Talk page archive: July 6, 2007 to September 6, 2007.

I'm sorry, you've created so many gosh-darned high quality articles, you need more cookies than just those. Mak (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yum!! thank you! It'll take a while to digest the one on the left ... oh, wait, that's a wafer, not a doubloon. LOL... Antandrus (talk)

Fantastic work, on this as well. No, it doesn't really matter, but it shows great dedication. Truly wonderful to see. KOS | talk 03:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

thanks!! appreciate that, a lot, actually. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

More cookies

Too long, and not enough thanks for I think the hardest-working sysop I've met! :) —  $PЯING rαgђ  03:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks! LOL, soon I'll have more cookies than Bishonen ... I think I'm going to have to get up and have some of the "real life" variety about now ... :) Antandrus (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The phrase (either in its full or especially its four-note version) is just far too mundane to be considered influential without external documentation. I'd say it's original research, but you know, it's just possible that some musicologist said all that (it still would be false though).

Thanks for pointing me to Geogre's talk page--I'll see if I can add a sonnet or something.

I agree about lack of Google coverage of alternative encyclopedias being a big drawback. I've been thinking of just writing whatever I want on my own website, dual licensing it (GFDL & CC) and then adding the page to both projects. If the other one takes off, then it's a boon. If not, it's still here. (Added bonus of contributing that way: attribution required; sounds selfish, but sort of nice to do it that way). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh, and congrats on 500 articles! Wow! msc 00:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S.: do you have a copy of Atlas's Renaissance Music? I notice you often cite Reese. I have no cookies, but sometimes Norton sends extra things my way... -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh man that looks so good right now ... LOL ... cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I took the picture and then drank the beer! It was good...I have a preference for Moosehead which is what that was.-- MONGO 05:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, I see you reverted my changes. Please let us discuss this issue so we can reach a solution. I have left a paragraph in the article Talk page. Thanks, SeiteNichtGefunden 23:21 08/07/2007.

You're attempting to apply a contemporary usage of a highly-charged and loaded term to a historical situation.

Please read about the history of the Second World War, paying close attention to the scale, scope, and intensity of the actions of both sides as it drew to a close. Both sides used every weapon they had available in that colossal death-struggle. Nothing about the actions of either side is comparable in any way to "terrorism" in the common sense in which that term is used today. I would not even use the word to describe the Blitz, the bombings of Coventry, the destruction of Rotterdam, or even the ovens at Auschwitz. It's the wrong word.

Once standard reference works on the Second World War use the word "terrorism" to describe those attacks, then we may cite it and use it; until then it is an original coinage, original research, and a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

If you feel the need to decompress from thinking too much about one or another nationalist tempest in a hot caffeinated beverage conveyance, you might want to weigh in on the mini-tempest brewing regarding clarifying the terminology used for alto flute vs. bass flute in the article on The Planets. You have way more oomph than I do...I mean, you even got a day named after you, after all! -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my page. — thesublime514 • talk • 02:12, July 11, 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! happy to help. Antandrus (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

One more thanks ;) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem ... I think you're right about who it is, btw. Antandrus (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

You mean this one. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes: I was following. The attack on Deeceevoice was particular despicable. I suspect we haven't seen the last of her/him. All in a day's work here ... Antandrus (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

DCV's been editing less frequently lately. I don't think it got something to do w/ this case. -- FayssalF 05:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to this. It's the same user, as you know ... she uses a DSL in Houston, TX, USA. The last was a proxy in China, but it's obviously the same person. I only blocked it for 31h. She will be back on another IP or username in short order, I'd guess. Antandrus (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes just struck again. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre ( talk) 09:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I would have put this on Geogre's page if I weren't a wuss. Some anachronisms for you

Concerto delle donne
Background information
Birth name	musica secreta
Also known as	Concerto de donne, Concerto di donne, Ladies of Ferrara, Concerto delle dame, Tre dame of Ferrara, Concerto delle dame principalissime, Musica delle dame, Singing Ladies of Ferrara
Origin	Ferrara, Italy
Genres	Renaissance
Occupation(s)	Ladies-in-waiting
Instrument(s)	Lute, harp viol
Years active	1580 – 1597
Labels	Vittorio Baldini
Past members	Lucrezia Bendidio; Isabella Bendidio; Leonora Sanvitale; Vittoria Bentivoglio; Laura Peverara; Anna Guarini; Livia d'Arco; Tarquinia Molza; Giulio Cesare Brancaccio

And my suggestion for what the right fields should really be.

{{Infobox Anachronism
| Name                =
| Patrons             =
| Printers            = 
| City-state          = 
| Associated courts   = 
| Standing in society = 
| Composers           =
| Size of dowry       =
}}

What do you think people would say if I went around insisting on adding the second to every article? Mak (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

LOL, I love it! Maybe add "murdered by". Antandrus (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Indeed, also perhaps "exiled to". Mak (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

LOL! Great! It's too bad we can specify "voice type" in hexachords. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Discographies...do they really serve much purpose here? The one in The Planets is driving me buggy this week. If it's supposed to be comprehensive, how can we be sure it is? We're not discographers, typically. If "selected" (as this one was for a good while), what are the criteria for the selection? Is Lennie's in just because he did it? Are we to include the one that the West Chatham Clambake Chamber Players did because it's the only one made of the version concocted by Irving Berlin? I guess I'm just thinking more & more about quality control. It seems to me if someone wants to see what recordings are around, they can go to Amazon or Gramophone or something. Is this what WP is for? How should I look at this question? Or should I just walk away? -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

It's a problem, similar to the problem encountered in compiling lists of "most significant this or that." I've added a few recordings to articles on Renaissance composers, especially those for whom there are only a very few recordings, but even that I don't do often. In the case of The Planets -- bleah. I'd say just remove it. Picking "selected" is POV by nature unless you go to the lengths seen, say, at List of important operas (the most spectacular example I know on Wikipedia of people attempting to assess what various authorities all thought--but is it worth the trouble for discographies? eh, no, I think). Antandrus (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

New York Yankees has been nominated for a good article review. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are delisted. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

As always, thank you for your support. Long live the musicabal. :-) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thriving! You're quite welcome. I didn't get all my wishes on that election, but it looks like I got one.  :) Antandrus (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Well...I dunno if I should be honored or what, but I actually got my user page vandalized for the first time! Some nice person put it back right away. Never ever thought it would happen to me, since I try to keep such a low profile around here. -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 10:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yah, it happens pretty much to all active Wikipedians, sooner or later. It's a badge of honor. See No. 26. Those incapable of building, destroy; those incapable of collaboration, disrupt. But yet that Wikipedia continues to improve and grow is a massive proof that the former outnumber the latter, and that in the world there is more will for creation than destruction. Welcome to the club.  :) Antandrus (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

This collection of "Wiki" wisdom is nice, very nice indeed. In fact, worthy of quoting... ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 00:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Whereas before it was unclear why you removed the link to the "Classical Ear" weblog, I now see what you intend by removing it. However, this is not linkfarming, I'm simply listing a resource that I, personally, found helpful. Also, the wiki page on External Links says: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority, are normally discouraged." The writer of Classical Ear is no doubt an authority... I happen to know him (not intimately, but i do know him) and he is a recent graduate of Cornell with a major in music, and has ample experience in the field of music critique. Therefore, please allow this link to be on the list. (Near the bottom this time) Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaybirdjustino77 ( talk • contribs)

See also Special:Contributions/69.123.3.102 Mak (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

If you feel strongly that a link belongs on an article, and multiple people revert you, really your only recourse is to take it to the talk page, make your case, and try to achieve consensus to put it back. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

@Antandrus re Pange Lingua and the stretch to Fux and Mozart 41 - it is original research by me allright that I corresponded to several musicologists and musicians, and which I never found meaty enough myself to publish an article on it, but it has been quoted by several. Hence, I inserted the Rampe citation. It loops back to citing me, but it is a "regular" citation allright I guess. Michael Zapf 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

You speak of temptation, with all those cookies on your page! It's only a half day's drive for you, nothing much, right...? -- Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

just came wafting out from my computer terminal - and it was your message. Or, to re-use your analogy of the empty beer bottle - your note is like a full, ice cold beer bottle suddenly appearing on my porch on one of these 90° + days. Thanks for taking the time to contact me. I'm not really as upset, or as big of a jerk, as my posting there might suggest, I just reached one of those places where doing some silly thing felt good. I will look at the links you've presented and probably feel, if not better, at least not soooooo alone.

My area is American sculpture history, but when I wander into music it is Rock & Roll. My band of real old folks is the pathetics and although I've not yet figured out how I can get away with an article about them, there is a photo of us that somehow appeared doing a benifit for KLDK - where I'm one of the DJs. Stay in touch, 'cause I feel better already and I wasn't even feeling that bad. But better is ALWAYS better. Carptrash 18:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I saw this interesting name and wanted to see the contributions. Disappointed! Purely vandalism. Against Metros...why? ....I don't know. I don't know who Metros is. Since you blocked someone else who did the same thing, how about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dr._Kookal_Man Fineday 04:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

It's an attention-seeking vandal. I don't remember his "name", but he harasses Metros and a couple of other people pretty regularly. I blocked the one you listed; it's just another in a long series of throwaway sockpuppets. They're just shoveling sand against the tide, and get bored and go away eventually, if you just block them and ignore them. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Please see the following dscussion: disagreement between moderators regarding nature of "self promotion" to which I would only add that in the case of the Compere piece I forgot to delete the "sung by the dwschorale" which I did delete from the others. Will you agree that it is OK to restore the wikimedia link but to delete the dwschorale reference please? Dwsolo 04:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)dwsolo reply

Greetings: yes, I do not see a problem, as long as you are licensing the contributions under GFDL, and not putting your own name on the composers' pages (it's fine to have it on the actual media page: indeed, it's a good idea to put it there.) Additionally, it's not a dispute between moderators: I see only one person objecting, and he only has four edits on the project, the first of which is a warning that you're about to be blocked. You're not. Two good editors in the music area have already weighed in, and they're both admins. I'll add a third voice if you like: you're doing good work. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello. Jonyungk and I want to nominate Tchaikovsky for a featured article, but I've never done it before. If you're not to busy could you do it and I'll watch you? Then I'll be able to do it myself from then on. Thank you. :) —  $PЯIПG rαgђ  04:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I've never done it either, LOL. That's not my favorite corner of Wikipedia. I think the instructions are fairly clear, and I'll help out in the assessment if you like: last time I looked at it, it was coming along nicely, and was in great shape. Antandrus (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Has it been through peer review yet? Antandrus (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Um, I don't know. I'll have to go look… —  $PЯIПG rαgђ  04:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

No it hasn't but I don't know how to do that either :( however it looks easier than nominating for featured article so I will try it. —  $PЯIПG rαgђ  04:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, peer review has to be first. I'm just starting to look at the article. The biography section reads well, but I skimmed it. The section on the music needs a lot more detail on the actual musical style, and it also has POV issues (e.g. "undeservedly neglected"). Best to tweak it before it gets battered by peer review/FAC, which has a risk of being quite an unpleasant affair, especially if one has put a lot of work into something (it might feel like you're just getting a lot of carping criticism with very few thank-yous for your dozens of hours of volunteer time). Antandrus (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

My pleasure. I think I said similar things about the "drive" weeks ago. Grading articles without leaving a clear explanation of your assessment is a form of incivility as far as I'm concerned and who knows how many good editors it's driving away. A few biographical articles I've worked on have been "dealt with" and I've countered with appropriate action where I disagreed with the rating. Some have so far escaped. I plan to translate a French FA bio, so it will be interesting to see how that scores with the anglophones. Also, I've just noticed a page with an inflated grade (I don't think Berlioz is anywhere near deserving a "B" yet - I've been planning to fix it for some time). If they're not careful, the biography project are going to make many, many enemies with this drive. They may think the size of their membership gives them safety in numbers, but that's what Esperanza and the AMA believed and if they're not more careful eventually WPP:BIO will go the same way. Cheers. -- Folantin 07:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Happy Bastille Day a few days late! The Nielsen aerticle has apparently been nominated for good article status. TYhis is something I know nothing about, but the Nielsen article is far from being good, I think. Am I on the right track for fixing it up? I don't have the source access that the citations would require, I just have a ton of experience with his music (thought about writing the diss on the symphonies but changed my mind), and there's a lot of guff in there, some of which I have tried to remove but some I can't without heading into original research-land. Lemme know how to proceed, if at all. (Feel free to hoist a Kronenbourg in my name, by the way! Haven't seen one in years...is it still imported to the States?) -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

My 2 cents (absuing Antandrus's home because it's better decorated, has a well-stocked cookie jar, etc.): Good Article status means, "does it play by all of WP's rules?" It has little to do with whether the article is good or not (some are, some aren't) -- judging factual accuracy, completeness, quality of research, is rarely a consideration. For example, on GA Talk there was a consensus to not allow anyone in a relevant Wikiproject to judge the article--so no one in WP:Composers should be allowed to weigh in. I'd say improve it if you want, but otherwise, don't worry about whether it gets good article or not. P.S. Why not add your diss to the bibliography of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra page? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok, the librettist of Handel, Moses Mendes is red. It's a juicy red and ripe for the picking. Imagine someone that big still without an article. Oooooh, doesn't it make your fingers itch? Well, if you want him, he's yours. I've got enough in the way of little poets and philosophers to do just now. Geogre 03:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

You busted me. I was hanging around reading threads (including some of yours) not wanting anyone to know I was actually editing. Good pick though; I'll look around and see what I have. Antandrus (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hm, he's not mentioned in Grove. Which opera(s) did he write librettos for? Or oratorios? Mak (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm finding a musical entertainment by William Boyce (premiered 2 Dec 1749) with libretto by Moses Mendez, but so far I'm not turning up information on Mendez (that's the spelling in the New Grove) Antandrus (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

That's interesting. I have a feeling he'll go hot in DNB. He had more than one play that was acted. He also looks darned interesting. Yes, he seems Jewish, but he also seems like one of the Lisbon Jews. England got tolerant exactly when a fair number of European nations got intolerant. Geogre 12:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

And some stuff on JSTOR [1] but I can't get there from here ... need to go to the library for that one ... Antandrus (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Here's something good [2] -- I wonder how reliable it is. Appears he was a friend of Swift. Antandrus (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Be careful, there. In Gulliver's Travels there is the kind Spanish captain that many, many people have wanted to Make Something of. Geogre 12:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I wonder if he was Jewish? It seems to have been a common Jewish name in England at the time. It looks like he wrote "The Chaplet" with William Boyce. Mak (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

This looks, according to the review, as though the introduction would be useful if you can find it: William Boyce. The Shepherd's Lottery: A Musical Entertainment. The libretto by Moses Mendez. Introduction by Robert J. Bruce. (Music for London Entertainment 1660–1800, Series C, vol. 4) London: Stainer & Bell, 1990. Mak (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Uh, and the ISBN  0852497709 Mak (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes indeed. Also I think you might be right about his being Jewish, but it's just a guess: he's named Moses, his father's name is Solomon, the family is from Spain, though no one mentions how long the family had lived in England. Evidently they petitioned for the family name to be changed to "Head" [3]. That database has some good stuff on him, but they claim his father's name was James, not Solomon, as given here. Interesting. I don't see a connection with Handel, yet. Antandrus (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I was hallucinating, it appears. Charles Jennens has an article. On the other hand, Moses Mendes is red, and he had plays with music by Samuel Boyce ( 1749 in literature is where I picked up the red). Sorry for the hopeful note. We do have some big librettists red still, esp. if we go hunting down the folks who worked with Arne, Lampe, and J. C. Smith., but I confused Boyce with Handel (yeah, I know!) and Jennens with Mendes. Geogre 12:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

He has a short article in the Jewish Encyclopedia, here. -- Rbraunwa 13:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

That article is taken from the 1898 DNB, and you can tell. Loads of judgments passed on it. Even still, you can tell that this fellow was a big wheel. Sure, some of that was from money, no doubt, but those are some big time productions he got there, with some significant collaborators. Needless to say, it's impossible, probably, for any of us to reassess him and get rid of the insults, as he is just another example of why every doctoral program in the English speaking world needs to insist that half their graduates in literature get trained in textual editing. Geogre 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

It's true--I've seen lots of doctorates in the arts where the authors of theses, disseratations, papers, clearly have had no training in assessing these kinds of things critically. "Mendes" is a Portuguese spelling, so your suggestion is sensible. ¶(swiping this trick from you, so people don't break up my writing) -- Not all that long ago, Wikipedia had lots of articles copy-pasted from the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia. The issues there were similar, but even heavier. And we still have loads from the 1911 EB; many of the articles that retain those as their core just push me away as being more trouble than they're worth. Franz Schubert is one. But it's become so hard just to delete an article and start from scratch. Antandrus (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Moses appears in 1751 in literature, too, with two productions. The guy needs an article, alright. I remember meeting a doctoral student at Duke University who was upset at having to take Anglo-Saxon at UNC-Chapel Hill. She was working on a 14th century female poet (of course) and needed to read Cretien and Wace and Pearl Poet and Wulfstan and such, and she was really upset. Why, she asked, did she need to bother with this stuff, when she could work from translations? It beggars the imagination. Utgard Loki 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

We've gotten crazy with our doctorates. We need more texts. Right now, there are so many titles vanishing from existence because of OUP trying to become a Trade that it makes one cry. Kensington and others are doing print-on-demand editions. They're cute, but they're not edited. We need editors. We need textual editors. On the one hand, we have every grad student trying to do Undiscovered Minor Author, but, on the other hand, none of them wants to learn how to make sure that that author can be read by others. (My next bio will probably be Peter Anthony Motteaux or Swift's object of scorn, Stephen Duck. The latter is simply dreadful as a poet but very interesting as a case study in cultural history.) Geogre 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

On 17 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article San Rafael Wilderness, 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.

-- Carabinieri 13:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there! In yoru copious free time, could you please look up the entry for Gerre Hancock and get an exact birth date? I'd like to redo his article a bit. Merci! -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

P.S.: Does it say if he earned a doctorate, or are they just honoris causa? I thought he had earned one but I can't remember from where. -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Greetings! Sorry I forgot to do this last night, so ... here we are this morning. 21 Feb 1934. His degrees are: BMus from UT at Austin (1955) and an honorary doctorate, MusD, from Nashotah House Episcopal Seminary. He has a textbook on improvising (1994: Improvising, How to Master the Art) which I wish I had. (Oxford.) Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Merci beaucoup! FYI if you decide to get a copy of his book I can probably get him to sign it for you. -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

They're baaaack. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AULL&diff=145338706&oldid=144334192

One of many Blocked accounts Newest iteration Another block for multiple accounts to get around a block?-- Viridis ^{talk| contributions} 11:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Blocked. That's one seriously strange vandal. Antandrus (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, Antandrus. Once again, thanks. Well I suppose I've shown I can be just as ornery as the next person! My everyday equanimity seems to be returning on many fronts, not just Wikipedia's.

On reflection, I think the only reason I created that new account, RobertG II, was that my old user page is protected. Please would you be good enough to unprotect the redirect User:RobertG for me, and email me the wiktext of it as it was just before I deleted it? Then perhaps I can resume contributing as just plain old RobertG? Since I seem to be tentatively coming out of retirement, I think that would be more transparent. -- RobertG ♬ talk 13:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I believe that an infobox on Elliott Carter would help those who are unfamiliar with the subject get a quick summary of who he is without having to read the entire article. On further reflection, however, I do agree that an infobox with just his name, place of birth and occupation are redundant and unhelpful. If I did a proper one, say using Template:Infobox musical artist, would you revert that? I just feel like if you don't know anything about the subject, you shouldn't have to read the entire article unless you really want to know the details of your subject. If you just want a quick idea, an infobox is designed for that purpose, hence the reason they are in use on so many popular and oft-visted biographies. Canadian Paul 14:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Greetings: thanks for the note.

There has been considerable, nay exhaustive, discussion on this issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers, as well as other places. Consensus there is not to use infoboxes on composers. We've been removing them whenever we find them. The problems with using an infobox are numerous. Infoboxes compete against the article -- they say to a reader, "don't bother to read the article: everything you need to know is contained in this nice little box (designed, by the way, for popular music artists)." The boxes make nuanced presentation impossible. They make amateurish oversimplifications ("Genre, classical. Genre, baroque." etc.) A well-written article would state the essential features of the biography in the lead--birth, death, origin, significance--and one of the main arguments used against biography infoboxes, by those actually writing the biography articles, is that they are in every case redundant with a well-written article. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

here and here ^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR} ¡Talk2Cholga! _{Sexy Contribs} 04:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Cholga, those refer to the Mercalli intensity scale, not Richter magnitude. They are fundamentally different concepts. Richter magnitude refers to the seismic energy released by an earthquake. Human perception of the earthquake is commonly measured using the (Modified) Mercalli scale. It's a subjective measure, and often the only useful one in assessing how people react to an earthquake. My point was that if someone says "it feels like Richter magnitude 6", it is a meaningless statement. It's possible you mis-heard or mis-read, especially if it was a geologist making the statement. "It felt like Mercalli VI" is a meaningful statement. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for participating in My RfA which closed successfully. I am honored and truly more than a little humbled by the support of so many members of the community. It's more than a bit of a lift to see comments on my behalf by so many people that I respect. I'll do my best to not disappoint you or the community.

On a personal note, I'd like to particularly thank you for the very kind comments that you left on the RfA. - Philippe | Talk 20:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome, Philippe--I have complete confidence you'll do a great job. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Antandrus: just wanted to tell you that I met Mindspillage at the Wiki meet here in DC today and she kindly said hello for you; I told her to say hello to you (hello!); it would have been nice to meet you in person; perhaps next time. I remain, yr humble, -- FeanorStar7 01:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I would love to have met you as well! Alas, it was a bit far for me to come. Hello to you both! Antandrus (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

About your post here - I'm going to begin working on a list by region (and date/surname) as you suggested, but need your opinion on one thing. Should I include the transitional composers in the list, and if so, should I mark them as transitional after their name to distinguish them from the rest? Or would them being at the beginning of each nation's list be obvious enough?

Also, do these regions look okay to begin with?

English, Franco-Flemish, German, Italian, Portugese, Spanish, Other

If there are enough in "Other" to make a new section, it won't be too much work, as the bulk will be in the other categories. Unsure whether to lump Czech ones with German, I won't for now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lethesl ( talk • contribs).

Sounds good! I would include "French" in the list (hard to think of Claude Le Jeune or Antoine de Bertrand as anything but French, for example)--but this gets really fuzzy. I have some categorized as both Franco-Flemish and something else; maybe just pick the best fit. Another question is--should we break out the Burgundians separately, or lump them in with "Franco-Flemish"?

I don't think it's critical to indicate "transitional", since everything's ultimately transitional, and the labeling of styles as "medieval" and "renaissance" is a bit arbitrary anyway. As long as the list states the assumptions clearly at the top, e.g. this list includes composers who were active after about 1400 and whose music is generally covered in books on Renaissance music, or something.

We can also annotate the list to make the odd cases clear: for example, under Spanish composers, Hernando Franco (1532-1585) (active in Guatemala). Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Coolie, I'll start work on it. I'll drop a message once it's in some sort of presentable state, thanks. Lethesl 16:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I've organised the non-red links by country (the easy part - the chronological order is going to be hell...) in my sandbox - so far it seems that there aren't enough that I can identify under the TBC sections to justify keeping them. I think, anyway. Plus I'm not sure how to solidly class a composer as Burgundian (or Dutch, etc) over one of the bigger sections. I guess it doesn't help that ATM I am just going by the Wikipedia intros for each composer, which could be inaccurate. Could you maybe check it when you get a free moment? Lethesl 01:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Looks good so far. Thanks for taking this on! It's a lot of work, which is probably why I've been avoiding it. We could avoid the "is Burgundian or Franco-Flemish" issue by labeling them "Burgundian/Franco-Flemish" at the top of the section; not sure though, have to think about that. It might be a good idea to have a bit of text at the top of each section explaining just what each "national origin" actually means in the context of the 15th and 16th centuries. (For example, a "French" composer is one whose native language is French, and who was not both from the area controlled by the Dukes of Burgundy and active at the Burgundian court.) "English" is about the only easy one. You are also finding some disambig problems, such as Jean Courtois, who I have redlinked from my to-do list as Jean Courtois (composer).

We should also make sure that the list of Burgundian composers at Burgundian school matches what we put on the List of Renaissance composers page (I think it should be a subset of the latter, if it does not exactly match).

For ordering by birth date, I think we're fine as long as we state our methodology: subtract 20 years from floruit initial date, and maybe use the midpoint of an estimated birth date range (1555 for born 1550-1560). That still leaves us with the problem of estimating a birth date for "died 1571". That one will be different in every case, and I don't know how to do it without making our own educated guesses.

Nice work on Juan Vásquez! Antandrus (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I guess that the new descriptions mentioning the status of those regions will make including the Burgundian school less of a problem (btw, should anything be done about the many mentions of composers working for the Habsburgs, or just leave them in their current sections?). I am starting to think that a Burgundian section would be best - as making the Franco-Flemish section even larger than it already is would not be helpful. I'll probably have to merge the Dutch and Flemmish sections into it, though, as they are too vague to place almost anyone in.

I'll probably create as many stubs from the red links as possible - as when I research their country I may as well create placeholders - it'll also save a lot of future hassle.

Re. the guys with only death dates - if the sections are divided by a space every 50 years, they could automatically be placed at the bottom of the most likely section, perhaps (in the same way that all the ones with the c. birth dates at a round number will tend to group together too). Lethesl 03:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry to pester again but I've run into a problem: what should I do about red link composers of whom I cannot find enough information to place in a country? Removing them seems most obvious, but that almost feels like vandalism Lethesl 12:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

You could put them in an "unclassified" or "nationality uncertain" or just in the "other" section, and then I'll put them in the right spots when I have a minute. Please leave them in: those redlinks are my "to-do" list; they're the only way we know who is missing articles. I added a lot of those to the list when I ran into their names while researching other biographies, with the eventual goal of making the list comprehensive--ultimately every composer of the Renaissance from whom any compositions at all survive should be on the list. At least that's what I had in mind. Thanks for working on this! Antandrus (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll work hard on placing as many as I can, the unidentified list will probably be quite small by the end. I assume it'd be too much pressure to say to look over the remaining ones before the list is submitted (once I have placed as many as I can) so perhaps I'll add a "Nationality unknown" section in the final copy to the main article that we can try to remove asap but not immediately.

Btw, about ultimately every composer of the Renaissance from whom any compositions at all survive should be on the list. - I ran into this problem earlier when looking up an English composer - I found a very very big list on one website - some of them with only one page of one piece surviving. Then there are some composers who are notable but have nothing surviving. To avoid that hellhole I didn't add any more red links, but there are so many not on the current list and it could get pretty gargantuan :\ Lethesl 16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok it's done, I think: Sandbox. Before I submit it, a few things (really, really sorry about all the questions :s):

1. Did I go overkill with the images? They make it look a lot less dry IMO and will spread out a little once we add more composers.

2. Is the unknown section okay at the bottom with the messy research notes, or perhaps put the unknowns on the discussion page?

3. Anything obviously not up to scratch (eg. the country introductions)? Lethesl 16:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Good work. Maybe half as many images? But you're right that when more names are added they will spread out more. Looks OK in Firefox on a wide screen: I'd have to try it on my laptop and in another browser. I can help with the ones in your to-be-researched list (Lupus is Franco-Flemish, Courtois is French, etc. -- some of those I got out of Grove or Reese). There are a lot of composers not yet listed who were only known because one publisher, like Petrucci, named them once (see frottola for the obscure names at the end, for an example of that) -- so indeed the list can get a lot longer. Do we need to give their gender? Maybe it's just obvious to me that, for example, Maddalena and Francesca are female names. Another thing that leaps out is how few Czechs, Poles, and Hungarians there are; I'll have to look in Grove, Reese, Atlas, and elsewhere to hunt up some more names. Do you want me to edit it in your sandbox? You can make it go live if you want, and I'll tweak it a bit. Thanks for doing this! Antandrus (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I was also very surprised at how few "Other" composers there were (especially central European). I wasn't sure about the female tags either, I left them there as I went along pretty much for the sake of it, they'd probably be better gone. I've pretty much finished with the list now (I need a break for a while) so you can have the sandbox to yourself to make any tweaks you want - I'll submit it when you're happy with it. (re. Lupus - I'm at the disadvantage of using the net only to research these guys atm - he was a nightmare :D Glad you know his identity) Lethesl 16:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I just wanted a second opinion re the hoax, which you provided. Geoffrey Blainey's book of that name needs an article which I may now write. — Moondyne 15:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Exactly ... searching turned up only Blainey's book, which seems like an important one (wish I had a copy). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. It is a great read if you can get your hands on it. I must see if I can find a copy of Wells's 1920 version which'd be interesting. — Moondyne 03:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Please block: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Migueldagon

Yale s 03:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Done. Have you added them to the spam blacklist yet? Antandrus (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I have no natural facility for WP subtleties. I just try to edit the trash and post my findings with an admin. If possible, could you do the mojo with blacklists? Yale s 04:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I added two here -- feel free to add any I might have missed (meta admins actually add to the blacklist: non-admins add to the suggested list on the talk page, as I did, since I'm not an admin on meta). Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey there...I took a gander at the Robert Craft page just now, and realized that I had noted on the discussion page a copyvio last December which is still there (& which I had forgotten about). Given the response to my original note I feel a little nervous about simply deleting it; what say you? -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 19:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

It made me laugh out loud. I don't even have to pull my Baker's off the shelf to tell that it's vintage Slonimsky. I believe the paragraph needs to be rewritten. Anyone who is familiar with N.S.'s writing style will say, "hey! that's Slonimsky!" Antandrus (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Not just vintage, but triple-distilled. It is an absolutely priceless passage--and one that got toned down a bit from the Fifth Edition, which is where I knew it--from an amazing figure. He came as the graduation speaker at Peabody one of the years I was there, I'd guess 1987. It was a wonderful speech; he even demonstrated his party trick of rolling an orange on the keys of a piano to make a serviceable rendition of the Black Key etude of Chopin. But as one friend of mine said that evening, it was also a bit like watching a trained monkey.

I well remember flooring my Research & Bibliography professor years ago, who had assigned us all lists of three names to get information on, citing three sources for the first, two for the second, and one for the third. My third name waws Gualterio Armando (I think that's the form). Well, being the oddball I am, I had read the preface to Baker's so I knew exactly who he was...and the look on Murray's face when I piped up with Walter Dahms was worth the price of admission.

So I'll rewrite it somehow and sometime. Merci! -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 20:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, I did it now. Let me know what you think. -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 20:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

LOL, "he had nothing to fear from the Nazi government, unless he regarded it as unduly liberal." (from my Eighth edition) Slonimsky's one of the funniest people ever to write about music. I presume you've read his entry on himself? It bests anything in Uncyclopedia.

That paragraph looks good now, and as far as I know is quite accurate (no one really knows how much of that stuff is really Stravinsky -- reminds me a little of the Shostakovich/Volkov controversy). It's a shame we can't write like Slonimsky on Wikipedia, but we have to make some sacrifices commensurate with our high salaries.  :) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, I haven't read it. Never even thought of it. Shame on me. I dunno when I can track it down but I will sometime. I presume you saw the New Yorker piece on him about 20 years back? Very interesting reading. As for DSCH/Volkov, to me that's a tempest in a teapot. It was clear to me from the outset that the book, whatever else it may be, is not what V claims it to be. And the level of wishful thinking on the part of V's backers astounds me. That Ian MacDonald character did so much damage...It's an interesting & even useful book but it is not an example of truth in advertising. But that's the kind of thing I don't dare get into officially here. Ya know? -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 01:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Chuck Norris has visited you! Chuck "somehow" promotes WikiLove and wants you to be happy today, and hopefully he has managed to make your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Come on now, go and make someone happy today, or Chuck will hug you till you choke, dear Antandrus! :) Happy editing! - Phaedriel - 12:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks! That's funny ... I thought I'd seen just about everything attributed to Chuck Norris by now, but this is a new one.  :) Antandrus (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reverting my user page to remove the vandalism while I wasn't looking. The anonymous user that's been trashing my user page repeated is mad because I'm reverting the trash they're posting on another page, which is Tommy Shaw's bio. How do you get your user page locked from editing by others?-- Bamadude 21:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The anonymous user is back and defacing the Tommy Shaw pages again and has been warned without regard by a number of people --- check the user's talk page. Any way to get this user blocked??-- Bamadude 01:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I take it you are objecting to him adding this: "This version of Styx has failed to garner much sucess [sic] - playing county fairs and casinos instead of the arenas they used to play." That's not vandalism. It's unsourced, so it needs a reliable source to be cited, but it's a content dispute, not vandalism. If he vandalises your user page--yes, that's vandalism, and I can block for that. But not for a content dispute. Why not ask him to provide a source on Styx's current popularity? That shouldn't be hard, if he's right. Thanks, Antandrus (talk)

Rather picky vandal. I must say I've never had my page blanked so carefully before. :P Thanks! - WarthogDemon 03:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. Offhand I'd guess that one was about 10 years old. Antandrus (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

And apparently loves Pokemon since he was courteous enough to leave the joke intact. - WarthogDemon 03:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

LOL, it's true. Oh, and those section-blankers we see every day--I think they're just people that don't realize you can edit a whole page at once (we see that so often...) Antandrus (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

(Replies after Wikipedia repeatedly signed him off.) Yeah, I figured. Anyways, thanks again! - WarthogDemon 04:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there! Would you please take a gander at the American Boychoir School site & discussion, and let me know what to think? It's not just the latest business about the link(s), but in general...will there ever be consensus? It just makes me so sad to see this shadow not just lingering but emphasized. -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hot one. These are among the hardest things on Wikipedia to handle. And when you have a personal stake, it's even worse. My hard advice would be to walk away from the article, since you have a conflict of interest.

I read the entire NY mag piece; it's devastating. But you are right that it was a long time ago; if the school has cleaned up its act, that side needs to be represented as well. Have they acknowledged the past? Do they have measures in place to ensure that these things will not happen again? I was not familiar with either the school or the case until now, but I can see both sides here. Antandrus (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you, as always, for your sage advice. I have done so, with much sadness. I hope my parting remark there is not too bitter-sounding. -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 22:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

P.S. Yes, they have acknowledged the past, as far as I know, and yes, they have excellent measures in place to see to it that the boys are safe. I think the article does include an external link to their policy page. -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 22:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your note. Although it always amazes me people don't dig deeper with this guy. It's far from his best work. Oh well, thats life. Best. Ceoil 21:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Yale s 05:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Yale. Blocked users can edit their own talk pages. That was added to the software to allow them to protest their blocks. Typically we protect the talk pages from editing if they troll them three or four times, but otherwise we just go with the default. Antandrus (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hmmm.. I woulda thought that loser used up his chances a year ago (and a dozen sockpuppets ago). Yale s 22:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your beautiful words and warm wishes on my birthday, dear friend! I took a well-deserved one-day wikibreak and spent it with my family and my friends... and actually had a beer after months of forced abstinence! :) Of course, there's no way I'd forget about you, so I saved a great, tasty piece of chocolate cake just for you - but sorry, no beer left! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, and have a wonderful day, dear Antandrus! Love, Phaedriel - 08:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply Not only I'll thank you for the kind and beautiful wishes, dear Antandrus, but I'll take the chance to tell you, there was nothing I could do: Chuck forced me to bring him to your page :) xxx, Sharon

Sounds kinda like the intellectuals have taken over Motown, eh? But: how do I cite my diss for the Baltimore Symphony article? Merci! -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I presume it would be something like <Spencer, W11. Title of Dissertation. City, press, year (Ph.D. diss.)> Skip the "press" if it was printed by the university: identifying the year, university, and that it was a dissertation should suffice. Great to see! Antandrus (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Would the code look something like this? ==Bibliography==

• Spencer, William (1994). The Baltimore Symphony Orchestra, 1965-1982: the Meyerhoff years (D.M.A. dissertation). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Thanks as always! -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Looks good to me. I'm not super-picky about formatting for these things, and I think there are probably several acceptable ways; that looks just fine. :) Antandrus (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Excellent job, Antandrus! Thanks a lot! Is there some kind of to-do list regarding 15th-century sources? Matthias Röder 16:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

You can view the to-do list by doing the following:

1. Type the name of the source on any Wikipedia edit box
2. Add double square brackets around the name
3. Hit preview
4. If the link turns red, it's on the to-do list.
5. :)

Cheers Matthias! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

(actually in all honesty, I think I will start musical sources of the trecento soon, so that'll take care of the Italian 14th-century sources; maybe a similar page for the 15th c.? I don't think we need a "List of Musical Sources" where there's no context or hierarchy. We have that. It's called Census Catalogue. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)) reply

Hey, thank you for that superb addition/correction to the article. That's precisely what we need to get this thing to meet or exceed the Grove standard. We have a ways to go, but having dedicated articles to the different sources, as well as articles on groups of sources or sources for an entire period, is certainly a promising direction. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh, it wasn't really anything, I just figured if there was more than one person contributing to the page we might be able to get the page rated as high as "start" rather than "stub" by the first fifteen-year-old who stops by.  :)

I think that not all the information in Grove needs to be in this article. Some of it is super specific and not useful without other information which is not there (would you rather have an inventory or a list of watermarks?). I think that some specific information on each codex is probably the next step for the article. (P.S. Leave Something for my students next term to add to early music! :) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Myke and Antandrus! Musical sources of the trecento sounds great! I will start the Musical sources of the 15th century then. Oh wait, is there a Musical sources article already? Hope all is well. Matthias Röder 10:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Matthias... yes, it appears we have not yet written an overview article (is it possible? wow.) I'd love to see you add a bit in this area. And not to worry Myke, I think there will be plenty still to do by the time the semester starts. :) Antandrus (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, you can count me in, Antandrus. And don't worry Myke, there will be plenty mistakes that your students can correct! You know, 15th century is just a hobby of mine. :-) Matthias Röder 14:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Me again, I'm afraid. I just went through the WT Sherman article (not super-thoroughly but more than a skim), which struck me as being very good. Is there a way to learn if it has ever been a Featured Article or otherwise had some honor given it? Thanks as always! -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Is this coincidence or did you do something about it? -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 02:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply

LOL, no, I completely forgot ... but people do watch this talk page. Suspect a coincidence though.  :) Antandrus (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Is him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/124.186.213.83

Probably him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Karaokewarrior

Possibly him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Edgeseeker Yale s 05:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

On August 2, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trent Codices, 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.

Well done Antandrus.......after all those hundreds of top quality articles you finally submit to DYK! Please visit us more often, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 07:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Ditto. This is the type of article we could use more of at DYK! Savidan 21:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks guys. Appreciate it! Antandrus (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry about that, your tag is correct. Mmernex 12:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there! Is there some policy around that I could see that concerns British vs. American spelling conventions? The articles that I see often seem pretty inconsistent in that respect. Merci! -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Greetings ... you can look in the manual of style; I'm sure there's something there. The only "rule" I know is that spelling should be consistent within an article. I'll tell you how I do it, which is by no means universal practice: if it is a UK subject (John Dunstaple, Benjamin Britten) I use the UK spelling, and if American, the American. Writing about continental European subjects I've done it both ways. Not knowing the exact spelling conventions for, say, Australia and India, I use UK for those, presuming them to be close cousins. Once in a while I see people edit-warring over spelling, something that makes me laugh every time. (I presume you have seen WP:LAME; if you haven't, it's great reading.) If someone writes an article on an American using UK spelling conventions, I leave it as is, feeling grateful that the person went to the trouble to write the article. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Here you go; looks like I was doing it close to the MOS. Antandrus (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much for reverting vandalism to my userpage. I appreciate it ! Sincerely, Neranei ^T/ C 01:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! Thanks for your help with that one. Antandrus (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I protected PDchick's talk page a split second after you did. If you prefer your protection level I don't mind if you change it. Someone may have compromised that account, it looks like it was pretty normal until today... Cheers! -- Fire Star 火星 02:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Your protection level is fine ... regarding the account, that kid's normal MO is to start an account and make minor "okay" edits, then start vandalising/trolling after the account has aged. His interests match as well with his other hundreds of accounts (TV, drugs, templating). However he has compromised at least one account: see User:Hank Ramsey for an ancient account that probably had a weak password (in 2001 he would have been about 8 years old). Antandrus (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Very good. I did a rollback to your protection regardless. I'll keep an eye out for this pattern from now on then. -- Fire Star 火星 02:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I got bio-tagged :( I don't think any of my articles are considered more than stubs, which is a bit depressing, especially considering that it means they won't be used in stable releases. And that they are considered as "May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term." *sigh*. Whatever. Sorry I haven't been about much, I've been busy with very boring work, and also I've taken up the viol again, which is a lot of fun. Cheers, Mak (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I just upgrade the assessments to "B" (if I've pretty much pulled everything from the available sources) or "start" (if I haven't, especially for things I wrote in 2004). Looking at the Grove article, you could probably expand it a bit. Well, you already know what I think about the assessment drive in general ... Did our complaining do any good? Maybe ... Antandrus (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, Anonymous IV just got tagged by the WP:Biography article. I suppose we're suppose to go now and add an infobox explaining who Anonymous IV was, what his or her real name was, add birth and death dates, upload a photo etc. Sigh. Removing it now. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Maybe we could upload a photo of an empty chair ... or a monk in a cowl or cassock, showing not a speck of skin ... or just a black rectangle. "Photograph of Anonymous IV on a dark night. Flash photography was prohibited in the cathedral in the 13th century." Antandrus (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Antandrus! Good afternoon. I am User:DrTanNguyen. I worked on my first page this morning and try to rename the page. For some reason, I lost the page and became "dangling". I saw the history that you removed my "dangling" page for me, but how do I get my original page back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTanNguyen ( talk • contribs)

Hello Dr. Nguyen: I answered on your talk page. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

DrTanNguyen 16:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Hi Antandrus, Thank you very much for your help and good tutorial. Sorry for my lack of consideration how to use User: space. Thank you again reply

"rimming was his forte" LOL! It's been all vandalism since it went up on peer review by the way. :( —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply

That did give me a laugh ... I seriously doubt the vandal realized how funny it was (in my experience they aren't the brightest stars in the firmament). Antandrus (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply

What's scary though is when they play head games with you. 8-O Although there's a whole list of good ones at about the centre of User:EVula—I scan thru his list whenever I need a good laugh. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Those are pretty good.  :) My favorite is when they put up hate pages about you elsewhere on the internet -- see number 49 -- it's a sign they can't do any lasting damage here, so they go thumb their noses from across the street. Children ... LOL. Antandrus (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I haven't had that heppen to me yet (actually haven't seen that many Wikipedians who have had it happen to them). I do wish I could see the "lug head on YouTube" video though, but it's private. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Is User:Whorfish a name that should be blocked? I'm wondering if it is but not sure enough to put report at UAA. - WarthogDemon 02:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Greetings! Personally, I wouldn't (am I missing something obvious? I think "whore" isn't quite closely enough stated to be a problem) -- but I'm probably more tolerant on usernames than many admins. I think in general there's a lot of overreaction on that board. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I was thinking more along the lines of "whorish" but eh if you don't have a problem with it. :) Thanks and cheers! - WarthogDemon 02:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

		The Music Barnstar
		For your extraordinary work on music theory and composition related articles. Thank you in particular for your invaluable work on modern music subjects; a category of articles often neglected on Wikipedia. Your concise prose, make even the most technical subjects intelligible and interesting. -- S.dedalus 00:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Greetings Antandrus! I’m not sure whether we’ve met before. I just want to thank you for your wonderful contributions. It's nice to meet someone with a common interest in composition. Keep up the good work. -- S.dedalus 00:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I support this barnstar, 100% and more. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  20:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks!  :) Antandrus (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You mentioned a while back that Dorabella (of Elgar's Enigma Variations) had a mathematical connection. Could you direct me to a source/reference for that fact. Thanks. Dnlsanta 20:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I did? Sure you don't mean User:JackofOz? Antandrus (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Is there any merit at all in this stuff that's being pushed at us? Now we have Luchesi authorship controversy! Conspiracy theories triumphant! Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 11:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply

It's vile nationalist nonsense; even the Baconian controversy is respectable by contrast. No one who knows anything about music could imagine that the same composer who wrote Mozart's 39, 40, and 41 was also the author of the London symphonies by Haydn; good grief. Crankery of the worst kind. It appears that the Luchesi authorship controversy article is a POV fork from Andrea Luchesi. I'm tempted to lob an ICBM at it, but I put a prod on it for now. Antandrus (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Gad, the worst part is that the Barcelona journal Recerca Musicològica, which occasionally publishes a collection of conference proceedings under the name of a journal, published his rants about the Seven Words of Christ on the Cross (opus Lucchesiani, of course) and in a P.S., everything else there. But the fact that he's been working on this topic for decades and yet Grove 2001 doesn't stoop to mentioning it speaks volumes for me. The only thing they have going for them is that it does appear that a M.S. of unknown date in Modena (probably from Bonn) of the Jupiter symphony once had a name that looks like it could have been "Luchese" erased and had "Mozart" written over it. This type of error/correction happens so often in M.S. scores that it's not worth mentioning. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Antandrus,

Here's a bit more on this vexed subject.

I'm basically with you in your "prod" of Luchesi authorship controversy. My one qualm is that earlier on, I had been pushing User:IfAny to find material published by Giorgio Taboga in an authentic scholarly outlet, with the view that that would be a reasonable and just way of excluding his crazy theory from the Wikipedia. But now IfAny claims to have actually found something, i.e. the article Mike Cuthbert mentions:

http://www.raco.cat/index.php/RecercaMusicologica/article/viewArticle/42839/0

Unfortunately, I can't read Italian and so I'm not much help in evaluating this reference. Do you think that if Taboga has somehow managed to get his theory into a real journal, then that qualifies it for the Wikipedia? Or should we take the apparently total absence of scholarly response to his work (no hits on Google Scholar, other than four to the article above) as evidence that we're not required to include him?

Best regards, Opus33 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Greetings! answered this one on your talk page. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Antandrus. I'll ponder, and perhaps discuss with IfAny. Cheers, Opus33 21:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Dear editor:

Given your extensive experience here on Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate your input on the following topic:

Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic.

Regards,

Sidatio 15:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply

..for removing that flyspeck! (whatever it was, my eyes couldn't spot it in the diff :) ). That article could still use someone to tighten up some of the wording as I do tend to go on a bit... It has been way too long since I wrote an article of any length, I gotta say. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

On 15 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cornelius Canis, 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.

-- Allen3  ^talk 12:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Seriously, thanks. :) It's been an interesting month. - WarthogDemon 02:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem ... we get all kinds here, and then some. Kids, trolls, and the genuinely insane. Antandrus (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

...for this. Tvoz | talk 06:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome... let me know if he's a problem again. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello friend, that is a beautiful sky. Will you join the consensus on Electronic art music (talk) to History of electronic music? Thank you for your help! Your corrections are super welcome! [ [4]] -- Susume-eat 05:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Antandrus, I appreciate that experts are starting to have a look at the Luchesi controversy. For sake of precision,where MsScubert writes QUOTE M.S. of unknown date in Modena (probably from Bonn) of the Jupiter symphony once had a name that looks like it could have been "Luchese" erased and had "Mozart" written over it. UNQUOTE we should read Regensburg instead of Modena and Pariser instead of Jupiter. (This could be found, with reference to a published photograph, in the article now under revision). Regarding the 'probably from Bonn' I can't help, as I don't remember having read anything about the origin. Regards IfAny 19:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I should have written Myke Cuthbert instead of MsSchubert IfAny 21:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply

My mistake on both of those points -- I saw the photo first then read about most of the Luchesi collection being in Modena. As far as Schubert/Cuthbert, thanks for the correction, though I'm tickled by any connection of myself with such a great composer. Best, Myke Scott Cuthbert —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mscuthbert ( talk • contribs).

Way back in December last year, you expressed the wish (on my talk page) to see articles on Pierre Phalèse and the Tregians, elder and younger. Although the last two are not much more than stubs, I present them anyway for your perusal!

Best wishes

Nick Michael 23:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Good work! That's very pleasing to see. They read well. I didn't know that bit about Tregian being buried upright in Lisbon; definitely a DYK-worthy item. Best regards, Antandrus (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply

On 18 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jheronimus Vinders, 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.

-- Wizardman 16:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I decided to create an article for Calumet, Colorado, a small ghost town of which it was rather tricky to find information on. After about an hour I found some things but I'm not real sure if it's enough. Even for a ghost-town-stub, is this barely wikiworthy? - WarthogDemon 23:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I think definitely yes--wikiworthy. Ghost towns are interesting to research but it can be difficult using only Google. It's a real place ... looks like the road intersection is now called "Long Saddle". One place you could go would be the county historical society (assuming there is one -- usually there is). Fun, Antandrus (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply

		The Barnstar of Peace
		I heard that Antandrus has to deal with lots of vandals and impersonators so I am giving this barnstar to Antandrus for his hard work. NHRHS2010 Talk 12:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, thanks, I had a great time. Re BJAODN - hopefully it'll soon be Bad Jokes And Very Deleted Nonsense. Much better title! Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 18:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

How do you archive a peer review? Tchaikovsky's hasn't had a review for over a week and I was wondering if it was time to archive it and go on to FAC. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  21:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

P.S. if it's something obvious like the way you archive a talk page, just tell me that. :) 21:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings; you caught me checking in for one of the first times today. It looks like the August 2007 archive says you can archive things that are a month old and have not had a comment in two weeks. Yah, I wish more people spent time helping out on peer review, but I'm one of the ones guilty of ignoring it, or just not thinking of it. It certainly would be good to see Tchaikovsky featured soon.  :) Antandrus (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, I guess we will wait until September 3 then. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  21:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Antandrus, check your email. I just sent you a message about an unpleasant ongoing situation that I think needs admin attention at this point. Cheers, K. Lásztocska 03:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, Antandrus. You recently {{ prod}}ded Luchesi authorship controversy; IfAny ( talk · contribs) removed the tag, and thereby contested the article's deletion. You may be interested that I recently nominated the article formally for deletion. As always, any insights you have would be very welcome. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Block reasons like "..." do not help us at all on CAT:RFU when they appeal. Please be specific next in your block reasons or you'll just end up wasting someone else's time. --  Netsnipe   ►  05:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

That'd be nice if you could check why you blocked him? The block message and the contribs don't really help here. I see you protected his talk page, but I'm a bit lost. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

"..." per WP:DENY. Look at what happened last night to [5] and you'll understand. The troll was using throwaway names consisting of two random words together, evenly spaced in the user creation log. When I blocked "Closeeven", the troll stopped, and "Closeeven" started whining about admin abuse, even though as a brand-new user he would be unlikely to have known that phrase. Coincidence? Brand new user? Wasting your time? Sure. I unblocked him though. Antandrus (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You could trust me next time, goddamn it. Try assuming good faith of administrators as well as trolls. Antandrus (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Talking about personal debates, you might be willing to have a look at the Liszt talk page. It is obvious that some persons have by far left behind the boundaries of reasonable and civilized communication. Editors such as me, who are trying to do an earnest job by giving information, are human beings, endowed with dignity of man. Would I myself behave in a similar kind as certain persons over there, I would be ashamed. If such kinds of manners were meant with words like "Neutrality of point of view", "Assume good faith", or "Keep a cool head", the age of "Newspeak" must have begun. The disadvantage is, of course, for a large part at the side of the Wikipedia project. There is no need for being surprised that exactly those persons, who are true experts and have much knowledge to offer, a driven away. With much patience and good nature, doing reasonable work in such environment is impossible.

Concerning your posting of 15:13, 21 August 2007, on the user Lastochka talk page, a critical remark might be allowed. The sentence Audiatur et altera part is not always bad. Sadly, every single sentence of my own posting of 08:56, 20 August 2007, had been true. As a matter of fact, I have been the one who, for several months, had had the pleasure to be called a pretender, a liar, I have no grasp of logic, and much more of such nice kinds besides. The user Lastochka is on several pages distributing in obscure allusions despising and insulting gossip about me. It was therefore my right to defend myself, asking for details. This was the purpose of my posting of 10:47, 21 August 2007, and even that posting was written in a polite style. It will be a good idea to tell some of your colleagues that mobbing is not a joke and, besides, is neither wished nor allowed. Would all persons behave like those, it would be the death of the Wikipedia project. 80.144.157.50 08:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You can start by creating an account. This is your only contribution from this IP. Contributing from only a dynamic IP makes it very hard to follow any kind of discussion across multiple pages. There is no way to communicate with you other than leaving you messages on pages you "might" have recently visited, and no way to verify that we are even speaking with the same person. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

All those moons ago you helped me to keep my equanimity during the Lutoslawski article FAC, for which I am still grateful. The canned message below may or may not interest you. The article has been nominated for review because someone perceives that it violates FA criterion 1c, "factual accuracy".

Witold Lutosławski has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Best regards, RobertG ♬ talk 11:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Robert; I'll most definitely have a look at it ... I'm at work and it's going to be busy today, so it will be evening Pacific time at the earliest. Hope all is well; good to see you around. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I was very gratified by your assessment of the article: thank you. You appear, like me, to be fairly sceptical about the utility of footnotes in this case: generally (as in, for instance, Olivier Messiaen)) I'm in favour, but this article just doesn't seem to me to warrant them! Some of the comments on the FAR make me wonder whether Wikipedia's "featured articles" idea as currently constituted has become a distraction and therefore counter-productive! Very best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Given a lack of in-line citations in Presidio of Santa Barbara, I have nominated it for GA review. As a contributor to the article, you are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer3000 19:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

It has in-line citations. What are you talking about? Antandrus (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Gad, the page ^[1] looked 1000 times ^[2] better^[pov] before the GA patrol ^{citation needed} got a hold of it. Whee! ^[3] now it has an infobox ^[4] and a footnote after every phrase! ^[3] Now all we need are thirty ^[5] navigation templates at the bottom and an assessment ^[6] by WP:BIO ^[3] and the article ^[3] will finally ^[3] be worth ^[3] something ^[7].

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert ( talk • contribs)

LOL, it's true... and finally something about this made me smile. :) The article now contains tyops and nonsense, but I haven't fixed anything yet. Frankly the whole scene was starting to make me angry and I wanted to go do something else for a change. GA Review and FA Review are, in my opinion, two of the most poisonous wells on Wikipedia, and a Slough of Despond for those of us who have spent a lot of time writing quality content. I'm quite happy not to have many "good" or "featured" articles--just articles that are worthy of their high Google rank. It's the readers I care about, and I suspect you feel that way too. Hope you're having a great weekend! BTW I'm enjoying watching your fall course wiki page. Good choices there! Antandrus (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Ack, I fixed it. Couldn't stand it any more. Gad, I need a wikibreak. Time to see if there are any football games on TV yet. Antandrus (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree, I brought one article to GA, and though the process in that case wasn't that bad, I left feeling that nothing at all concerning the quality of the article was considered in that process (add a footnote to the first half of this sentence here, add an infobox there, etc.). But, as you say, it's the high Google rank (and the occasional thanks on a talk page) that makes it worthwhile. Thanks for taking a look at the course wiki page; it's getting harder to find pieces that are appropriate for a first-time course on 20th c. music which don't have WP articles on them. I'm hoping that giving the option of Citizendium instead will give some more flexibility. Though CZ's forbidding of all fair use images makes it a little harder to comment on musical scores.

Don't stress too much! The project is much better with you here. Though I agree, football season can't start too soon. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, you recently blocked user 72.83.118.69 I found him to be very rude and the comments he made were not apropriate. Would it be possible to extend his ban? Let me know when you get a chance. Thanks, -- bobsmith319 19:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

He's currently blocked, and if you look at his talk page, you will notice that his last comment is to say he's sorry. He's blocked for a week. If he's a problem when he returns I can block him again. Remember that blocks are preventive, not punitive. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi again, user 72.83.118.69 has been very rude to me on his talk page. He has called me an idiot and told me to "get the hell of Wikipedia". He is currently blocked again, but since he has been so rude to me, will you look into extending his block? Thanks! -- bobsmith319 20:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC) reply

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		message bobsmith319 02:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply

		The Blocking Barnstar
		This barnstar was created just for Antandrus for blocking thousands of vandals. Keep up the good work. NHRHS2010 Talk 02:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)|} reply

Thank you NHRHS! I appreciate it. I'm not sure they do, but LOL, that's OK by me. Who knows--maybe some of them have gone on to become good editors. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. I looked at special:ipblocklist and saw that you blocked a few vandals. I knew that you were on Wikipedia since 2004 so I knew that you have blocked more than 1000 users so far. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 02:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I found a couple edits from you know who in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive186 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive190. I've been using Google and the search option in the archive box to track down some potential targets. The good thing was those were from several days ago. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reverting the message left on my Talk page by Donimus6969. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 22:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome; trolls like that one I block as fast as I can move the mouse pointer to the "block" button. Best regards, Antandrus (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Good morning (unless you're staying up really late…)

Can you delete Image:MakingTea1.jpg, Image:MakingTea2.jpg, Image:MakingTea3.jpg, and Image:MakingTea4.jpg as they have now been uploaded to the Commons? Thank you. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Done. Watching a movie, looking at my laptop during commercials.  :) Antandrus (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Is User:Boxersshorts spamming or making POV edits? - WarthogDemon 05:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Looking at it quickly, it looks OK to me, but I didn't read it in detail. The image formatting needs to be fixed. Sometimes with that kind of thing I let the editor finish, then clean it up later. Antandrus (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I've been doing a ton of work on the Tchaikovsky article since the peer review started, based in part on feedback from that. I'd really appreciate another set of eyes to make sure all bases are covered and I's staying within NPOV. Thanks! Jonyungk 14:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Certainly: I hope to have some time today to read it through. Should I comment at the peer review page? Nice work! Antandrus (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply

hey thanks for helping out, ive never been a good spelled and have never been able to get the spell check to work on firebox nor safari on my computer, do you have an suggestions regarding my recent restructuring of the article?Cholga ^talK! 01:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

thanks a lot! would you take a look at Richmond Medical Center i know it needs some help, but im not sure what to do.Cholga ^talK! 01:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

im dont with what im gonna do for today if u want to go at it now, thanks again.Cholga
talK! 02:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
reply

Is this a nonsense article? I ran into it by accident, but don't know if it should be reported (or even how to do that properly...) Le the 09:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

It appeared to be a blatant advert for a company: the article name even had a close similarity to the username of the person who created it. You can put a {{db-spam}} tag on these since they are speedy deletable. I deleted it as such. Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Dang, that was fast! blocked and edited in less than 30 seconds! Amazing! No wonder AIV don't have a queue! -- Inhuman14 02:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks... yeah, I had a feeling that one was coming back for more. Antandrus (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

LOL. You beat me to the revert here and I edit conflicted with you for the warning on his page. But then again you probably have a better connexion than I do… ;) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  18:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually I'm at work, and coincidentally had just looked at recent changes for one of the first times this morning. Yup, T1 lines have their advantages.  :) Antandrus (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

…and I got beat again to the revert on the AN/I page! Maybe it's my fat fingers or something… :P —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  18:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

RC patrolling is harder than it used to be. People are fast. Good for us though! Antandrus (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

They sure are. There's always somebody faster than me… —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  18:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for fixing my talk page, i seem to have annoyed a badger somewhere along the line. In case you come across him again he is one of a few: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Badger's Arse. Thanks again. (keep edit conflicting with annoying ip :) Woodym555 18:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Semi-protection doesn't sound like a bad idea right about now… —Preceding unsigned comment added by Springeragh ( talk • contribs) 18:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! Sined by SineBot! —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  18:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh man, this is getting bad… —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  18:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Somebody in Fareham doesn't like you very much. I was getting bored clicking rollback, so I reinstated the semi-protection on your Talk page. -- Gogo Dodo 18:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Yah, he's annoyed because I was swatting him in the user creation log before he had a chance to vandalise. LOL. It's just an attention-seeking kid. Antandrus (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I was almost afraid for a moment that we would have another big sockfest like Willy on Wheels, Molag Bal, Oompapa, or the hundreds Encyclopedist has enriched our live with… —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  20:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

He's persistent, I'll give him that. -- Gogo Dodo 21:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I think I might know who it is--but it's a little like this: someone throws litter on your lawn, and do you need to identify whether it's a Pepsi, Coke, or Sprite can, or is it more important to put it in the recycling bin? This one, eh. Child wanting attention. Definitely quietly carry the can to the bin.  :) Antandrus (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree. Quite. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  21:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Why did you unprotect this? The vandal is right back. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  21:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply

In general, I like to keep my page as open to anons as possible, i.e. in order to treat them as much as equals to regular users as possible. Since vandals do no actual lasting damage, I'd prefer to err on the side of unprotection--but if he wastes the time of a lot of people reverting, I'll protect it again. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Urgh... I sent email to abuse@orange.co.uk about this guy after he returned to my Talk page today, but then I discovered Wikipedia:Abuse reports. So I kind of went outside of process. Thoughts? -- Gogo Dodo 00:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh, do anything necessary to stop harassment. Contacting ISPs might be effective, as long as you send uncontrovertible evidence. I'm presuming that school hasn't started in the UK yet, and this kid is just bored, and in need of some discipline. I was a pain when I was 14 but I wasn't that bad. Antandrus (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply

There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of activity on the page I referenced, so now I don't feel so bad about going slightly out of process. I'll keep you updated on anything I get. I can send you a copy of the mail I sent if you want. -- Gogo Dodo 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, I have had someone very upset with me because I edited out porn from the Body nullification article. First it was my user page...then (after a switch of IPs) my user page and that of the admin who blocked the previous IP...and now (with a new IP) he appears to be going through my contribution log and vandalizing articles I've worked on. I am actually planning to put the article up for AfD (the material is covered elsewhere), but I would appreciate any suggestions you might have that might lessen the impact of this abuse on the encyclopedia as a whole. Risker 03:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I thought you might be interested in a WikiProject proposal I just created. I would like to start a project devoted to improving Wikipedia pages relating to modern art in various mediums. Many these articles are often simply too under staffed; a specific project focusing on this category of articles will go a long way towards bring them up to Wikipedia standard. I hope you can help! -- S.dedalus 00:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply

The proposal is now called Experimental art. (To clarify that it focuses on all mediums.) -- S.dedalus 03:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I think it's a good idea; at any rate, you have correctly identified an underdeveloped area of Wikipedia. Not sure how much time I'll have but I'll help if I can. Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Holy Cannoli! Was User:8.7.98.93 using a bot or a script? Glad we caught him early! How often do those happen? Dreadstar † 04:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I see them once in a while; it was definitely one or the other. It might have been a manual job using multiple tabs, but more likely an automated method. Oh, and thank you for helping me with that: I just noticed you rolled back the rest. Antandrus (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Posted this in reply to your quuestion regarding Grieg: According to the Official Troldhaugen website, this piece was written to commemorate the succesful celebration of Nina and Edvard's silver wedding anniversary in 1892, i.e. five years earlier. It is part of his Opus 65 and was originally named "Here come the wellwishers". Asav 13:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! Asav 07:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I had a feeling it was written for his own wedding, I just didn't know the details. Appreciate your time researching it! Antandrus (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I was busy reporting the guy to AIV. Thanks for the revert! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC) reply

My pleasure; one less troll tonight. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks twice. — DerHexer  (Talk) 16:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Let's not allow him to fill up his 'free time' here, hmm? HalfShadow 23:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

It's already been done ... I read your mind.  :) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, cut it out. That's where I keep my porn. Also cookies. HalfShadow 23:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Just to let you know that whenever you see anything on the new name logs that has a reference to Derek Acorah or see a vandal whose contributions all contain anything to do with that person...block on sight. This joker has been around since late August :P. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I didn't know that (hard to keep track of multiple thousands of trolls ...) Antandrus (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply