Archive 27: Late February to late April 2008. Barnstar, nice stuff, thanks, trolling, abuse, thanks, questions, thanks, etc. Various.

		The Society Barnstar
		Sluzzelîn pins Antandrus with the Society Barnstar, for words of wisdom and astute observations on Wikipedian behavior. Whenever I believe to have noticed a new behavioral pattern, I find it already listed among the (currently) 62 items. And every time I scan the list, I think "exactly!" more often than once. "There's definitely no logic / But yet so irresistible" This is also an excuse for expressing my appreciation of your musical contributions, and just in general, for sticking around and being antandruscious. --- Sluzzelin talk 05:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! That's a new one; I don't think I've seen that particular star before ... may actually pin it on something.  :) Appreciate it! Antandrus (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Get a life ;) S B H arris 22:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL ... maybe I'm a secret role account for all the world's unemployed musicologists ... :) Antandrus (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Then get a cup. :))). Of course you understand I'm spoofing myself. You know the story of the middle-aged husband and wife who are drinking in a bar, and the man says to the woman, "Ethel, you see over there, way down at the end of the bar, that old couple, drinking? Well, that's you and me, ten years from now." The wife has a look, puts a hand on his arm: "Honey, that's a mirror." S B H arris 00:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Love that joke! Oh so true ... but more seriously, I think I stay at Wikipedia (and this may be true for others as well) because I keep learning new things, and there's so much more to do here; and the encyclopedia has lots of peaceful corners where you can do useful and fun work. I just can't get worked up about all the dramas and squabbles that seem to burn most people out. Oh well. I love tormenting my friends who are scientists with news from the "fringe" -- all stuff I learned right here on Wikipedia. Cheers... :) Antandrus (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the revert! J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

J.delanoy ^gabs _adds has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{ subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You're welcome! Let me know if he bothers you again. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry to bother you, but I don't know any administrators and you might be interested in this issue. I found you on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table dance page where I also followed the crumbs so-to-speak to a related problem. It appears that "Image:table Dance by David Shankbone.jpg" has become a bone of contention on three separate pages: Meatpacking District, Manhattan, Lower Manhattan, and Table dance. This gets a bit complicated because there has been a bit of an edit war going on all day and now some rather knowledgable IPs have become involved, coincidentally when one of the editors involved was warned for 3RR and 6RR(?) violations. I'm at a loss to figure out where exactly to report all this, as it fits more than one noticeboard criteria. Any advice would be helpful, or if you could take a moment to look into the matter yourself I would be very appreciative. Mstuczynski ( talk) 00:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It looks to me like one or more people harassing David Shankbone. This is one, obviously, and the other IP from Newark is the same person. Someone with nothing actually useful to contribute to the project is trying to disrupt us. Don't know if it is the same person as Mick; I'm inclined to assume good faith, even though he takes up edit warring the moment Mick reaches his third revert. You could file a checkuser, but if David feels like just letting it go -- the best way to deal with drama whores is to ignore them -- that would probably end the problem soonest. It could be worth a thread on ANI, but the only way to get a 3RR block would be to have a checkuser look at it. You want to know what I really think is going on? No. 45. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your help. I guess I will take your advice and leave it alone. Mstuczynski ( talk) 01:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

because I am stupid and fucked up =(...

• i was trying to move it to the original language titles named.

p.s. would you check out my new article Screaming?Cholga ^talK! 04:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Skrit, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Skrit is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo ( CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Skrit, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot ( talk) 07:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

For the information of any other visitors to this page, I don't create ridiculous redirects. "Skrit" only existed as an artifact of a mistaken page move I reverted. Antandrus (talk) 14:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

On 1 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Midway-Sunset Oil Field, 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.

-- BorgQueen ( talk) 06:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, thank you! Haven't been out there yet to take a picture, but that's on the way ... Antandrus (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the sober input. More help is needed though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galassi ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I noticed your watchlist subpage has a bunch of red links, are these articles your planning on making?-- Pewwer42  Talk  04:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

i was archiving my user pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.6.122 ( talk) 14:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually you're not. You have replaced the messages on 6 Usertalk pages with "i was a real screwball back then", and the history of your IP talkpage indicates that your talkpage is edited only by User:Antandrus. E Wing ( talk) 14:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Who the hell said you could butt in on this conversation? If you must know, all of those users are me. 172.191.6.122 ( talk) 05:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Even though you blocked User:I.want.to.tellyou with the autoblock, shouldn't Tom.mevlie [1] also be blocked to prevent editing from another location? MBisanz ^talk 06:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, his block should be expiring about now. I didn't block him directly last night, -- giving him a chance to behave on his autoblock expiration. Might not work, but since he has made several hundred good, non-trolling edits, I prefer to cut him a little slack. Others aren't so lenient. If he causes more trouble we can always block him ... these are borderline cases. Sometimes users who briefly do something mischievous and destructive end up being decent editors. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

On 4 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Industrial wastewater treatment, 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.

-- BorgQueen ( talk) 11:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually Velela wrote the IWT article; my DYK was the Kern River Oil Field, but thanks! I didn't even notice that someone noticed, which was nice! :) Antandrus (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Antandrus

Just to reassure you, this is the last time I'll be doing this exercise with students, so helping out wont condemn you to further appeals from me.

This quarter's student work is coming to completion, and I wonder if you'd consider giving a critique, a grade or suggestions of links to some larger Wikipedia projects for the ones that to me appear most "notable." The first is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_jose_flea_market

Thanks,

Rudolph2007 ( talk) 17:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Great. Carrizo Plain isnt ready yet. They havent addressed my most recent comments. Rudolph2007 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm glad to see you blocked the "... or something unpleasant will happen to you" editor. That dude is disturbing. I was going to try to get him blocked even though he hadn't been warned 3 times - but I figured WP:AIV would refuse. Is there a mechanism for immediate blocking for editors like this? -- JaGa ( talk) 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately (as I figured out after I blocked him, and looked at the history of the page he was vandalizing) he's hopping IPs with each edit. They're probably open proxies -- 85. is in Europe, 68. in the U.S., for example -- so blocking each one as a preventive measure won't work. Only page protection, which another admin took care of, really works in this case. AIV would help if no one else is noticing; we get this type of trolling pretty often, and the more people who help out the better. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the cleanup! :) – Clockwork Soul 17:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, greetings! Haven't seen you around for a while (years??) You're welcome, of course! -- And yea, though the Vandal did try, yet he was block'd: indeed, though he persisted, his Time drew nigh, and he was block'd, and it was good. Antandrus (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey PFHLai! just dropping by to say thank you for nominating for DYK some of the articles I've been writing recently on giant California oil fields -- I really thought no one would notice, and it's kind of nice ... no, I take that back, it's really nice. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, Antandrus, you are welcome. Your good work on those California oil fields deserved the spotlight on MainPage. Thank you for your contributions. Happy editing. Cheers! -- PFHLai ( talk) 23:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to say thanks for the reverts on the userpage. It's taken me a while to notice you did them! BigHairRef | Talk 01:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome; always happy to help. Amazing that some people have nothing better to do with their time than scribble misspelled insults on people's user pages. That particular vandal actually issued me a death threat: LOL. Antandrus (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

On 9 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elk Hills Oil Field, 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! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Glad to help - keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

On 10 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article South Belridge Oil Field, 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.

-- Gatoclass ( talk) 08:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I must have missed it overnight but thanks--appreciate it! Antandrus (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the reverting vandalism in my user page. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 13:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome -- always happy to help versus userpage vandals. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Can you please explain why you continue reverting my clean up efforts to my OWN talk page? My ban has been lifted, I'd like to remove all of the little messages people love to send if they judge an edit to be vandalism.

Let me edit my own talk page, thanks.

BTW, the edits that caused my ban were honest efforts to find pictures for templates that more accurately reflected the subject under discussion. 98.210.190.11 ( talk) 21:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

This is vandalism. We like to assume good faith, but we're not stupid. I protected your page from trolling since I thought Friday had blocked you; I now see that I misread the block summary: the block was a week ago. My apologies for the oversight. Since you are not currently blocked, I will lift the protection on your page, but please do not either vandalise or troll any more. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for lifting the block. If you choose to define that as vandalism, that's your call. I'll grant that it may be _unencyclopedic_, but as for giving somebody unacquainted with the topic an image most related to the issue at hand, the Dumb and Dumber cover is really in a class by itself. Since it only seems to lead to blocking, guess I'll have to find some other way to contribute. 98.210.190.11 ( talk) 22:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

It's funny, at least to those of us who find the idea of "intelligent design" to be a little bit stupid, but it's quite offensive to those who don't--that's the problem. Please see the WP:NPOV policy. Have you looked at Uncyclopedia? It would definitely be the kind of thing that would go over well there. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I am somewhat confused by your actions concerning this user's talk page. First of all, if you intended to prevent him from editing his own talk page, semiprotection would have sufficed, and full protection has the wonderful side benefit of preventing anyone but admins from warning him should he go on another vandalism spree. Second, I am aware of no policy prohibiting the removal of warnings from one's own talk page; on the contrary I'd been under the impression that there wasn't even consensus that this is a bad thing. I would appreciate it if you would clear this up for me.-- Dycedarg ж 21:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll lift the protection since he's not blocked after all: please see my response to him above. On "removal of warnings" -- that depends. It's ok to remove warnings in general, but when it's a vandal replacing them with trolling comments we routinely revert those kinds of changes. Whether or not it is specifically stated that way in policy, that's the standard practice. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok, that makes more sense. Your actions rather annoyed me at the time because even if his comments were trolling (which I'm not sure I would agree on, but then I tend to be somewhat more lenient when it comes to what I'll call trolling or not) fully protecting his talk page as a response before even warning him seemed kind of extreme, even bitish. In the context of thinking he was already blocked it makes much more sense.-- Dycedarg ж 22:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, sorry, I misread the block log--thought March 3 was today. I tend to do RC patrol at 100 miles an hour. That's probably the first time in four years I've protected the talk page of an unblocked user. Anyway he's free to edit it now. Antandrus (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

It's a dilemma - see my answer on the project. My intention was first to draw attention to the box and then go further if there was strong support, however I've never done a template deletion and I'm not sure of the pitfalls. Best, -- Kleinzach ( talk) 02:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

My revert was a mistake, sorry. scetoaux ^{( talk) ( My contributions.)} 20:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem, I laughed so loud the people in the next office heard me! All in a day's work here... :) Antandrus (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for reverting the vandalism to my userpage!

Lyoko is Cool ( talk) has hugged you! Hugs promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better (and hopefully wasn't meant as an invasion of personal space). Spread the WikiLove by hugging at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Lyoko is Cool ( talk) 18:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Hug others by adding {{ subst:Hug}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You're welcome! always happy to help; I want Wikipedia to be a kind and friendly place. Antandrus (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

On 14 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coalinga Oil Field, 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.

-- BorgQueen ( talk) 14:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, thanks!  :) Antandrus (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm warmed to see your name popping up on my watchlist once more. :) Coming back from my break after a couple months really did me some good. You are ever dependable, and I look forward to seeing you around more! Cheers mate. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

[2], much appreciated. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome -- happy to help of course! :) Antandrus (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey - I Edit conflicted with you as I was blocking an IP as an open proxy. I ended up undoing your 24 hour block and re-applying a 1 year block per {{ blocked proxy}}. Wanted to let you know, as the original blocking admin. The IP was 84.180.51.232‎ ( talk · contribs). Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Yes, I was just noticing that particular vandal was using Tor. Antandrus (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm wondering how you (as a founder) see Contemporary music in relation to the other (classical) music projects?

When I first saw the project I thought it was a great idea. I thought the project would concentrate expertise and the other projects could effectively defer to the project for all recent works, for example 21st century opera could be left to Contemp music, just as we leave Wagner to the Wagner Proj. and G&S to the G&S.

However I've now noticed that the project is bannering almost all classical music from the 19th century onwards: for example Edward Elgar and Gabriel Fauré who could not, by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as contemporary. I'm concerned that if the project has such a wide remit, it will be competing, rather than complementary to other projects. Best. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 02:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I actually haven't been very active there recently. At the moment you left this message I was taking a hard look at the madrigal (music) article, trying to figure out what to do with it next. There are several active editors on contemporary music, while on early music I feel I'm one of the solitary survivors.

Obviously Elgar and Fauré are not "contemporary". We probably need to establish some "boundaries", and since we are talking about Wikiprojects, not encyclopedic content ("No! Schubert was Classical not Romantic! and I'll edit war with you until I get my way!!") that really shouldn't be all that hard to do. Richard Strauss no; Alban Berg yes; Korngold no; Ives yes. Do it stylistically and don't be afraid to be subjective and even arbitrary, would be my suggestion.

How helpful do you think Wikiprojects are, overall? Looking around, I think the opera project is obviously a good thing; the biography project I think should be taken out in the street and publicly caned; the composers project is of medium utility; and then there are whole areas that seem not to be covered. For a while I considered starting a Wikiproject on early music, but never did -- it seemed no one would really care, and I'm no enthusiast for making things consistent for consistency's sake. Antandrus (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd prefer to see 1945 as the boundary - to be absolutely clear, avoid any misunderstandings and concentrate attention where it is needed and will be appreciated. But I don't know how to start a discussion about when I can see so much effort going into structuring something that might have been called Post-Wagnerian Music. (But maybe I'll try anyway!)

I like WikiProjects because they motivate and offer some help to otherwise beleaguered specialist editors. It seems the better the definition, the better the project - hence the success of Opera, but also my concern about Contemporary Music. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 03:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I've put my view on the project page. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 04:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Happy St. Patrick's Day! Everybody's Irish on the 17th! Have a good one, mate. I've even brought you some Guinness! ;)                               —  $PЯINGrαgђ

Why, thank you! Half from a chilled tap, and half room temperature, I hope.  :) (From Ulysses: "I was so thirsty it hit the pit o'my stomach with a click.") See the green fields at the top of the page? It's not exactly Ireland, but it's nice and green here ... Antandrus (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi,

Ah! Ow! Don't be talking! I was blue mouldy for the want of that pint.

See Subject, and thanks.

Best wishes, -- Shlishke ( talk) 13:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

[3]. You sure seem to be my little wiki-angle recently, reverting stuff from my talk page faster than I can, and it seems like even more times than I have :P Tiptoety ^talk 03:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem ... can't quite figure that one out; right on the borderline between blockable troll and single-purpose-account that hasn't figured out yet we're not another battle board like Usenet or Yahoo. I'll probably give him a chance to read WP:NOT. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I suspect he is a sock of some account (just by looking over his contribs) but he does not seem to be too disruptive yet. Probably better to let him flush himself out. Tiptoety ^talk 03:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

He's this one; quite obvious by the editing interests. Ever notice how some people automatically become bullies when they get on the internet? And they cannot give up using abusive language even if it costs them their editing privileges? I see this again and again: someone behaves abusively, calls people names, and just cannot recognize either that it was the wrong thing to do, or that a place can exist on the internet that would not tolerate such behavior. Ah, for endless patience ... :) Antandrus (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Digging them out: here's another. Antandrus (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Joy. Thoroughly nasty person, including death threats. Look under a log, don't expect to find diamonds. Oh well, have to go do something else for a while. Antandrus (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hmm.... will keep an eye on that. Thanks for all your help, Tiptoety ^talk 05:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

A belated thanks for the kind words on the essay. I've long enjoyed your list of "observations" and have occasionally quoted them to others. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 03:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome, and as I say -- keep writing. You write good stuff. Need more like you. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

On 21 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cymric Oil Field, 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.

-- Maxim _(talk) 12:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I didn't revert your edit, actually I reverted this [4], where the reference to Holy Roman Empire and the Austrian composer is misleading. It is a complex form of vandalism. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ^≈talk≈ 15:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Just a note, that user has been warned for his disruptive behavior related to the topics of the eastern and central Europe, specifically about Czech Republic and Poland, see this [5]. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ^≈talk≈ 18:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Tulkolathen blindly reverts my edits with "rvv", accusing me of multiple vandalism.--  Matthead   Discuß   19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

OK ... now I do not know the history of conflict between you guys, but I do know something about composers, music history, and reliable sources regarding both. Can I help? Would you like a third opinion about anything? Antandrus (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I would like to know if those reverts are correct: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] I stand for it is a vandalism. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ^≈talk≈ 20:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Also edits like this [12]. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ^≈talk≈ 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, please note that Tulkolahten mentions you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement [13]. --  Matthead   Discuß   21:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Now I'm not sure if I should answer this here or at the Arb board. I'll start here.

Admittedly I have not studied the history of the arbitration case, and maybe that's a good thing, because now I can approach this fresh. My initial impression is that both of you are editing in good faith, but you've become incensed and lost your tempers with each other, and are edit-warring, no longer with a sense of improving the articles but to prove a point, or to "win". I know what it's like to get angry at other editors, so believe me I understand. When you get angry, get up and do something else for a while. Remember the goal: to build encyclopedia articles where people can find readable, accurate information. In cases of 19th century nationality, -- and earlier -- this can be subtle stuff.

Fortunately this is a case where compromise is not only possible, it is desirable. I'll start with the first of the listed reverts above. Ludwig Minkus cannot be correctly classified as merely either "Austrian" or "Czech." The Grove article, by Edward Garden, states that he was a "Czech composer and violinist of Austrian birth." This is a very fine way indeed to define him: he's a native Czech, but born in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. (I think he was Czech-speaking but haven't been able to verify this bit yet.) He lived most of his life in Russia, and his musical style was entirely Germanic. People like this are best fitted in both Czech and Austrian categories. (Maybe the most famous example of all is Gustav Mahler: a German-speaking Ashkenazi Jew born in the present-day Czech Republic (Bohemia); he even complained that he had no nationality since he was a foreigner in one way or another everywhere he lived).

Neither of you are vandalising Wikipedia. My advice would be to share the offered cup of coffee, and compromise. Most of these people can be safely placed in multiple categories. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

HAPPY EASTER! ← Here are some eggs for you to find today…they're all right there! ← ;) On a less light-hearted and more serious note, please remember that "He is risen" isn't just a cliché; it's true. On a more light-hearted and less serious note, please have a wonderful Easter today with you and whoever you like. :)                     —$PЯINGεrαgђ

Thank you! Happy Easter to you too! Antandrus (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Just a note to thank you for your articles on Obrecht and de Monte. I read the de Monte article the other day and was so pleased to find such informative, referenced information. This evening I looked up Obrecht, with the same result, and, aha, the same editor is behind it. It's really appreciated: I look at such articles partly as background to my history editing and partly as a way of checking round for what to listen to (I've got my wonderful Obrecht disc of Ave Regina Celorum on at the moment and am thinking of getting hold of some more of the same).

While I am here, I wonder if I could pick your brains. Working on Catherine de' Medici's patronage of the arts, I couldn't pin down the composer of the Ballet Comique de la Reine. He is mentioned in books as the "Sieur de Beaulieu" (sometimes spelled differently). I read also that another composer called "Cajetan" may have been involved. Since Claude Le Jeune (I've nicked your picture of him!) also wrote for court ballets, the observer's view that this was the "most learned and excellent music that had ever been sung or heard" bears thinking about. In short, do you know anything about the composer(s) of this music (for all I know, I may have the name(s) wrong, and we have an article on the culprit(s) already)?

Anyway, thanks again. The work you are doing is highly valuable, and I will be reading many more of your articles, I expect. qp10qp ( talk) 02:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! appreciate that! Funny, I thought I wrote Fabrice Caietain, but it's a redlink on my to-do list. Back to work! It never ends. I tried to most of the composers of musique mesurée but missed a few. Superb work on the Medici patronage stuff! This is quite fine to see, and we've needed it for a while. Have a look at an article I wrote on a particular bit of Medici bombast (actually it's quite a nice piece), the Missa sopra Ecco sì beato giorno. This slightly predates the Catherine material you are adding, but it's closely related; Striggio wanted not only to impress his employers, but out-do every other composer in Europe!

The composer of the Ballet Comique de la Reine (or Balet comique de la Royne) was either Lambert de Beaulieu (adding to to-do list), or Girard de Beaulieu. Nineteenth-century musicologist Fétis attributed it to the former, but Mersenne himself suggested the latter. There may be several other hands in it as well, including Caietain and Jacques Salmon. The article in the New Grove on Lambert de Beaulieu covers some of this.

Good to meet someone else working in this area! There aren't a whole lot of us. I see you've met Wetman and Johnbod which is excellent. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply

What were the chances of THAT! No, Friendly gave no warning. Now I'll start saying it! Cheers!~ Dark Zorro 00:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sockpuppet attack!

Thought you should know so that you can prepare yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.173 ( talk) 11:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Amazing Anti-Vandal Work Especially all of those blocks you have done (yes i was snooping in your contribs)! Great Job! And truly, Happy Editing! Dark Zorro 14:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! appreciate it! Trolls and vandals are less impressed, but ... that's the breaks!  :) Antandrus (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, thanks very much for pointing that out. I'll move it. I wondered why there wasn't an add a new section on there. Thanks for the heads up. Canterbury Tail talk 18:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Why'd you remove that question? I've put it back for now, because this is a reference desk, and we can't censor questions out of fear. I realize that some of the users responding were not helpful, but you can remove individual replies rather than the whole topic. JesusChristIsHere ( talk) 22:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, Antandrus. If you ever get a chance, could you check something out for me (and for the encyclopedia, of course!)? I'm looking for the footnoted tempo marking in Ligeti's Continuum. Apparently the first sheet has prestissimo followed by an asterisk. I wish to know what the asterisk stands for, and whether there is any reference to Schumann in Continuum's tempo marking. (I only have a copy of the upper half of the first sheet, showing the asterisk, but not the explanation.) If you ever get around to it and feel like it. Best wishes. --- Sluzzelin talk 05:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sure, I'd be happy to -- since I don't have a score for this particular piece, it will have to wait until I get to the library next (I think they're closed today for spring break still). That should be easy to look up, presuming no one has their copy checked out. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Quoting your user page caption: "View from Gaviota Peak, southeast into Santa Barbara Channel; my house should be visible to the upper left, but it only takes up about a thousandth of a pixel."

I have a good magnifying glass. Which pixel is it please? Wanderer57 ( talk) 03:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Also, in your comment at User talk:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem‎, you mentioned a thread at WR. Please can you give the specifics? I went to WP:WR, found WikiReader (which was new to me), but could not find what you were referring to.

I much agree with your comment there, "fine and insightful". Thank you. Wanderer57 ( talk) 03:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

This one. Oh, and I'm stretching it a bit: since I can see the peak from my rooftop, I presume the reverse is the case. Using a little bit of geometry, and a good map, and I could probably give the pixel coordinates.  :) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I had never realized debating and complaining about Wikipedia was a small industry. Wanderer57 ( talk) 05:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

PS I see your house. A forest green color I believe. Very handsome.

And Happy Birthday! If I'd had more notice, I'd have had a cake sent up to the house. Wanderer57 ( talk) 01:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! appreciate that! It's fun being four again. In real life, each birthday is just another whack with the Big Hammer. The longer you stay around here, the more aware you become of the site's more serious issues ... but I ain't tired of writing yet. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

—  $PЯINGεrαgђ  02:00 4 April, 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I've known about that one for a while... I'm presuming he was borrowing the page layout (courtesy of Phaedriel, who I really do wish would return some day), but he lost interest and never finished. Oh, and I don't love to drink that much. Didn't even when I was 17. Funny stuff ... :) Antandrus (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I was just wondering, and saw your edit summary on your one edit to that page, and wondered what you might think after. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:18 4 April, 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, Antandrus/Archive27, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

— Malinaccier Public ( talk) 12:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! appreciate that ... fwiw this is the first internet community or project where I've been active that long (four years). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Happy First Edit Day, Antandrus, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! User:Antandrus ( talk) 06:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Idontknow 610 ^TM 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks! :) Antandrus (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello Antandrus, I've reverted this [14] with my statement please remain civil in reaction of this (Undid revision 202552119 by Tankred (talk) history falsification (anachronism) undone). User Gene Nygaard now blames me for being uncivil and says I am falsely accusing of incivility [15] and continues on the talk page [16]. I don't think I was uncivil when I asked other editor to remain civil when he accuses other editors from falsifying history. Thank you for your opinion. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ^≈talk≈ 14:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I'll try to help ... left a message on your talk page. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, thank you. No, I am not a native speaker, the problem is/was in the different meaning. As falsum is the Latin base for that word it is in many European languages. We have that word too but it's been developed to the very offensive form meaning you are a bloody liar and in the connection with the falsifying history it is much worse. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ^≈talk≈ 08:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

FYI - I put a little note about this at Talk:Ľudovít Štúr#Falsification. Wanderer57 ( talk) 17:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Good -- thanks -- appreciate your help there. These are really good test cases for how "assume good faith" actually works in practice. Antandrus (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank You for locking the page that the IP hopping vandal was messing with, was waiting until that would happen.

TOL ( talk) 02:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! Let me know if the problem returns, and I'll do it for longer... that particular vandal has been there before (look around Feb/Mar 2007 for examples) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Can you check my request to use NP Watcher - itll make my life easier patrolling the new pages. Thanks Fattyjwoods ^{( Push my button)} 03:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Likewise.  :) BTW, if you have time, I'd be interested in your thoughts on this? Also, are you familiar with the Working Group? Is it something that you might be interested in joining? -- El on ka 22:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings! ... interesting stuff there. First off all you've identified a real issue, -- since a lot of editors here are mainly interested in conflict and drama, making it easier to identify them should be a good idea. Your proposal deserves a thoughtful study, with somewhat greater concentration than I have at the moment. Things like "all administrators all automatically get green status" are going to be like bee stings to the thousands of people who came to Wikipedia because they have general issues with authority, and thought they found at last a place where everyone was equal: I fear that trying to get approval of such a proposal may be a Sisyphean labor. Don't burn yourself out! There's also the issue of people who do tremendous good work, and have built much of our best content, but who are just, well, assholes. They may never even have been blocked! Then there are those who have been blocked because they have a tendency to speak out, but yet do a lot of good work; then the people who do nothing but vandal patrol, tagging, miscellaneous cleanup, ... the variety of editors here is huge. Yet I know what you mean. Just last week I collided with one of these nationalist nuts who does nothing but leave incivil rants on talk pages, and edit-war over categories, tags, images; those people waste so much of our time. I let him have the last word. Let peace begin with me....

Regarding the working group: I was asked if I was interested in this a couple months ago, possibly by e-mail. In general, yes, and I'm always excited by a challenge, -- but I'll admit my selfish motivation in editing Wikipedia is that it is fun, and conflict resolution, being something I do in my day job, and something I'm reasonably good at, isn't all that much fun: I may be but a part-time participant. There will be actual peace and Kumbaya singing in Palestine before the edit wars stop over those articles. And especially since I've been feeling at the ignition point of burnout for a while now, I have to manage rather carefully what contentious areas I get myself into ... but one never knows: it may be satisfying. Sorry to equivocate so much, but I don't want to make promises I can't keep.

Keep up the good work! Antandrus (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Feel free to edit the proposal page directly. I agree with the issues that you raised, and that the definitions can be further strengthened. The tricky part is coming up with some quantifiable indicators which could be easily automated. I figured that "recent blocks" and "ArbCom restrictions" were pretty unambiguous. If you think that anything else is too open to gaming, feel free to tweak.  :) Also, regarding the Workgroup, I'll bring it up with the group that you're "kinda sorta" interested.  :) -- El on ka 04:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply

YOU KNOW THE SOURCE?

How do we know the image is Painting attributed to Titian c.1530? Wikipedia:Reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.214.44.134 ( talk • contribs)

Here's an article in the New York Times that mentions it. Note that the attribution to Titian is different here -- they say "circle of Titian", i.e. could be another painter associated with him and his style. Whether or not it is by Titian, the copyright status is the same -- public domain. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply

cant see image there. but they talk about Titian. How do we know the image is the same? Sorry bother you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.214.44.134 ( talk) 18:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Only because the description matches. I haven't found the actual source of the image yet. This is interesting: look carefully at the image; it appears to have been copied from the Venetian painting by a painter of lesser skill. This site attributes the painting to "Titian (circle of)"; this site has the same picture, but says it is a copy of an original by Titian (Tiziano). They don't say if the original is lost, or when the copy was made (16th century?) Antandrus (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply

good research. still incomplete :( . better remove the image for now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.214.44.134 ( talk) 20:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply

H there, Antandrus. I am going to try to write an article for Pony Island. I was wondering if you might be able to restore the deleted article to my userspace? Deleted article here. Thanks! Bstone ( talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks! Bstone ( talk) 20:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks very much or the encouragement on the Tchaikovsky article. I greatly appreciate it. Yesterday I removed the secton on "Musical Form" since it dealt mainly with the symphonies and not with T's music in general. (Maybe it will make a good separate article later—we'll see.) In its place I added a section on T's aesthetics, which seems to fit better with the article on the whole and as a follow-up to the section on Imperial Style and the now-much-truncated section on his musical style. It still seems rough but otherwise a good fit. Still, I'd really appreciate if you could look at it when you have some time. Thanks! Jonyungk ( talk) 17:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I must thank you for all the help you've given me whenever I was uncertain about a potential article's notability. But now I must also ask: Do you think that this lady is a notable subject: [17]? Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 01:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I think so, yes, looking at what you wrote, as well as the references. Do you happen to know if Camille Paglia has ever commented on her or her work? How about Andrea Dworkin (who also had extensive Boston connections)? Antandrus (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, I don't; it was among the Articles for Creation, of today's submissions. I just looked it over, and it seemed to have a lot of reliable third-party references, and she seems a notable person judged by the content, but I wanted to make sure. Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply

If you have some sort of idea why editing the " Roman Polanski" to include the title of rapist is disruptive or vandalism you should explain why instead of just unilaterally deciding that it is. You should cite more than just you think it is and explain specifically why you think that it is. There are many other Wikipedia articles that are very similar with respect to people who are known for many different things, one of which is some sort of criminal act or acts. These articles include titles like, rapist, criminal, pedophile, murderer, thief, organized crime boss and many others. Just look at the OJ Simpson article, it makes reference to accusations against him for murder in the first sentence. Where this title is seems to be at issue for some reason. Wikipdeia articles are usually vastly different in their writing style and sometimes titles are places in different places throughout the articles. Since there is no debate as to whether Roman Polanski is a rapist or not, and since it is the one thing major thing he is known for outside of his movie career should it not be included in the first sentence? Is there a specific guideline as to where in an article a specific title that someone has earned throughout their life should be placed? Should a person's most prominent title be their career, their ethnicity, place of origin, or some other adjective that describes a notable feature of their life? What specific guideline specifies this? Should it merely be what the person is best known for, because Roman Polanski is very well known for having raped a 13 year old girl and for being a movie director. Many people would say he is not known for his acting as he has few notable roles, or writing as he has written very little, but these titles appear in the first sentence of his article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.170.202 ( talk) 03:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply

"Unilateral"? It looks like everyone was reverting you. "Unilateral" would apply to you in this case.

I have a couple of suggestions, if you are interested in editing here. 1) Stop vandalising. It wastes our time, and by the way, completely discredits everything else you say. 2) Read our WP:BLP policy. 3) If you have a problem with the article, take it to the talk page and try to get consensus there: don't edit-war. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply

You, and no one else, have not explained why this one word is vandalism. It cetainly appiles to him, and you are now saying that people have to decide wheter it applies by some sort of vote? That is certainly not neutrality. On what basis is this word vanalism?

The WP:BLP states "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

There is no mention as to what specific titles should be or should not be applied. The title of rapist in no way violates this policy, is well documented, and appiles to him under these guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.170.202 ( talk) 04:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply

"This one word" -- are we referring to douchebag, as in the link I provided to the edit YOU made, or to something else? If you want to argue for putting "rapist" in the first line of the Polanski article, go to the talk page and make your case, but the word is inappropriate there, and numerous people, including me, will oppose you. That it is inappropriate should be obvious, since many people have reverted you. And I strongly suggest you don't argue your case here since no one else is listening. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I never wrote that Roman Polanski was a douchebag, and you have still made no valid arguement as to why Roman Polanski should not be given the title of rapist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.170.202 ( talk) 04:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Go to the talk page. As I told you, no one else is listening here. And don't vandalise any more, as you did by calling this person a douchebag. Vandalism wastes our time. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Please read what SqueakBox wrote on your talk page. He put it well, and said it better than I did. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply

[18] Do you think this is a notable article to create? BTW, I think I forgot to thank you for your advice on my last visit, so: Thank you very much! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 03:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi again! No problem at all; happy to help. There's not the slightest doubt on that one, in my opinion; he's in the Guardian, has wide exposure on BBC and other news organisations. If I were you I'd check to see why he isn't on our own Tory Reform Group page, if he's the chairman; but I'm no expert on UK politics. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply

One other thing: check to see if that's his accurate full name: zero Google hits on "Giles Peter Benedict Marshall". Giles Marshall, however, is easy to find. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much, and I'm glad it's not a problem. I know how aggravating it can be when you're in the middle of something, and someone starts asking you questions, so I like to excuse myself before asking. Thanks again!!! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 03:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Do you think any of these are notable enough to be made into articles? (If some are and others aren't, please point out which ones are notable by using numbers; there are five here in total. This will make it easier for me to identify which ones you mean. Thanks!) [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 04:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply

That's quite a diverse array! 1) the Holiday Man album -- probably; I'm no expert on popular music, but if the record company is significant, it's a good bet: 2) Tension Fabric Buildings -- yes, unquestionably, in my opinion; 3) Resident Evil 16 -- dunno; I'm sure it would pass notability threshold with most Wikipedians, but I don't really do the video game thing any more; 4) Positive assurance -- I sense that is a notable topic but I don't quite get it. Would it be better as a subsection on an article on audit procedure and results? Or are there other kinds of assurances which could be written simultaneously? That one throws me a bit (and as a corporate manager I think I would have heard of it, but haven't); 5) Romcc -- probably, if you can find some sources outside of mailing lists, and with over 63,000 google hits there's got to be some. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 06:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Antandrus,

Thank you for your fine article on Rachmaninoff.

I serve on the music faculty at Cedarville University in Ohio, and in the course of my duties I am obligated to investigate an allegation of plagiarism against a student. The student handed in a paper directly copied and pasted from the Rachmaninoff article on Wikipedia. The student claims to have written a significant portion of the Wikipedia article (hardly a credible claim) and to have met and communicated with you about the article in a chat room.

As preposterous as this sounds, it is my job to look into it.

May I ask you most respectfully to write to me at johnmortensen [AT] cedarville [DOT] edu and let me know if you have ever had a chat room conversation resembling that mentioned above?

Please feel free to search the Cedarville University website for my name, so that you can be reassured that I am who I claim to be.

By answering this question you will be helping my university uphold standards of academic honesty and scholarly integrity.

Most Sincerely,

John J. Mortensen, DMA Associate Professor of Piano Director of Keyboard Studies Cedarville University Cedarville, Ohio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.87.154 ( talk) 22:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Responded by e-mail as requested. Cheers -- and if you ever feel like editing, we'd love have you. Antandrus (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the move to Sunil Kumar Ahuja. I had actually been wondering about that as I made the article. will381796 ( talk) 14:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem -- thanks for writing it! Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I really want to take the subsection Virginals out of the Harpsichord article and make a new article for Virginal. You may see that the same has been done for Spinet leaving a small stub and a redirect in the Harpsichord article.

I think this is warranted by the number of refs. to Virginal (22564 to date, although admittedly some of these have nothing to do with the keyboard instrument!), and also the impossibility to add subsections of Virginal, such as Muselaar, to Category:Keyboard instruments, etc.

However I don't feel I should do this without consultation - and I'm afraid, since we've already had intercourse, and you're an admin, you're my first choice!

I'd be glad to hear from you on this subject, and even gladder if you gave me the go-ahead. Many thanks. Nick Michael ( talk) 15:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks Antandrus, all now done: see Virginals. I have also modified all the previous redirects and all references in other articles. Cheers and all the best, Nick

Hi again, Antandrus! What would you say about this person; is he notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? [24] Thanks in advance!!! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 01:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings! As a presenter on the BBC World Service (I wonder if I recognize his voice?) -- I'd say he easily passes the notability bar. More important, though, is the verifiability requirement, which you amply meet with the references. So once again, yes! Have fun, Antandrus (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks a ton! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 02:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

And what about this one [25]? Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 02:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hm, I'm less certain about that one. Now I admit I'm no expert in popular music so that I've never heard of any of these bands or labels is probably not in itself significant. Have you ever met User:TUF-KAT? He'd be a good one to ask, as he has a vast knowledge of different styles of music and knows how to research them. Tell him I sent you.  :) I'm a little skeptical about JS's notability though ... googling him, the name does not appear on high-profile music sites. Antandrus (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I'll do that!!! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 04:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings, esteemed Ant. Are you able to help out with a source that authoritatively tells us when Sax died, and puts to rest all the competing claims. I've raised the issue at Talk:Adolphe Sax#Date of death, so best to reply there if you have anything. Thanks. -- JackofOz ( talk) 11:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings! Answered on the Sax talk page. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I guess by now it's pretty predictable why I'm here; lol! But all the same, could you look this one over, and tell me if he's notable enough to be included? He has a lot of references cited, but with a historical figure, I'd still like a second opinion. There's another one in a moment; a modern one. I'll be right back with her. Thanks! [26] Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 17:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Here's the other one: [27]. BTW; he hasn't replied yet, but thanks again for directing me to TUF-Kat; of course, I'll ask him about her, as well, if you aren't certain. Thanks very much!!! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 17:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi again!  :) Qualchan absolutely yes: historic figure. Ana Sidel, I think so but not 100% sure. It's always a bad sign for me when Google hit #1 is the artist's own site, #2 is Myspace, and Youtube and CD Baby are right up there. (Any persistent self-promoter can accomplish exactly this.) But that doesn't mean she isn't a notable artist. Another person you could ask is User:Rockero, who not only seems to know Mexican-American issues extremely well, and also has an interest in contemporary popular music. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks!!! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 06:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply

) I don't know how you deal with all of the mess. Just when editing is becoming fun again, it just takes one person applying all the Wikipedia rules (except: "we're building an encyclopedia") literally to make one wonder why we bother writing in the first place. I'm sure you can guess which articles I'm referring to.  :) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Is it possibly related to an article ^{citation needed} I took off my watchlist ^{citation needed} last night, ^{citation needed} because it made me so angry ^{original research?} I wanted to smash something? ^{citation needed} ... :) Antandrus (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hehehe! Yeah, this is exactly what I was referring to! (Sorry not to reply -- I immediately needed a bit of a Wikibreak).

So for the first time, WP and professional research are overlapping. I'm writing a ten page introduction to music of the 14th century (French and Italian) for an edited volume of essays on the topic, and I'm getting to a section, "Manuscript sources of trecento music" and was just feeling a sense of Deja Vu: didn't I already write this. So I search my notes and find that what I'm really trying to say is exactly what I already added to your music of the trecento article. I think technically if I take the info from my add-to-wp.txt file and not from the WP article itself, I'm safe for reuse from GFDL (at least, that's what Citizendium's take on WP's GFDL is), but then I just figure, hmmm...if any reader thinks that I'm plagiarizing Wikipedia, it could take much more work to explain than it would to just re-paraphrase.

Hope you're well. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings! That's great news, getting to write ten pages on a fascinating subject, -- and not having the No Original Research Dictum of Damocles hanging over your head. (My current pet peeve on Wikipedia is "Original Research Fundamentalists" -- those people who insist on a citation that Beethoven's 5th is in C Minor, or that the sky is blue, or who shriek at you because you state a conclusion only inferred in the source.) I'm debating taking a Wikibreak myself, or at very least, permanently retiring from vandal- and troll-fighting. It's not fun any more, bots and college students do a better job of it, and it's a lot like having teenagers -- but with the bad aspects of having teenagers magnified, with none of the good parts.

Just got back from a great bushwhacking climb to the top of a 6600' mountain in the local backcountry. I'm sore and scratched and sunburnt and feel great. It's a good attitude adjustment to get off one's butt and do something outside.

Have fun with the essay! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

On 18 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lost Hills Oil Field, 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.

-- Cirt ( talk) 18:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I fixed the link (I wrote the Lost Hills article). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, I saw the image you created

and was wondering if you tell me what kind of software and data sources you used to create it. I know you said you used ArcGIS and publicly available data in the file comments, but I was hoping for some more detailed information so I know where to start. I don't really have the resources to buy any enterprise software, but I am an Engineering student and GIS interests me alot.

Greetings! answered on your talk page. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I think that's the first time my user page has been vandalized. Thanks for the quick reversion! nneonneo ^talk 01:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! Happy to help. I like this to be a friendly place where people defend each other. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello. You dropped by my talk page a while back and commented on some of my observations on my user page, so I wanted to let you know that an RfC has been filed on me. Please feel free to drop by and comment, if you're interested, one way or the other. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{( talk / cont)} 04:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Looks like a pointless drama and potentially enormous waste of time (see number 20). You've spoken well and articulately, and now can probably just ignore it. If I can think of something intelligent to say I'll drop by.

You know Emerson's quotation about hobgoblins, yes? I think he'd support you. I don't know about the bolding and italics – you're probably fighting an uphill battle – but I strongly agree that the "refimprove" kinds of tags belong at the bottoms of articles, not at the top, where I fiercely hate them, since they're disruptive for visitors while only being intended for editors, and until now I don't think I've encountered others with that point of view. Oh, and ^{citation needed} these ^{original research?} drive me crazy. ^{citation needed} They're grossly ^{weasel words} overused. ^{citation needed} Antandrus (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I have another potential article I'd appreciate your feedback on, *lol*! Do you think this corporation is notable enough for Wikipedia? It has a lot of references (which seem reliable) cited, and it has a section on its awards, but all the same I want to make sure. Thank you in advance!!! [28] Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 01:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, thumbs up on that one! They're a publicly traded company, listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange. Look, they're in Business Week too: [29]. Here's their Google Finance listing: [30] If anyone thinks that article doesn't belong I'll back you up. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply

That is so kind of you! Thank you very much!!! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 02:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC) And this one? [31] Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 03:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Interesting... that's the first time I've seen Islamicjerusalem as one word. I couldn't tell from their website if they're just an organization which puts together conferences and exists within the University of Aberdeen, or indeed if it is just one person. That they sell things on the front page of their website sets off my flashing yellow light, if you know what I mean. The conferences are real enough. Worthy of an article? Maybe. Can you find anything in mainstream media (BBC, Guardian, ...)? It looks like they take their charity money to fund the scholarship which is actually at the University of Aberdeen. So, hm, not sure. I wouldn't mind another opinion from a specialist in Islamic Studies. Antandrus (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your help; I'll be looking into that now. Thanks! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 03:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply

BTW, how's this one, for creation? [32] Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 23:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings again! Probably is, but check to make sure it's accurate, for this reason (previously being deleted as a hoax). Googling him he seems real enough. Have fun! Antandrus (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Forgot to say thanks! And this one? [33] Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 04:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I think so. He's a Grammy winner, as you can see by following the last link (had to type his name manually into the search box). Never heard of him, but I don't know much about popular music. Nice job on the articles for creation work! It's good to see someone taking this on. Antandrus (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply

On 26 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article San Ardo Oil Field, 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.

-- Gatoclass ( talk) 11:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! I appreciate your going through and selecting these. Antandrus (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I couldn't find any third-party sites on him, so I have my doubts. But he has received a lot of Emmy nominations, one of which was a win, so I thought there might be a possibility. Could you please look this one over for me [34]? Thanks! Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla ( talk) 02:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Looks real and verifiable. Nothing wrong with having just a short article giving only what can be sourced ... Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks a lot! And this one? [35] Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla ( talk) 02:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Googling I think there's enough sources for a short article on her too. Antandrus (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks again; now, do you think this novel is notable enough for an entry? [36] Thanks! Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla ( talk) 06:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, absolutely. We have an article on David L. Robbins and the novel is published by a major publishing house. Antandrus (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Antandrus, for reverting the vandalism to my user and talk pages. Much appreciated! Cheers, JNW ( talk) 03:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome -- happy to help. Antandrus (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Same business continuing. Your help would be appreciated. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 21:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Antandrus: The situation has been addressed. Thanks again. JNW ( talk) 22:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry I missed it; been a long day at work; but let me know if you need any help again. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, I wonder if you could spare a moment to glance over the above article, which I decided to throw up because I love my disc of this chap's music, which is gorgeous. In particular, could you check the ref to the CD booklet (I can't discover the correct way to format such a reference)? I've no idea about the musical technicalities and didn't try to summarise Caldwell's analyses, which were beyond me. But the article is better than nothing. Many thanks. qp10qp ( talk) 19:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Answered on your talk page; nice work indeed, and I'm glad that people like you are still here on Wikipedia, and writing. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply

thank you for your contribution to the Bartók text, I put a reply on the talk page of Bartók RobertKennesy ( talk) 09:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Answered there. May have been just a wording issue. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply

What is the tunneling project going to do? I thought is unlikely the fact that the I-710 will be extend from my display of desktop.Too many people is frustrate over I-710 north extensions due to concerns of airpollutions, and communities.-- Freewayguy ( talk) 02:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Answered on your talk ... personally I don't think it can happen in the current economic climate. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my user page. -- Aleen f1 03:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome--happy to help. Antandrus (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply