Archive of my talk page, 25 April 2007 to 25 May 2007. Please do not edit this page -- I will not see your edit. Go here instead. Contents of this page include nice comments, trolling, thanks, insults, demands, gratitude, requests, information, ... all in a day's work. Or a month's, in this case.

Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, Marbrianus de Orto, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the "hook" for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on April 21 where you can improve it if you see fit. Regards, howcheng { chat} 06:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply

On 26 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marbrianus de Orto, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- howcheng { chat} 05:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, you may be interested to know that Striggio's 40-voice Mass (with Agnus Dei à 60) has been rediscovered, which I thought was noteworthy enough to mention at the composer's page. In adding a new paragraph for that (and one or two external links, one to the performance of the discovery slated for July, and another link to example scores at CPDL), I would question the evidence for stating that Ecce beatam lucem was commissioned for Bavaria in 1568. Grove has this to say (the ellipsis is not important):

The 40-part motet Ecce beatam lucem ... may have been the 40-part motet performed in 1568, although the only surviving manuscript copies are dated 1587. This may also be the work referred to in two other contexts: the 40-voice ‘canzona’ performed for the entry of Cardinal Ippolito d’Este into Florence on 12 July 1561 (though with a different text) and the ‘musica a quaranta voci’ sent to Duke Guglielmo Gonzaga in August of the same year. Certainly Striggio was active in composing for such large forces during the 1560s; a mass for 40 voices was performed in both Paris and Vienna during his travels around Europe in 1567. For the 1568 Bavarian wedding the voices were accompanied by eight trombones, eight violas, eight flutes, harpsichord and bass lute.

There is also indirect evidence that Striggio performed the motet in London in 1567, again from Grove, this time the article on Tallis' sacred Latin works, citing the 1611 account by one Thomas Wateridge, made known by the late Jerome Roche in 1981.

Wateridge reported how a music-loving duke ‘asked whether none of our Englishmen could sett as good a songe’ as that which had been sent into England by the Italians. ‘Tallice beinge very skilfull was felt to try whether he would undertake ye Matter, wch he did and made one of 40 partes wch was songe in the longe gallery at Arundell house.’

(Incidentally, I'm the editor of the CPDL full score edition of Spem in alium, so these facts I profess to know well!)

Best regards -- Philip Legge _{phi1ip @ netscape·net} 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I checked the holdings of three libraries (UW-Madison, Harvard, and University of Chicago); of the three, the U of C had the most volumes, which were the following:

• v. 3-4. Masses based on Gregorian chants 2
• v. 7. Masses based on secular polyphonic songs
• v. 8. Masses based on secular polyphonic songs
• v. 9. Masses based on secular polyphonic songs
• v. 10. Masses based on sacred polyphonic songs
• v. 11. Masses based on solmisation themes
• v. 13. Mass movements
• v. 14. Motets on texts from the Old Testament : 1. Texts from Samuel, Job, The Song of Songs, Ecclesiasticus.
• v. 16. Motets on texts from the Old Testament : 3. Texts from the Psalms 2
• v. 19. Motets on texts from the New Testament
• v. 20. Motets on texts from the New Testament 2
• v. 22. Motets on non-Biblical texts. 2. De domino Jesu Christo 2
• v. 23. Motets on non-Biblical texts. 3. De beata Maria virgine 1
• v. 27. Secular works for three voices
• v. 28. Secular works for four voices.

They aren't being published in order, so this is probably close to the full list of what's out there so far. 30 volumes are planned in total. They started publishing in 1987; Willem Elders is the chairman of the editorial board. Chubbles 05:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Appreciate that. Antandrus (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply

A reply from a Josquin scholar (Jesse Rodin, soon Asst. Prof. at Stanford University) on the whole fugam, etc. mess. He's also done a lot of work on what Josquin learned from De Orto (as opposed to vice versa:

Prolationum is canonic and freely composed. I think the reason it doesn't get mentioned alongside the other two masses is just that mensuration canon technique is so different. Ockeghem's mass is really sui generis. Incidentally, the Missa Ad fugam attributed to Josquin is almost certainly not by him; it was probably confused with the real Ad fugam mass of Josquin, whose name Petrucci stripped away by dubbing it "Sine nomine." In other words, "Sine nomine" should really be called "Ad fugam," and "Ad fugam" should be dropped from the Josquin canon.

Jesse's article in Early Music 34.2 pg. 249 begins with a brilliant quote on the subject, "In 1540 the German editor and composer Georg Forster observed that 'Now that Josquin is dead, he is putting out more works than when he was alive." -- Myke Cuthbert 00:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Very interesting! That all makes sense. Thank you. I wonder why Petrucci attributed it to Josquin, or why he thought Josquin wrote it. His reading is very close to the copy from the Vatican (according to Jennifer Bloxham, in the Scherr book). Unfortunately I don't have a recording of Ad fugam. I love that Forster statement (it's also quoted in Rob Wegman's essay in the Scherr book -- "Josquin wrote more compositions after his death than during his life!") Probably it should go in the article ... it's true and funny. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

His last edit was an enigmatic nonsense message to me. —  $PЯING rαgђ  01:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Yup ... saw that. I've been having trouble with trolls and angry spammers today. Time to go do something else for a while. Antandrus (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply

For me, it's eat dinner. ;) —  $PЯING rαgђ  01:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply

emerson7 has again replaced the Pucci infobox against the wishes of the other editors. What do you think is the best way of handling this? I'm not personally bothered but the user has a record of provoking quarrels and his interventions are making it more difficult to have a reasoned debate. (Also I don't want to be involved in a edit war.) -- Kleinzach 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thought you might say that! Maybe I am not as calm as you think I am! Anyway it is the end result that counts here.

My view has been that it would be much easier to simply get rid of the infoxes than design a viable composer version. Putting up a good infobox is like writing the article all over again - plus making value judgments. Reducing Beethoven to a little box explaining influences, achievements (presumably in connection with different musical forms), and influences on other people would be a daunting challenge. I might attempt it, but would other people agree with my assessment? I think it would be doomed to failure. Moreover such boxes would need to be linked to solid technical articles (on symphonic, sonata form or whatever) which may not exist. Best -- Kleinzach 05:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I think our anonymous ISP user with the obsession with the Puccini infobox has had more than his three reverts for today.-- Folantin 20:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

And again...some random anon, like hell. Moreschi ^Talk 20:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah. I think I know who it is. Ain't sayin' aloud without this first, but suspect you can read my mind. I don't want to block for 3RR since I'm involved in the debate and the reversions. Antandrus (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

There is a user who is constantly bombarding the Mstislav Rostropovich article with link spam (very rude considering the subject died yesterday). Could you block the user if he doesn't stop within the next hour or so? —  $PЯING rαgђ  16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply

He appears to have stopped. I usually don't block link-adders unless they do it to multiple articles or turn abusive (see the enormous thread above for an example), or if it is porn or something. Antandrus (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply

That's fine. He stopped about ten minutes after I said that anyway. —  $PЯING rαgђ  23:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there: Happy spring! Looks like there is a revert war brewing on Shostakovich's page, FYI. (Does a war brew?) -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Ditto on the Steve Reich page. This one centers on infoboxes, which seem to be a sore point for a lot of people. Is there an official consensus on them for classical musicians? Also, any thoughts on my Latin grammar question? Merci! -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 11:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I decided to google it and was successful. That book is hands down one of the best novels of all time. Natalie 01:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for blocking that vandal. I noticed them when they showed up in my watchlist when vandalizing Anna Nicole Smith. I gave them a level one warning, then I checked the rest of their contributions and realized that they were all nothing but vandalism. Thanks for doing the reversions too. :) Acalamari 21:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! Yes, I also usually skip the test3-test4 warnings when they're on an obvious spree, as this one was. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Antadrus! Thank you for your comments regarding my Part Passion page... it should be finished soon! Tagith 04:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Gaviota_peak_view.jpg

Ant..: I left these words for Makemi, but they are equally pertinent, here. Nice place on the California coast. I guess it's true what they say: Spend too much time in California and it will make you soft. Perhaps the task of managing Wikipedia should be left so somebody with a harder cognitive foundation? By the way... I trust you are not a salaried employee? Wikipedia being a registered charity, I suppose your time to these pages is done out of love?

xena

For man walketh in a vain shadow, and disquieteth himself in vain: he heapeth up riches, and cannot tell who shall gather them.

From: Burial of the Dead.

<personal attack removed>

Early Music? Try Maurice Greene... Or Corelli, Sonatas 1 and 4, Bach, Double Violin Concerto, 2nd Movement, or some Morley Duets. Perhaps Gibbons? Sum up with Mendelsssohn, O' for the wings of a dove.

I have been playing the violin for most of my life. I adore fellow Montréaler Lewis Furey, and consider him to be my mentor.

I note that you deleted my last remark to you. This is not a warning Mak, just a suggestion. Additional advice? <personal attack removed>

I will soon restore my "Dearly loved one " page and I suggest you do not touch it. <personal attack removed> (xena emphasis)

xena starwoman

P.S. Everything gets tagged —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.53.129.206 ( talk) 17:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC). reply

Those were not personal attacks, Antandrus.

1. Lyrics to pop song version of "For Man Walketh.." 2. Style question, here. You either know how to write, or you do not. Now Joyce Cary. Quite a word player... 3. Donation? Yes, to some charity other than Wikipedia, which is starting to look like it does not deserve such a designation...

That's an opinion.

As opposed to a threat which might be a Koreanet string, RPhage, etc. Something to get old EAGLE101 all patriotic about...

x-star

Ancient music fan.

P.S. I admire your restraint. Please accept my compliment! Have had a hard life on my hands-n-kness in car-parks, HPV in 3 places, going blind, etc. I'm craving vengeance and I just don't know what to do about it. Feel much better if there was a 'Dearly loved one' restoration with some okey-dokey from you to make it a sticky.

- With apologies to Sticky!!! - Also C-Trained...

Added May 04... Wiki popular with the kids. Photographic evidence ;)

Hi, Antandrus. Are you able to help out with good references for the issue I raised here? Any assistance would be much appreciated. Cheers -- JackofOz 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your help, Antandrus. Very much appreciated, as always. JackofOz 03:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome ... this is the fun part of being a Wikipedian ... (for the other part, see the above horror) Antandrus (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

...for also noticing this [1] . Not quite sure how to fix it; it must be looking for nonsense combinations of caps/special characters. Antandrus (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

It's not the bot that's the problem. It's the ignorant administrators who block based on its reports without even taking a few seconds to check the user's contributions. See further up that talk page – Gurch 03:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Err, yes, two separate problems. We should be able to program the bot to be smart about chemical formulae, and yes, adminstrators should always look carefully at a user's contribs before blocking. In 4,000 blocks I don't think I've blocked a good user yet. Though there may be a first time coming, since I just said that. Antandrus (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Then you're not an ignorant administrator. Good – Gurch 03:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Also thanks from me. Mak (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I see you've been repairing vandalism by IP: 64.39.129.223, and I thank you for it. Is there someway we can get anonymous accounts at that IP blocked? It's obvious that account has vandalized several other pages besides the ones about the Virginia Tech shooting/massacre. Ikilled007 15:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi ... it looks like he stopped after the last warning, about twenty minutes ago. If it comes back and vandalises again you might report it at the intervention against vandalism page. I'm at work right now and will be offline for a while. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello again, hoping you are well. I have just noticed that this category ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Alumni_of_Somerville_College%2C_Oxford) ought to be "alumnae" rather than "alumni." But I have no idea how to change it. Suggestions? And might there be other such categories, and how might one find them? Merci! -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 20:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey Ant, what do you think of the new recording? Victimae Paschali Laudes#Media. Cheers, Mak (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Great work on the revision of vandalism at Renaissance! I've been working on this article for some time, and it seems to get a constant barrage of childish vandalism. Again, great work. mais ^{( talk)} 18:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks ... still not sure if I should semi-protect or not. Seems there is always a lot of resistance to long-term semi-protection. Appreciate your work on the article, by the way.  :) Antandrus (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey Antandrus, could you give me a second opinion on this user's contribs? Mak (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I may not be Antandrus, but is that promotion? Or is that promotion? Or is it, dare I say, promotion? Having said that, it's notable promotion, is it not, as opposed to fabrikated promotion? Moreschi ^Talk 20:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

What contribs? LOL. Looking in the deletion log ... yep, they're notable folks, e.g. the cellist with the Emerson SQ. Surprised he didn't have an article already. It's hard to handle promo-pieces written for people that are actually famous, since they need to be NPOVed and cleaned up and it rarely gets done. Can't find copyvios, though I've looked a bit. Writing style matches the several variants of the biographies found on their website. Promos. Needs cites, refs, NPOV, and the people could come back, IMO, but I'm not sure about the web site getting an article. Antandrus (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

& respond when you get the chance... Thanks! — Scien tizzle 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Antandrus. I did manage to find the way to get started. Will be working on this entry this morning: "Focus the Nation." Rudolph2007 17:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Antandrus! I was hoping that you could take a look at the dispute about Adolf Martin Schlesinger, the Berlin music publisher, please? There is a problem with a user who is constantly deleting information about Schlesinger's Jewishness in the article, apparently because it does not conform to some guidelines or policies. Would you mind taking a look and letting us know what you think? Thanks a bunch! Matthias Röder 22:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I didn't even notice that user vandalized my userpage, thanks for the catch. Nate 03:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome ... I didn't block him because he stopped, but let me know if he bothers you again. Antandrus (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks! Whiskey in the Jar 15:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome ... I'll unblock him if he cools off and acknowledges WP:POINT. Antandrus (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Since you blocked FfopoPreteP, perhaps you'd be interested to hear that these two both used TOR and are probably the same person. Or maybe you aren't interested. I don't really know. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Andiamstillhere_and_FfopoPreteP. Thanks, Armed Blowfish ( mail) 01:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Looking at their contributions, I agree with your assessment--they're absolutely the same person. Feel free to tag them that way. Offhand I'd say we haven't seen the last. I checked to make sure they're all blocked. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

...for so quickly reverting and blocking the vandal who did this. I have to say that's the nastiest vandalism I've had yet.-- Kubigula ( talk) 18:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! Who would have ever thought that writing an encyclopedia would be a hazardous job. Yet the internet is overrun with bullies ... I guess anonymity must make some people feel powerful in ways they so poignantly lack in real life. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't so much mind the vandals who make me smile - like the guy who changed the picture on my user page - but I really shake my head over people who get so worked up and make death threats over an encyclopedia. Maybe your theory is right.-- Kubigula ( talk) 20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

LOL, I wouldn't want to give any trolls biscuits or anything, but as vandalism goes that one is hilarious. Antandrus (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

As you all know, some hacker cracked my password and I have been stripped of my admin powers. I can understand an admin. being blocked, but stripped of his powers without a fair hearing or consensus, I can't. I have stated that I changed my password and would like my powers back, however the chastizing going on in [ [2]] has sadden me. It doesn't matter how many articles you have written, contributions you have made or how many years you have dedicated to making this project a credible one. A hacker, it seems has the power of making people consider you an untrustful person and turning some people in the community against you.

I have never abused of my powers and I have used Wikipedia as a medium to educate others. Yes, I have no regrets about having made so many contributions to the Pedia. I exhort all of my friends here to make sure that their passwords are strong ones so that you will not have to go through what I am going through.

I did promise some of my friends a couple of articles and as a good Marine I will keep my promise. To my friends here, Thank you for your friendship. Tony the Marine 00:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

My adminship has been restored and let me tell you, we've got to very careful with our passwords. You know, despite the headache that this caused me, it really made me feel good to know how many friends I have in Wikipedia. The support has been incredible. I can't let my friends here down. Tony the Marine 04:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my page! Much appreciated :) – Riana _ऋ 10:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism (a lot) to people's user page, articles, and never losing your cool when in confrontation to the vandals, I award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Your efforts are greatly appreciated and keep up the good work! Pre ston H (Review Me!) • (Sign Here!) 01:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I think we just bumped heads on this one.  ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 02:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oops! It's funny how that happens sometimes. Actually I'm impressed by how robust the software really is, and how rarely the admin rollback messes up. I've seen some weird things happen though ... Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure now, an anon user just undid my popup? Let me look into it... JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 02:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

According to this diff, it looks OK now. JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 02:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Ah, good. To add to the surrealism, an anon is one of our best RC patrollers tonight ... ah, the irony.  :) Antandrus (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Indeed, I had to thank this user [3]. Have a good evening. :-) JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 02:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I think you blocked this guy a few times. I'm pretty sure he just warned me that he is coming back to do more damage. I just thought I would give you a heads up. IrishGuy ^talk 03:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh, that guy again. He probably should be doing his homework instead of trolling. I'm always happy to help. Antandrus (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Hopefully his "warning" was just a bluff. He can really be a handful when he is bored. IrishGuy ^talk 17:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Quote from myself: This article keeps getting vandalized every few seconds or so and starts up again after a protection period expires. Maybe someone should add a PERNAMENT one to prevent randon people completely wasting the time of others and throwing off anybody reading the article. Discuss. Posted on the talk page. If you can, add the protection, if not, atleast say whether you agree or disagree in the talk. -- Eiyuu Kou 16:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I noticed you hav deleted many images and are a very active administrator. My request for photo deletion was skipped and not commented on. Could you delete it? Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_May_3#Image:John_c_reilly.jpg Thanks! Cnota 22:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Yikes, that doesn't look so obvious. Didn't you release the original into public domain here? [4] If you did indeed take the photo yourself, and made it PD, I can't speedy it, since it's currently being used in an article. Was your assertion of PD a mistake? My understanding of PD licensing (note--I'm not a lawyer) is that it's not revocable once you've done it. (FWIW, I release all my own photos into PD and understand that they stay that way.) Antandrus (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah it was an accident. I would appreciate it if you could delete it. Thanks. Cnota 05:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I think that Mysekurity already made a ruling on this Stevecudmore 23:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply

If you have a moment, can you take a look at this fellow edits? I do not believe that he is at all maliscious, but he has a bad habit of blanking the articles that he tags for speedy deletion. So far, there is not a page that he has tagged that I disagree with, but blanking them makes it difficult for fellow editors to decide if we agree with his reasoning. It's just a bad habit, and I think a message from an administrator will solve the problem. Thanks. --- Charles 04:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Strange, I'm not seeing any blanking, looking through about the last 15 db-tags. Was it something he did to articles that have now been deleted? Antandrus (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply

That is entirely possible. In every case, they were blatant candidates for db-bio and db-nonsense, and were very short. It could be that by the time I left the message above, they were gone already. I see that he has not done that since. Perhaps it was a fluke. Sorry if I wasted your time. --- Charles 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply

No waste, no worries ... thanks for calling my attention to it (I'm going through a bunch of them now to delete) Antandrus (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Our work never ends. Cheers! --- Charles 04:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, totally by chance, I came across one Jon(athan) Paul Miller, that he had blanked. I left him a message about it, and we will see how he responds. --- Charles 04:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Good--thanks! I was just swatting a bunch of the ones he's tagged. Antandrus (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply

You may not add anything to my talk page without prior consent. 76.197.131.48 04:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I added a "you have been blocked" message. Please consider contributing usefully rather than vandalising, making legal threats, and trolling. Thank you for your mature and careful consideration, Antandrus (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Well you ended my fun as expected. It took quite a while for anyone to revert anything, I got impatient at first because nobody was warning me after I put my "legal warning" there. So, I had to push a few buttons and boom someone warned me. It has been so much fun, I appreciated it. Well, I have to sleep now, but before I go.. I just want to tell you that if you didn't stop me, I might have been up all night with this. I'm pretty excited right now, thanks a bunch and good day to you! (Messing with wikipedia is so fun sometimes, even though I contribute legitimately sometimes.. :P 76.197.130.162 04:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, part of being an admin is spoiling peoples' fun, I know. For my own part, I enjoy actually writing the encyclopedia. Antandrus (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, I do too, I actually have been using wikipedia for a while. And no, you didn't spoil my fun, I actually planned you to spoil it, so it's all good. In the end, this will have to end with an administrator blocking me... though it may not be for trolling, something more like "stupid". 76.197.130.162 04:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Where do I look to check if a new article has been previously speedied? I am looking at a new article here [ [5]], and I recognize it as one that was recently deleted. I did not tag it when it previously appeared, and I am uncertain which speedy tag is appropriate. I am nearly certain, however, that it was speedied in the past two weeks. If you can point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --- Charles 04:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

You were correct. The best way I know is to look in the deletion log. If you suspect it was deleted recently, you can just ask for the last 5,000 edits and search ... otherwise it may take a while. When you click on history [6] do you see a "view or restore 9 deleted edits" -- or do only admins see that? If you do see that little message (probably up top) then you can click there to see the deleted history. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I think only admins see things like that. It's actually somewhat frustrating for non-admins working to tag speedys, etc. I'll tag a db-bio, and then need to check back that the creator of the article hasn't removed it, so you'll re-add it, then check again, and suddenly there's no record that you've ever made an edit of the page (and the deletion log is only useful if you can remember what the title of "Super Greg's Awesome Garage Band in Tulsa" was). So that's a bit depressing.

Actually, it would be nice if when someone tries to create a page that has once been deleted, the software will say, "a page with this name was once deleted, would you like to see why?" -- Myke Cuthbert 02:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

That's a great idea. Since we have periodic official software upgrades, and almost weekly addition of new features not specifically tagged as upgrades, you could suggest it (not quite sure where ... probably there is a Mediawiki page for this; I'll look around). Antandrus (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

At bugzilla you can report bugs and also enhancement requests. I'm not certain this is the best "suggestion box" but a developer certainly will have a look at whatever you put there. Antandrus (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Right, bugzilla! Actually, I should figure out a fix for this in the Mediawiki code first. I need to learn to do a few things in .php. -- Myke Cuthbert 03:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Ah, I found it by logging out. If you click on history, there is a "view logs for this page" where you can see that it's been deleted before. Antandrus (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, I figured it out before I checked back here for your response. It was deleted on 20 March (obviously, not as recent as I thought). The previous deleter left no warning message on the author's talk page, which puzzles me. At any rate, thanks for your response. --- Charles 05:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page, I appreciate it. Nihiltres^{( t. c. s)} 00:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome--happy to help! Antandrus (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I keep a close watch on this page, as it is, for some reason, in the top ten vandalism targets. But I missed that one.-- Anthony.bradbury 18:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome... that was a weird one. I actually went to google to see if "heliowhatever" was an obscure term from art history. It wasn't... :) Oh, and yes, Renaissance topics have a lot of vandalism -- but I have no idea why. I have more edits to the Renaissance article than to any other on Wikipedia (over 500 I think) -- and they're almost all vandal reverts. Antandrus (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you again. As you will observe, in spite of my rather draconian recent revert, that last vandalism got through. -- Anthony.bradbury 21:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the revert, I wasn't paying attention and finally noticed alot has been going on. I think I should keep an eye out more for my page. Thanks again. Inter16 05:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I have everything in my user space on my watch list. If you are active fighting vandals and trolls, they'll find that stuff. Occupational hazard ... oh well. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for reverting my talk page. Sophia 07:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome; happy to help. I like this to be a friendly place. Antandrus (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the revert of mine also :)-- Dakota 04:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Happy to help. In the spirit of this extremely important community principle ... :) Antandrus (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, thank you for your kind words in support of my RfA, which successfully closed yesterday - I will certainly strive to continue to edit in diplomatic and conflict-reducing ways. Please feel free to drop me a line any time if I can help you in any way. Pastordavid 15:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply

It happened in Europe. Check it out and tell me what you think: User:Marine 69-71/Press Releases. Your friend Tony the Marine 01:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Tell you what, send me an e-mail and then I will send you the story behind the story. I know that you will enjoy it. Tony the Marine 02:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, man, this is no big question but could you tell me if there's a name for Wikipedians who are neither administrators nor bureaucrats? I just figured you'd know since your an administrator. — JØЄ JAКAЯð

Antandrus:

I am still waiting for some sort of response from you vis. your stake in Wikipedia. You hide behind an avatar. That's fine, but my question to you remains... Are you a volunteer, or do you get paid? If you collect a salary and a benefits package, please disclose these details.

Here's mine: For the past decade I have worked for a human services organization in Toronto that provides supports to the most underserviced, underprivileged members of our society. I also am a generous donor although not to Wikipedia, which claims to be a charity, but looks more like a scam.

I do all of my volunteer work on my own bag. This has included travelling on secondment to other underserviced regions. I am happy to do this, as my only other alternative would be to pay even more in taxes than I presently do, and I am loath to do so, since my marginal rate keeps me up at night as it is.

x-star 23:11, May 16, 2007 (UTC)

I collect a generous salary. It comes in several forms: the pleasure of contributing to what is now the largest encyclopedia created in the history of the human race, and knowing that people have benefited from my contributions (about 500 articles so far); seeing those articles translated into dozens of languages; the thank-yous from others on the project, when I can help them achieve similar ends; and the gratitude of others when I shut down bullies, spammers, trolls, and the other kinds of troublemakers that necessarily contaminate an enterprise as open as ours. Since anyone can contribute, indeed anyone does contribute.

My benefits package is similar. Contributing here makes me happy. I think I stated my situation fairly well on my user page, where I attempted to explain why I devote so much of my time to this project.

We often seem like a scam to those who would use us to their own ends. The point here is to build an encyclopedia--the sum total of all human knowledge, for free, for all--not create a giant promotional and marketing tool.

You are welcome to join us any time that you are willing to contribute knowledge, in compliance with our policies. The Five Pillars is a good place to start. Thank you and have a nice evening, Antandrus (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

You have summed up why many of us are "addicted" to the project. [7] ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 01:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Indeed.. -- Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)( 会話) 03:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Had a feeling others would understand. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I have a feeling you're going to see this explanation quoted in the press and academic papers. Pure brilliance. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Dear Antandrus, if you forgive me for taking a full day to reply to your beautiful message (but how could I possibly not reply to the famous Antandrus?! ;), I'll proceed to thank you so very very much for your kind words and your warm thoughts regarding my test template. Credit goes in fact to Herostratus for writing it once, and I rescued it and modified a little - like you say, if it serves us to call the attention of just one person and turn him into a productive editor, then it will have served its purpose. While I'm in your town, dear A - I've read your userpage with great interest... would you mind if a Wikifairy blowed a little magic dust on it for you? I happen to have some in my pocket ;) Love you,a nd thanks again, Phaedriel - 06:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

On 17 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Missa sopra Ecco sì beato giorno, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- ALoan (Talk) 15:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Antandrus

I communicated with you earlier about the English Renaissance page. It was my first dip in the wikiwater, and I didnt go further because I was overtaken by the work involved in getting my students to work on articles. This project has had mixed results, so far, but one article a group of three produced deserves some recognition, I think. I've requested it be reclassified from stub to A, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Guadalupe-Nipomo_Dunes

I'm wondering if you could take any action on this.

Thanks,

Rudolph2007 16:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Quite astonishing! You do notable work. -- Wetman 00:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the revert on my user page. --- Cathal 04:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Quite welcome: keep up the good work! Antandrus (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I fully intend to! Cheers! --- Cathal 15:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

You reverted some vandalism on my user page about a month ago. I appreciate it. Would you be able to remove the log of the vandalism from the page history as is done with some articles when sensitive information is put on a page? -- Ted-m 15:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Done. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Civility Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia from working well. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. Mediation is available if needed. -runner3472

Hi Runner,

We're here to build an encyclopedia. Please do not add nonsense pages, such as you did at Holidayism. We are not for things you made up in school one day. You can read about our policies here for a primer. Persistent attempts to force nonsense on us, as you have been doing for the last hour or so, will only get you blocked. In addition, please refrain from vandalism as you did here, and please do not make personal attacks on other contributors, as you did here. Calling a long-term contributor "mentally retarded" is not in the best interests of working together on a collaborative project. Thank you for your understanding, Antandrus (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply

My scribble on my user page was merely to show someone how wikipedia works.At the time I did not know about the function of the sandbox.The reason i have mainly wrote about myself is that I am only 11. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Damian R Thomson ( talk • contribs).

OK. Just please remember that telling people they "suck" isn't very nice. We have a policy called No Personal Attacks since we have to work together here, and that's the only way it can happen. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC) reply

You mopped up a spill on my userpage a little while ago. Seeing your name in the history prompted me to drop by to tell you how impressed I have always been with your work as an editor, administrator, and all-around Wikipedian. Joyous! | Talk 03:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply

He is using 124.185.221.59

NewsLimited.org wesmannion.com ziggyswitkowski.com

Yale s 05:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, that does appear to be the case. Not obvious at all. You might want to report at at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam as well.

If you and me are lucky he might send us another several hundred love-letters. The last batch of hate mail was pretty funny, but after select-all/delete I barely remember it. Antandrus (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply

... because I so want to go back and mark this a minor edit. :-) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Alf walks by, notes the pun, shakes his head and groans (in F# major)

(Kat grins unrepentantly)

And others manage to edit harmoniously from the first, finding the practices to strike a chord with them, rather than being plagal. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC): reply

Exit pursu'd by a bare fifth. Oy. Put me in a Cage that I may be Silent. Antandrus (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, if Mark Helprin got what he proposed in his cagey arguments (or even these cagey arguments) perhaps a lot more of us would be. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hm, I rather doubt he'll be joining our Free Content Crusade any time soon.

There was a time in my life when I liked the idea of copyrighting and protecting and all that ... but I think what changed me was JSTOR. All of that wonderful information that I need to do my writing here, or anywhere else -- and I can't have it. Only academic access is allowed. You have to either be associated with a university, or go to the library: rabble like me can't even buy a logon, even if we're willing to pay the same fee as a college. It makes me crazy. Information does want to be free -- and so does "silence."

I think we're part of an insurrection, and unlike so many "popular" uprisings in history, there's nothing explicitly anti-intellectual about it; quite the opposite: it's about making all information available to all. Écrasez l'infâme! Antandrus (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Jimbo's said similar, and I really liked the statement, too: " this is a radical strike at the heart of an increasingly shallow, proprietary and anti-intellectual culture." Amen. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, Antandrus:

I was the creator of the Kurt Lockwood page and noticed today it was deleted. I'm new to Wikipedia so if I did something wrong in the way I uploaded it, I would appreciate knowing that. If it was deleted because of code A7 I would argue that many adult film stars have Wikipedia pages and he is one of the major male stars currently in the business and therefore he is relevant and should be in Wikipedia.

Thank you in advance, whatever the outcome of this is.

Claire999 16:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC) reply

There are a couple ways you can go. You're welcome to take it to deletion review if you wish. To me it appeared to be a user page moved into the mainspace, which is a no-no. If you wish to recreate the page in the main space, citing your sources using reliable published sources (not myspace, youtube, blogs, personal websites), and asserting the person's notability, then go ahead. We have a fairly strict policy regarding editing biographies of living persons, for their protection and ours; but any facts that are citable to reliable sources you can certainly use to build the article. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Antandrus, I will do as you recommend and cite reliable sources to rebuild the article. I appreciate your letting me know where the problems were.

Claire999 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Please give K. Lastochka a word or two of encouragement as she is going thru a hard time with a WikiBully right about now. Thank you. —  $PЯING rαgђ  17:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC) reply

You reverted my edit in Pierre de La Rue. I changed "defaultsort" according to the Wikipedia guideline. Please read Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category for more information. – Ilse @ 00:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I did not revert it; I just changed the "defaultsort" to be correct (it's La Rue, not De La Rue). That is the correct name. Grove and other music encyclopedias/dictionaries have his article titled "La Rue, Pierre de", and he's invariabily found in indices under "L". Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Antandrus, thanks for the support. I actually feel a little silly getting all these sweet messages from people I don't even know all that well, mainly because I'm generally in a better mood than my grumblings about that Liszt pseudoscholar would indicate--he's been pissing me off for sure, but other than that things are going OK. I'm not a total basket case, I swear! *crumbles in daily neurotic angsty breakdown*. ;-)

Hello indeed to a fellow violinist! I've actually just been practicing, (Wieniawski Polonaise op. 4--some improvement made!) and my left hand is almost too tired to type. LOL

Speaking of violin stuff, would you mind taking a look at Joseph Szigeti for me? I'm hoping to get him up to Featured Article within the next few months, so some suggestions for what to do as the next step would be appreciated. (I know I have to cite page numbers in my reference books, but I'm waiting until I have a nice long free afternoon to do that--a week or so, tops.) If I may ask you, thgou to indulge me and refrain from large-scale edits yourself, as I'm rather attached to this article and its subject and I'd like to do as much of the work myself as possible. Suggestions, critiques, general impressions would be quite welcome. K. Lásztocska 02:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, I'd be happy to look at Szigeti for you ... it may not be right away since I'm a little bit brain-dead after a long day, but I'll get to it. A quick glance tells me you're well on your way! Oh, and by the way Wieniawski is actually quite a good composer; I think he's just a bit underrated by the world at large (it seems it's mainly violinists who know him) Antandrus (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Not me, bud; his second concerto is the best…and I'm a guitarist. ;) —  $PЯING rαgђ  19:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:31129069l0ly.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Betacommand ^{( talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Go ahead and delete it if it has no fair use rationale -- I didn't upload it anyway. My "upload" in the history was a vandalism reversion (I deleted the vandalism image from the history). If I had my way we'd get rid of all fair use images with a few exceptions for iconic images of exceptional fame. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply