Archive 26: December 16, 2007 to February 21, 2008.

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. CardinalDan ( talk) 02:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome; he got swatted shortly after. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

My thanks too! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome, and it's extremely difficult to do it faster than you yourself! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh I do try! ;) That guy you reverted is this troll. He really doesn't like me. His M.O. is to troll the talk pages of wrestlers, "classic metal", various other random talk pages, and my userspace and the userpages of those who revert him. example 1 - example 2 - example 3 and so on. Just a heads up! See also, his sock farming, he has quite a few more that have not been tagged, including at least 7 IPs. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply

LOL. I'd say something unkind about diminished mental capacity, but ... noblesse oblige. Thanks for the heads-up: I'll be alert for this one now. Antandrus (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply

LOL. For wit that makes my belly hurt from laughing I'm going to give you something tasty to look at. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Yum

thanks for blocking Monaug5 JunCTionS 16:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You just speedied this incoherent article, for good reason; but I could understand, through the illiteracy, what the question was, and I've made an answer (with a recommendation to go to the Reference Desk in future!) Could you recover the originator's user name for me? Thanks. JohnCD ( talk) 15:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Greetings: actually I already did the same thing [1] -- but feel free to do the same. (Her user name is in that diff). Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks - I gave them a few clues, as the article has long words they might have trouble with. Nice to see people trying to use the system, even if they're struggling rather... JohnCD ( talk) 15:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there! I have pasted your last email in this conversation for reference. I am still finding my way around wiki, but I have a few questions. Firstly,since my page talk specifically and just about contour mapping using LIDAR, I don't understand how it can't be main page like LIDAR. I talk about how contour mapping has been improved with LIDAR as compared to traditional methods. This is purely cartographic.

Secondly,when you say my article is better suited as a separate link to the main LIDAR article, i don't understand exactly what you mean.Does it mean that when somebody types a search for LIDAR contour map, it is not going to come to my page(presuming there are no other pages with the exact same title)? Thanks a lot, Bibek

Hi Bibekfloyd,

I removed the speedy tag from the article, since you are writing about a notable subject. I'm personally familiar with LIDAR through my work as a GIS manager. You might want to look at our LIDAR article, though, and decide if your material might be better as an addition there -- or perhaps you are correct that it is better as a separate article linked to the main LIDAR article. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bibek,

I'll also copy this onto your talk page in case you are more likely to see it there.

Since you are writing about a subtopic of a larger topic (contour mapping with LIDAR is the subtopic, and LIDAR is the main topic) you have two choices on how to add the material. I'd suggest looking at the GIS article. About halfway down, there is a section of about five paragraphs on Geostatistics. You will notice that it is an introductory section to geostatistics; the main article is referenced with a line, Main article: geostatistics. That's the sort of thing I'd suggest. Read the LIDAR article and decide if the topic of contour mapping is adequately covered there; if it is not, consider adding a few paragraphs on contour mapping, with a similar link to a "main article", and then write a detailed main article, using the reference you give on the talk page. It's an interesting topic: good luck and have fun, Antandrus (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi! I'd like to publish my article as a link to the main article, just like you suggested. But how do i do that? I can't even find my article that I uploaded? Sorry, I am new to this, any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Bibek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibekfloyd ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

"Have a look at Wikipedia:No legal threats, and grow up". I had that down in the block log, with a block length of 1 month. You just beat me to it! ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Yay! Glad to hear that ... thanks! This person, in my opinion, is a real danger, but someone's got to deal with him. Sigh. Antandrus (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Merry Christmas, my friend. May this find you in good health, good spirits, good company, and good finances. If any of these be missing, may God see fit to restore you in good time. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:57 25 December, 2007 (UTC)

File:Julkrubba.jpg

This User was creating other accounts. Did they get blocked, too? Corvus cornix _talk 19:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Yup: just swatted them all. Antandrus (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Kewl. Good job.  :) Corvus cornix _talk 19:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		You're sniffing out some username vios really quickly! Keep it up! — Animum ( talk) 19:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, thanks! Now I have an explanation to certain family members why I've been so unsocial for the last few minutes ... LOL... Antandrus (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Meh, this spot will work out alright. :P Happy New Year Antandrus, I hope 2008 is good to you. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 07:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Could you catch this guy and the users he's creating, too? Thanks. His name isn't really problematic, but the ones he's creating are. Corvus cornix _talk 19:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks .... got 'im. Antandrus (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Yay. Merry Christmas.  :) Corvus cornix _talk 19:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

And merry Christmas to you too! I'm getting the feeling we're lightly covered today. Antandrus (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not surprised. I'm almost out of here myself. Corvus cornix _talk 19:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Yup, same here. Antandrus (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I think that username wins the award for most funny and most creative. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 20:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi - just in case no-one catches it, this article has just been created again. (You just beat me from reporting it 5 minutes ago!). I'm sure I saw a report on something very similar last week, but I can't find it now... -- Kateshort forbob 21:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know -- I've just deleted it and blocked a couple more incarnations of this vandal. It was on WP:ANI a week or so ago (look in the most recent archives maybe). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Have a nice day -- Kateshort forbob 21:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

These guys wont stop. I hope school starts soon so they have homework again to keep them busy. Thanks for reverting stuff left on my user and talk pages recently. I just found another instance today. They started spelling their names backwards thinking I wouldn't notice. Here is the talk page of the user where I list the proof: User talk:Alrightmate‎.

I've been dealing with the older brother Eduardo for a couple of years now -- see User talk:Eduardo89. The younger brother Andres is relatively new to this, active only since school started this year. Here is the edit that linked the two brothers together. Thanks again. -- Stéphane Charette ( talk) 23:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply

See if I've missed anything you know about. I tried to summarize the state of affairs here. -- Stéphane Charette ( talk) 18:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Looks good: I just put the page on my watch list. There are over 300 deleted edits on the article for the Vancouver school; I'll pick through them quickly to see if there are any accounts you missed. Antandrus (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply

There were 354 deleted edits. It was mainly Eduardo89 active during that stretch, plus a lot of anon IPs. I didn't see any other obvious sockpuppets of these two. Antandrus (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reverting the harassment and protecting the page. This is a messy story spread over AN/I and two archives:

• WP:AN/I#Cyric the whatever, back as anons - harassment
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive346#User:Cyric the All - harassment
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive343#I'm being harassed by my old account

-- Jack Merridew 15:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. It amazes me how some people keep making sockpuppet accounts with one purpose only -- to attack someone -- and just don't get that that's not OK to do. See No. 6, 7, and 8.. But these things never change; one goes away, another appears; yet Wikipedia goes on. Happy new year, Antandrus (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for an interesting read. I just gave it a careful look and found many spot-on observations. I bookmarked it and may refer other to it as needed. Happy New Year. Jack Merridew 10:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="width: auto;" | {{#switch:{{{2}}}|confirmed=[[Image:Puppeter template.svg|45px]]|[[Image:System-users.svg|45px]]}} | '''{{#switch:{{{2}}} |blocked |confirmed = This user is a {{#switch:{{{2}}}|blocked=suspected}} [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sock puppet]] of [[User:{{ucfirst:Ln of x}}|{{ucfirst:Ln of x}}]], and has been [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked indefinitely]] | An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sock puppet]] of [[User:{{ucfirst:Ln of x}}|{{ucfirst:Ln of x}}]]}}.'''<br />Please refer to {{#if:{{{3|{{{evidence|}}}}}}|{{{3|{{{evidence|}}}}}}|[[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|contributions]]}} for evidence. <small><span class="plainlinks">See [{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|page=User:{{PAGENAMEE}}}} block log] and [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~pgk/autoblock.php?autoblock=&blocker=&blockee={{PAGENAMEE}}&time=0&submit=Submit+Query current autoblocks].</span></small> |}{{{category|{{#switch:{{{2}}}|confirmed=[[Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ln of x|{{PAGENAME}}]]|[[Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of {{ucfirst:Ln of x}}|{{PAGENAME}}]][[Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}}<!-- Template:sockpuppet -->{{do not delete}}

Thank you for your concern, but I prefer logs base 10. Antandrus (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, come on. e is a much better base in general. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL, actually I agree with you Coren ... I was just being disagreeable on principle. (looking outside at stars, neatly categorized by magnitude  :) Antandrus (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks, for blocking the trolls, and getting through the mindless beaurcracy. Will ^{( talk)} 01:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I like the story of the Gordian knot. It doesn't always work, but damn, sometimes you just have to take a flamethrower to an obvious problem. Bureaucracy is a bit of a growing fungus around this place. Antandrus (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

thanks for removing vandalism from my user page -- Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 20:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! Happy to help. I blocked that one but let me know if he comes back and bothers you again. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

On 4 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jacquet de Berchem, 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.

Congratulations! · AndonicO ^Hail! 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you!! Antandrus (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I see you've finally protected Schule Schloss Salem from vandalism. The only problem is, the second last edit by the vandal "MezzoMix" is a legitimate one that actually improved the article, especially the infobox which was(well now is) one for "education in canada", and the placing of the campus picture lower makes the page look less crowded. I would revert to that one before he re-added the annoying "Spaahm" entry, but I don't have admin powers. Could you do that for me? This is one i am referring to

Thanks in advance and happy new year!

Marvin Johnson ( talk) 17:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I did as you requested, although I removed some more bad edits in the process. Since it's obvious that you are one of the kids causing the problem, I have this suggestion: you and Eduardo, or Andres if you are actually Eduardo, promise to stop vandalising, stop adding your names, stop wasting our time, and I'll unblock one of your accounts and unprotect the page. You do understand why you aren't supposed to be adding nonsense to Wikipedia, right? Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok fine, it's Eduardo. If I promise not to do this crap anymore, will you unblock my original account Eduardo89? I realize it must be pissing you off. Sorry. Marvin Johnson ( talk) 18:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Considering these 2 specific edits from today by this user:

• [2] (note this is not me, but another impersonation account)
• [3] (removing a comment from August 2006!)

...I would think twice about allowing this user back. Him and his friends have been nothing but trouble for the past 2 years. Note one of the first edit in April 2006, almost 2 years ago: [4]. It has been nothing but this since then. -- Stéphane Charette ( talk) 23:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, note that I did not. The first thing he did after requesting the above was to lie on the RFPP, as I see you noticed, and then he uploaded a blatant copyright-violating image for his user page. So, no. I love to give people second chances, but that was just too blatant. Frankly I was getting exasperated, and I wanted to write some encyclopedia articles instead, so I haven't been watching much since the morning (here that's Pacific time). Best, Antandrus (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I stumbled across this sordid matter a few days ago when I was patrolling the new pages and have been watching in horrified fascination ever since. I think it is a mistake to let it go on any longer. Just banning sockpuppet after sockpuppet isn't discouraging them. Vandalism is bad enough but long term harassment of a legitimate user is totally unacceptable. You know who the morons are and you know what school they go to. I hope you or Stéphane really will contact the school and tell them about their behaviour and how it is bringing the school into disrepute. Don't feel bad for them. It might even help them to grow up and act more responsibly in future. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Most people who find themselves in a hole will stop digging, but this one doesn't give up, does he? You have my support, for what it's worth, in that I think you have made the right moves. And am I right to be a bit worried by this edit? Best regards, RobertG ♬ talk 16:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you Robert: I appreciate your help on this. The simplest solution, and by far the most elegant, is this: Eduardo and Andres (hi there; I know you're reading this), 1) stop harassing Stepháne, 2) stop vandalising, and that includes adding yourselves to articles. I've seen you make good edits so I know you are capable of being good editors. Guys, it's really simple to end this problem. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I just wanted to say "Good work" on getting this article improved. As a madrigal enthusiast that wasn't quite sure where to begin, I was pleased and impressed by your additions and revisions. - Geoffg ( talk) 21:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

For the reverts. He's quite laughable, this guy is. "I am immortal", he says. Heh. Thanks again. Gscshoyru ( talk) 03:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome ... I laughed too. It's poignant, like many of those vandals who keep coming back. "I'll NEVER GIVE UP!!" Shoveling sand against the tide he is; the tide wins. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The user you blocked indef is found with the crime of sockpuppeting. The line said above him, I have lots of accounts, that means he could be anyone. In an edit by that user. He said right below the 2nd "It's me user 216.***.***" line on his 4th note. After a few pictures of cars. He puts note and he said somthing about lots of accounts. Take a look. I'm glad that guy was blocked. He's crazy.-- Angel David ( talk) 14:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, yes, that one. Angry teenager having a temper tantrum. I find the best way to deal with that type is this way. Revert, block, ignore. They always get bored and go away after a while, and some day they probably will grow up. I find it helpful to take a big view: I was a troublesome kid once, and looking back on it, I'm glad about the adults who understood that this phase too is a part of nature. Best, Antandrus (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

He couldn't get it right! lol He couldn't figure out how to type "KnowledgeOfSelf" so he turned to "Knowledge Of Self" and listed an impostor account you blocked back in 2006. Oi vey, what next? :P KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hilarious!! Add to "funny stuff." I hate to feed anything to trolls, but some of our vandals are so inept they alone can make this place terribly entertaining.  :) Antandrus (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to let you know that User:Smooshette has taken your advice and taken the BF article to Deletion Review. There's a link to the review section on her userpage. Anchoress ( talk) 22:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Here are the links: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_5#Ballet_Fantastique and Ballet Fantastique (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anchoress ( talk) 22:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Anchoress! Thank you for letting me know; I would have missed it, since I've been busy today being a secondary school disciplinarian, much to my displeasure, and I've also I've been trying to write a few things. I'll see what I can do to help. Best, Antandrus (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You may want to go to RPP, it's backlogged, and that user's now using open proxies or dynamic IPs to remove tags. — B o L 05:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It looks like Philippe is on it ... I'm about burned out for the day anyway. Good luck and happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You too. — B o L 05:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, Antandrus, could you direct me to any documentation (other than Wikipedia:Redirect) for guidance on when and under what circumstances to redirect one article towards another? The WP:redirect guideline seems to cover redirects for multiple spellings, etc. Thanks in advance. Anchoress ( talk) 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hm, I've dug around a bit, and I'm not finding much. There may be a lack of actual developed "policy" in this area. My experience with this is that articles should be developed independently whenever there is a sufficiently differentiated body of information that can be placed in each location, and consensus almost always will support you if you can demonstrate the difference, but opinions will inevitably collide. I remember my annoyance when an editor redirected and merged an article I wrote on polychoral to antiphon, some years ago, considering that they are different musical concepts (but may seem the same to a non-specialist). One of these days I'll get around to splitting them apart again. If your question involves waxing, I think those can be two different articles. Have you also looked at WP:MERGE? "Related subjects that have a large overlap..." Looks to me like Brazilian waxing is a distinct subtopic worthy of separate coverage, but that's just the opinion of a non-expert. Hope this helps ... :) Antandrus (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I really appreciate the info and the reply. Anchoress ( talk) 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You've created hundreds of articles; you should know what qualifies and what not. Two users did outlines for two articles in the sandbox; do either of them have enough significant info to be created into real articles? [5], [6]. Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 22:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

On a quick look, I'd say yes to both. Reliable sources are needed for the photographer article, but he gets a lot of Google hits. A real museum, in my opinion, deserves an article, but I tend to be inclusionist about real places if the information is verifiable. Both of those are unusually good for first tries by newbies, in my opinion. Hope this helps!  :) Antandrus (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you. If they didn't already create them, perhaps I will. At any rate, if they get proposed for deletion, I'll do whatever I can to prevent that. Thanks again! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 07:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply

That guy wasn't sockpuppeting?-- Angel David ( talk) 20:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Do you mean this one? I blocked that account. Technically a sockpuppet is a username, not an IP address. If he vandalizes from IPs, we block them for short periods (to minimize the risk of affecting innocent people). If you spot other obvious sockpuppets, though, let me know and I'll block them for you. Best, Antandrus (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there! Would you mind taking a look at the Szigeti article and giving me some feedback? I put it up for peer review a few days ago and all it got was a review generated by a bot. The only comment that I found useful was that I can sometimes be too wordy, there are apparently still redundancies and peacock terms--but I can't see any of that stuff in my own writing right now, I need someone with fresh eyes to look at it. I'm hoping to put it up on WP:FAC as soon as possible but I also don't want to nominate it before it's ready. Thanks, K. Lásztocska ^talk 18:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Looks good; it's thorough and reads well. As is my nature, rather than listing a lot of nit-picks, like they do at the Featured Article Pillory, Good Article Gauntlet and A-Class Inquisition, I uncapped my nit-picker and picked the few nits I found. Optionally you could expand the "reception" section; there's lots of commentary on Szigeti's playing, and contrasts with his contemporaries -- oh, you know, everyone from Kreisler to Heifetz to Nathan Milstein might be interesting -- none of that is necessary, though, it's just something I might do if I were writing it. I wondered about separating out the "family life" section from the main biography, since you cover the "bureaucratic entanglements" part twice, but in different levels of detail, but if you stitch that into the main part of the biography it could overwhelm it, so ... maybe fine as is. Good article! Antandrus (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, one other minor thing -- I eradicated a lot of ghost hard returns, such as [7] -- I hope I didn't inadvertently bork your paragraphing, since the paragraph is together in the visible text but appears to be split in the edit window. I assumed the lines were meant to be together. Antandrus (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the nitpicking, it was exactly what I wanted you to do. :) I've had the same thoughts about the "Reception" section, just not really the time to go paw through the stacks to find interesting little tidbits. Any ideas on what books would be most useful in that regard?

I meant to take out the now-redundant part about bureaucratic entanglements, must have just slipped my mind. Completely mortified that I got the poor man's date of death wrong this whole time, btw... K. Lásztocska ^talk 05:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Antandrus. Sometimes tells me you could use a little distraction from Beethoven and your other recent concerns. I invite you to shift your gaze briefly to this transcluded text:

User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP/StableProposalSummary

– Noetica^♬♩  Talk 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I like it. Nice work; fine idea. I commented on the talk page, and added my name to what I thought was the appropriate place. Thank you for the nicely timed distraction! Antandrus (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks! We will need wide support from admins and master editors as we move this forward. Good to know that you see the value of what we're up to there. I have taken the liberty of including you on the list of participants. Feel free to remove that, of course. But your presence is highly prized!

– Noetica^♬♩  Talk 04:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry :( didn't know. Yes an indeed very bad thing they did. Ohmpandya ( Talk to Me...) 01:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Good to run into you again, and again beating me to noticing. :-) Hope you are well, also -- and thanks for the assistance! Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Bwahahahaha! You know who copied it? Take a look at that URL.... that's my current university. (Though I'm sorry to say I've never been to their music department.) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL! I knew it was a familiar name. Oh that's rich. Antandrus (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I always worry when I write such things that no one will read them—and as a really slow writer, that's a significant worry! Perhaps that's my skill... killing discussions by writing messages so long no one can be bothered to read them to respond. :-)

But it is a real worry. I've never been a fan of polls, but as the community grows the problems only get worse... Thanks for your feedback; you agreeing is always a good sign!

I've been mostly invisible for a while because sometimes I need a break from the crazy (well, one flavor of crazy), and because there's enough I feel I can't do without blurring roles... but I'll try to show up more often. :-) Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Is making persistently worthless and detrimental edits sufficient reason to block someone? That German IP fellow is back at it on Franz Liszt and I'm about to give up hope of that article ever being worth reading. (Disclaimer: I'm not one to talk, having barely edited Liszt for the last few months.) He seems to have no grasp of encyclopedic style, neutrality, what is important and what isn't, what to leave out, when to cite a source, and of course, how to write in proper English. And he's still inserting favorable comparisons to Thalberg and Tausig everywhere, and making snide remarks at me in his edit summaries even though I have not communicated with him at all since he returned. So...what is to be done in such a situation? Cheers, K. Lásztocska ^talk 23:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Honestly ... no. Nothing blockable there. While I admit I haven't looked at all of his additions, he is trying to improve the encyclopedia, as are you. Content disputes such as this are among the most stressful things on the project. I'd just edit out the POV and uncited stuff after a little delay, adding cite tags for things that look plausible, and try not to interact with him personally. He may be enjoying you overreacting to him, and enjoy tweaking you: I know it's hard to let this stuff go (see my recent essay) but sometimes you just have to. Looking at one of his edits at random, [8], the bit about Saffle in the reference appears to be his personal opinion, and should go (and how do you cite something within a cite?) I hope this helps--I really think he's trying to improve the encyclopedia, but just doesn't quite get NPOV and need for citing. A good reality check might be a quick trip over to Israel/Palestine articles, or maybe the talk page for waterboarding -- this one really isn't that bad ... Cheers.... :) Antandrus (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. WesleyDodds ( talk) 01:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. Seems like a semi-static IP. Let me know if you have any further problem with this one. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The problem is coming from a number of anonymous IPs. It seems to be retaliation for my reverts of repeated content removal on The Cure. Maybe the page should be semi-protected? WesleyDodds ( talk) 01:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

This should be all the proof you need: [9]. WesleyDodds ( talk) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It looks to me like a content dispute with a singularly immature and retaliatory editor. For some reason he disagrees with the Billboard article, but won't provide a reliable source for another point of view, instead vandalising your page (and, maybe without realising it, shooting his foot right off). People come here from elsewhere on the internet thinking that they can be bullies just like they are elsewhere, and are surprised when those tactics get them ejected with a bootprint on the backside. I suggest just asking him for a reliable source contradicting the Billboard source. I'll semiprotect if he comes back and edit-wars again. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It's more than a content dispute; the editor has said in edit summaries of the article that he works for the band and that he "knows the truth" about the firing of the band members, even providing an e-mail for contact. That's in clear conflict of verifiability and conflict of interest. WesleyDodds ( talk) 01:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh. That's not good. Let me know if he comes back. I presume you have informed him of V and COI -- is there any evidence he's read messages anywhere? Personally I wouldn't e-mail him. Looking at his "edits" to your user page, that's not an editor we want here. Antandrus (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I just noticed he came back--sorry, was off doing something else. I semi-protected your page for you for a week. Let me know if you want it off. Antandrus (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The IP is removing the same info from the article again. I'd like to request temporary protection of the article from unregistered users. WesleyDodds ( talk) 07:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Progress, yes?

– Noetica^♬♩  Talk 07:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes! This is looking very good. I still think the double comma method is the most elegant and efficient. Nice work! Antandrus (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I enjoyed it, as always. A bit more biting than some of your previous efforts... I think we're all starting to feel that way, though. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 21:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yup. I know. I'm starting to feel frustrated at what I perceive is the ossification of the community. It's hardened, the way new concrete hardens on a summer day. Instead of brave new ideas we have acres of policy and guidelines and precedents, in shelf, volume, chapter, and verse. There has even been a recent attempt to add something stifling to IAR, which is the secret heart of our whole system, what I think makes it work. To the point is Kafka's observation, "...every revolution eventually evaporates, leaving behind the slime of a new bureaucracy." To write a "good" or "A-class" or "featured" article now you need a whole set of rubber-stamps: you can't just have, say, an expert or two in the topic area come by and nod and make it so. --Or maybe I'm just feeling burned out. You do all this work for free, thousands of hours over many years, hundreds of articles, and what do you get for it: hate pages all over the internet, real-life stalkers, death threats, and even casual abuse from other administrators who really ought to say thank-you once in a while rather than sending you angry e-mails because of something you wrote in a block summary. Or whatever ... But so it goes; I do still enjoy writing articles, even if no one cares except for The Great Google who still puts what I write in the top spot 90% of the time. Dunno ... maybe it's close to time to move on. Antandrus (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Life around this place doesn't get any easier, that's for certain. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that a lot of the problems stem from the fact that WMF has no money. Life would be so much easier if (once stable versions are up, obviously), we could pay experts to come in, stamp decent articles with some handsome "approved" sign, and then walk out again. Their role wouldn't need to be limited to quality assurance, either: think how many disputes a couple really first-rate historians and scientists could settle around this place. How much, I ask myself, can I really know about the history of Liancourt Rocks or large chunks of the Balkans - yet I'm expected to act as godlike, omniscient admin when enforcing arbcom remedies here. Working far too often by bluff - if a paid (because it's only pure fools made wise through compassion, like us, who do this unpaid) expert could come in and say "Yeah, this chap's basically right, the other one's just a nutter advocating weird fringe theories. Ban 'im" - my life would get far easier. But hey, you can't do this with no money - some discreet little adverts would probably solve that problem, though. I wouldn't mind.

Anyway, you have some mail. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Well put, as usual. I answered your mail.  :) Working to solve those nationalist disputes has got to be one of the most thankless jobs around this place. People like Dbachmann deserve more than mere barnstars. What utterly staggers me is the blindness of the people who want to see people like him stifled. Quoting James Joyce, --in that most significant section of Ulysses, the Cyclops, the out-of-control Irish nationalist in the pub-- "there's no one as blind as the one who won't see." Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your helpful recent essay, Antandrus (actually, I think all your essays are helpful). It, and your comments above, made me reflect and pen one of my own. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 08:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

And however much you may feel tempted, please do NOT move on, Antandrus. Wikipedia would be the worse without you. Cheers. -- JackofOz ( talk) 08:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey Antandrus, I've left you an email, I just realized I left out a key word. That word was "you" and I'm sure you'll know where I meant to place it. ;) Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks!  :) Sent you one back. Antandrus (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

If it had just been one night of vandalism, I'd have probably sent you a message asking you to reconsider the block. I'm not opposed to giving one more chance. Hopefully, he learns the lesson and thinks about his edits more carefully … or at least stays off Wikipedia when he's hopped on caffeine. :) — C.Fred ( talk) 03:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I just wanted to thank you again for the unblock. Sorry for causing you and C.Fred unnecessary trouble. Sorry for the edit, just noticed your request for new comments to be made at the bottom. Hockeyalltheway25 ( talk) 14:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

As I am still learning the ropes of Wikipedia, I would like to know if you could help me with something. I stumbled across the article Wendy Smith, and found that all the references for this article were links to other articles (episode guides) that themselves have no references. All of these episode articles are very in-depth and contibuted to by people with accounts. How is it that these articles chock full of original research can exist? Is there something I don't know, or do all of these articles need to be challenged? I appreciate any help you can give me! Asher196 ( talk) 01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Asher! answered on your talk page. (Have to admit the "citations" to other completely unreferenced Wikipedia articles made me laugh out loud.) Antandrus (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the input. I thought something was wrong, but the boldness of it made me think I was missing something!----Asher196 (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have two bits of good new for you. First, I got Musopen to agree to let me copy their entire collection of recordings to Wikipedia. So I'm in the process of uploading over 130 new classical music recordings to Commons.

Second, because of the strains these large batches of uploads put on me (as, historically, I was pretty much the only one who does this kind of stuff) I've started a new wikiproject - Wikipedia:Wikiproject free music. I'd appreciate any help you can contribute - specifically (given your background) with regard to filling in the missing articles in the sound list. Raul654 ( talk) 00:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know. While I feel like I'm making a lot of promises recently that I haven't been keeping, I listed myself there as a participant. I know I can help with missing articles, either by translating (de, fr, it, es) or writing using sources in my library. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Why did you revert my work on the penis enlargement article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexBakharevDurak ( talk • contribs)

Please do not replace articles with personal essays. I'm sure there's a web site somewhere where you can write an excellent piece on "how to enlarge a penis," which is what you were doing. Oh, and what does "Durak" mean? Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

After taking a break have been incorporating some of your suggestions on Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and putting in some additional work. Could you pleasse take another look and give me some feedback? Thanks! Jonyungk ( talk) 15:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Good work -- you've compiled a considerable amount of great information. My suggestion would be to work on the writing a little more, for typos, sentence variation, clarity, precision (e.g. what is the difference between "modal-sounding" and simply "modal"? my suggestion would be "modally-inflected" since in music theory that is definable, and "modal-sounding" is vague). Nice job though; it's hard work, I know. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks very much for for your suggestion and for the work you did on the opening since posting your reply. Both give me a clear idea where to go from here. Jonyungk ( talk) 15:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your support at my request for adminship, which passed today with 42/0/0! I would like to thank Wizardman for nominating me, Antandrus/Archive26 and everyone else for their support and comments. I'll continue with contributing to the encyclopedia's content (hopefully writing an FA here and there :) and will help out with admin-related tasks which you just entrusted me with. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask! Thanks again, —dima /talk/ 01:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.180.219 ( talk) 21:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hate you? Don't you think that's a bit of a leap? I just want you to quit vandalizing. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!-- MONGO 06:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

funny you should say that wikipedia is not for soap boxing, political statements, and so on. Because generally, i see that all over wikipedia. So really someone is dropping the ball when it comes to playing by the rules. However, i was not grandstanding as in both casses ( liberals, and Sean Hannity talk page) i was mearly making suggestions on what should be ibcluded in the article. One was a comment about what should be icluded about liberals. and the other was discrediting the user 76.107.20.98 on his claim that the Sean was biased, and i assume he wanted the article to reflect that. Though he did not say he wanted the article to reflect that. My posts did mention the article and my post said it was completley fine. Now here is the other thing. It is funny that wikipedia (notoriously liberal) is threatening to ban me for my writings...because when you go to the Sean hannity talk page. and i am sure that you will. you will notice that 1. the user 76.107.20.98 comments are still present (maybe because they are liberal comments) and 2. another user, Alex1996Ne has posted comments similar to mine. I do hopew you will deal with them as swiftly as you have me. As i do not want to be a target simply because of my name. Good day.-- ReaganConservative ( talk) 22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC) So let me get this right. youy have to have 4 people comming after me to tell me stop when i am presenting a VALID ARGUMENT for my side. yet you let the liberal bias remain at Sean Hannitys talk page. It is at the bottom of the page if you are truly neutral you will discover it. Moreover, the word i used is clearly defined as word by wikipedia. Moreover. you said avoid personal attacks . PLEASE TELL EM WHO I ATTACKED AND PROVIDE SOURCES or i will report you to the arbitration committee. Moreover. the user on Hannity's webpage called sean a Murderer, pimp, and chickenhawk. Please tell me thoise arent personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaganConservative ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

thanks i didnt intend for the comment to go on the user page. My error with clicking the tabs.-- ReaganConservative ( talk) 23:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

By the way, the only reason I didn't immediately block you, and the reason I let your trolling go on as long as it did, was that I neglected to look at your first edit. My mistake. Next time I'll be more thorough. If you ever choose to return to Wikipedia, please consider contributing in a constructive manner. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, Antandrus, if you remember, I asked you about two potential articles (one was on The Wildlife Experience; I've forgotten what the other one was for) a few weeks back. Now I want to ask you if this TV/Film writer/producer/director (In the title for this section) is notable enough to be included in an article. I have researched on him, and found at least three sites which contained good and seemingly official information; some of these sites might even be able to serve as references. Admittedly, though, one of them is the Internet Movie Database... [10], [11], [12]. What do you think? Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 07:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Brief answer: yes. Don't forget to cite the New York Times (it was the fourth or fifth Google hit on his name). If he was chief animator on all the things they mention, he's clearly notable enough for an article here, -- IMO. Cheers, and have fun writing! Antandrus (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Antandrus. I was referred to you by Mindspillage, who I actually know personally, having attended the same school with her some years back. I'm a musician as well and am very impressed by all the work you've done here! I'm not a particularly active Wikipedian but I enjoy doing some work on here when I have time. Random Pipings ( talk) 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Random Pipings reply

Greetings! Yes, she mentioned you in a recent e-mail exchange. Welcome to the project! I noticed you a while back working on Heinrich Scheidemann; we can really use someone knowledgeable in this area (for example, the 17th-century German organists and repertoire could be better covered). Good to see you here!  :) Antandrus (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you, and also thanks for the suggestion. I'll make any contributions I can; I know quite a bit about early organ music, and the only challenge is finding the time to sit down, dig out the sources, and create properly researched and cited articles. As soon as I can acquire some better recording equipment, I also plan to start making lots more recordings and putting them on here. Random Pipings ( talk) 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Random Pipings reply

I saw you recently blocked an account indefinitely as being used only for vandalism. If you want far more flagrant example, see User talk:151.198.170.29. This address has gotten away with murder for a LONG time (multiple actions and warnings since March 2006), simply because somebody's afraid it's a school. But it shows no signs of being a dynamic IP, or having ever done anything other than vandalize, over its long history of edits. I've discussed this with User:Sam Korn on my talk page, but he's unwilling to extend his block longer than 72 hours. Out of respect for him and in all transparency, I'm suggesting you let his block run out, but might I request you keep an eye out and issue a much longer and perhaps indefinite block, for any vandalism after that? This isn't a case of somebody having a different opinion-- it's a single clear long-time unrepentant vandal-- in my mind the best reason there exists for an indefinite action. Please have a look at the IP's talk page and diffs and consider it, would you? I cannot find a single constructive edit for as long as it's existed. Thanks. S B H arris 02:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It appears to be one or more 10-year-old kids doing what kids do, again and again and again. Traceroute on it ends in Newark and I'm unable to get any more detailed information on exactly what the location is (a school is a reasonable supposition, since it vandalizes during weekdays of the school year). I will watch for continued vandalism after 72 hours and issue a six-month anon block if (when) it vandalizes again. I rather doubt that anyone will be doing high-quality writing as an anon at that IP. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks! S B H arris 03:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I mistyped WP:IAR and look where it got me. Anyways I like your essay. Perhaps the wiki will be much more peaceful when people practice this.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for promoting my essay. I look it up later to see if there are good reads there after work.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

For what it's worth, I believe Mrglass123 has exhausted his quota of three reverts for the day at " Chopin." Nihil novi ( talk) 03:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah. I know. Sigh. I can't block him since I'm involved; it would have to be done by an uninvolved admin; and I don't want to anyway since he's not been warned about 3RR, and I'm very light on the block button for anyone but obvious vandals and trolls. I was actually starting to get angry there. Maybe it's time to do something else for a bit. Oh, and thank you for your exceptional improvements to the article recently: that is something I appreciate and respect. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I had access to material I thought of interest, and I'm glad to contribute some text.

I'm enjoying your observations about life on Wikipedia. Nihil novi ( talk) 04:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh brother... This is the kind of thing that is putting me off contributing to Wikipedia. Presumably, by the same standards, Ravel should be a "Swiss-Basque" rather than a French composer. Of course, I've just seen the old talk pages for Sibelius where it's argued he wasn't Finnish. Plus, I remember when our article on him claimed that Berlioz was a "French Arpitan" composer. What the hell was that all about? Cheers. -- Folantin ( talk) 08:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah yes, and Tchaikovsky would be Ukrainian, and Copland Jewish, and Dowland Irish, and Beethoven Flemish (and did I forget African?), and ... but you know. The Ravel example is a good one, and I'd forgotten (painfully) about the Sibelius case. It's just all so ridiculous. No one is more Polish than Chopin. I wrote Number 47 for this case -- and have you noticed how the ones making the loudest accusations of "nationalism" are actually, err, ... well, I said it in no. 47. Appreciate your help. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

"and have you noticed how the ones making the loudest accusations of 'nationalism' are actually, err, ..." Ha, ha, yes. Since I have some familiarity with Central and Eastern European articles, I also noticed the good old "travelling circus" arrive in town. You know, it's funny how German and Lithuanian editors spontaneously develop an interest in classical music as soon as a Polish composer's nationality is being debated. It's odd how foreign-language Wikipedias seem to be free from this kind of quarrel too (e.g. French Wikipedians are under the impression Chopin was Polish). -- Folantin ( talk) 18:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

That's an interesting observation. What is it which is peculiar to the culture of the English Wikipedia that allows the warm and moist conditions conducive to the development of nationalist fungus? I should make a list of all the weird cases I've combatted over the last four years: writing an article on Andrea Antico, which was promptly slapped by a (now banned) Italian nationalist (Antico was born in present-day Croatia -- can't mention that!); Haydn the Slovenian; Liszt the German; Chopin the German (maybe because his father was from Lorraine ... which, as you know, sometimes had Teutonic masters). I'd have more respect for these people if they did some good work, but for the most part they just show up to edit-war and insult, while the rest of us put in hundreds or thousands of hours building an encyclopedia. It's a good thing most of those nationalist nutjobs know nothing about the Renaissance: the thought of differentiating between "French" and "Burgundian" and "Flemish" and "Netherlandish" in the 15th and 16th centuries just makes me laugh. What was that delicious quotation from Einstein (Albert, not Alfred, who I've been quoting more recently) -- "nationalism is an infantile disease: it is the measles of mankind." Cheers.... Antandrus (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

(unindent)"What is it which is peculiar to the culture of the English Wikipedia that allows the warm and moist conditions conducive to the development of nationalist fungus?" I've thought about this and most of my explanations hinge round English being the world's most popular second language: (a) English Wikipedia is seen as the most prestigious, most widely read, most international of the WPs and it's important for the POV-pusher to get his point across to the widest audience possible; (b) English Wikipedia is ideal neutral ground for hosting "away matches" between rival groups who might not speak mutually intelligible languages but have English in common; (c) we end up with all the world's trolls who have been banned on their own native versions of WP but are addicted to the "Wiki-experience" so they turn up here to try out their (usually completely inadequate) knowledge of English.

"I'd have more respect for these people if they did some good work...". Sure. Plus, we need our nationalists to be like Tomáš Masaryk, who, though a passionate Czech patriot, was also a highly dispassionate scholar. As his Wikipedia entry says: "Masaryk challenged the validity of the epic poems Rukopisy královedvorský a zelenohorský, supposedly dating from the early Middle Ages, and providing a false nationalistic basis of Czech chauvinism to which he was continuously opposed". Unfortunately, we have all too few Masaryks and all too many Zhirinovskys.

"It's a good thing most of those nationalist nutjobs know nothing about the Renaissance..." Yes, one of the most important things we should consider when judging a subject's nationality is how much it meant to them. Chopin was very keen on being a Pole, Liszt on being a Hungarian and Sibelius on being a Finn. In other historical periods, nationality meant rather less and other things (such as religious affiliation) meant rather more. We get people who seem keen on issuing retrospective passports. Hypothetical example: how useful would it be to describe Saint Augustine as an "Algerian"? -- Folantin ( talk) 08:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

PS I think I've traced the source of our French nationalist outbreak to this site by a law lecturer from Lille claiming that Chopin was 100% French [13]. That's another thing I love about Wikipedia - the endless legal hairsplitting! -- Folantin ( talk) 11:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Very interesting indeed! Now if only the Burgundians would take Lille back during one of his lectures.

It absolutely astonishes me how many people come to Wikipedia and do nothing but get into little nationalist pissing contests. At least he doesn't know about that French sixth chord in the C minor prelude. It would be the end of us all. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Amen. Nihil novi ( talk) 04:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Lille? You mean Rijsel...But enough. See you at the next talk page fracas where some SPA insists Sibelius was Russian because he must have had a Russian passport for half his life. -- Folantin ( talk) 09:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Gah! It's annoying me so much I'm taking it off my watchlist for the time being. "Please also note that the author of one of those books (Kornel Michałowski) uses the name 'Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin' in what looks like an online english encyclopedia, how is it even considered a reliable source to solve this 'debate' is beyond me", where "what looks like an english online encyclopedia" means New Grove. How is that even considered a reliable source? It's obviously the work of rabid Polish nationalists. Oh, and the name "Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin" just happens to be the one he was baptised with. And there was no difference between Chopin writing polonaises and mazurkas and writing waltzes, because a Polish composer writing the former had absolutely no political implications in the early 19th century. Plus, apparently Chopin and his father corresponded in French. News to me. The deep knowledge and love of the composer shines through every statement. Still, at least it's a useful reminder that while we may argue over Chopin, Chauvin was definitely 100% French. Cheers! -- Folantin ( talk) 11:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL, also I took it off my watchlist yesterday because it was giving me gas. Figured I'd check back in a day or two. Your comment about Chauvin really did make me laugh out loud -- that's so true. Oh well, I'm sure I'm a rabid Polish nationalist myself, seeing as I've written probably a hundred articles about French or French-speaking composers (oh-oh on that last category ... trouble if any law professors from Lille ever have a look). Oh, hey, wouldn't Debussy be an English composer? Wasn't Edward VII still "King of England and France"? Oh we can have so much fun with this. And of course I write this all while sitting on land stolen from the Chumash by the Spanish, later Mexico, which was stolen fair and square in 1848 by the United States. So it goes ... Antandrus (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

(unindent)"seeing as I've written probably a hundred articles about French or French-speaking composers"...Same here, more or less. I don't know about hundreds of articles, but I've probably written more about French music than another topic and French opera is possibly my best article. On the other hand, Polish opera is possibly one of my worst (a lot of it, from Moniuszko onwards, needs thoroughly revising). I also know some Polish as well as French. Maybe I should beat myself up. "Wouldn't Debussy be an English composer"? Arguably, although if I were a real stirrer I'd be pressing the claims of Henry VI to be included as King of France in our List of French monarchs. I bet possession being nine-tenths of the law is ignored in Lille when that subject is brought up! I don't whose stolen land I'm sitting on in "perfide Albion". The only British tribes I can remember are the Iceni and the Brigantes. Probably some of their cousins. No matter, they aren't having it back - bwa ha ha!! -- Folantin ( talk) 15:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello Antandrus,

I believe that the article is indeed a hoax. The person who wrote the article chose a bad time and a bad place for their imaginary composer :) French keyboard music of the latter half of the 16th century is almost completely unknown, there's literally less than a dozen pieces (a 12-bar fragment by Guillaume Costeley; possibly some of the pieces in Add. Ms. 29486 - short liturgical versets, all anonymous, and probably many from Flemish composers; and a few transcriptions of vocal works), and they're all well known; Titelouze's Hymnes of 1623 is the first "new" keyboard music after almost a century of silence. Costeley is covered in NG, as is Simon Gorlier (whose 1560 keyboard music collection is lost); if there were any more keyboard composers of the era, they would definitely be mentioned at least in some major source (Grove, Apel,..). And of course all your arguments are valid: tonality was not yet established so no keys are possible, and the word "toccata" was never used in France (unmeasured preludes for keyboard, which were inspired by Froberger's work, were invented by Louis Couperin in mid-17th century).

I'd give it the benefit of a doubt if that Vanlac book was a recent one - after all, new discoveries in the field of pre-1700 music happen very frequently these days - but 1957? Hoax through and through. Jashiin ( talk) 09:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Brilliant! One of the fierest wiki-careers I've ever seen - just a pity it's also one of the briefest. He's gone. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you have participated in Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates in the past. There are now two candidates and the project appears to be abandoned. If you could look at the candidates and vote it would be appreciated. Zginder ^{( talk) ( Contrib)} 18:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello. Before i start, i just want to tell you that i am an editor on Wikipedia, I am in fact someone that has posted onto your user page, and you have posted on mine. So we know each other and i have some respect for you so im goig to let you in on a little secret. My plane is to become an admin on Wikipedia. Then i will use my various sockpuppet accounts (and create more) to vandalize articles; particularly those with historical and political significance. Those articles will then have an editing hold placed on them and then I as an admin will be able to reedit these articles to comply with my world view and/or just generally give people false information. Thats pretty much it, my goal is to make this website as closed off as possible to the general public so that a select few (namely me of course) can have free reign with information. I'll probably post on your user page using my real account sometime this week. Thanks for your time. take it easy.-- 69.213.251.77 ( talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Talking of ethnic chauvinists, I thought I'd seen everything but this afternoon I noticed this [14] on one of the articles I've edited. I've never seen such blatant cheek - the guy had the nerve to rewrite a direct quotation from a scholarly source I provided in his own words while keeping the attribution! Here's a comparison of the versions which transform Nader Shah from Turkic to Iranian:

Original version. Reference: Michael Axworthy's biography of Nader, The Sword of Persia (I.B. Tauris, 2006), p.17-19: "His father was of lowly but respectable status, a herdsman of the Afshar tribe ... The Qereqlu Afshars to whom Nader's father belonged were a semi-nomadic Turcoman tribe settled in Khorasan in north-eastern Persia ... The tribes of Khorasan were for the most part ethnically distinct from the Persian-speaking population, speaking Turkic or Kurdish languages. Nader's mother tongue was a dialect of the language group spoken by the Turkic tribes of Iran and Central Asia, and he would have quickly learned Persian, the language of high culture and the cities as he grew older. But the Turkic language was always his preferred everyday speech, unless he was dealing with someone who knew only Persian."

New improved, forged version. Reference: Michael Axworthy's biography of Nader, The Sword of Persia (I.B. Tauris, 2006), p.17-19: "His father was of lowly but respectable status, a herdsman of the Afshar tribe ... The Qizilbash Afshars to whom Nader's father belonged were a semi-nomadic tribe in north-eastern Persia ... The Afshar tribe was, for the most part, ethnically distinct from the Turkic Qizilbash tribes. Nader's mother tongue was Persian, the language of high culture and the cities as he grew older. But the Turkic language was generally used in his everyday speech, unless he was dealing with someone who knew only Persian." -- Folantin ( talk) 18:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I predict that one's Wiki career shall be of few days, and full of trouble; indeed, he shall flee like a shadow, and continue not. A block for falsification may do the "job" if he persists. Antandrus (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

He/she's at it again. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 02:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Template:Graphical timeline for 20th century classical composers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 05:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Fine, it's worthless anyway since the selection of composers is just someone's opinion. We made that stuff in 2004 when it seemed like a cool thing to do. Congratulations though on being the first person, in four years on the project, to warn me that something I created was being speedy deleted. I found that wryly amusing.  :) Antandrus (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

If it's from 2004, then it's part of ancient Wikipedian history! It should be archived, not deleted. Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 08:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah too bad. I find graphical timelines quite interesting, and updateable "graphics" such as these are among the coolest features of the Wiki-software. I wonder if the Wikiproject Contemporary Music would like to find a guideline to "deopinion" at least some part of this list. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yup ... I went ahead and pulled it out of the fish tank. It's drying off. Maybe we can find somewhere to put it ... or even better, some way to source the selection of names. But sometimes I think (warning: I'm about to commit heresy) we go just a little overboard in not allowing editors to select lists of "significant" figures for this or that. Antandrus (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I am doing a project on Wikipedia for my English class at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. My project is to elaborate on your Carrizo Plains article. I noticed that you had improved on some of my work and I thank you for that. My partner and I will be done on friday so we should have all of our information up by then. If you don't like anything that we put up or if you have suggestions on how to improve it, please let me know. TheOsty ( talk) 20:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Antandrus

I corresponded with you briefly last Spring, the first time that I incorporated the production of Wikipedia articles in a college English class on argumentation and research. You were both helpful and encouraging at the time, but I didnt follow up on the correspondance because of competing time demands. The outcome of the class exercise was mixed, but several articles remained and one received an A from the Wikipedia community--Nipomo Guadalupe Dunes. I added my own article on "Focus the Nation" as a trial run, and after being challenged for notability, it was accepted and has since been updated and responded to by several notables, including the central organizer, Eban Goodstein, and one of the editors of RealClimate.org, a genuine climate scientist!

It so happens you popped in one on of my student teams this quarter who are working on Carrizo Plain. Thanks for your encouragement to them and help with formatting. It's nice for them and for me to sense the presence of guardian out there. It typifies the blend of anonymity and collaboration that for me makes Wikipedia unique.

I wonder if I could ask for more help in navigating the maze of adding pictures. I have studied the "upload images" page but I'm having trouble understanding the easiest route to get permissions from individuals and especially from institutions like Cal Poly or a Cal Poly department to add images from their websites to a wikipedia page.

All the best,

Rudolph2007 ( talk) 00:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the welcome and the advice.

On images, I'll share your advice to forgo using images that are not contributed or donated by copyright holder.

If I want to use my own image or one I have secured unlimited freedom to use, can you direct me to a simple instruction on how to supply the permission?

Can I contribute my own images that already appear on a website I've created, through Cal Poly or on Flickr?

Another question: One pair of my students is working on an article about Swanton Pacific Ranch. This is a facility belonging to Cal Poly located in Santa Cruz county. It has a long history and they have sufficiently varying references to demonstrate notability and verifiability. However whenever they try to create the entry, it disappears without a trace, and one is automatically referred to the Cal Poly entry which makes a single mention of it. They have tried creating an entry for "Swanton Pacific Ranch" and for "Swanton Ranch." Both are vaporized. Any suggestions.

Best,

Rudolph2007 ( talk) 14:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll answer you on your talk page, a bit later ... perhaps when I'm home from work. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For the most perceptive contribution to defence of the wiki in a long time. Guy ( Help!) 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Appreciate that. Project space is fine ... when I wrote it I wasn't sure. There's just so much stupid drama, and people take it so seriously. Like I probably would have if Wikipedia had existed when I was 20. Antandrus (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I just read your Kafka reference. I feel drawn to disagreeing. If the revolution does evaporate, it certainly rains down again elsewhere. We're nomads, we always have been. Samsara ( FA •  FP) 15:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with Kafka himself, or my application of his quotation (which is either from his diaries or the letters to Milena or Felice -- can't remember). Anyway, it's an interesting discussion to have, but I went to your user page and discovered to my dismay that you have just left. Today, no less. I'm sorry to see that; you have some impressive contributions indeed. Wikipedia is just another flavour of the samsara which is all around, as I'm sure you know. In one of Kafka's very last diary entries he quotes from one of the Vedas, a passage on the joys and sorrows of human beings revolving on a wheel; neither any sorrow, nor any joy, lasts forever. Should you ever wish, I'd love for you to return. Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

This woman; is she notable enough for an article here?: [15]. Thanks! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 04:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, greetings! If she is the president of CBS Entertainment, and the first google hit is the article about her in the Washington Post, absolutely yes! Have fun writing! I'm surprised we don't have an article about her already. Antandrus (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! But what about this one?: [16]. Here are some more specific external links, derived from the Yahoo! search: [17] [18] [19]. I actually have strong doubts about this one, but I would appreciate your opinion greatly; sorry if you feel pestered by all this! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 06:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I think it's fine as long as it is verifiable, which the credits you have listed seem to be. Antandrus (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The guidance on Swanton Ranch entry and on images is extremely helpful. I've forwarded it to students.

Your providing support and protection is greatly appreciated.

Rudolph2007 ( talk) 17:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:FromFirstToLast-Aesthetic.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF ( talk) 21:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I didn't upload it. I reverted vandalism to it. There are at least a thousand cases of this in my "upload" history, so please make sure you leave the no-fair-use request for the original uploader. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply