! Antandrus (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myke, parts of your comment ("there's so little an undergraduate can add...") focuses what these projects seem to be about: an apparent desire on the part of the professor to "recruit Wikipedians", rather than any academic imperative. Does the ability to add a few paragraphs to a Wikipedia article really help to assess anything important? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to get the student to write an old-fashioned essay or literature review [or contribute to a seminar] and assess that, rather than assessing their contributions to Wikipedia? It would have the advantage that the professor could test the quality of their opinions and their conclusions as well as their understanding! Also, aren't the students coerced into licensing their work under GFDL? Isn't that up to them, rather than their professor? I imagine the professors as Wikipedia proselytes, vicariously, perhaps subconsciously, indulging their own desire (a desire which is perhaps not entirely rational) to improve Wikipedia. Does being the main author of two featured articles on 20th century composers make me eligible for any academic qualification? :-D --RobertG ♬ talk 11:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert -- I think that there are two worthwhile goals in having students write and contribute to Wikipedia that can't be done with conventional assignments. First, they learn about trusting less everything they read on the Internet (and WP in particular) as they gain an understanding of how easy it is for someone to put things up. Not that these facts are wrong, but that they need to be checked and looked at closely. Secondly, they see that the primary point of scholarly writing is to get your knowledge out to a larger public -- not to get a grade, not to have something that one stuffs in a binder forever (man could I learn this latter point better...). If these two goals can be accomplished at the same time as helping WP then it's probably a worthwhile project. ("Probably" because one has to figure in the added time costs of learning how to edit WP, play nice in WP-culture, etc.).

I think for instance, having my entire class write an article on John Adams (composer) was a good way of reconciling these goals, costs. (The previous article was found to be completely a copy-vio and had been taken down six months earlier). There are definitely some aspects of what came out that I wouldn't have included if I were writing the article entirely on my own; but I didn't and it didn't look like anyone else was going to either. I think articles such as Three Places in New England or Symphony in B-flat for Band were exactly the types of things that a talented undergraduate could put forward as an improvement.

As far as the coercion of GFDL goes, it's hard to say. Certainly, I allowed an exemption for anyone who didn't want her work to be on WP to do the same work on a private website that would then be deleted (I also gave Citizendium as an option), but no one ever was interested in either. Considering that at most American universities, technically the university owns the copyright to every assignment produced for classes (sometimes with the thesis exempted), the people most likely to object to putting this work under GFDL would be the university administrators.

I have also required for each of these assignments a one-paragraph opinion of the work being written on, not placed on WP because subjective opinions don't belong there, but required because these opinions are still important to form. (Along with a feedback form on the editing process).

You're right, there is professor-ego involved (but given the species you're talking about, where is there not?) -- for me, part of it was publicity and coverage within my universities for being "cutting-edge" -- but I don't think that that's incompatible with improving students' abilities or improving Wikipedia.

As far as whether writing for WP counts in the world of academia, I don't think there's a black and white answer. Certainly there are WP writers who are getting noticed in the academic world (strong among them, Antandrus); at the same time there are people who only see WP writing as a boarish waste of time. But I think that that attitude is diminishing. Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really thoughtful reply, Myke, and much appreciated. You mention important goals, and you demonstrate that wisdom and care on the part of the tutor in setting the assignment is all important! --RobertG ♬ talk 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thank you both for the insightful comments!

I've seen a fair number of student projects in the last few years, and their quality has varied all over the place. There was a university in Hong Kong that wrote articles on NGOs based there; they were topics no one else had covered, and they added some good information, sometimes acceptably written. There was an English class at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo I helped a couple years ago. Then ... there were the two cases I can think of where a professor instructed his students to add misinformation, to show how easy it was to do. (Training idea for new police officers: go out and break a few windows and spray-paint some graffiti in the middle of the night, just to see how easy it is to do.)

I like the idea that in writing a paper or paper-equivalent, you are creating something of value for the world, not just -- as was the case with me in graduate school -- filling some pages with typing which will end up in a box in a storage room. All that work I did, gone, except that I remember some of it. And I remember having assignments that were essentially writing encyclopedia entries (it's a great assignment for multiple reasons: writing style, point of view, weighting of sources, etc.) The introductory course for graduate students is often a good place to assign such things, i.e. the one where you learn about RILM and RISM and CMM and all that, as would any number of seminars. But an undergraduate introduction-to-music-history class? Yikes -- with careful oversight, including final professor approval of what goes and what stays.

That the institution owns the copyright on what the students produce is a new wrinkle for me. Never honestly thought about that. Is that really true? It seems hard to justify, but then again my company owns the copyright as intellectual property on everything I do there. Antandrus (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things might be changing there: Harvard at least now says that students own the copyright for software they produce at Harvard unless they were hired to do it or it required resources beyond those normally provided to students for educational work. But I definitely remember that the doctoral dissertation was given as an exemption to what the university owned back when I was in grad school. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hieronymous Formschneider

Hi - If you have: D. W. Krummel and Stanley Sadie, Music Printing and Publishing. New York, Norton, 1990, a look at the index for Hieronymous Formschneider (Andreae) would be most useful - what exact printing technique did he use, and how does he fit in to the big picture etc? Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good article! We've been needing to expand our coverage in this area. While I don't have that particular book, I do have access to the online New Grove, which covers Formschneider in several different articles. Do have that? If not I can provide what is given there. Formschneider evidently was only the second German to print a single-impression typeface, the Fraktur designed by Neudörfer, with his Varia carminum genera (Senfl) in 1534 (Christian Egenolff preceded him in Frankfurt by two years). All of his music prints were woodcuts, and they all dated to between 1534 and 1539; what made them additionally significant is that most of the Lutheran printers in the northern part of Germany used the same typeface in the late 16th century. Thank you also for your work on the Choralis Constantinus, which somehow never made it to my to-do list. If you like I can fatten up the paragraph on music printing in the Formschneider article when I have a minute. Best, Antandrus (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do, I have nothing like that, coming at it from the art angle. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to it soon -- I'm a little behind on all the promises I've made on Wikipedia. Tomorrow if the moon and planets are in alignment. Antandrus (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it would be helpful to explain or link to what single-impression music printing is. Is the Fractur you are talking about a letter or music type-face? The letter one is already in above, & I'll move it from the music section if so. I saw you said above here that " All of his music prints were woodcuts" , but the single-impression stuff is movable metal type, no? Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know -- it's not clear from the Grove article if the Fraktur is music only or music and text both. I think it may be both, but how to find out for sure? Regarding music cuts -- according to Grove (this is the "printing and publishing" article) he cut the face into wood. So I presume "single impression" means you splat the wood on the paper once after inking it. Is that how it works? I suppose I could be misunderstanding the process: this is the exact quote from Grove (the Formschneider article now): "One of the most gifted block and type cutters of the German Renaissance, he cut the many illustrations and diagrams in, among others, Dürer’s treatises and Hans Gerle’s lutebooks, and cut and cast the founts, including only the second single-impression music typeface in Germany..." (Royston Gustafson). Do you cut a metal type and use that to put an impression in wood? Antandrus (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it means they are metal movable type (if fonts are cast), as I thought, though early prints might be woodcut. He is mainly famous as a cutter of woodcut images, but the "illustrations and diagrams" in the lutebook are these. I think single impression is doing the staves & notes in one go (with metal) instead of in two passes? I'll check & refactor. Fraktur (script) is certainly letters, so unless clearer refs turn up, I'll assume it is only letters. Thanks again.

Oh, I missed your message between angry troll posts (see below). Thanks for the clarification. I have some more detailed information on music printing which I can look at later, but I'm sure you're right, on reflection -- "single impression" is staves and notes together. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomás Luis de Victoria

Hello, yes, you're right concerning the diminished fourths and I'm going to delve into that topic not to make such a mistake again. Thanks for clearing it up for me. --Alsiik (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Intervals like diminished fourths are rather rare in the sixteenth century, so I can see why you thought it may have been a mistake. There are some even stranger: I can think of a diminished octave in Carlo Gesualdo; it's harrowing: one of the great things about using those extremely expressive intervals rarely is they retain their emotional effect when you do use them. There's lots of good stuff from Cipriano de Rore forward. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Wikipedia afraid of opposing viewpoints?

Don't you agree there is a legitimate reason to at least ASK Obama to prove he is eligible?

Why does Wikipedia refuse opposing points of view? Wouldn't it welcome opposing points of view if a conservative was president? Why the bias in favour of Obama? One day, this charlatan will be reviled for plunging the US into debt, if not more dangerous things. Explain why Wikipedia is afraid of a contrast in views, of pointing out the man's negative aspects! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.253.235 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid I was too busy beating my wife to comprehend your question.

We are afraid of copyright infringement, and I reverted your edit because you copied and pasted an entire article from a copyright source. My edit, and the note on your talk page, had nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Obama, politics, the U.S.A., conservatives, debt, or anything else. Pretend I'm a robot that enforces Wikipedia policies and leaves pertinent notes, and we'll get along just fine. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested mediation on this issue. Can the user who requested mediation make sure that this template is placed above the section that requires mediation, then click here to fill in the case page.

"Why the bias" is not a complex question. Anti-George Bush and anti-Ronald Reagan is allowed. Why not anti-Obama? Why aren't legitimate mentions of associations with controversial figures allowed for Obama, but they are for Alan Keyes or Stephen Harper or other conservative figures. Why the bias? Simple.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.253.235 (talk • contribs)

I'm not interested in arguing politics with you, I want you to comprehend and comply with our copyright and talk page policies. You are presupposing that this has something to do with politics, and it does not. Do you acknowledge that you violated our copyright policy? Antandrus (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge the violation. Do YOU acknowledge that others did not violate because they put in references to support their own wording? Yet you (meaning Wikipedia admin) removed their references and their wording and banned them for three days? No, of course you won't acknowledge that others obeyed the rules, because it will mean admitting that you are biased. I don't care if you support Obama, that is your democratic right. You must acknowledge that there are millions of Americans who don't support him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.253.235 (talk • contribs)

"Why the bias" doesn't sound like a political argument. It sounds like an editorial argument. You made a straw man - saying I was arguing politics where I was really pointing out an apparent Wikipedia editorial bias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.253.235 (talk • contribs)

Repeat after me: this has nothing to do with Obama. You are trying to make it into something to do with Obama. It has to do with Wikipedia policy. I'm an administrator, and I caught you violating it, and left you a polite warning. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat after me: this has nothing to do with Obama, but it does have to do with Wikipedia allowing opposing comments for some and not for others. You have therefore confirmed that you _will not_ answer a question as to whether you are allowing bias, instead, you will simply ignore that question and accuse your questioners of things that will allow you to accuse them. Therefore, I no longer expect you to answer the question. I will tell everyone I know and beyond that Wikipedia is to be taken with a grain of salt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.253.235 (talk • contribs)

You violated Wikipedia policy. More than that, you violated copyright law. Antandrus reverted your copyright violation. That's the sum total of his interaction with you. He's been more than patient with your hounding. Now it's time to move on. Guettarda (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I laugh at your (collective) fears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.253.235 (talk • contribs)

We are here to build an encyclopedia. You are here, evidently, to pick fights over political issues. You need to find a different website, such as a forum where such discussions are acceptable; this is not the right website for you, and you will be frustrated if you try to use Wikipedia as a forum. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rebooting robots

Well, I might just be one of those "drive-by" commenters on WP:AN/I, but I always figure if I can't add something constructive, then I'll add something humorous to lighten the mood. -- llywrch (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chaparral Institute removal

Greetings. I am responding to your message regarding my removal of The Chaparral Institute. First, I am an ecologist that studies fire in the chaparral in California and Nevada. I am very familiar with The Chaparral Institute, as are my colleagues. In terms of discussing fire ecology, The Chaparral Institute is not a reliable source of information. The institute, and its director, Richard Hasley, "educate" people about chaparral with absolutely no scientfic foundation. My colleagues and I have met and heard from Richard many times over the years, and he is, to be blunt, a joke. These is a reason that he zero (maybe one) peer-reviews publications--a critical part of the scientific process--and it is because he or the institute are illegitimate. He is a classically trained firefighter with no ecological or environmental background. They are more sensationalists that speak out based on their anecdotal evidence, further based on aesthetics and not science. I would prefer that you had a link to John Keeley's website, or virtually anybody else. Thank you. 18:25 PST 08 March 2009.

No problem -- I was just curious. Feel free to add a better link, or remove that one again; I'm not an expert on ecology (my doctorate is in the humanities). By the way, if you fill in the "edit summary" field when you remove the link, your edit is more likely to go through -- otherwise recent-changes patrollers might think your deletion is vandalism (random deletions are among the commonest kinds of vandalism here). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Antandrus . I just want an objective and fair view posted. Fire in California is SO controversial because if is difficult to determine "fire regimes" and so forth. They do represent a side, but, like I wrote, is an extreme, unscientific view. Cheers!

Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons)

Hello,

I just wanted to let you know that I reverted the edits made by Sucros and The Niggler to Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons), because it was a correct edit. However, looking further I see that these are sockpuppets of Grawp, but for this edit at least it should remain as-is (see my edit history justification). 71.194.32.252 (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- we usually revert all his edits, as the first few are almost always trivial, but not necessarily trustworthy. Thanks for checking and making sure it's the best way (and it's better to have your edit on top than his). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One of his favorite MO's lately is to create an account, make a few more or less constructive edits to appear legit, and then go crazy with the move vandalism. While the "revert every edit" makes sense, because he's not supposed to be editing at all anyway, there's nothing wrong with using any beneficial changes that come out of his collateral damage. I guess we want to make sure not to encourage him in any way, but at the same time reverting back to less correct versions doesn't seem like a good idea either - ah, what a conundrum. :) 71.194.32.252 (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed -- he wants to waste our time as much as he possibly can, so what better way than mixing in a few good with questionable edits, so we have to look at them all. Honestly I wish I knew what happened with him. I remember when he was a good editor; I thought he was all right: then he just totally flipped out. What on earth could motivate someone to spend that much time doing "work" which is all undone? It's shoveling sand against the tide to spite the ocean. Sort of wish I could hear his side of it. In that curious, morbid way I have of wanting to understand people's motivations .... cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the Obama link

Thanks for fixing that link. So politely, too. cojoco ([[User talk:Cojoco|talk]]) 02:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! It's a good article; thanks for finding it! Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beatritz de Dia

I'm wondering if Beatritz de Dia is one of those "class projects" that someone worked on, and needs cleanup (see my review). Magic♪piano 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YES -- good catch! Missed that one. I had a hunch there were others we weren't seeing, since all I was using to find them was my watch list and what-links-to on the list of Renaissance composers. It appears that the student who worked on that also edited Makemi's Trobairitz article. Antandrus (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Panizzas and Le Villi

Hi. Did you happen to see this question and the relevant talk page? I've come up against a brick wall. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack -- yes, actually I did; I saw that conversation the Reference Desk and researched it a little last night, but unfortunately -- going on memory since I'm at work at the moment -- there are no entries for the Panizzas in the New Grove, and finding nothing, didn't post. There are two Panizzas who are Argentines, curiously enough, but no Italian conductors. I doubt if I have anything else in my library that would discuss the premiere of Le Villi but I'll have a look when I get home. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grove offer

Hi, Antandrus, I just saw the Mollusc Mess on ANI which has prompted me to ask if I could take you up on your offer to spot check some articles for close paraphrasing. I'm starting to look at ones that list Grove on line as the sole or primary source. They may be fine, but just in case...

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be gone most of the weekend but I'll have a look when I have a moment. (Alternatively, if you feel so inclined, shoot me an e-mail and I'll send you the pertinent sections from the Grove articles.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tempest in a tempered teapot

Hello! You probably either know about this already or are sensibly avoiding it like a plague of frogs, but you might also be interested or amused or something by this little brouhaha: [7] --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 00:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did post on ANI here about it already. :) Yes, I thought I'd start by politely pointing him to our pertinent policies, including AGF, original research, conflict of interest. (I'm not going to be both an "administrator" and a content disputant -- that's almost always a no-no -- but let's see how it develops.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RISM Edits

Dear Antandrus: one of the directors of the RISM office has made substantial improvements to the RISM article (I will assume that their putting their own text there signifies a license to use it and not a copyvio); but I thought I should bring your (and through this talk page, others' in the field) attention to it. There is some cheerleading there (and the "people who use RISM" section might need some toning down), but it doesn't seem too bad for a self-written publicity bit. The one sentence that at first jumped out as over-the-top self-aggrandizing, "RISM is recognised among experts as the key place for documenting music sources all over the world," is actually completely true. There was a criticism of their system that I made in an earlier edit (with citations), which they cut, which is probably bad form, but I don't think it's so important that it should be returned. Esp. since, apparently (as their email to me says) they renounced the criticised forms in 1985 and have been trying (unsuccessfully) to stamp them out since. Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, RISM is the big place for documenting music sources, at least since I was in grad school, so it's certainly true! Looking at it briefly, I think it's fine. I'm glad to see a decent article there now, and I can take a closer look when I have some time. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False claims of "bullying" Andrewa

These allegations are false and it is not the first time he has made false allegations against me. (See this false allegation made against www.tenstringguitar.info here [8]. (The link is relevant, does not simply promote a site, and does not link to a discussion group, myspace or facebook - even though that is what it is accused of.)

The fact is, I repeatedly made Andrewa aware of misinformation he was linking to (for example, here on 25 February [9] and here we have Andrewa responding [10]). Proof that he was aware of the misinformation. So there is no reason to justify good faith or entertain the notion that he is simply unaware of the factually inaccurate link he posted here [11] (in the References, at the bottom), then never removed, and then defended as containing no inaccuracies on 2 March, here [12].

I am not attacking anyone; I am defending factual information. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concisely: 1) You can't use your own website as a source. 2) You need to interact with Andrewa politely and civilly. Let's stay on the point. It's not about the exact content: it's about where you source it, and how you say it. "Verifiability, not truth." No ad hominems. Ever. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I have no intention of taking anything further with Andrew. What I intend to do now (slowly and carefully) is to correct the articles about 10-string guitars using verifiable, scholarly sources: published journal articles and interviews, published sheet music and books on acoustics. What should not be included here are references to unreliable online sources (i.e. NO facebook, myspace, blog, yahoo group discussions, or links to commercial sites with vested interests in selling their products and promoting their POV). I will not reference my own site (as I've deliberately kept it easy to read by excluding citations - heaven knows, it's already such a dense and complex topic), but I think www.tenstringguitar.INFO should however be included under "FURTHER READING" (not as a direct reference) as it contains a lot of pertinent information and is not commercial. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds good. I have no objection to having your website as an external link; I looked at it yesterday and found it helpful and informative.

Later on if you wish I'm willing to look at the actual content dispute -- I do have a doctorate in music (composition/theory) and as a violinist am painfully aware both of temperament and resonanance issues -- I was strictly trying to address non-content issues to get those out of the way first. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missa L'homme armé

Thanks for your comments about my additions to the Missa L'homme armé page on my talk page. It's my first posting, so I was delighted to receive your comment. I know that there are more recordings available, and will try to add more to the page when I have the time. Hope I'm doing this right! Jbrh1 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PAs, COI, OWN...

When you have a minute or two... Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, ain't she a charmer. There's a lot to try to follow there, but one thing bursts out like a dead fish shooting to the surface of a polluted lake: habitual, unrepentant, and seemingly reflexive incivility. Sometimes I wonder -- what is so hard to get about the necessity to be civil in this project? Is it that some are so lacking in self-control that they simply cannot be, or is it a form of weakness? On the internet, where one is shielded by anonymity, and one can say anything one wants with almost certain impunity, it takes integrity and courage to be polite, civil, and kind. The longer I stay with this project, and the older I get, the less I believe those virtues can be taught: those who do not have them are probably just not suited to a collaborative, largely anonymous project. I deeply admire people who can respond to angry rants with calm and kindness. -- I'll try to read through some of that; recognize that I know nothing about the topic. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I get ~~older~~ (oops! :) erm, I mean, hopefully wiser, I mostly think incivility and unbounded anger come from some echo of awareness and fear within of weakness, sometimes mixed up with a kind of laziness. On the Internet, it can be worse because as you hint, some folks mistakenly think they can let loose more easily. Oddly though, I happen to know someone who has a blazing temper (and all the incivility that can bring) but on the Internet, can somehow keep that hidden and be sweet as pye! Gwen Gale (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... Mabel Normand. Anyone linked with the William Desmond Taylor murder scandal in Hollywood got reams and reams of sensationalist, yellow press publicity which more often than not was sloppy and got lots of stuff wrong. This in turn got picked up by book authors, then further nicked and looped, making lots of seemingly reliable sources not so. Over on that talk page, it's the old story of plowing through sundry WP behaviour worries before being even able to begin on content. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones discussion on Gwen Gale talk page

In this section, you made the remark that the section was a copyright violation from the source it cites. Would you mind explaining what you mean by that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk • contribs)

Sure. Look at this version, which was the last version before Gwen removed the section. Look at the first paragraph under "Criticism", beginning with "In July 2000,...". Now read the third paragraph of this source. A couple words are changed, but it's otherwise word-for-word. We can't do that. We have to write from external sources in our own words. Alternatively, in limited circumstances we can quote sections, but it's almost always better to write independently and cite. Antandrus (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to respond. If only other Admins would do the same, the website would be so much more pleasant. Having considered the matter, I agree that you are absolutely correct and the material, if included, should definitely be re-written. 90.213.182.228 (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New user welcome message response

This seems wierd, but I'm following your instructions literally, Antandrus. Maybe the clue is putting message in Edit summary? Thanks for the Redirect info: will try it... Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 23:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply and wishing me happy WikiBirthday. I still remember creating an account on March 19, 2007 and I remember I did interact with you back then. I even gave you a few barnstars back in '07. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 22:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I'd be pleased to send you a copy of my Portraits around ... Charpentier but I don't want to break your cover! Could you supply an address and I'll pack it up and mail it one of these days? Read your bio and je compatise... which is a better word than "I empathise." Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Antandrus: I need some advice on 2 things (otherwise, thanks to Frania, I'm making progress.) 1) I have an issue about the picture of Mlle de Guise (which is a scan of the 17th-century engraving I own): I put it on the Marie, Duchess of Guise page, but got the message that I have to prove ownership, etc. I'm not quite sure what category that sort of item belong to, and which option is best to choose. (If it's too complicated, I'll simply let it be taken off and won't publish other portraits I have... Or I'll publish it on www.ranumspanat.com). And 2) when I click "user page" at the top of my screen, I see Loulié all the time. I suspect that's not quite right? Also, in the final note, there is an eeeeeeeeeeeeenormus citation to a scanned book: is there some way to do that more concisely? Have a good day, and thank you in advance. There's no rush, although Mlle de Guise will disappear in a few days....Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antandrus, I figured out how to fix the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenormus title, but how to modify the "redirect" at the top of the Loulié page remains a problem. Actually, I perhaps created the Loulié page in the wrong place (did it on "Ranumspa" page! And then I did the REDIRECT from there (Loulie ---> Loulié)... So before I start any _new_ page or try to change the Loulié article from its current place, I'd like to know where to find useful information. (I'm beginning to feel as if I am committing dendrocide, because so much paper is being used in long printouts of HELP pages....) Cheers, Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced queries

You've probably noticed my last few queries just after the 2 red rectangles? Sorry, I missed the click at the top that permits me to create a new item. Will behave in the future 8) Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! I will attempt to answer some of your questions, on your talk page for convenience. Antandrus (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for the kind words, and thank you for the guidance. I eliminated that bad REDIRECT without a hitch, and I've saved the info about pictures for the future. Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While wondering aimlessly through wikipedia...

i came across this this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VK . i know it doesnt belong here... at least yet. but ill be damned if i know who to tell.. help? only reason i come to you is because you are the only person on here i have interacted with civilly in quite sometime. sorry to add to your burden man.. 4twenty42o (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! Looks like you're right. It doesn't belong. Google suggests that the "Vandal Kings" may not be notable or covered by any reliable sources, and also the page should be a disambiguation page per the manual of style. I reverted it to the last good disambig version. The author can try writing a Vandal Kings page if he has a decent source (newspaper coverage, that kind of thing). Antandrus (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loulié's tuning device

I'm _thinking_ of an article on the sonometre". For the moment, the best I can do is to translate the description of the machine from the Memoirs of the Ac. of Science... and since the Google scan of the volume only shows PART!!! of the devices (didn't scan the middle, apparently because the engraving was folded into narrow strip and only what sticks out beyond the white part was scanned (!@#$%^)... I have only an imperfect engraving (unless there is one at the Univ. but I doubt it!) I can piece the printout together and supply, in dotted lines, the part that is missing... so that people will be able to see where the line "ABC" is above the string that is plucked to make the sound one wants.... etc. QUESTION: 1) Would that be acceptable? 2) Would there be problems with Google? It's a book printed ca 1700 and is in public domain. Won't do this until after our houseguests, due next week, are gone, just before Easter. Pkg is ready....Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Just discovered that there IS a copy in special collections. Maybe I can take a digital photo of the engravings, spread out. And if library approved, with a thank you, I guess Wiki would cause no problems? Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is public domain, scanning it or photographing it should be no problem. Usually the {{PD-art}} tag will suffice (the template documentation for that tag explains the rationale, which goes back to a Corel vs. someone-or-other court case in the U.S.) I also will be scarce around Wiki for a while -- houseguests here too. :) I'll probably check my watchlists and answer a few messages now and then, but otherwise I won't be around much. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mailed the pkg yesterday, non-speedy way. Let me know if it doesn't arrive in respectable amount of time. And happy hosting!Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:69.80.225.12

You blocked this IP years ago with a somewhat cryptic reason ("you again? why?") and someone else tagged it as an open proxy. Was it an open proxy? If not, do you think we can try unblocking? Surely the user has moved on by now. –xeno (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xeno -- yes, it was an open proxy at that time; that was an incredibly persistent vandal/spammer who started using open proxies once we shut down his home range. While it wouldn't hurt to run a proxy check (do you have tool you can run?) it's unlikely it's still a proxy after that much time. Back in 2006 we used to block them indef; nowadays we usually just block them for a year. I just unblocked it. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No, unfortunately I don't have a proxy checker... I guess we'll see how it goes =) –xeno (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

This [13] topic has come up. I'm working on two hours sleep at the moment and don't feel very wise or patient. Acroterion _(talk) 17:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; and thanks for the heads-up. I also will be scarce around here for the weekend and probably part of next week due to houseguests and RL stuff. Antandrus (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Answer

Now, to give some background - I worked as an admin over at Wikiversity. I dealt with the Moulton project banning. My thanks for that was being outed, having my personal information sent everywhere (to Wikipedia Review staff and others), and being called Satan, Hitler, etc, for 4 months. I dealt with it and didn't mind. I've dealt with banned users, spam bots, and all sorts of things on many projects. Do I really care about vandalism, CSD, closing AfDs, etc? No. I have plenty of those on other projects. Are there some benefits to the tools that I can use to help me work on articles? Yes. Are there some benefits that can help me be a neutral force in areas that I work in like issues surrounding ArbCom enforcement or trying to be a third opinion on problematic blocks? Yeah. I've thought about all of these for a very long time. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Antandrus, remember when I said I was involved in an "equally absurd Wiki-debate" back in January [14] (equal in absurdity to the wrangling over Mendelssohn's ethnicity)? Well, here it is in its full horror: [15][16]. It ended with Ottava Rima arguing that Malory's "Le Morte d'Arthur" was a work of "Renaissance poetry" (sic!) at which point feeding time was over. Apparently Wikipedia is a free version of Monty Python's Argument Clinic. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how it was put together and printed by Caxton, who heralded in the English Renaissance, it would seem absurd to classify it as anything else. But if you want to say whatever, go ahead. You are quite capable of doing that. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By long-standing convention, the Middle Ages in England ended in 1485. Malory died in 1471. His work is the most famous summation of Medieval Arthurian romance in English. More importantly, it's in prose not verse so it cannot possibly be classed as "Renaissance poetry" (or the poetry of any other era). --Folantin (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malory's work and Caxton's publication has been proven to be very different, so your claims to Malory's death date fall short. "First published in 1485 by William Caxton". That is enough to show that the work heralded in the Renaissance. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence makes no sense. It's generally believed Malory wrote Le Morte during the Wars of the Roses. Caxton also printed Chaucer. Malory may have "heralded" many things, including Tennyson's Idylls of the King. This doesn't make him a Victorian. I notice you've avoided addressing the "poetry" issue. What a surprise. --Folantin (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If my first sentence makes no sense I suggest you read the Morte D'Arthur page and realize that what Caxton printed and the manuscript of Malory's original work are very different. One is edited, collected, standardized and the rest. The other lacks structure, is in many different pieces, and does not form a single story. Regardless, this is not the Morte talk page but a user page, so this is the last response you will have from me on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Thanks for proving my point about your own sense of infallibility. Obviously, you've decided not to go on for nine days about this one. Shame. Nevertheless, Le Morte is still not a work of Renaissance poetry and is never likely to be. Ma adesso basta. Ciao! --Folantin (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sorry about the talk page disruption. Some people just -really- dislike me.~~ Ottava Rima (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you never stop to consider why. No scholar would describe Malory's Morte as a work of "Renaissance poetry" but you refuse to concede the point on this very basic fact. This has been typical of your behaviour on Wikipedia.en from the start (e.g. [17]). I remember you for your ridiculous assumption of bad faith against Jbmurray when your FAC wasn't going the way you wanted. Had you changed since then there would not be a problem. But you haven't [18] and this would make you a nightmare of an admin. --Folantin (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be honest, Folantin, you don't remember a thing. You are a troll. You are a well known troll. You are trolling this talk page. If you continue, I will bring you up at ANI. The fact that you try to change the topic to something as petty as the above shows that you have no point. You are rude and you are completely inappropriate on this talk page. You owe Antandarus an apology. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Antandrus knows very well how much of a troll I am (although I have no plans to drag him into this). I've got 13,000 edits under my belt (most of them content contributions) and I don't think I've ever been called a troll by a good faith user so I'd be interested to see you back your claim "You are a well known troll" (maybe on my talk page rather than here). Your behaviour, however, has been all of a piece since you arrived on Wikipedia. If you go seeking attention the way you do then don't complain when you get the wrong kind. You have a nerve talking about trivia when you bickered for nine days over this edit [19]. Some of us found it amusing to see how far you would go. Congratulations, you exceeded all expectations. Now you can't get your way you resort to your customary bullying and threats of ANI. Take it there if you are feeling lucky. --Folantin (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essay on composer bios

I'm soliciting feedback on this essay on what I think constitutes a high-quality composer biography. This is basically a draft; I'll probably ask a larger group for feedback later (or just publicize it). Magic♪piano 16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I read through it last night and didn't have any immediate suggestions. It might be possible to add some additional language to cover pre-1600 composers and their typical issues. Antandrus (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had it covered in the section on Special Considerations. Do you think I missed something there? Magic♪piano 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, withdrawn FLC?

Hi it is no longer April Fool's day where I am and have withdrawn User talk:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior from FLC accordingly. I probably should have asked your permission before "nominating" it but I'm glad you commented and seemed to see the funny side. I have put a template replicating {{FLCfailed}} on the talk page. If you want to remove please do (after all it is your user space!). I just added a note about it so the fake nom didn't become orphaned. As I didn't know if pages like these should it be deleted. By the way, despite the joke, I was very impressed with your insightful list of observations. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 23:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and no problem at all; I was amused (when I first saw the nomination, by the way, you completely fooled me; so you may consider it a successful April fool! It was March 31 where I live and I wasn't thinking about it). One of the commenters said something nasty and then erased it, but that comes with the territory, for anyone writing essays, especially dealing with behavior. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:A chantar3.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:A chantar3.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]