Archive 30: late 2008, beginning of January 2009.

Thanks for the kind words :) Gwen Gale ( talk) 08:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Drive-Thru Records logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 07:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, bot. I did not upload this image; I reverted vandalism to it. You need to inform the original uploader. That's the one with the earliest date. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, You told me that an unblock could be negotiated, providing that I would be willing to abide by the rules. The more that I read the ongoing edit war between Brews ohare and Fugal on centrifugal force, the more I realize that I never broke the rules to begin with and that there was a considerable amount of presumptuousness on the part of certain administrators that I was the one that was in the wrong. Anyway, you have got the power yourself to unblock my account. I am not subject to a community ban and I am not subject to any decision by the arbitration committee. I have already made it clear that in view of the particular sensitivities surrounding the centrifugal force article that I would not edit on that page until a consensus has been reached. I was not at all impressed by the kind of administrators that declined my perfectly reasonable unblock appeal and I don't intend to subject myself to that mechanism again. I am merely requesting that you unblock my account in order to demonstrate that there are actually some reasonable administrators in the system. You have my word for it that I will not let you down. If I do, then you can block me again and we will all know that it will be final. FDT 81.156.4.144 ( talk) 20:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Having looked through the history, and the several noticeboard threads about you, I agree that you are not subject to either a community ban or arbcom saction (there was no consensus on the community ban discussion on the noticeboard here). An admin (Mr.Z-man) indefinitely blocked you for evading a 3-month consensus block by using sockpuppets. I want community buy-in for any unblock, though, and you could get that pretty easily by posting on your talk page and taking Jayron's advice there ("leave a new unblock request where you can assure admins that you both understand why you were blocked, and where you can make assurances that you will stop the behaviors that led to you prior block, or will alter the way in which you operate within Wikipedia that will make it unlikely for you to find yourself in situations that led to the first block") -- it's good advice. From what I've seen, you know what you are talking about on subjects related to physics, but don't seem to get that you have any part in what happened to you -- it's all someone else's fault. Is that a fair characterisation? Antandrus (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, Thanks once again for your reply. I do know the reason why I was blocked. I was arguing against a consensus on two pages. I had done alot of research into centrifugal force and I saw a way of tidying up the article. But there was a group who ganged up against me and made sure that I didn't get a single edit to remain. The rights and wrongs of the issue can only be decided when an impartial expert examines the details of the arguments. Unfortunately for me, some administrators automatically assumed that I was wrong solely on the grounds that I was fighting a lone battle. They assumed that Brews was right. But now that Fugal is arguing against Brews, those administrators have been very quiet. The original basis for blocking me has gone. And besides that, I have made it clear that I don't want another edit war. I want an opportunity to use some persuasion on the talk pages. I will not be putting in another unblock request through the normal channels because it is more than clear that there is no end of administrators who are unfamiliar with the case history, and who not only ignore the rules and regulations regarding the purpose of blocks, but who also take great delight in homing in on irrelevencies. They know that no damage will be done. The block has served its purpose and their insistence on declining the unblock request is merely showing themselves up for what they are. Even my arch opponent PeR spoke up for me when Sandstein declined the unblock request. And Jayron must have known fine well that any so-called sockpuppetry was only for the purpose of communicating with Fugal. They need to get a sense of proportion. Let's examine a situation where you and I came head to head on Mozart. I do believe that you put in 'more than 600'. That was exactly what I was going to do to end the argument, but you did it first. Originally I noticed that it said 600. I knew that Kochel went to 626, but I also knew that Kochel is not accurate and that there is also K.Anhang. Nevertheless, I switched the 600 to 626. Somebody immediately switched it back to 600 again without discussing the matter. I switched it back to 626 again and pointed out that K goes up to 626. When the edit war on that issue escalated, I was just about to put in something like 'in excess of 600', but you beat me to it. As for the nationality issue, didn't Blehfu suggest to me that I put a special section in about it? And didn't I do just that and get blocked for 3 months. And Acroterion claimed that it was the straw that broke the camel's back in relation to the centrifugal force argument. Do you think that was a reasonable action bearing in mind that I had been trying to get Acroterion to examine why Itub and FyzixFigher kept reverting my edits on centrifugal force? The point seemed to be that Acroterion considered consensus to outweigh all other considerations and he seemed to get bitter against me when I argued that he should be looking into the rights and wrongs of the issues. The rules make it clear that consensus is not always the overriding issue. But that aside, it should be sufficient that I have said that I will ignore the Mozart page and that I will not have another edit war on the main centrifugal force page. If you can't unblock my account, then nobody can. FDT 86.148.36.227 ( talk) 20:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I have to admit that in my almost five years here, and almost four as an admin, that this has been the most difficult whether-or-not-to-unblock I've ever had to deal with. I'm persuaded of several things: 1) you genuinely want to help us build an encyclopedia, in good faith. A point. 2) You have trouble working in a collaborative environment, and see groups of editors who disagree with you as conspiring, rather than (as Occam's Razor might suggest) as possibly right. Minus one point. You're persistent in wanting to be unblocked "officially", rather than gaming the system, making sockpuppets in a sneaky way, pretending to be someone else -- I appreciate the honesty. A point. This may make may a very unpopular person here, -- but what is the worst that can happen? that we have to block you again? it's no big deal -- look at the bigger picture, in the misery in the world as everyone's retirement savings turn into smoke and ash, and wars continue worldwide, -- this isn't big stuff. I think you can be unblocked. I'm going to do it. One final note: I am not doing this "in order to demonstrate that there are actually some reasonable administrators in the system" -- I'm really not that venal -- I'm doing it because I sense you have expertise to bring to our project, and expertise is the single thing we need more than any other in my largely disregarded opinion around here. Please make an attempt to get along with others and if groups disagree with you, consider the possibility that they are not a conspiracy to shut you up. Respectfully, Antandrus (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The cause of the financial collapse seems to have been people making risky decisions when they don't know what they are really doing, but where they know that they won't be the ones dealing with the issues if it does go badly. The parallels with your unblocking of somebody who has been blocked about a dozen times is really rather striking. Based on my experience, and others experience here, I'm completely certain that your judgement of [redacted]'s 'expertise' is completely at odds with his true knowledge. His combination of only believing a small subset of the references (which he doesn't seem to entirely grasp anyway), a complete inability to understand or respond reasonbably to reasonable arguments by a fairly large set of intelligent people, and a certain degree of paranoia. This combination is disastrous in the wikipedia.- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 01:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, thanks very much for making that decision. I don't think that you will regeret it. FDT ( talk) 11:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I haven't been that active here lately, so I only just recently noticed you reverted some vandalism to my user page. Many thanks. Have a wonderful day! - Ageekgal ( talk) 12:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome ... I like this to be a friendly place. Often when I look at recent changes, all I do is revert vandals in user space (bots and Huggle-armed patrollers get everything else). Antandrus (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Dloh cierekim 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

You're also welcome -- keep up the great work! Antandrus (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, while checking my watchlist, i came across three incidents of mass deletion from Muslim apostate related articles such as Ramzi Yousef, List of people who converted to Christianity and List of former Muslims. The vandalism was done by three separate accounts. A user named FarhadS1N deleted the entire "Conversion to Christianity" section in the Ramzi Yousef article, wven though it was sourced with credible and reliable newspapers such as NY times, CBS news, wtc. Another user JMDU removed Ramzi Yousef's picture and deleted his entry from the "List of people who converted to Christianity". Yet, another user Iman19 did the same in the "List of former Muslims" article. These striking similarities raised my suspiscion that they were operated by the same user.

Upon close checking of their contributions, i found that their edits were done within minutes of each other. For instance, FarhadS1N's was on 8:16, Iman19's was on 8:20 and JMDU's was on 8:22. Also, they have each made only one edit which was to the aforementioned articles.

Faced with these facts, i can say with the utmost certainty that they are in fact sockpuppets. As such, i request you to revert their edits, block these accounts indefinitely. I also suspect that these sockpuppets were created by a user who already has a normal account in wikipedia. Therefore, i also request to perform a usercheck and trace any other accounts that were created using this IP address. Joyson Noel ( talk) 09:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

May i know the reason as to why you havent even replied back. These accounts are obviously sockpuppets. However, you haven't blocked them or even reverted their vandalism edits, which i took the trouble to do. If your not interested, or somwhow disagree with me, then the least you could do is at least reply back. I'm looking forward to hearing from you. Joyson Noel ( talk) 11:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Haven't looked at it yet. I haven't had a huge amount of time for Wikipedia this week, due to real life events, and we don't get paid for this, you know. If you need immediate action, please file a report at WP:SSP, WP:RFCU, or on one of the noticeboards -- WP:ANI would probably be willing to help. There are more than 1500 admins, though I don't know how many are active. Antandrus (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I apologize if i have been rude to you. Sometimes, my temper just gets the best of me. Well, i am fully aware that you dont get paid for this, but it is common courtesy to at least reply back to a message from someone requesting help. If you were busy and not interested in the first place, then you should have let me know. But you simply ignored my message and didn't even bother replying. To make matters worse, this is an important issue over here. Put yourself in my place. Wouldn't you get irritated? Its not good to keep someone waiting for a response. Anyway, thanks for the advice. I will file a report. Regards, Joyson Noel ( talk) 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The three users have only done a single edit. That they edit within a few minutes of each other is suspicious; they may be sockpuppets or meatpuppets; but in my opinion that's not enough to block. (I like to be really sure.) You've already reverted them and warned them; I think that's sufficient for now. If you think there is a sockmaster separate from these three -- not a farfetched idea by any stretch -- the only way to find out is to file a checkuser request, as "normal" admins do not have that ability. Single-edit throwaway accounts are unfortunately commonplace, and on high-profile articles, such as Ramzi Yousef, you have to expect them. Often reverting and ignoring is the most effective tactic, unless they come back as a "team". Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I have already filed a report in WP:ANI. However, its unlikely that anything will be done due to lack of any hard evidence. They haven't undid my reversions to their edits. So, i guess its better to take your advice and ignore them for the time being, unless they come back as a team. Thanks. Joyson Noel ( talk) 15:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello. I've read a number of your essays, and after some contemplation, have decided that it was quite imperitive that I establish a rapport with you. I did a bit of peeking around your userspace and contributions, and I've established that while we have realatively little in common based on interests and expertise, we do share a remarkably similar mindset in the regard of behavior on Wikipedia, especially in dealing with drama. I specifically refer to your essay on behavior, and while I don't claim to have the same depth of understanding as you've accumulated in many years, I have found myself agreeing with the trends you have observed.

The main reason I chose to contact you is that I'm finding myself lately being drawn further into the non-encyclopedic workings of Wikipedia. I've long been an anti-vandalism fighter, but on a part-time basis: I revert on sight, but usually only see it on my watchlisted pages (I don't go looking for trouble). I'm slowly wading into the world of article assessment and review, which ought to be less political and dramatic. I've been asked to comment in a few discussions on the Admin's noticeboard, request for comment, and one ArbCom. I'm even penning an essay, which even as I do so, I can't help but dismiss as verbal self-indulgence. Ideally, I'd like you to decide if I need a slap with a wet trout or not, since I think that you would be a great judge. Am I getting in too deep? bahamut0013 ♠ ♣ 16:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, thank you!

I completely agree about the world of article assessment and review needing to be less political and dramatic. It's exactly those qualities that drive me from that zone, and I suspect it's the same with other people: I do Wikipedia for fun, and running that gauntlet, or enduring that hazing, is so far from being fun that I think you need a streak of masochism to enjoy it. Personally I prefer writing good articles that Google finds, rather than Good Articles that Wikipedia finds, if you know what I mean. But I have the greatest respect for people that work on FAC, FAR, GA, GAR, DYK, and make an effort to be apolitical and undramatic.

I looked (briefly) for the essay, but didn't find it. LOL. Let me know when it's ready! I love reading other people's meta-work, i.e. essays on Wikipedia and the people who work here.

We need more, not less people with calm, common sense, and life experience to work in places like the noticeboards. Anyone who has been to Iraq and back has more than enough perspective to know what is important and what isn't -- in my opinion, the single biggest problem, and driver of drama, is that the people who inhabit the noticeboards lack perspective. Everything is an unnecessary drama, and most everything argued over is insignificant -- even in Wikipedia's protozoan world.

I see you've made the acquaintance of Tony the Marine: he's one of my favorite Wikipedians from way back, and an excellent source of good advice. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I think I've made the essay readable enough now. I am by no means done with it, as I think it's still ramble-ly and a bit unfocused and incoherant. Suggestions (on the talk page please) would be more than welcome. I've even nabbed a shortcut: WP:CSIOR.

One other thing I got to thinking as my account nears its two year mark: things must have been much different for the first few years of the project. I feel a bit remorseful that I missed the explorative years, when everything was fresh and new. I feel like I missed out on a lot of great times, much like the exploration of the American west (perhaps a result of recently having watched Dances with Wolves?). While I certainly couldn't be a judge of whether the "good 'ol days" were better or not, I do feel like I missed out on a good thing. bahamut0013 ♠ ♣ 22:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Good work. I'm glad you addressed that topic; it's about time it got an essay of its own. That one should assume good faith before making an "original research" is a strong point (AGF applies to a lot of things; personally I think it's the heart and soul of "ignore all rules", since that is where the project assumes good faith of you.) I do think we are overrun with original-research fundamentalists; it's not much of a stretch to go from that position to this one: "we can only write Wikipedia by collecting quotations from other works. Even stating a fact in your own words necessarily distorts it, therefore is original research!"

The "good old days" never were all that good. Funny, I feel I missed out on the Golden Age of 2003, when requests for adminship was like two or three people saying, "sure ... looks cool ... make him an admin," when nothing needed to be cited inline (nor were there mechanisms for doing so), when Camp Pendleton looked like this, when very few people had even heard of Wikipedia and it was pretty much wide open for newcomers with a pioneering spirit. On the other hand, I remember bloody and terrible edit wars over some of the stupidest things, and we didn't have 3RR when I joined the project. WP:LAME documents some of the stuff from that time.

While it may seem sometimes that the encyclopedia is written, we still have lots more room for good essays. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there Antandrus!
	Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!

Thanks for your assistance on the reference desk! Your answer was most enlightening. -- Beland ( talk) 02:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! Happy to help. It's interesting stuff, and a hot issue in a lot of coastal states. Some of the largest speculative oil reserves in the U.S. are in that federal offshore zone, much of which hasn't even been completely explored. Antandrus (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:HotTopicLogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 04:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, what are the rules on tidying up talk pages? Is there some kind of archiving system? I notice alot of editors clean out their talk pages regularly. FDT ( talk) 11:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings! Most people archive them. You can look at how I do it (see the links under the picture at the top of the page); there is also a bot that you can assign the task, but I prefer archiving mine manually. To archive, just copy and paste the page contents to a new page, such as User talk:FDT/Archive 1. I like to save the last message or two so the page isn't completely blank (it's a subtle point, but some of our more timid users don't like to post on a completely blank page). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, Thanks for that information. FDT ( talk) 20:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

With this particular edit about placing tags on extremely short articles and as it states on the Template:Unreferenced page, "Consider not adding this template to extremely short articles." Unfortunately i dont think that editor will take much notice though :-) You have been here for a long time so know how it works more so than others. I think it is only appropriate to have the expand tag there for an article such as this and it seems fine to me. What do you think? Best 137.154.16.30 ( talk) 01:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings -- yes, I think the "expand" is fine, which is why I left it; expand tags can be a tempting carrot for newcomers to try their hand at editing -- but it's one of my pet peeves here that people go slapping those giant, ugly, obnoxious tags, typically involving referencing, on articles without a thought for who we are serving: the reader. If there's a way that only editors can see them, then I wouldn't mind so much. The other thing I find irritating is that most of the taggers aren't actually helping in the hard work of finding references, they're just slapping tags all over the place. But that's just my unpopular opinion. In a recent random-pages sample I found that about one out of five of our articles had some sort of giant 'this article sucks for the following reasons' tag at the top. Best, Antandrus (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Those tags do serve the reader. They point out that the information presented might not be reliable. Asher196 ( talk) 03:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

In the opinion of the one person who happens by and slaps on the tag, which trumps sometimes weeks of labor by many other editors. Antandrus (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I was thinking more along the lines of an unreferenced article. I just clicked on twenty random articles and did not find a single tag. Asher196 ( talk) 03:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

That's interesting; it shows that we need a database query rather than random page checks. The last time I did that (maybe a month ago) I clicked on thirty, and got six, but didn't save the list. I did a more thorough random-page qc once here for a presentation, but did not note tagging frequency there either; I only assessed quality and condition. Antandrus (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Is User:Layre logged out. Clark89 ( talk) 03:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes: you are certainly correct. He's at that age where "gay" is the worst insult imaginable. Offhand I'd say he has some homework due tomorrow which he is trying to avoid doing, and I'd hazard a guess it's at a middle school in Medford, Oregon. Antandrus (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. Softlavender is suggesting changes to the Composers banner. In particular she is objecting to the mention of 'songwriters'. I'm wondering if you might know the (historical?) reasons for the reference? The discussion is here. Thanks. -- Klein zach 08:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I've offered two possible new versions - one referring to 'mainstream composers' and one to 'composers of all eras and styles'. I don't know if you have a preference for one rather than the other? I'd like to wrap this one up and move on . . . -- Klein zach 07:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Wish I could decide. I'm on the fence, and can go either way. If forced to make a choice I suppose I'd go for "all eras and styles" -- unless there is a Wikiproject Songwriters I don't know about. Antandrus (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

After more than 4 hours, I have finally gone through all 18 articles and made sure they have a functioning infobox with either the US locator map or a photo of some sort. I am gathering information on the Angeles NF from my main ref book as I believe that article is in the poorest shape (also has the most evil tag). The reason WP is so addicting, is the work is never-ending! The "end of the tunnel" moves away as we try to approach it LOL. Cheers, Marcia Wright ( talk) 18:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the block of User:Whitey234 (love the summary by the way), was tempted to do it myself, but figured i should wait to see if he came back.-- Jac16888 ( talk) 02:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome -- accounts that do nothing but attack other users need to be sent packing, double quick, in my opinion. I cut a lot of slack for clueless newbies, but this one didn't look like a potential good user. Antandrus (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I understand the keep result but I must ask in all seriousness — do we list every John Tesh or Jim Brickman piece? This is what I was trying to determine but I could not get a valid response.

Thank you. Timneu22 ( talk) 17:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

No, probably not. There is an inevitable gray area in lists where some items will be bluelinked, some will be redlinked, and some will be blacklinked: that is, an item may be notable enough only for inclusion on a list, but not to have its own article. While Wikipedia may never actually be "finished", I can see it leveling off at a point where we accept that some marginally-notable things aren't going to get articles. I personally think every BWV item by Bach deserves an article, as does every opus number by Brahms and every K. number by Mozart. Probably every opus by Alkan. Maybe every piece by ... Thalberg. And then it's gray. But that's just the way I see it, and I suppose I tend towards inclusionism on music. Antandrus (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually I think I misunderstood your question at first -- do we list them at all? Once again it gets into a gray zone -- when you get to the marginally notable composers, probably not. I'd list every piece by Chopin, Alkan, and Thalberg though. Antandrus (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I think we'll get into trouble here eventually. Everything by Chopin and Beethoven? Sure. But there are lots of current composers/artists who are more than "marginaly" notable (George Winston), and based on your statements above, one could interpret this as, yes, all their pieces should be listed. Maybe we should create a "list of composers whose pieces are worth being listed". ;-) Timneu22 ( talk) 21:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm wondering if Violin should be semi-protected, given the rate of IP vandalism on it relative to substantive edits. Is this something an admin (i.e. you :) can just do, or does it have to go through a more formal process? Magic ♪piano 12:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Magicpiano! Yes, come to think of it, that's one of those articles I'm constantly reverting dumb vandalism from, and which almost never gets good IP edits, so yes, I think I will. Regarding a more formal process -- one exists ( WP:RFPP), but in practice with semiprotection for often-vandalized articles, it seems most of the time it's easier just to ask someone (like you are doing now). Thanks and keep up the great work!  :) Antandrus (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I just wasn't sure if it was required to go through the formal process, which is why I asked. Magic ♪piano 18:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Nope. But then I'm rouge about all things bureaucratic.  :) By the way, now that I'm thinking of it, thank you for your work on Schubert, with your excellent rewrite and de-1911ification of the thing. I've been talking about it needing to be done on the article's discussion page for more than four years now; really appreciate your work on it. Antandrus (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

You were quick. Question: please give an opus or WoO number Answer: WoO13 Wallie ( talk) 20:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks -- I think I got it now -- I looked through the complete Beethoven works list, and did a little bit of research. It's by Johann Heinrich Walch, formerly attributed to Beethoven as WoO Anhang 13 (WoO 13 is the set of 12 German Dances for orchestra). I haven't been able to establish yet when the attribution was changed from Beethoven to Walch (if it ever was) or why anyone thought it was by Beethoven. Maybe there is a downloadable score on the internet somewhere I can't find? Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you too. You are absolutely correct. It is great to have this puzzle solved. I like this piece of music, and it is often attributed to Beethoven. I can well imagine why they thought it was Beethoven, as the march is very very good! Wallie ( talk) 21:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome .... wanting to hear it, I found an MP3 version here. Interesting piece; it begins in A minor and ends in E minor: Beethoven never does that; at least I can't think of any examples. The list claims the original key is F minor (though I presume the transcriptionist just made the change arbitrarily). Since the opening is so similar to the funeral march from the sonata opus 26, and shortly includes big diminished seventh chords just like that piece does, I have to wonder if Walch was deliberately writing it as a tribute to Beethoven. It certainly sounds like "Beethovenian". Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the sample mp3 version. I read somewhere that Walch had something to do with the composition of the funeral march for opus 26 too. Walch is obviously a talented composer in his own right! The funeral march as played in the Rememberance Sunday program is to my mind a very impressive piece of music, and just fits the great occasion of the wreath laying. I sometimes put half researched stuff on Wikipedia. It is better than nothing - and someone like yourself comes in and fills in some gaps, or at least correct/reverts what I have said. Thanks again. Wallie ( talk) 11:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah good call on that "upperclass wikipedian" eh? BRASIL! <<giant Brazil flag redacted>> User:Wiki_brah

Cool, I like Brazil. "Fox news", huh? LOL. Have a nice day. Antandrus (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hope you don't mind, but I lifted quite a bit of your userpage design for my userpage. :) Master&Expert ( Talk) 06:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply

A, may I ask you to go to WP:DE which I think (1) needs some rvisions and then (2) elevation to policy, as it will address many of our concerns? i left a commetn on the talk pae, maybe you can take the next step. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Tricky one. Blocking for disruptive editing is already in policy here, but the type of disruption we're concerned with is not on that list. To do anything useful I think we'd have to amend the blocking policy itself (good luck on that!) before attempting to make the DE page policy. Or do you think I'm getting it backwards? At any rate WP:DE should expand and explain what is already in the blocking policy. The core of the issue is this, which you perceptively identified: a series of edits may be disruptive, even though no individual edit may violate any policy. Identifying those disruptive groups of edits as such requires intangible qualities sometimes known collectively as common sense, and I'm not sure how to either teach that, or write it in such a way as to be enforceable. Antandrus (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply

DE is different from the disruption section of the blocking policy. It definitely shouldn't expand and explain what is already on the blocking policy. It is a new thing. Here is a chance to revise a set of guidelines so that they actually address a (1) real but (2) inadequately addressed problem, and then propose it for policy. if it is accepted for policy, only then' is the policy on blocking revised to make it consistent with the new policy.

Have you read my comment on the DE page? I assumed that you would respond to what I wrote, but what you write here doesn't really follow from what i wrote so I am finding it hard to see how you are or are not reacting to my suggestions.

It sounds like you are saying that we really just need to go by existing policies, and revise any new proposal so it says just what existing policy says. Well, I have a different approach to proposing new policies. Also, I thought you agreed that there is a problem at Wikipedia currently ill-served by policy, this seems to be the only way to address it, but if you are not interested, well, okay - sorry to have bothered you. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Patterns are not intangible. The fact that a pattern is made up of edits that violate no other policies is not a problem. When astronomers identify a new body in space, they take a series of photographs. Usually, the information in a photograph is not enough to determined whether a point of light is a star, a comet, or a planet. Only many photographs reveal the pattern, which enables one to identify the object. this is common - I imagine it is the same in music, listening to a pile of notes doesn't tell you anything, it could be noise, you need to see the patterns in rhythm and pitch. Only Wikipedia seems not to acknowledge that the most meaningful things in human experience take the forms of patterns. The task is to classify different patterns. i am not sure how to do this, but i think enough people who are sensitive to trolling can have a discussion and begin to sort out the elements of the pattern itself. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I read your comment -- thank you for striking that -- I'm just not sure of the answer yet. It's not obvious to me. I can recognize trolling but it's quite apparent that not everyone can, even people I thought were common-sensible. The situation reminds me of that U.S. Supreme Court justice who said that he didn't know what pornography was, but could recognize it when he saw it. In my four years as an admin I see I have made numerous blocks for trolling that literally aren't covered by that disruption clause in the blocking policy -- but this line gives us an out: "This is not an exhaustive list; blocking may be used in other situations, particularly situations addressed by more specific policies dealing with particular issues." That would seem to allow a DE policy to cover trolling. Antandrus (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, I think the way to start is simply for a group of like-minded experienced admins to get together and knock around ideas .... Slrubenstein | Talk 23:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there! I am dipping my toe gingerly back in the waters here, trying not to get sucked back in to the degree of abandoning my work and family as has happened in the past. I wonder if you would please be so kind as to take a gander at the software architect page, which I am fooling with, to see if my updates are improvements or merely pointless alterations.

Heard the Alsop/Baltimore Bernstein Mass last month, a work I had not known before. It was really something special, very very well done and deeply moving in its own way.

Hoping you are doing well! -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 14:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I have completed my fumigation of the software architect article...at least, as complete as anything is around here. I'd be glad to know your comments. Ciao! -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 21:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply

On a quick skim, you've done a good job. Sometimes on writing the lead for an article about something technical, I like the "man from Mars" approach -- the first sentence may assume that the reader may know nothing. It may be an executive of a plumbing firm, or it may be an 11-year-old in Morocco, or an ESL student in Sverdlovsk -- one never knows. "In the field of computer science, a software architect is one who ..." Not everyone approaches Wikipedia this way, so that's only a suggestion. You overview it quite well though; nice job; it's hard to write about these things without resorting to corporate-speak (and if you work in the industry for a living, we all know how insidious is the infiltration of such speak into our writing and even our thinking). Good! Glad to see you back, and please write some more.  :) Antandrus (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Antandrus. I was wondering whether you had seen this gem of an article. Have recently come across it and am more than delighted (not least, I admit, because it's about one of my all-time favorite pieces), it almost restored my confidence in Wikipedia's creative potential. Had a little discussion with the main author at User talk:Gidip. There is also a review linked from the talk page. Your input would be invaluable. Warning: long read. Thanks and best wishes, Kosebamse ( talk) 21:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Wow. I don't know how I missed it. It's a year old, too. Great article; very fine indeed. Frankly, I wish our article on Schubert was as good as this. I will read it but I don't want to look at the peer review until I've read the full article myself. I know these pieces pretty well (the C minor least of the three) -- they're powerful. (The Andantino movement of the A major sonata, in my opinion, is Schubert's agonized negotiation with Death itself, briefly reaching the edge of insanity -- it reminds me of Job's argument with God, only without any hope -- it's also interesting that he uses an instrumental recitative in a way similar to what you find in late Beethoven). I think the article is already better than many of our FAs, but getting it past the gauntlet can be so soul-crushing, I dunno. -- Here's a thought: the opposite extreme is here: Late String Quartets (Beethoven). Mount Everest. Wouldn't it be fun to have that article equal in quality to the Schubert? Group of late compositions by a massively important composer, often viewed as a set. It just shows us how much remains to be done on Wikipedia ... Antandrus (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Mozart's last symphonies, anyone? But shouldn't we try to get that Schubert article promoted. My idea was to ask another one or two knowledgeable Wikipedian, and give it the final polish without the public attention of formal review, lest it get ruined through design by committee. I can lend a hand if I find the time (which won't be much in the near future, unfortunately), but neither my English nor my knowledge is nearly good enough, so more help would be needed. What do you think? Kosebamse ( talk) 04:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down a section as subsection under criticism section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, the summary of dispute can be found at [1], please let us know your views/opinion so that 'alleged' bias may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle ( talk) 06:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello! You had deleted this article. A similar article is under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Hale (character), which is currently in no consensus territory and I would like to see if anything from the previous article might be merged into the article under discussion. Could you please either temporarily restore the article and its talk page or just post whatever contents were on them onto my talk page to see if there were any additional references I might be able to use? I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks! Also, if the article under discussion does result in a no consensus or keep closer, would you be opposed to a redirect being created out of the one in this topic line? Thanks again! Sincerely, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 16:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings! Here you go -- this is the complete content of the article that I deleted (minus a few extra hard returns, and indented one level for readability:

Nathan hale is the protagonist of the Playstation 3 game Resistance: Fall of Man

he killed like every chimera in england and then he went to america to win again.

No references or sources. The original creator was Vanila58. Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, and I didn't finish answering your question: a redirect would be fine. (I deleted the stublet originally since all the other contributions by that account were vandalism.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Was there any on the talk page? I see from User_talk:Antandrus/Archive29#Nathan_Hale_.28Game_Character.29 that an IP claimed he was adding a reference to a draft on the talk page for the article, which was also deleted. Is it possible to let me know what was put on the talk page? Thanks! Sincerely, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 16:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Of course, the funny part was how our "Ph.D" was editing from a junior liberal arts college! Gotta start somewhere, I guess. Anyway, I'm glad to have been of service. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 08:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply

PS: Say hi to "Edmund Chicago" for me.  :))

I know you're sensitive to this, I'd like to find a proper way to address your concern about limited source material. When I look at an article, I'm currently looking for:

1. cited statements about what source materials are available
2. other citable assertions that the article describes the extent of current knowledge

If a reliable source has written about someone (i.e. done some original research), statements like "Little is known about X" should be cited (they're not in Adrien Basin).

I'm not sure what to use as a guide when the editor (i.e. you) is essentially asserting "these are all the sources that are currently known, and the article reflects them". Perhaps you can give some guidance. (I'm ignoring the fact that I think this skates right up against WP:NOR, a rule I don't entirely agree with (and I suspect you don't either).) Magic ♪piano 16:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Stepping back a bit and looking at our encyclopedia and the Byzantine array of policies and guidelines that have accreted to guide its development, one thing strikes me every time: the over-interpretation of "no original research." There are a lot of fundamentalists on the issue; an extreme position, which I have seen unfortunately frequently, is that one can say next to nothing about any topic without tagging it with a cite. The way I interpret the policy is that you can read a source, put its contents in your own words, and maybe put one cite per paragraph (unless you are writing on a current news or political event, in which case it quickly becomes impossible to work without citing absolutely everything). But even that is not required: inline cites are not actually required for writing on Wikipedia. Only listing verifiable sources is (unless the policy changed when I wasn't watching).

To determine what sources are available on a composer, I look at the Grove bibliography, which is invariably excellent. I can't think of a better way to compile sources other than a trip to a good research library, and even that won't turn them up as well as the list compiled by the individual scholar who Oxford regards as the world expert on the topic, who they asked to write the Grove article.

Sometimes you can find tertiary sources on the internet. CD liners contain useful information sometimes. You can find things in Google books. Often you can find sources more recent than what is in the online Grove, which contains many articles not updated since the 1980 edition (although often they update the bibliography, while leaving the text alone -- in particular I have noticed a lot of David Fallows's articles have not changed since 1980).

I don't list the Grove bibliography in articles -- somehow it feels like plagiarism to do so (does it?)

Occasionally I have fattened articles using primary sources, when nothing else was available.

Dunno. Wish I could be more helpful. I just try to write the things as completely as I can, using every source I can get. And I'll admit I'm still smarting from that godawful 2007 "assessment drive" for the Biography project, which tagged articles three or four per minute, invariably as "stub" or "start", based on -- who knows? I still can't figure out what they were looking at -- length? no infobox? no pictures? -- those of us who dared to question it were met with bureaucratic hostility. I still think that was one of the most actively destructive, and passionately supported, projects ever run on Wikipedia, if these ratings ever mean anything. It was an exercise in aggressive ignorance the likes of which I've never seen anywhere else on the project -- that people with no knowledge of a topic whatsoever can, in fifteen seconds, determine whether or not an article you have spent days compiling and writing gets on that stable-version DVD or not. Damn them to hell. I just want us to do a better job than that, and so far I think we are thanks to you and Kleinzach and a couple others, and I do appreciate the work you are putting in to this. Best, Antandrus (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for venting. (Seriously. It helps at least me to understand more of the why, especially since I am relatively new here.)

I also find some of the policies here a little over-the-top. I decided to try steering some articles through the GA process, in part to understand how reviewers there approach subjects they don't necessarily know well. That process deals more with form than content (i.e. the reviewers aren't really in a position to validate the content). The main thing raising my hackles is the (I guess introduced this year?) policy of requiring inline citations for GA/FA certification. Literally, if a paragraph does not end with a footnote, the reviewer calls you on it. (See Talk:Boston campaign/GA1, especially the bullet on "shot heard round the world", as well as the first reviewer's comments. Gack. I thought I'd try to steer Franz Schubert through that, now I'm not so sure.)

One thought I had was that perhaps the Composers project should have something like a formal A-class review (required or optional to be determined by consensus?). This would give the nominating editor the opportunity to assert and defend completeness of the material against peer editors within the project (rather than style-and-form nitpickers in GA/FA land). This would give a forum in which statements you make above (e.g. "no significant new research since 1980") can be probed and given weight that they can't in a 1-10 minute drive-by review. I don't know if (or how well) this would work given present participation levels, though.

One random thought on Biography project assessments: from the sample of 15 I looked at yesterday, I would judge that, as a rule, the Biography assessment should be at least the Composer assessment, but not necessarily vice versa. A composer assessment includes specific things not implied by a Biography assessment (things like work-list, critical appreciation, etc). A reasonably complete bio that is missing those things to a large degree may have trouble getting a B, for example. I'd not feel too bad about what they have to say...

Kleinzach made a good point on the project talk page -- I should have cross-checked my thoughts against the written descriptions of the levels. In the light of that, I think he's correct about Basin being Start level. Best, Magic ♪piano 14:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I've reviewed William Brade. Let me know what you think of my comments. Magic ♪piano 22:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

It's fair. The only way I can see to expand the article is to get my hands on that 1965 doctoral dissertation in North Carolina, and maybe look at the other references in the Grove bibliography. I wrote the article in summer 2005 which was before we were using inline cites; I can go back and put some in. Finding a free audio sample would be tough, short of recording one myself. One thing I can do is add a works list, since the current online Grove article has one (I wrote the article originally from the 1980 Grove, which I have in hard copy; that was probably before I bought myself a subscription to the online version).

It's interesting (or maybe you knew this?) -- Brade was the first time that I collided with the Wikiproject "Biography". I left what I thought was a polite note on the talk page of the person who downgraded my "B" to "start" User_talk:Cgilbert76#Criteria_for_biography_rating asking him how they came up with their ratings, and what they meant -- and received a condescending, unhelpful reply that just left me open-mouthed with astonishment. That was just the first time. -- Maybe people who don't write articles honestly have no idea how this feels. I know you know, since you contribute content -- but many of the Wikiproject Rubberstamp folks do no writing at all, and I think they neither know nor care what it feels like to have a drive-by, completely ignorant, rubberstamp assessment; they honestly think they are helping the encyclopedia. I dunno. -- But getting back to your question: your assessment is good, and you list things that can be improved. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I didn't know it was the subject of your tussle with the Bio folks, but I'm hardly surprised, considering an alphabetic attack (from the back) makes him first from that time period.

My comments on discography and sound are really just suggestions -- I think all composers benefit from that, and I think it's mostly harmless for sparsely-recorded composers (where it may also round out the article). Interestingly, Amazon lists 50 CD containing his music (mostly early-music collections), but Arkivmusic, which is usually quite reliable (at least for later periods), doesn't list any. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. Magic ♪piano 13:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you
for reverting the personal attacks on my userpage (and talk)

And great job with the WP:CM articles. Your name pops up often - keep up the great work! :) — La Pianista ^{( T• C• S)} 03:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, thanks! appreciate that! and you're welcome, of course ... I like this to be a friendly place. :) Antandrus (talk) 03:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, I told you that I believed that I could obtain a consensus on centrifugal force in three weeks. That hasn't turned out to be the case. On that issue, I believe that I have now said all I have to say on that topic over and over again. The only reason that I have continued on for as long as I have is because I genuinely believe that Brews ohare is keen to understand the topic, and that since he is such a prolific editor, it would be best for everybody if in fact he did fully understand the topic. The reason that I am writing to you is to ask advice on a policy issue. I would like to give my private e-mail address to Brews ohare in order to continue the discussion in private outside of the constraints of wikipedia policy. But I don't know if I am actually allowed to provide a private e-mail address on the talk pages under wikipedia's rules. The reason why I am concerned about breaking any rules is because Wolfkeeper has put in a request to the admin noticeboard to have me blocked. I am concerned that it is possible for such a request to have been entered without any grounds or without any rules having been broken. But the fact that his request resulted in me getting a warning from an administrator means that I don't wish to take any risks. Would it be legal for me to supply Brews ohare with my private e-mail address in order to carry this discussion on outside of wikipedia? I can see no further benefit in discussing the matter on wikipedia in an atmosphere such that I might get blocked at any moment on a whim. I look forward to hearing from you. FDT ( talk) 17:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I hope Antandrus doesn't mind me chipping in here (as it looks like we're in different time zones, and it might be a while before they see this post). David, you're right that we discourage users from putting their email addresses on public view, not only as a privacy concern but to reduce the chances of them being harvested by spammers. However, if you go to any editor's user page, there will be an 'E-mail this user' link in the toolbox on the left of the screen. Following this link will take you to a page where you can send a personal, private message to that user... assuming they've enabled their email on Wikipedia, which many users don't. Alternatively, you could enable your email (if you haven't already; see 'User profile' under the 'my preferences' link at the top of the screen), and drop Brews ohare a note on their talk page asking them if they don't mind emailing you.

Since you've indicated above that you no longer intend to discuss non-article related issues on the article talk page at Centrifugal force, I think we can consider this closed. To be honest, a little off-topic discussion on article talk pages is nothing unusual, but when it starts to dominate the page it does become a problem for the other editors working on the article, as it disrupts their primary communication channel.

If you have any questions etc, I'll be happy to help out if Antandrus isn't around. All the best, EyeSerene ^talk 19:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Eyesrene, OK thanks for sorting that out. I'm not sure what the off-topic discussion was but anyway we will consider the matter closed. There was no hope of getting a consensus the way things were developing. Private e-mail may or may not sort the matter out. Brews is a prolific writer and I know he wants to learn. It will be good for wikipedia if he gets a clear and concise vision of the centrifugal force topic in its entirety. FDT ( talk) 19:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi both -- EyeSerene, thank you -- that's well put and pretty much the same advice I would have given. (And no, of course I never mind other people helping out on my talk page!) And David, it's probably best to carry on off-wiki. Talk page discussion usually remains focused on improving the article, but there is fairly wide latitude: you will encounter extremists who delete anything even slightly off-topic (that happens especially on contentious political articles), and you will also encounter article talk pages that get almost a steady stream of reference desk-type questions, and nobody minds. I tend to be fairly liberal in this regard because I like to answer subject-matter questions that are asked in good faith. Thanks both, Antandrus (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, Thanks for your reply. The centrifugal force debate was going to end sooner or later because it was going round in circles, and some editors were not really trying to achieve any consensus. I had already acknowledged their sources on matters which I strongly disagree with, but I couldn't get them to reciprocate and openly acknowledge the significance of the radial planetary orbital equation which undermined those very matters. The equation was in a gold standard source, but as you can read for yourself, they were intent on firstly denying it, and later drowning it out with word play. Had they acknowledged it, then we would have been in a position to discuss how to write the article in a balanced fashion. There was no going off topic to the best of my knowledge. That was merely Wolfkeeper's allegation which was totally unsubstantiated. He was trying to get me blocked again just as I was realizing that the word play was going to go on forever. I do however disagree with EyeSerene's analysis of the situation that Wolfkeeper's complaint against me was legitimate. If a lengthy debate is indeed disruptive as EyeSerene suggests, then the blame can hardly be laid at the feet of one editor. EyeSerene seemed to think that I was assuming bad faith by questioning Wolfkeeper's allegation. It was as if he was quite happy for Wolfkeeper to assume bad faith against me, but not vica-versa. Anyway it's over now. I said in October that I would have one more try at reaching a consensus for a single unified balanced article. Unless I see some new editors on scene with a viewpoint more similar to my own, then there is no point in continuing in the meantime. FDT ( talk) 02:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Do you have any intention at all running for ARBCOM? You've been around for a long time and know the place inside and out. You are one of the respected editors on the wiki and serving as an arbitrator would do you justice. I can understand if you would rather stay away from that sort of stuff, it can drive a person up the wall but if theres one person that can do it i think its you. Its just that i think your talent is being wasted, editing in the background of the wiki so to speak. Its time to spread your wings. Best 211.30.109.24 ( talk) 07:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Whatever Antandrus decides about ARBCOM, I feel strongly that his talent is not "being wasted, editing in the background". (Perhaps the editor above did not mean to say exactly that.) Antandrus is one of the most assiduous, knowledgeable, and thoughtful contributors to articles, and after all why else are we are here? -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Of course i did not mean it that way. I just feel such a great editor should get more involved in the heavy duty wiki work so to speak. 211.30.109.24 ( talk) 09:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks both. I appreciate the vote of support, and your question deserves a serious answer.

Honestly, I thought about it. But selfishness and laziness overcome any residual altruism left over after almost five years at this place. After all I do Wikipedia for fun; my day job is stressful enough, and indeed is a lot like Arbcom a lot of the time, and frankly being an Arbcom member sounds about as much fun as chewing a bagful of broken glass. No matter what you do, you will be pilloried on- and off-site. Most of the cases are much harder to disentangle and solve than the peanut-gallery comments on the noticeboards would lead outside observers to think. Weighing fairness to all against what is best for the encyclopedia – it's a big deal. It's hard. Those two things can directly contradict each other. You're absolutely right about it being 'heavy duty wiki work' – and it has always struck me that an Arbcom appointment is the last rail-stop on the line to oblivion, here. No one ever serves on Arbcom, and then goes back to writing articles again, any more than a red giant star can go back to its former luminous main sequence glory. See No. 59. Camembert, Mindspillage, – they once wrote music articles; they had their Arbcom tenure; and then it just wasn't fun here any more. They are doing other things now they love better.

I'm not even certain that Arbcom has scaled with the project; it's probably time to consider a replacement, though I don't know what yet. Maybe some kind of jury system. We need sensible people who aren't in it for the glory (for that glory is as hollow as our product is impermanent). But anyway, thanks both for the comments. Antandrus (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply

If you have a moment, I wonder whether you would like to give some nominal ratings to this collection of Alexanders etc?

• Albertet de Sestaro
• Alessandro Grandi
• Alessandro Orologio
• Alessandro Poglietti
• Alexander Agricola
• Alexander Alyabyev
• Alfonso Ferrabosco (I)
• Alfonso Ferrabosco the younger
• Alfonso Fontanelli
• Alonso Lobo
• Alonso Mudarra
• Ambrose Lupo
• Andrea Antico
• Andrea da Firenze
• Andreas Hammerschmidt
• Andreas Hofer (composer)

Thanks. -- Klein zach 01:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Since I posted this list another editor (Nrswanson) has rather been through and made ratings. (Perhaps he is reading this page?) I think it's still worth checking. . . . -- Klein zach 00:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hallo, My name is Rachel. you have a quite Impressive page. I wanted to know if their is a possibility that you can help me translated to spanish an entry on the composer Noam Sheriff. Thank you, Rachel

Hi Rachel,

Thank you for the compliment. You can look here for some people that have offered to translate between English and Spanish. Note that you will need to look at their contributions history to see if they are currently active or not. While I can read Spanish acceptably, and speak it a basic level, I cannot competently translate English to Spanish; I'd make too many mistakes. You could also ask User:Drini if he can recommend someone; he's a native speaker, but only occasionally active on the English Wikipedia at the moment. Good luck! Antandrus (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Antandrus!

I would really appreciate your input in this short discussion on the Franz Liszt article, if you have a few minutes to spare. A fairly new user's edit claiming Franz Liszt is, in fact, Slovak seems to be very questionable. His source is not English and there is no way to verify it with no link. Nothing, I've found even remotely discusses such a notion. I believe that this could be a quick fix, if you would take a look at it. I'm no authority on music, but I am pretty sure that this edit is blatantly wrong. That's why I'm asking you. Thanks so much for you help! Warm Regards, aNubiSIII ^{( T / C)} 03:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know -- yes, Liszt is indeed Hungarian enough for Alan Walker to say at the top of the article in the 2001 New Grove, "Franz Liszt. Hungarian composer, pianist and teacher." This is yet another in the incessant visitations by nationalist POV-pushers -- we've had Liszt as a German and Liszt as a Slovak before, but all the truly reliable sources -- Grove, Britannica, Slonimsky's Baker's -- have him simply as "Hungarian", and so should we. Best regards, Antandrus (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I sensed this was wrong. Good to hear it from someone who knows what they are talking about. Thanks so much for clearing it up! Warm Regards, aNubiSIII ^{( T / C)} 01:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, a certain nationalist user still doesn't seem to get the point and continues to try to weasel his same edit and same source into this article. Oh, the things that make Wikipedia so interesting (cough). Best, aNubiSIII ^{( T / C)} 20:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply

"Nationalism is an infantile disease; it is the measles of mankind." -- Albert Einstein. -- Having watched composer articles for close to five years now, I'm confident that I'm right in reporting a type of behavior that recurs -- again, and again, and again. See Number 47; this is exactly the case for which I wrote that. The quintessentially Hungarian composer -- a German? A Slovak? Why, my own ancestors are from Bratislava (Pressburg), and they were Hungarian, not that it matters. The composer of the great American open spaces, the cowboys and West and the one who best captured the sound of the frontier, indeed the quintessentially American composer of them all -- Aaron Copland -- was a gay Jewish boy from Brooklyn. So it goes. And who cares about these things, really, but nationalist, ethnic, and culture warriors? An pox on all their houses. These articles should be about what the composers did not the origin of the bodies providing sperm and egg. Antandrus (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Touche! Couldn't have said it better myself. aNubiSIII ^{( T / C)} 07:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

		The Original Barnstar
		For just a bang up job Ottawa4ever ( talk) 01:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Appreciate that! Kinda tired of it all, but still here ... Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I could use some advice on Franz Schubert. I'm not entirely happy with the Style section of the article, and could use some feedback on how it might be improved. The basic structure of this section predates my involvement with the article, which may be part of my problem. The other part would be that I think I suck at writing about musical style. If you could take a look (no rush, I've got plenty on my plate) I'd appreciate it. (I actually think a whole sub-article could be written on the subject, but I'm not sure I'm up for that.) Thanks! Magic ♪piano 18:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I find that writing about style is incredibly difficult. Doing a section on a major composer like Schubert will be a large undertaking -- compiling sources, trying to summarize, -- and without doing "original research" (I could probably bang out a semi-coherent section but citing facts, and things that I know to be true just from having studied his music for so many years). On the other hand there may be useful information to fatten the section in the New Grove -- I'll have a look when I'm home from work.

The article is originally from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (though the style section obviously is not); I remember we discussed just rewriting the whole thing from scratch. That was a while ago though.

Thanks -- the other work you did on Schubert was superb. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply

You have a lot of good advice. Rock on~! - 4twenty42o ( talk) 05:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks!  :) Antandrus (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody ^{My talk} 02:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, happy Thanksgiving to you too! (No "turducken" here, just a plain ol' turkey, but that's the breaks. And I ain't complainin'  :) Best regards, Antandrus (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for explaining that. I wonder what the odds of that were. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 05:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I've often thought a duet of oboe and viola would sound absolutely lovely, but have never heard one. Do you know of any? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 18:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC) reply

You're right, it would be a great combination, like two tasty poultries (when I taught orchestration, I explained that the sounds of the violin and viola were related as were the tastes of chicken and duck; and of course we know what Prokofiev did with the oboe in Peter and the Wolf). No duets come to mind. A little searching turns up a duet by Frank Wigglesworth (1918-1996); and maybe one you've heard -- in Liszt's Faust-Symphonie, the Gretchen theme is originally stated by oboe and viola together. Also in Leoš Janáček's Káťa Kabanová, Act III scene ii, I find one accompanying the title character singing her regrets about her bad behavior. It's a bit odd more composers haven't written such a duet. Antandrus (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Mmmm.... poultry. Thanks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Mmm. Where's the duck, alas. (Whose culinary law was it -- "Everything tastes more or less like chicken.") Appropriate I suppose as the turkey leftovers come out of the fridge. Antandrus (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry about the picture. The only reason I had changed it, it is because the resolution of the picture was very low. Bgag ( talk) 00:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hm, yes you are right -- I have no idea why I uploaded a low-res version. Sorry I snapped at you. Your photos are beautiful -- I was just looking at them all. Antandrus (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the positive feedback. :-) You may want to contribute to the current discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#A discussion on the use/necessity (?) of Infoboxes. Nrswanson ( talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply

...I just installed a new Norton Internet Security, and it has a new autofill "feature" which by default adds your username to any field on the page requiring a username -- such as where the IP would go on the block IP page, damn them. If you're working fast to stop a troublemaker you may not notice. I wonder if this has happened to anyone else. Antandrus (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Not that I had Norton as an excuse, but... [2] Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 03:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh yes, oh yes ... it's so embarrassing ... by the way do you think about asking for your admin bit back? (I'm idly thinking of getting rid of mine; it's a distraction from writing articles; some of my favorite content contributors ostentatiously do without one.) Antandrus (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

My very first administrative action was to accidentally block myself. I believe it's a rite of passage. Acroterion _(talk) 03:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL ... but I wish those rites of passage wouldn't happen when you've been an admin for almost four years. Could be worse though; at least I didn't accidentally block Giano. Antandrus (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Nobody would believe your explanation if you did, and the AN/I / Jimbo's talkpage thread would last until Arbor Day. Acroterion _(talk) 04:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm trying so hard to avoid this stack of reviews I need to take care of that I actually looked up when Arbor Day occurs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 04:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

In Boris's land, I think it's called Exceed Norm in Heroic Planting Spring Wheat Crop Day. Acroterion _(talk) 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Certainly must have harvested a few Heroically Planted Gymnosperms to print that Works of Lenin. Though I hear that the trees are coming back magnificently and wildly near Pripyat, downwind from Chernobyl. Antandrus (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Been there, done that. :-) -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

You don't need a bit to do this kind of crap. Last night, I found that I had spent twenty minutes painstakingly making the vandalism in one article precisely match the vandalism in another article.— Kww( talk) 11:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you should do less Vandalism Patrol in December :) Grutness... wha? 07:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

PS - isn't "Exceed Norm in Heroic Planting Spring Wheat Crop Day" a Chinese opera from the 1960s? :) Grutness... wha? 08:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

No, you're thinking of the "Increase Pig Iron Production while Repelling the Yankee Paper Tiger" comedic light opera. Acroterion _(talk) 18:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Antandrus, Opus and I both think the Haydn page should be semi-protected since it is attracting a steady flow of anon IP vandals these days (presumably first year students in musicology 101). I posted at the RPP page and was turned down. Frankly, we can probably take the decision internally amongst the composer group. So, if you are so inclined, Opus and I think that a 30-day semi protection is warranted. Feel free to ignore this. Eusebeus ( talk) 19:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Good timing: I just happened to look at my watchlist. Yes, I agree. Most of the "big name" composers are now under semi-protect. I'll renew at the end of six months, or remove if there is a serious request, but it's incredibly rare for anons to make major useful contributions on that page. Antandrus (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Ooh, look -- I've reverted vandalism from that article more often than ClueBot. Good grief. Antandrus (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Antandrus, thanks for that. Btw, would you be at all interested in something like the "Haydn & Mozart Wikisociety sub project"? I mulling suggesting something of the sort to Opus & David, although not sure if it would be useful. Eusebeus ( talk) 20:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikiprojects that small -- presuming it would only be a few people -- may not be worth the trouble to set them up. Yet who knows -- if Opus is involved it would probably be valuable. I'd join it but couldn't promise to help much. I remember having the same thought about starting a Wikiproject Early Music but only one or two other people were even interested, and sometimes it's easier just to coordinate on people's talk pages. (Other possibilities include the Wikiproject Disinfobox or Wikiproject Detaggify, but I suspect the official sense of humor would be strained.) Antandrus (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there, Thank you for blocking my wikistalker. Is there a list kept somewhere of user ids that are subject to close impersonation? If so, then I would appreciate being added to the list and you might consider adding other editors subject to hostile commentary fromt he JIDF. This is the first time I've been aware of the JIDF actions moving on to following another editor about Wikipedia and reversing their edits that have nothing to do with the JIDF or its interests.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 15:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome -- it was just an obvious trolling account. Looks like you don't have too many impersonators (have a look at my collection). Anyone who is an admin, or active in controversial areas, will collect these. I don't know of a global list other than the automatically generated one. It's probably the same person that has been stalking Gwen -- astonishing that some people have nothing better to do. Antandrus (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I doubt that it is the same person, otherwise more would have been made of her being anti-Israel. This account is associated with the JIDF who were attacking me earlier today on Wikipedia (see WP:AN/I and the thread edited by the stalker.) They've also today been attacking me on the Jewish Chronicle site. (See chat at bottom of http://www.thejc.com/articles/david-appletree-battles-nazis-and-shoah-deniers-facebook and the link in my last comment.) They may have updated their info on me on their own page as I don't recall their callign me a non-Zionist before but I can't be bothered to check the page. And they've sent me email from two different accounts in the last day. Of course I won't blame you if you don't follow these links, but I just wanted yoyu know that this is a different campaign.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 17:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, thank you for your concern. In the interest of being honest with a complete and total stranger, please allow me to say that I both appreciate and am intimidated by your interest. I'm in the process of editing the motets article for a project that is due tomorrow. I've had trouble figuring out the editing process, therefore I'm sure I've made mistakes. Rest assured, I will do my best to correct them, as soon as I've figured out how(it took me ten minutes to figure out how to respond to you), and I will do my best to maintain and improve the integrity of the article. Hope this helps, and thanks again for your concern. TallGirl88 ( talk) 02:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Very good, yes I'm at Union University. It's a class project for Music History, we all had to pick a Wikipedia article to edit and research. Anyway, I'm sorry no one responded to you, they may have also had trouble figuring out how, or just been busy I don't know. Anyway, thanks for offering to help.

Great, thanks for helping me out. As soon as I figure out what you did, I'll continue editing....

Hello, Antandrus. You may be interested that we are putting the Messiaen article on the front page for the 10th (the day of his centenary). It's not mainstream stuff, so I'm not expecting such a flurry of vandalism as we get on some TFAs, but can you keep half an eye on it? I shall check it occasionally myself, when I can. Best wishes as always, RobertG ♬ talk 12:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Robert! I should be around for a lot of that day; I'll most certainly keep an eye on it. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your nice comment on my talk page. Yes, I don't think unmistakability is a "peacock" phrase at all - the bare truth - but I'll look for a source. I agree with you about the number of citations, but then I would, wouldn't I? There seems to be a school of thought that holds that if a sentence isn't directly referenced then it might as well be unverifiable. I paraphrase Messiaen here - an encyclopedia article is successful if it meets three separate criteria: it should be interesting, it should give a casual reader an accurate, well-rounded and satisfying idea of its subject, and it should give the reader who wants to find out more the tools to do so. To end with a compliment, I think that includes most of yours! -- RobertG ♬ talk 13:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I just reviewed Nicolas Payen. Google turned up pointers to at least some references to his music, including a recording; I put them on the review page. Cheers! Magic ♪piano 14:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. That book is actually quite recent -- interesting -- it postdates the Grove article by at least a few months (they made a point of saying that no one had studied his life yet). I'll try to get to it. More urgently for me, in the somewhat limited time I have this month, is repairing the damage wrought by that class at Union University (see thread above and on the Wikiproject Composers page). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, I wasn't suggesting you jump up and do something with it right away :), but I thought you'd want to at least file it away for future reference. (I saw the traffic on the class assignment; if you're feeling swamped, I may be able to help out, just let me know what/where/how.) Magic ♪piano 21:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for protecting User talk:71.97.74.78. The IP continued to vandalize their own talk page. Vernon (Versus22) ( talk) 02:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. I just now noticed that Spellcast blocked him with the "edit talk page" disabled so my protection turned out to be redundant -- but the actions were near-simultaneous. Oh well ... Antandrus (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

That's strange. You're an administrator though. Vernon (Versus22) ( talk) 02:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

He blocked at the same time I protected. There's two ways to stop a troll from abusing their own talk page -- and we just did them both. Antandrus (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

OK. Thanks for telling me. Vernon (Versus22) ( talk) 02:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Just saying hey. Haven't seen your name on my watchlist in a while - I've done very little in early music now that I'm no longer a student. Been trying not to edit so much lately, mostly just trying to fend off vandalism on, and deletion of, pages I created. Thanks for the help. Cheers. Chubbles ( talk) 03:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't write as much as I used to either -- busy in real life, and a little burned out. I love that quote on your page though: it's a great antidote to cynicism ("Every time you read an article on Wikipedia, remember that the only reason it exists is because someone gave enough of a damn about what you care about to put it there"). Usually what gets me writing again is thinking that whatever I do someone will read and be glad it was there. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for all your work on wikipedia—enjoyed reading your userpage. kilbad ( talk) 03:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! It's quite rare someone takes the time to say that. Truly appreciate it. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply

This was a job well done.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, thanks! ... it was the clearest example of number 7 I've seen in a while (I've deleted both of the edits though, so they're no longer in his history). I find it helpful to watch the user creation log for people who quickly light up their user and user talk pages blue. (Did you notice how Sinebot helpfully added the "real" signature? ... LOL ...) Antandrus (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I never knew Sinebot could be so helpful!-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

(By the way, I moved the comments here to keep the convo together.) Cheers!-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:SespeWildernessLocMap.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 06:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC) -- Skier Dude ( talk) 06:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Did you read the description page? "All data shown on this map is in the public domain." There is nothing in any way controversial about US government data files of boundaries of national forests, or the digital elevation model from the USGS used to generate the hillshade. You could have asked, rather than leaving a template message for a Wikipedian who has been here for five years. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there, fellow music encyclopedia topics member! I recently wrote a short new article on Elizabethan music publisher William Barley. If you're interested and have the time, feel free to comment at its peer review. Thanks, Budding Journalist 19:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Nice job! I answered you there. I'm particularly happy to see someone working on English composers/publishers of the era (as I have mainly been concentrating on Italy, France, the Netherlands, Spain, etc., and haven't written many of the English guys, or for that matter, the Germans). Antandrus (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply

-- A Nobody ^{My talk} 03:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, thank you! Merry Christmas to you as well (and fyi, I definitely do not think of you as a "nobody" ... thank you for your work here!  :) Antandrus (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC) reply

It's back again. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply

And again. I'd recommend reviewing the log for this page -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply

And gone, twice more. What on earth is so hard to understand about "do not copy and paste contents of other websites" -- sometimes you just gotta shake your head. Antandrus (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I see that you blocked the user in question for repeated copyright violation. His sockpuppet User:Al0001 has also been blocked. [3] He is now editing as 84.131.120.34. You might want to keep an eye out. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 13:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads-up. I think I'll let him alone unless he does something block-worthy; even though technically we usually block people like that for "block evasion" that would seem pointless, unless he attempts to violate copyright again. I'd rather he "got it" than got repeatedly kicked off the site. He does seem to be part of a notable piano duo, and teaches at the State Academy of Music and Theatre in Hanover. He posted (rantily) to the unblock mailing list and one of the responders there wrote to him with a cogent explanation, so we'll see if that helps. I suppose I should head over to de: to see if he's active there too. Best, Antandrus (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Follow-up: excellent, I see you have provided him with German links; that might help. Antandrus (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I just stumbled across this essay and wanted to tell you how much I enjoyed it. It was some good food for thought. Lot 49a ^talk 03:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you; glad you enjoyed it. I've had fun putting it together. Antandrus (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Same here... It was really fun reading it and ya, it was serious stuff too, mostly true -- Tinu Cherian - 03:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks! It's funny, most people have liked it, but every once in a while it really pisses someone off (they're on the talk page, and in my e-mail). I always wonder which one zinged them. -- Wow, Kerala. I very much want to go there some day, and the adjacent areas as well ... you're almost exactly on the opposite side of the planet from me. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Mendelssohn may have had Jewish antecedents, but he was born into, baptized and brought up in a Lutheran family. He later became a Roman Catholic. At no stage in his life was he Jewish, nor did he ever identify himself as Jewish. Please see the discussion pages and don't revert my edits. He was defined as Jewish by the Nazi Party, because they made the innovation of treating Jews as a race, not a religious community. Up until the early 20th century German Jews were regarded correctly as Germans. For Wikipaedia to succumb to a racial or genetic definition of Jewishness is highly contentious. Please read the discussion page very carefully, and make up your mind, but for the time being leave the categories out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthaeus Tomlinson ( talk • contribs)

I see that the editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia (1905) then consulted the Nazis in determining whether or not to include Mendelssohn's biography. I'm sorry to have to inform you that "Jewish" is more than religious belief. Your view is the minority one. Please see the article " Jew". Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Have you evidence that any of Mendelssohns contemporaries regarded him as Jewish? The notion of Jewishness being 'genetically' defined is a 20th century one that should be left behind with the vile political movements that accompanied it. What evidence have you that mine is a minority view? A visit to an Israeli city is enough to show that Jewishness cannot possibly be racially defined except for political purposes - every racial group is present from Nordic to African, all Jewish! In Mendelssohn's time there were simply three religious communities in Germany and folks moved, like the Mendelssohns, from one to another. Don't perpetuate Nazism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthaeus Tomlinson ( talk • contribs)

"Perpetuate Nazism"? Thanks! I needed another good insult to add to my collection. Did you even read what I wrote? The editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia included his biography in there in 1905 -- in case you are not aware of the chronology, that was before Nazism; I apologize for assuming you would know that. Please acquaint yourself with a few "vile political movements" like Halakha, Ashkenazi Jew, and also consult the vile political propaganda machine called the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, in particular the articles on the Mendelssohn family and 19th-century music criticism before continuing your edit-war. Oh, by the way, are you here to help us build an encyclopedia, or just to behave disruptively? Most of us take a dim view of people who show up with a single purpose: to edit war over ethnicity. We see a lot of that. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't throw your weight around, please. I am not a single issue campaigner. I happen to be interested in 19th century church music as it happens. Do you not think that it would be kind to respect Mendelssohn senior's wishe on this matter? He wished to abandon Judaism. Should he not be allowed to do so? Felix Mendelssohn was very ostensibly a Christian composer who wrote a great deal of church music, much of which is used liturgically today. If he was a convert, like Mahler, then it might be reasonable to categorise him as Jewish, in that he would have been Jewish for part of his life. However, he was not. He was baptised as a Christian having been born to Christian parents. If you would like to categorise him as a Jew, would you allow me to categorise Mr Obama as a Muslim in that he has a Muslim name and had Muslim grandparents? If the matter is controversial, it should not be there. You are also WRONG about Grove. Matthaeus Tomlinson ( talk) 15:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply

"Throw my weight around"? Did I threaten to block you? I can, if all you do is edit-war over ethnicity, because such behavior is a sickening waste of our time. Mendelssohn is universally considered to be a Jew, and all your whining will not change that. And I'm RIGHT about Grove, if you would bother to look. For example, look at section 6 of the article "Nationalism" in which no less a scholar than Richard Taruskin states quite clearly that Mendelssohn was a Jew. Now go take your POV-pushing elsewhere. Claiming that only the Nazis considered Mendelssohn to be Jewish is not only nonsense, it is highly offensive. Jews claim him to be Jewish. You still have not bothered to acknowledge that Nazism did not even exist in 1905 when the editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia wrote his biography.

Your paragraph is full of specious nonsense. "Muslim" is not an ethnicity. Writing liturgical Christian music does not make someone from a Jew into a non-Jew. Read the article Jew please, as I told you more than once, if you are unclear on the concept. And this "matter" is only controversial to those on the fringe.

There is no contradiction between having Mendelssohn simultaneously a Christian and a Jew. They are not parallel in meaning. Antandrus (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I have not used an offensive manner towards you in arguing about this, so perhaps you might like to desist? Three points, however: 1. Mendelssohn is NOT universally regarded as a Jew, otherwise the question would not have arisen on the discussion page of his article. I must confess that I was very surprised to see the Jewish categories at the bottom of the page. 2. In not a few parts of our globe "Muslim" IS an ethnicity. One of those parts that may have come to your attention in the last couple of decades is the former Yugoslavia.

3. As a Christian (and incidentally someone whom the Nazis would probably have regarded as Jewish) I would certainly say that Christianity and Judaism are mutually exclusive. Now do stop getting so hysterical - he wasn't that brilliant a composer anyway. Fiddleback ( talk) 18:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Fiddleback ( talk) 18:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Absolutely hysterical -- like your heading for this section, maybe? Go get consensus on the Mendelssohn talk page. Using reliable sources. And knock off the disgusting personal attacks, please; that includes ad hominems such as attempting to dissect my motives. Have a nice day, Antandrus (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I've been observing this thread since it started, and I'm not sure if I should laugh, cry, or blow out a cerebral artery. Antandrus, you recommendation to read the article Jew is probably the best advice ever. This thread starts with application of Godwin's Law right at the section title. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I never got addicted to AGF weed. Sometimes that's a good thing. Sometimes bad. But with these two pushing their POV, I'd rather have shrooms. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

When I read this in my Talk page after investing several hours trying to contribute:

"...The recent edit you made ... constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. --Happy new Headcheese!- hexa Chord ² 04:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)" reply

Well, let's say I was discouraged. I wrote a brief response to Hexa (in ASCII), hoping yet again to offer feedback that might help guide the wikimeisters toward a kinder, gentler response to sincere contribution efforts like mine.

Then I read your kind note, and felt a niggle of hope again:

"This edit is not vandalism; it's quite a good picture, actually. I was here while they hydromulched this area, and the colors were spectacular (and weird) as it went down, band by band. Jw4nvc, instead of putting in external links (see our WP:EL policy, which is what you are running into) is there a possibility you could license one or more of your images by the WP:GFDL, and then upload them so we can use them directly in articles? Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)" reply

As to the policy, I was asked by a wiki pagemeister to remove the copyright on another of my photos so it could be included on a page. I'd rather invest my time in things other than trying to figure out the legalities of copyright/left/commons. Since my Flickr page is set up to allow anyone to view and download my photos, I prefer to retain copyright so that there's a faint hope that if Big Corp Inc makes money on one I can find a lawyer who enjoys practicing contingency copyright law. Frankly, the chances I'd ever know about such an infringement are remote. I don't want to make money on my photos, I just don't want others to.

I wonder if the main issue for both wiki and me is ease. Wiki wants to know they'll never need to defend Fair Use now that we're blessed with Big Corp's DMCA. I want to know I can freely share beauty where I find it, without unpacking massive legal documents. Maybe someday Big Corp & Big Bro will return to sensible Fair Use.

Meanwhile, I greatly appreciate your kind words and the time it took you to write them and perhaps read all this. :) Jw4nvc ( talk) 05:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply

"I was just up there yesterday trying to find a good ground vantage point for a shot."

Wow, more kind words and even some simple suggestions! Maybe as you said there is some hope for both wiki and me after all. As for vantage points, maybe I could buy you a coffee sometime and get a list of places you'd like aerial photos of or perhaps share a flight. I'm itching to get back out to the incredible rock formation at Soda Lake (past Cuyama) for my Flickr collection, and splitting the $90/hr. for the plane makes it easier. As you now know, I'm all about ease. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw4nvc ( talk • contribs)

OK, I've uploaded my first WC photo and added it along with an EdHat reference to the bridge article. I'm curious to see if it's deleted or I get flamed. I welcome any comments or suggestions you're willing to offer. I've pondered all this a bit, and am wondering if a major issue has been my reluctance to learn and adopt stringent publishing standards. I value the reliability of wiki info, so it's easy to understand why the standards are complex. At the same time, contributing is an occasional urge so I'm reluctant to invest hours studying the standards. I like how easy it is to get started on wiki editing, and had incorrectly assumed the wiki style was someone more experienced would correct it if any value were added by it. Oops. Anyway, no worries if it's deleted because I had fun futzing with it. Hey, hope your year is all you'd like. Jw4nvc ( talk) 07:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hope 2009 is a great year for you!-- MONGO 15:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey, thank you! I hope it is one for you too -- 2008 was a bit of a stinker. Best, Antandrus (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Happy 2009. Looks like it's a case of "Meet the new year, same as the old year" round here though as I'm currently engaged in an equally absurd Wiki-debate elsewhere. On the other hand, I've been creating a series of articles on Debussy's unfinished opera projects, which has been rather more stimulating. Cheers. -- Folantin ( talk) 16:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey, thanks, Antandrus. I was remiss in not wishing you HNY, so all the best to you and those you love. This year, mid-summer is not much different from mid-winter down here. Sydney was stinking hot (par for the course) last week, but Victoria hasn't quite realised it's supposed to be warmer weather by now. Our time will come. Cheers. -- JackofOz ( talk) 00:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I actually have a beach home there (well, it's not quite on the beach, but I can see it from all of my windows) which I rent out now. It's my favorite city in the world, except that I can't get decent pizza there. That makes me sad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, the pizza's no good here. We do have some good Indian food (I took User:Angela to one such place when she was in town a couple years ago). It's a nice town, but I do miss the big city. After grad school I decided to come back to live here in spite of the advice of my friends; so it goes. But for good pizza it seems you need a big city with Italians. Antandrus (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

But surprisingly decent bagels and lox. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I've been there a few times, it's beautiful! I must say though, I don't remember ever having pizza in Santa Barbara. Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

No, you don't go to SB for pizza. Sushi on the other hand.....there must be 10 good places (at least) to get sushi. SB is like the only small town I'd ever consider making a permanent residence, since it's just perfect. It never gets too hot nor too cold (in fact, the nights are mostly cool), there's hardly any crime, lot's of cultural things to do. But it costs a lot to live there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

My goodness! Woodstock's in Isla Vista has nice pizza. Maybe not the best in the world, especially if you prefer thin crust, but I like it. And Flavor of India is the best Indian place; the others are just OK. Dreamyshade ( talk) 07:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Maybe it's busting wikitalk protocol, but I felt claustrophobic getting so close to the right margin. Anyway, here are my Top 3 Pizza Points:

1: Life is not Pizza. I have known few (none really) towns this size with the diversity and excellence of restaurants. If you don't hate me for busting margins, feel free when I admit that pizza isn't my fav food. If you want to talk about brownies, let me know.

2: We do have pizza. As has been pointed out, those of our ghettos that boast higher pizzahead concentrations have some decent offerings.

3: Pizza, like all things, must ebb and flow. Right now, judging by expert comments here, we seem to be in the SB pizza ebb phase. Let me offer a clearly non-expert case in point: a few years ago this pizza-indifferent elitist became addicted to absolutely the best pizza ever sold without risk of DEA bust. A completely legal for public consumption gift to our species named Tiger Prawn Pizza at Brigitte's(sp?) where Opal is now next to the Arlington. That stuff could cause bliss-induced temporary blindness, but alas has ebbed and gone as did the Nobel-winning brownies at Pierre LaFond's (oh, please don't get me started).

So in closing, if you don't like SB pizza I suggest three strategies: 3-wait for the next Big Thing in SB pizzaland to flow onto our shores; 2-keep looking while increasing your tolerance for sub-standard fare; 1-cultivate an appetite beyond pizza. Jw4nvc ( talk) 04:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

LOL, good post. Personally I tend to prefer ethnic restaurants, which is one of the reasons I miss living in the big city (e.g. where I went to school); however SB isn't bad for an area of only 200,000. I like the Mexican restaurants here, the Indian, and a whole lot else besides ... and funny thing about pizza: I find that enjoyment tends to be a highly subjective matter, distorted by time: for example, pizzas that I remember as sublime, years after they are long devoured, may today be to me equivalent to Woodstocks, were I to experience them again: but because they are mixed with the happy afterglow of undergraduate exertions, troubles overcome, happy company, newly-found freedom and undoubtedly even substance-induced munchies, I think of them as unsurpassed. But damn I've had some good pizza in New York and Cambridge and Berkeley and Chicago. So it goes. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I like your points, starting with enjoying my prankish mood. Frankly, after posting I worried a bit about coming across as someone else ("when am I not myself?"). Your subjectivity point fits perfectly with my experience. I once had exceptional fish & chips at a shop next to Golden Gate Park, and was very startled at the deterioration in quality there just a few months later. Then I recalled that the first tasting session followed a long day romping in the park without food, that began with a compound the DEA would certainly take interest in today. You summed it up perfectly if I may paraphrase: don't come to SB looking for NYC. Clearly though, I'd like to live here, visit there (and other meccas), and heighten my awareness of the inner NYC/pizza/whatever we each nurture. Jw4nvc ( talk) 04:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes exactly ... oh, speaking of the Arlington, I also like that Argentine place across the street. In the 90s I used to go to that Mexican place next to it across Arlington Place, where they had the crayons you could use to color on the tablecloths while you waited for the monster sour-cream-and-guacamole heaped burrito you ordered. Alas I haven't been there for a while. Usually I watch the Solstice Parade from near that point. Antandrus (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Yikes, here comes that scary margin again. Buenos Aires that you mention has an incredibly cool Tango nite (Weds., as I recall), and you can stand on the sidwalk listening to the live trio while watching dramatic tango couples reminiscent of Waking Life. Carlitos is the second place you mention, and thankfully has come back from their fire still offering good margies (don't recall which of theirs is good/so-so) with decent food and the best flan in town. I came That Close to starting a new heading for Solstice, but it's half-way 'round the seasons so I'll just say remind me to describe the ADHD strategy we've discovered. Jw4nvc ( talk) 05:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I like Woodstock's partly because I've always been there with good friends and often also run into other people I know there, but the primavera pizza is pretty good. Blue Agave has a little pizza with an egg on top that I like for its novelty; Zaytoon has a wonderful za'atar "pizza" appetizer. User:Douglaswth and I enjoy going to Carlitos for a treat - it's nice to sit on the patio, and they have live music sometimes. We tried Cafe Buenos Aires, but it was a little pricey for college students and didn't have many non-meat options (I'm vegetarian). Dreamyshade ( talk) 06:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh thank you DS, for stopping the inexorable indent. I'm also glad you've expanded the pizza thing beyond the parlor. Many restaurants in town have good pizza. Anne and I were trying to recall which we recently were pleasantly surprised at. Might've been Mollie's on Coast Village. We don't do red meat, and Buenos has a really good (and relatively affordable to split) chicken thing. So what are the good veg places? Soj, Spiritland, or?? Jw4nvc ( talk) 07:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Sojourner is reliable. I've only been to Spiritland Bistro once, but I'd like to go again. Doug likes eating meat though, so we tend to go to omnivorous places. Fresco has a great veggie burger (but little else); Playa Azul has a nice vegetable tostada; Hungry Cat has one salad and I like it. Dish Cafe was decent, but I'm not sure what its status is now (getting renovated? renamed?). Natural Cafe is just blah. Dreamyshade ( talk) 09:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Yummy. :p Thanks for reminding me of places we've liked, and suggesting HC that we'll now taste. Natural has one thing I like (pocket pita falafel or some such) and Anne goes for the fish tacos & chicken falafel, and their turkey sandwiches are good so they might have veg variations (add avo). She discovered that you can phone an order in and pay at a side counter, which is handy for lunch. Jw4nvc ( talk) 16:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Sojourner I like ... Indian restaurants often (always?) have robust vegetarian menus ... Never been to Spiritland. Sounds intriguing. I'm an omnivore, so wherever. I've even eaten the strange stuff at Cold Spring Tavern.  :) Oh, Jw4nvc (finally hit me with a "duh" what "4nvc" stood for, looking at your edits) when the approaching margin starts to feel like the edge of a cliff coming up, you can decrease the indents one at a time and start going the other way. All you have to do is find one really long-winded argument on WP:ANI or somewhere to see how most people handle indenting. Sometimes people do it this way (see the '[unindent]' line) Antandrus (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

My opinions on food in SB. The Argentinean restaurant? No way. I've been to Argentina. I've eaten in Argentina. I'm friends with Argentineans. And that sir is not an Argentinean restaurant (many thanks to Lloyd Bentsen). I went to Cold Spring Tavern once with my motorcycle gang (that being a bunch of overpaid corporate stiffs with expensive motorcycles), and I recall that they were serving lion? I used to love the atmosphere at the Brown Pelican (where else can you eat right on the beach), but it's gone. But there is that hot dog stand in Carpinteria. That's been there for 10 years or more. As for the Stereotypes article....has the point been made. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Mm, yeah. I just commented on the AfD. If I said what I really think, I'd get booted off the project. -- I've had great food at that place -- maybe I had a good night, you a bad, or they had a chef switcheroo, a common problem around here. Regarding the BP, that one sticks in my craw. I loved that place, and it was easily my favorite spot to bring out-of-towners (the restaurant up on the Riviera was another -- I don't know if they're any good any more though). In the late 90s the chef at the BP had a way of making salmon that I'm yet to encounter anywhere else ... sigh. Oh well, I'm sure there will be new good restaurants just as I am certain that old good ones depart. And if you like Mexican food don't miss Rosie's on the Mesa (aka "The Rose Cafe" but locals call it "Rosie's"). Oh, and CST doesn't have lion any more. ("Everything tastes more or less like chicken" -- some comedian I can't name offhand). Antandrus (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Rosies. Yum. Every Sunday, I'd go up there for breakfast. I'd bring the LA Times and that SB paper (that I won't mention since it's gone downhill over the past year). I miss those days. For good comfort food, let's not forget about the Summerland Beach Cafe. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you -- may you have a fine 2009 as well. I'm not sorry to see 2008 in the rear-view mirror myself. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, I just sent a Flickrmail to another SB wikite requesting dialog in email for my ease (recent focus of my learning). That and reading this slander about SB pizza (yes Virginia, there IS such a thing), got me wondering if there's a rule against wikites arranging to meet. Is there anyone else here who'd like to attempt a gathering?

You can reply here, email using the link in the left column here, or go to my Flickr page and send from there if you're a member. Otherwise, let me know how we can get connected via email. I guess worst case we could just set a date/place here in A.'s talk.

So what say you? Interested in venturing briefly out of cyberia? Jw4nvc ( talk) 23:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Today I met with another SBW and we got an overview of things. I still hope to meet with the other I've already connected with in email, and will post updates occasionally lest you imagine that SBWU isn't moving forward. Feel free to post a follow up here or (preferably) contact me via email if you'd like to join in. Jw4nvc ( talk) 02:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Indeed, I've become a paparazzo. That was fun. Antandrus (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Careful, lest you are found out by the EdMadHatters who haunt that wonderful site and flail away at me. So when/where can I see more of the pix? Jw4nvc ( talk) 04:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The great majority of them are very bad. You were right -- taking pictures with one's head hanging out of the window of a moving airplane with 80 knots of icy blast wrestling you for control of your own camera makes for an uncertain photographic experience. I got a good and useable picture of the Painted Cave community, an acceptable shot of Rancho del Cielo, some pics of Lake Cachuma, and another couple pics on the way down of somewhere unmentionable. But once again thank you -- that was a delight. Alas, I did not see either Oprah beside her swimming pool or Brad Pitt on his dirt bike. Antandrus (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm so glad to have thoughtlessly failed to give you some photog pointers before flight, because now you'll need to go again. In essense: you'll want a setting that ensures at least 1/250th sec. shutter (often requiring high ISO setting); to keep the camera inside the plane (out of the wind) if at all possible; frequently review your shots zoomed in to check how they're working; experiment with how to reduce motion blur (sometimes bracing on yourself or the plane makes it worse, sometimes better); shoot away from the sun to reduce haze; use a polarizing filter if there's enough light and you want even less haze; use zoom sparingly; and use a rapid-fire approach of shooting several in a row to increase the chance that at least one will snap between oscillations of the lens. Jw4nvc ( talk) 01:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user and talk pages, and blocking the party responsible. Happy new year! Liberal Classic ( talk) 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You're welcome; I like this to be a friendly place, and we can do without those types. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

It's the middle of the night now everywhere in the world except the Middle East (South Africa?). How come you are posting at this odd hour?

Just curious. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 06:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

There's a nice aerial picture of my town right above; and see the "SB" thread a few back started by Orangemarlin. Santa Barbara, California, US. Being fairly predictable, I very rarely do any editing after about 0600 UTC, but I've been on vacation so I'm editing a little more than usual. Antandrus (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hope my noisy typing at 4am didn't wake anyone. I'm home in SB but holidaze and a slipped disc garnish on my severe cold got my internal clock blinking 12:00 all the time. Thank goodness for wiki. Jw4nvc ( talk) 16:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Antandrus has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Antandrus's day! For being a Wikipedian of wise words and incredible patience, enjoy being the Star of the day, Antandrus! Cheers, bibliomaniac 1 5 20:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey, thank you! That's a nice gesture; something that's rare enough around here. It also reminds me (with a pang) of how much I miss User:Phaedriel (was she the originator of these? I'm not sure but think so). Unfortunately I'm too busy in RL to do anything Wikipedia-wise but look at my watchlist a couple times today.  :) Cheers, Antandrus (talk)

Yeah, she was the originator. I miss her a lot too. Wikilove is a dying religion. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The phrase seems rather quaint now, doesn't it? I remember a time when it did not. Sure, there were nasty edit-wars in 2004, but I do not remember that routine level of nastiness, and sometimes just raw hate that one sees on the noticeboards now. Civility and kindness and good faith seem to be in a bear market, with no obvious way to make it rebound. We've changed from a village into a city: where once you could pass by another editor with a friendly wave and smile, now those rushing by think such behavior indicates you want something from them ("I don't want any of your hot air and chat pages, go away" another editor once said to me). Cities have their advantages over villages, but the style of discourse is quite different, and I think the routine unfriendliness on Wikipedia now drives away many promising newcomers. But my sincere gratitude for the "day" -- thank you! Antandrus (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

It's nice to be back, believe me. All that recent Grawp nonsense was the impetus. I mean, "Antandrus has an ant's brain?" Puh-leez.  :) Raul654 has been the biggest help imaginable since I started on this project and he came through in the clutch once more. Next time I'm in Santa Barbara, we'll hit some hip little joint on State Street. Drinks on me. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 05:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hmm, alright, fair enough; though I still wouldn't think the average vandal capable of such an act. Do you think that a report to SSP is unwarranted? Glass Cobra 15:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng { chat} 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I used to be the "North Carolina Vandal". I want to be welcomed back to the project as a good user. Egebwc ( talk) 07:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Sure thing. I see you've been a good user. Let me know when you are ready to grow up. Antandrus (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

That wasn't me. Don't you think that vandals get impersonated sometimes? Maybe you're the one who's immature. If you want proof it isn't me, just ask for a checkuser-you'll see the IPs don't match. Egebwc ( talk) 05:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I tell you what. Make me a list of all the websites where you registered my username and used it to vandalize, where you called me a child molester, a Nazi, or whatever other insulting epithet occurred to you at the time. Once you have made that list, answer me this question: how would you feel if someone did that to you? And answer me a second question: what exactly did you gain from that? Did it make you feel good somehow? And now you want a "welcome" from me? Has it ever occurred to you that there are human beings behind these words on the screen in front of you, and insulting those people just because you are anonymous and can get away with it is a despicable act of cowardice?

You graduated from high school last year, right? You in college yet? Do you think about the consequences of your actions, or is the whole world a big graffiti board for you still? Curious. Answer me. Antandrus (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't really want a "welcome back", I want a right to vanish. As either the NCV or "ED troll" (as I later became) I have not hung around here much for a long time. But I have been waiting for the "right to vanish" for a long time. And futhermore I'll point out that anyone saying they are the NCV anytime within the past year is an impostor: checkuser will confirm this.

I don't really care to list what I have said about you or anyone else on another website since I'm not looking to become an admin within the next year, I just want it to be confirmed that I have left and given the right to vanish. Egebwc ( talk) 06:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Please, Egebwc, do everyone a favour and use your right to vanish. You don't have to wait, or ask permission. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I'd rather be formally granted the right to vanish, hopefully sanctioned by Jimbo Wales and/or the Wikipedia community. NOTE: I was not "wikitruthguy" at Encyclopedia Dramatica-my name was "Croboy Man". Egebwc ( talk) 02:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I know who you are. "Wikitruthguy" was Gogi in Chicago, the "George Reeves Person." And why are you asking me anyway? I have no special status here of any kind. If you want to vanish, you do that by -- believe it or not -- vanishing. By posting here you are accomplishing the opposite of what you intend. Antandrus (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Who am I to ask for the right to vanish then? I want the community to know that the NCV is gone from WP, something not everyone may understand. Also, how did you know who "wikitruthguy" was even though he was posting on a different site? Egebwc ( talk) 04:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Go on, tell me that this isn't you. I want to hear it from you. I'm waiting. Antandrus (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

You really shouldn't be leaving comments at archived topics. Egebwc ( talk) 01:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

You shouldn't be vandalizing and trolling. Time to grow up; aren't you 18 now? Antandrus (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

LOL. Thank you for showing me that. I liked your recent entry for "redlink" in WikiSpeak, too. -- RobertG ♬ talk 16:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I enjoyed the comment you left on Talk:California#VANDALISM. It actually made me laugh out loud. Killiondude ( talk) 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks! The analogy of vandalism as "litter in the street" has been used before; it's a fairly effective one. "I can't believe you are allowing me to edit and vandalize this web site!" = "I can't believe there is no policeman standing in front of my house preventing me from hurling a load of fish heads and beer cans in the street!" One of the reasons Wikipedia works so well, I think, is the the majority of people have at least a rudimentary sense of ethics, and do not add nonsense or misinformation: the majority of edits are done in good faith. Of course there are a few, mostly kids, who have not yet developed that mature sense of the ethics of good community behavior. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You might look at my review of Hildegard of Bingen; I found a fair amount to complain about. Magic ♪piano 01:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hm, yeah. That article isn't on my watchlist and I haven't looked at it for a while. Looking briefly at the history, it's not even obvious to me who wrote it -- I thought Makemi did but I was wrong. It appears to be a Frankenstein mishmash of minor accretions, with no one really ever giving it a good overview or check for omissions. "Start" rating is fair.

I don't know much about Hildegard, but it shouldn't be too hard to fill in some of the major omissions (e.g. why she is considered to be a saint) -- but I'm saying that before getting up to pull any books off the shelf. (Come to think of it, Anonymous 4 might have some decent info in the liner notes to one of their CDs.) Antandrus (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply