Archive 32: April through mid-July 2009. Please do not edit this page -- use my regular talk page instead, as I will not see your message here.

I really respect you. You make me want to come back from being a "white dwarf" and do mediation again. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 03:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply

It does mean something! Thank you! And please come back any time you so desire; mediation is a rare skill and a much-needed one. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you reverted a set of edits made by user Unitwikia on the De-Stalinization page, and your edit summary read "rm banned user's usual nonsense". I wasn't aware that this user was banned; I've been dealing with disruptive edits by several of his obvious sockpuppets recently :

• Unitwiki ( talk · contribs)
• Unitwikis ( talk · contribs)
• Unitwikia ( talk · contribs)
• Unitwikias ( talk · contribs)
• Unitmorewikis ( talk · contribs)
• Unitmorewikias ( talk · contribs)

Though I've tried to be helpful and assume good faith, it doesn't seem to be taking. If there's a main user here who was banned, then I'd like to file those accounts as socks of the original user. Can you point me in the right direction to identify the primary account and its ban history? Best, -- Docether ( talk) 15:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Yup. I sure wish you had e-mail enabled. Situation of great delicacy. He's been harassing us for three years, and the harassment has, on occasion, reached quite extreme levels. This is where the history was; notice who deleted it. Shoot me an e-mail if you want to know more. Antandrus (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the followup. Since you know more about the history of this user, would you like to submit the accounts I've listed above to the sockpuppet list and get them blocked / salted? -- Docether ( talk) 16:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Will do. Caution: do not ever e-mail him, even though he will plague you relentlessly with requests to do so (unless your e-mail service masks IPs in the header). He's a serial stalker, is quite insane, and can and will damage you any way he can if he decides your are on his bad side; he also reserves his fiercest hate for people who try to help him (like me). Antandrus (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply

You got it. Thanks again for the advice, and all your help. Best, -- Docether ( talk) 17:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh, and here are two more socks which have popped up, if you haven't listed the others yet :

• Funrunfunf ( talk · contribs)
• Colormepurple ( talk · contribs)

Thanks, -- Docether ( talk) 19:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. You may be interested in my comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3 where I reference you. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you -- yes, I would never have noticed (I never really know if anyone reads that essay, except by the occasional notes I get; and as you can imagine, once in a while I get a hostile one). Regarding that user talk page -- there are actually a fair number of deleted pages of trolls and troublemakers I routinely look at, usually to help me identify possible sockpuppets. Now that I'm looking at it, oy -- it's not pretty. Some people just are not suited to a collaborative environment. Antandrus (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

		A Lucky Penny
		In the spirit of "See a penny, pick it up. All the day you'll have good luck", this penny is offered to Editor:Antandrus for his timely help with vandalism at Timetable of the Presidency of Barack Obama....-- Buster7 ( talk) 02:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)|} reply

Thanks! Yah, that was one of those cases when I just happened to click on "recent changes" and saw something happening that didn't look right. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I sent you an email. =) -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 06:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Responded.  :) Antandrus (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't really give out barnstars (or pay much attention to the few I've got), but I'd like to express my admiration of your observations on Wikipedia behavior, which I just happened to be led to by a link. Deor ( talk) 02:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. I am currently undertaking a Feature Article Candidacy for the Rufous-crowned Sparrow article. I used one of your pictures, File:Chaparral California.jpg, as a representative image of where the sparrow lives. During the image review, it was noted that the image's uploader is different from yourself, so I was asked to confirm that you have released the image. If so, could you please sign a statement on the image description page to confirm this? Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow ( talk) 19:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Uh, I took the picture, so it would have to be me who uploaded it. Let me check it out. Antandrus (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for clearing up the issue and for uploading a larger version of the picture. Rufous-crowned Sparrow ( talk) 19:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks to delete this page → User talk:Jarandra. Mikhailov Kusserow ( talk) 03:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. Antandrus (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I know I am about ten days late, but to say something about you being here on Wikipedia for half a decade already, I would like to wish you a happy fifth "first edit" anniversary! The time does indeed go fast, it has been FIVE years since you joined! NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  00:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey, thank you NHRHS! You're the only one who noticed. Yeah, it's a long time. That seems like forever, that innocent day when I thought "what the heck? I can edit this thing?" I'm sure you must remember your own sense of shock on the discovery (two years, a month, and a week for you!) All the best, Antandrus (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The Category Anti-Turkism page is relevant as the "organizations" (some of whom are listed as terrorits organizations by the U.S. and the E.U.) and people who fought, fought the Turkish state and/or individuals for ideological/nationalistic/political purposes as the Turkish state was an obstacle for thier goals. In case of nationalism Anti-Turkism is totally relevant and applicable as their nationalisms and actions clashed or still clashes with Turkish nationalism and the Turkish state, and vice versa. The same applies for the Category Anti-Armenianism. So for the sake of partiality either these two categories should be erased or should stay. The same applies for the other Anti-(Nationality) Categories as well. But not one or the other.

P.S. I am neither Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian or Greek; I am Iranian if anybody was curious about me. But I don't think that is relevant either.

Saguamundi

I think it's better to discuss this at CfD where I have proposed the category for deletion [1]. -- Folantin ( talk) 10:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I take it you've been browsing Kat's recent contributions, too? :) Best, RobertG ♬ talk 15:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Exactly! Her talk page remains on my watchlist.  :) Antandrus (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

FASCIST. Leave your racism out of the Jonathon Swift article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.36 ( talk)

As used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ( [2]). And don't get me started on "Go fuck yourself." MastCell  ^Talk 21:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply

86 would be interested to learn that I am myself Irish. But then he's not interested in helping us write an encyclopedia, only in finding anyone who disagrees with him on anything whatsoever and tagging that person as a "Nazi". People like that provide innocent entertainment for the reasonable portion of the world, and a little bit of exercise for the fingers of those with "block" buttons. Antandrus (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Personal attacks are wholly untowards. I'd have let it slide, but the wantonly mistaken take on fascism was altogether too much for this lassie. Gwen Gale ( talk)

This particular character reminds me of two things: 1) one of my favourite characters in James Joyce's Ulysses, met in a bar; 2) certain characters I've encountered in real-life bars, who were bodily hurled into the street by bouncers, again and again. Unfortunately, two things: in Joyce, he was not so hurled, and on Wikipedia, as in RL, he's likely to come stumbling back in, unenlightened. I'd offer him a Flaming Nazi with cinnamon schnapps. Antandrus (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry, another typo. Bugboy52.4 ( talk) 02:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, I hope your vacation amongst the lovely flowers was very pleasant! I've written an article on Loulié's chronomètre and would appreciate your critique. Patricia M. Ranum ( talk) 18:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC) reply

for that. -- Rrburke^{( talk)} 02:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply

You're welcome -- I blocked him, and after he started vandalizing his own talk page I adjusted the block to prevent him from editing that too. Oh well. Antandrus (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I am surprised you mandated censorship on wiki. Yo-Yo Ma is a musician. I am not arguing that, but his involvement with the Bush administration needs to be documented. I am very disappointed that your behavior is more or less the similar as a communist official. I feel sorry for you. Go take a look at Herbert Von Karajan's wiki. You will know what I mean.

I don't have high hopes that you will stop what you are doing. That's not important to me. What is important is that I now understand wiki is a censored material, controlled by people like you using some sort of law that you manipulate for your advantage. SHAME ON YOU!

Antandrus not loyal party member but is running dog lackey of imperialists. Visit dacha of Boris for correct zeal to revolution. Mir i druzhba to all comrade. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 18:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply

"Liberalism manifests itself in many ways ...

"To indulge in irresponsible criticism ... To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into a discussion and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly ...

"To be aware of one's own mistakes, and yet make no attempt to correct them ..."

Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung, p. 245-246. Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1972. Mandator of Censorship, and Running-Dog Harassment Engineer, 19:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, only commies botch how many tildes to put in a sig :D Gwen Gale ( talk) 20:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Uh, but I thought two plus two did equal five? Antandrus (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Spot. on. :) Gwen Gale ( talk) 20:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I have to say, that being called a "fascist" and a "communist" by two different people, within a 24-hour period, is one of my proudest accomplishments on Wikipedia to date, and is happily timed for my (slightly-late) five-year anniversary. Shouldn't I get the Molotov-Ribbentrop Order of Merit or something? Antandrus (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

You know, those two got together in Moscow, canny scammin' for uncle Joe and you-know-who, Ribbentrop the champagne flogger, Moletov who had an unhelpful "cocktail" thingy named after him, maybe I think it all slurs the eald malt but that's another tale. Gwen Gale ( talk) 00:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't know what overall effect Wikipedia has had on my intellectual life, but I do know I drink more than I did five years ago. However I'm havin' dinner in a moment and could do with one of them Molotov bread baskets (oh ... uh ... wait ...) Antandrus (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Aye, me too and meanwhile I'd never heard of that sick gadget (never mind we're going through it all again now, you know what I mean). Gwen Gale ( talk) 00:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

File:Joseph Stalin.jpg			The Inaugural Uncle Duce Award for Contradictory Political Bias
			Awarded to Antandrus for being accused of being a fascist and a communist within 48 hours. The party of your whim salutes you! Acroterion (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Or why not join Russia's National Bolshevik Party? Lovely people. -- Folantin ( talk) 18:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I hope, Antandrus, particularly with your being a musician, that you aren't suffering from cognitive dissonance. -- RobertG ♬ talk 19:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Heh, fascism and socialism/communism both spin up into much the same tune, only each played to their own scores to keep folks guessin' :) Gwen Gale ( talk) 04:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

LOL. While I'd need to borrow Boris's Complete Works of Lenin for an appropriate quotation, not having yet found a suitably priced copy on eBay, I have to say this is the most fun I've ever had with a couple of (entirely serious, as far as I can tell) trolls. Antandrus (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Can I use your user page as my own? I plan to edit it to make it different from yours of course but I wanted to know if I could have your permission before I tried anything. 月 と 暁 01:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Certainly! I think ten or twelve other people have adopted it as a template (I did not design it, by the way: credit goes to the delightful User:Phaedriel, designer of many user pages, who unfortunately has left the building). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Saw your comment on my talk. Thank you for allowing me to use, even though you didn't design it I'll still credit you. If I have any troubles could I ask you for help? 月 と 暁 01:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Sure -- no problem! I'm no expert on Wiki-syntax --preferring to add content -- but can usually figure things out. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Not sure if you are still following the thread you started on the copyright info talk page, but from my reading of Intellectual property in the People's Republic of China#Copyright law and some other quick references the book is not covered by copyright. DreamGuy ( talk) 15:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you! No, I've been hiking in the mountains all day. Just got back, haven't looked at any threads yet. It was just a wild hair idea -- I thought a picture of the book might help the article, but I never, ever upload fair use, so I wanted to see if there was a way. (See the hilarious thread above for context.) All the best, Antandrus (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I've gotta say you have one of the more interesting talk pages. Communism and fascism, indeed.

I'm here for a somewhat more mundane purpose that I'm wondering if you can help out with. This image was originally uploaded to en.wikipedia, and then moved to Commons by a different user. Its copyright status is being questioned in this FAC. Is there a way to retrieve the file history from when it was on Wikipedia, so that we can see what, if anything, the original uploader (who appears to have been the photographer, and is also inactive) had to say about copyright/left?

Feel free to point me elsewhere if you can't help. Thanks! Magic ♪piano 14:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Magicpiano -- yes indeed. And it's nice to have someone visit my talk page who isn't accusing me of being a mass murderer or something.

Here is the deleted file history (took me just a little sleuthing since the file changed name):

Page history

(diff) 12:43, 4 November 2007 . . SieBot (talk | contribs | block) (192 bytes) (Exact duplicate on Commons with same name)
(diff) 22:06, 29 May 2006 . . Ebedgert (talk | contribs | block) (This photograph was taken by Wikipedia member Ebedgert.)

File history

22:06, 29 May 2006 . . Ebedgert (talk | contribs | block) 640×480 (99,036 bytes) (This photograph was taken by Wikipedia member Ebedgert.) 

Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete"

And here is the complete content of Ebedgert's 29 May 2006 page (from "page history", not "file history", which is the image -- and I verified it is the same image)

== Summary == This photograph was taken by Wikipedia member Ebedgert. == Licensing == {{PD-self}}

Which is quite clearly "I took the picture myself, and am making it public domain."

Hope this helps! Antandrus (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

That should help. Thanks again! Magic ♪piano 15:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, while I'm at it, can you do the same for File:The Victory of Montcalms Troops at Carillon by Henry Alexander Ogden.JPG? This one is much more problematic, and it would be good to have the WP file and page history. Magic ♪piano 15:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Greetings again -- here you go:

Page history

   * (diff) 21:50, 17 March 2009 . . Magicpiano (talk | contribs | block) (323 bytes) (CSD F8 (copied to Commons))
   * (diff) 21:37, 6 April 2008 . . PericlesofAthens (talk | contribs | block) (240 bytes) (Undid revision 189109135 by 158.91.84.80 (talk))
   * (diff) 21:16, 4 February 2008 . . 158.91.84.80 (talk | block) (80 bytes) (Summary)
   * (diff) 00:02, 22 November 2007 . . Albrecht (talk | contribs | block) (240 bytes) (The Victory of Montcalm's Troops at Carillon. Early 20th century painting by Henry Alexander Ogden (1854 1936). 
Online. Fort Ticonderoga Museum, NY.)

File history

   * 00:02, 22 November 2007 . . Albrecht (talk | contribs | block) 818×736 (100,066 bytes) (The Victory of Montcalm's Troops at Carillon. Early 20th century painting by Henry Alexander Ogden (1854 1936). 
Online. Fort Ticonderoga Museum, NY.)

Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete"

And here is the contents of the original upload page (22 Nov 2007):

== Summary == ''The Victory of Montcalm's Troops at Carillon''. Early 20th century painting by Henry Alexander Ogden (1854 1936). [http://books.google.com/books?id=vwEm3wyIs-cC Online]. Fort Ticonderoga Museum, NY. == Licensing == {{PD-US}}

The copyright status is not clear to me. It seems it should be in public domain, but it's not certain without getting an actual date on the painting, which seems to be lacking. PD-art would apply if you can verify it was published prior to 1923 (see the documentation for PD-US). Good luck, Antandrus (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

There is no date (yet) on the painting, nor is there any adequate publication history (which is also apparently at issue when the artist is known to have died after 1923). I'm currently in the early stages of a dialog with the Ticonderoga Museum curator over this. If these things can't be established, the image will have to go. Thanks again for your help! Magic ♪piano 19:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Drat -- thought someone had done an amazing job of this one. Yup, amazing at lifting directly from Grove... (I put db-copyvio on it). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey, greetings! Good to see you around! I deleted it for you; apparently some people do not understand that copy and paste, even of what appears to the naive as just a "list", is not acceptable. (I find writing works lists quite difficult since I don't want to pillage from Grove: I use it as a source, reformat, and try to find some other sources, asides, additions, comments.) Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• In your essay, you might wanna consider " ersatz form of excitement" instead of "substitute excitement". if it were an article, I'd do it myself, but it's your essay :-) Ling.Nut ^{( talk— WP:3IAR)} 06:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply

(In response to your edit summary rather than to Ling.Nut's preceding comment...) Ah, yes, I see. I mistakenly read "substitute" as a noun rather than an adjective. :-) - Stelio ( talk) 09:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hm. Rewording might be a good idea, since you're not the first one to make that exact change. Ersatz -- yes. That's exactly it. "Substitute excitement" is a clumsy jumble of syllables anyway. Thanks both! Antandrus (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I may be unavailable for a while. It's a price you pay for living in a nice place. Antandrus (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I will be thinking of you and hoping all is well with you and yours - take care and be safe! KillerChihuahua ^?!? 23:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you KC! As it turns out, all is well now -- I'm back home, I see stars and no smoke, and the media, as usual, is just getting around to reporting how bad it was yesterday. Antandrus (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Now this is interesting - Wikipedia:Four Award - given your views on completeness of the pedia. How many as yet unwritten articles that are capable of FA...I'd say a stack of insects and cultivated plants could fill this category. Not sure what else. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply

PS: Yoicks, just noticed the preceding section - fingers crossed for ya. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks! -- Yah, that's a tough one. I can think of a few in my area of expertise -- but bringing obscure things up to FA isn't so easy because you have to make them interesting to non-specialists. There was an article in this quarter's Journal of the American Musicological Society about the Vatican's 16th-century list of prohibited music; that would make a good Wikipedia article -- but they already wrote it for JAMS! There are some areas; I'm sure Everyking could list a couple dozen topics on African politics that could be FA-d. But I think the field is less rich than it was a few years ago. Antandrus (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, the Vatican's 16th-century list of prohibited music sounds really cool :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

There are probably hundreds of literature pages out there still to be created which could be FAs. We don't even have an article on Racine's Athalie yet and it's one of the most famous French plays. -- Folantin ( talk) 07:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

.... to my grammar, no idea how that slipped through. Great user page, one of the best, probably the best, on the subject. Thanks for putting it together. :) David D. (Talk) 02:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey, you're welcome! I'm happy you found the page (I never have any idea if people are reading the thing or not; but every once in a while I click on inbound links, which was how I found the template). It was fun to write, and I was very, very careful not to name anyone as an example ... LOL. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

hope your break was restful and fulfilling (or at least not completely teh suk). KillerChihuahua ^?!? 13:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Yah, I was starting to get short-tempered, which is a sign. It's actually fun not to look at your watchlist for a whole day, and even better, not to worry about it.  :) Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Antandrus! I have spent a few days completely rewriting and expanding the article on Thomas Tomkins. But I hesitate to post it without warning or opinion. What do you suggest? Go ahead and post it and await the consequences? Or have it vetted by people like yourself? Your guidance would be most appreciated. You can see my other contributions on my user page, from which I hope you will conclude that I am not a mere vandal...! Nick Michael ( talk) 20:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey, greetings! I think you can go ahead and post it. I completely trust you; I'll read it once it is there. (I'm presuming you wrote it off-line since I don't see it in your contribs.) Looking at the article history, I see no evidence of controversy or " ownership" by anyone. Thank you for your trouble! In general it seems like there's less actual article writing going on than there was a few years ago. Antandrus (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Done! Thanks... I may add a list of keyboard works, but perhaps this should be done on a separate page? Nick Michael ( talk) 07:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Why is Schule Schloss Salem blocked from editing?

It will remain so until you stop vandalising. Are you Andres or Eduardo? I thought you were back in Mexico. Who shall I contact to get you to knock it off? Antandrus (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Well seeing as both Eduardo and Andres don't go to Salem anymore, there's not much you can do....

Hey Antandrus, How are you? I see you've blocked Schule Schloss Salem again! I don't know exactly why, as I haven't vandalized in a while, I guess the Graf von Spaahm legacy is still strong within the Salem community. Well, I hope you have a great day!

SPAM! -=Eduardo=- ( talk) 21:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Nice essay! I'm at no. 28 now and so far I got a few bits of new wisdom along the way.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Appreciate that. Antandrus (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello Antandrus, I really like your User Page, its elegant, not overcrowded and shows exactly what needs to be shown. I'm aware that anything on Wikipedia is licensed under GFDL, but I thought it would be nicer to ask you. May I copy your Userpage design, edit it, and add it to my own userpage? Thanks in advance, Sitethief ( talk) 12:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Sure -- no problem! The original designer was User:Phaedriel, who unfortunately seems to have left the project. She designed a lot of the better user pages. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

User:Antandrus/Archive32 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Antandrus/Archive32's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Antandrus/Archive32! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

No problem, you're most deserving. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. Sorry I didn't see your message earlier. I answered on the talk page. Your comments were appropriate, but even more, caused me to realize I didn't want to spin my wheels transcribing encyclopedia articles at random. Best regards, Piano non troppo ( talk) 09:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I've been working on Arnolt Schlick for some time and am going to push for GA in the future. I rewrote most of it, I'm afraid most of your text is gone... But one paragraph from your original edits remains, at " Influence". I was wondering if you based that one on Reese's book; if you did, would you consider add a citation? I could then expand the section with some general ideas on how he was rediscovered and how his lost works may have been more advanced than the ones we know, and then the article would be ready for copy-editing and, eventually, GA nomination...

-- Jashiin ( talk) 15:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Greetings -- it's a long time since I wrote that article (almost five years). My best guess, not having my books with me at the moment, is that it's from the 1980 Grove article. I can look when I'm back home. Reese and the 1980 Grove were the two sources I mainly used for Renaissance musicians in 2004. I'll add a cite if that turns out to be accurate. Antandrus (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks! I'll be waiting then. -- Jashiin ( talk) 08:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi there! I thought I had set some setting someplace so that I would not get notifications of meetups and the like, but I got another one today...admittedly, the first in quite some time. Where do I set that setting? Or is it impossible to eliminate all of them? Merci! -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 19:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I never get meetup notifications. You may have posted on the page for the regional meetups; if that turns out to be the case, just scratch out (or remove) your name. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Sophocles has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 23:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Not that anyone is interested, but here you can read what I think about the "Good article reassessment" project. Since I'm not an expert on Sophocles, only an avid reader, I'm unlikely to add much of encyclopedic value to the article. I do think that our current mania for citation -- particularly of basic, uncontroversial material -- is ridiculous, but I don't know what to do about it, since I'm clearly becoming more and more in the minority. Since "citation needed" tags are being added to Wikipedia at a much greater rate than they are being removed and replaced with "proper" cites, unless something changes, a day will inevitably come when almost every article on the project has one or more hideous "improvement needed" tags at the top, and a metastatic scatter of "fact" tags throughout the text. Antandrus (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey, you're complaining? I waited two months in the queue at WP:GAC to have an article with 30+ inline citations rejected in a few seconds by some GA Joe for "complete lack of references." So it's not even worth bothering trying to follow WP:CITE. GA reviewers move according to some mystical system of their own making in which Biographies of living persons safeguards apply to 18th-century assassins. You could achieve better quality control by slapping GA tags on the first ten random articles you clicked on. When I see the GA symbol on the talk page I start to wonder what's wrong with the article. -- Folantin ( talk) 09:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, I did something I probably shouldn't have -- I picked, at random, a music article that has "passed" the Good Article sweeps. Music of Italy. I noted, casually, that the article contains not a single mention of the most popular secular form of the entire sixteenth century -- the madrigal. Not one. Zero. Zip. Yet -- it is a "Good Article", presumably because it had the correct number of pictures, citations, and subheadings. Did anyone conducting the assessment bother to consult with someone who actually knew something about the topic? Someone possibly acquainted with hundreds of years of Italian musical history? No? Did it even occur to them to ask? Damn, I wish I hadn't looked there. Quoting a line from a Hemingway story I'm particularly fond of, "...he felt he had opened the wrong door in a hotel and seen something shameful." Antandrus (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Again, I can come up with an even worse example where one of the leading members of the GA Project passed article on a politically contentious issue which had none of its statistics cited (if we're going to have cites, then at least let's have them for figures if only to stop drive-by editors randomly changing them every week). Project GA has almost 300 members and this is the quality control they maintain? There again, practically everything on Wikipedia is about social networking these days rather than writing an encyclopaedia. -- Folantin ( talk) 12:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, Antandrus. You have new messages at Voceditenore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Erik9bot_9#Objection. I'd be interested to hear your opinion of my proposed modification to the task, under which the application of template:unreferenced would be forgone entirely, and ( hidden) subcategories of category:articles lacking sources would be added directly to articles. Erik9 ( talk) 22:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I like that idea a lot.

In general, I think we should be as unobtrusive for readers as possible, while making it easier for editors to do their work. Making our maintenance activities invisible to the millions of readers who do not edit would be a substantial improvement.

My main problem is with the proliferation of templates, both at the top of articles "this article NEEDS xxx", and within them ("dubious-discuss" "weasel-inline" etc.) They are growing faster than people are removing them. Considerably. Probably ten to twenty times faster. When I saw your bot request, I saw the possibility that several million of these tags would appear, when I've been laboring to remove them, one at a time. That's why I objected. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Greetings. I decided to respond here, instead of the bot request, since it's getting kind of crowded there. Look, I see your point about maintentence templates in article space, and I assure you, I wasn't being facetious or just trying to make a point.¹ When I made that comment, I hadn't yet looked up the previous discussions, and I usually stay away from deletion debates (outside of images) because there's usually a high drama level and it isn't good for my stress levels. :) I since see that I probably couldn't get consensus either way -- to use the templates universally, or to get rid of them entirely.² But it looks like Erik9 has come around to your way of thinking, so it's happily not likely to be an issue. So yeah: no offense meant, is what I'm saying.

All the best,³ – Quadell ^{( talk)} 01:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• ¹ I mean, yes, I do have a bias in that I get tired of people who don't object to humans making edits, but object to bots making the exact same edits -- not what you were saying, obviously -- but I might have been a tad dismissive to you due to previous interactions of that sort.
• ² Like a lot of things.
• ³ I always say that, but I do mean it.

Thank you: no offense taken. I perhaps did not assume good faith on your question, presuming instead that you already knew the result of the previous deletion attempt, so I apologize for that.

Article space templates are probably my biggest peeve on Wikipedia, as is obvious to many who have worked with me. I have great respect for people who labor to add citations to well-written articles surviving from those 2004-2005 times when we just wrote what we knew, a few books open at our sides as we wrote, usually but not always listing our sources at the end of the articles; I most definitely feel outraged by those who do drive-by tagging without even attempting to research, when often the original authors of some of those finely-written articles have been gone for years. Not many of them are coming back, and the probability of anyone removing the tags is low. What I'd like to do is prove, by statistical analysis, that the addition of tags exceeds removal by ten or twenty to one (my current guess, based on watchlist and random-paging for the last couple years). Some way we need to reverse this trend, and the way to do this is not obvious to me. Standing way back -- way, way back -- I think we need to attract more experts, and strive to keep them. That's the only way appearance of new, scholarly citations is ever likely to overcome random-page "ain't-good-enough" tagging. Antandrus (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I give up [3]. I mean, do taggers actually read articles any more? The only citation that needs to be cited per WP:CITE is cited. But, oh dear, I made it difficult by putting the reference in parentheses instead of using a footnote which could be easily identified by a 10-second scan of the page. Our man also failed to spot the sources at the bottom of the page, sources which are either (a) books with alphabetised articles or (b) a book for which I have given specific page references. Jeez.

However, I must say that the GA Review of Sophocles exceeds even this in citation dementia. -- Folantin ( talk) 08:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Established contributors are now a faction of Wikipedia?! I'll be fascinated to see how that works! I hope it improves the encyclopedia. Best wishes as always, RobertG ♬ talk 08:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I have no idea if this has any merit. Maybe not. If it generates a system to recognize long-term content contributors in some way more substantive than plastering "barnstars" on their pages, then sure; if it is merely a pack of enablers for those who claim some exemption from the civility policy, then forget it. I thought I'd start with a positive view.

I wonder if it is in the nature of communities inevitably to split into disharmonious factions, and indeed form political parties, after they reach a certain critical size. We already have admins and non-admins, with what seems to be a rift widening, as though the admins were some kind of aristocracy and the rest the rabble; and there are other identifiable warring groups as well. Don't know ... Best, Antandrus (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Discussion of objectives here. Peter Damian ( talk) 20:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Borismule ( talk) 03:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Pertaining to your lack of knowlwedge and taking it upon yourself to delete information at random, Joshua Bell did study with Ivan Galamian during the summer of 1981 at The Meadowmount School at the request of his Indiana University professor and faculty member at Meadowmount, Joseph Gingold. I was a Galamian student and attended Meadowmount during this summer in 1981 and most all the students there knew Joshua Bell was studying private violin instruction with Galamian. reply

Your lack of knowledge in this area lends me to believe you lack credibility in the other articles you boast about. You should refrain from making changes in areas of expertise you obviously have none!

You are guilty of making changes in the form of reckless deletions to Wikipedia without knowledge or basis of doing so.

Hi Borismule. Please be advised we have a code of conduct here, and insulting other editors ("lack of knowlwedge" [sic] "delete information at random") is in violation of that. I have no idea why you left this message on my talk page -- it's a complete non sequitur, as I have not significantly edited the Galamian article since 2004 -- but I did notice your comment on the Galamian talk page, because that article is on my watchlist. Are you mistaking me for someone else? Thank you for your attention, and your kind words; I hope that other people show better good faith to your efforts to edit our encyclopedia. Have a nice day, Antandrus (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

You sir are the party guilty of abusing the code of conduct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borismule ( talk • contribs)

What are you talking about? What reckless deletions? What are you talking about? Antandrus (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I have a list of 10 rules posted on the bookcase in my office. Number 5 is "don't waste your time arguing with an idiot." The Other Boris ( talk) 04:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Ah, yes. Thank you. I have absolutely no clue what this person is talking about. None. Antandrus (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Listed under your 2004 changes to Galamian is the incorrect changes related to Joshua Bell. If you did not do it, who did? If it was someone else than I offer you my apologies. I just want to give credit to Galamian where credit is do on something I witnessed first hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ivan_Galamian

OK then, thank you for the information. I do owe you in good faith a sincere apology for the things said. Take care.

Follow up, do you need me to erase the above dialogue so as to not have it posted on your User Talk if you so desire or is that not necessary?

OK ... thank you.

Regarding erasing talk page dialogue -- it's usually at the option of the talk page owner. I periodically archive everything so the page doesn't get too long. I'll take care of it. By the way, you can sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of the post (that's the traditional way). People usually indent using the appropriate number of ":" characters so that it is clear who has written what. There's more to say but I have to run now. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey there. I have need of a pianist; for something almost, but not quite, totally unrelated to Wikipedia.  :-) Is there some simple way to contact you through some interactive medium if you don't mind? I promise I'll not take more than a few minutes of your time unless I sucker manage to strike your interest. —  Coren  ^(talk) 02:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply

E-mail sent (let me know if you don't get it -- for whatever reason, they don't always seem to go through). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Ze suspense! Ze suspense! She iz hur-ting!  :-) —  Coren  ^(talk) 13:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry, been busy in RL. I have the printed copy now though.  :) Antandrus (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Would appreciate your administrator role in doing something about his continued template deletion, and now perhaps sock-puppeteer-ing. Thanks. Quaeler ( talk) 06:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply

This is moot at this moment; admin Euryalus has stepped in to address the issue at the moment. Thanks. Quaeler ( talk) 06:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply

BorisMule blocked by Cirt for 24 hours for vandalism. No particular view on the sockpuppet claim - its obviously him but it was only one edit so might have been accidentally logged out. Separate to that, as multiple editors were involved in the tag reversion I've protected the disputed article for a few hours to encourage discussion. All just FYI in case this was something you were dealing with on an earlier occasion. Euryalus ( talk) 07:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks all. Yes, I've been watching but this happened after I signed off last night. I hope he takes the time to read our policies and consider whether or not he is suited to be an editor here; when someone's first response to a disagreement is to leave a stream of vicious personal attacks, vandalize user pages, and edit-war, it's highly unlikely they will ever be a collegial presence on our project. It looks like many people now have given him links to COI, NPA, AGF, NPOV and so forth. Antandrus (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply

WHAT EXACTLY IS WIKIPEDIA'S STANDARD FOR FACT FINDING? A footnote to the above. Is Wikipedia legitimate for fact finding? Many of Wikipedia administrators, authors, editors use internet "Usernames", not real names to contribute to this encyclopedia. Where is the authenticity to verify contibutor's information listed on the website?. How can readers rely on this form of fact finding for "The Project" if its content is based on articles that cannot be backed up by administrators, authors, editors using real names. Why should administrators, authors and editors at Wikipedia be allowed to use a different standard for idendification as reliable sources to verify its articles that is different from the main stream media? Borismule ( talk) 15:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Your talk page has too many damn revisions, my script went stupid and restored a grawp attack from September :( Sorry about that. I shouldn't have bothered. -- Closedmouth ( talk) 08:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply

LOL, no problem. That's what happens when you stick around for five years. Consider trollish edit summaries to be a badge of honor and a sign you're doing something right. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi there. You deleted this page (the last time) just before I was about to do the same. I agree with you completely, and have salted the page. I'm going to pop over to the author's page and explain. Take care, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Yes, my only (very brief) hesitation was I wanted a couple of folks at the BLP noticeboard who weren't admins to have a chance to look at the "references." But I think aggressively deleting borderline libelous stuff is the way to go. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Socionics Tcaudilllg ( talk) 21:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes -- thank you for starting that -- it's a topic of great interest to me, about which I have strong opinions (which I believe I am capable of expressing without hurting other people). Above all I believe we need to maintain a professional environment here, and strive to avoid falling into the dismal discourse standards of Usenet and Yahoo boards, as anonymity gives people a feeling of great power (the weaker the self-esteem of the individual, the greater the need to compensate by seizing the opportunity afforded by anonymity). A lot of people who are again and again perceived as incivil are skilled with words, often very skilled indeed; and they tend to want to weaken or scrap the policy because they do not want their sharp-edged weapon taken away.

I am not one of those who wants to scrap the policy. Even if it is unenforceable, it still needs to be there, just as all modern, professional workplaces have codes of conduct. We need the same thing here. If you wouldn't say it to a co-worker at your place of employment, you shouldn't say it to an anonymous stranger on Wikipedia.

I may add something to that page momentarily. Antandrus (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I was just trying to meld it all in the one place first off, and some good directions are coming off it for further discussion. The policy has its merits and I think can be improved with some fine tuning of both theory and practice :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply

With User:87.69.130.159. I'm citing sources, anonymous is not and is accusing me of making invalid contributions and describing those as incivility. Also chord-scale system. Hyacinth ( talk) 07:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply

None of his sources back up his specific voicing, which I know is wrong. What I was describing as incivil were repeated reverts with empty edit summaries and ignoring my pleads for discussion. Moreover, Hyacinth is wp:canvassing this issue to at least two more users. 87.69.130.159 ( talk) 07:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, Antandrus. You have new messages at Talk:Thirteenth.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 04:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Up an running :) Jeepday ( talk) 11:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Wouldn't it be more helpful to add references to articles than to stamp unreferenced articles with a giant tag, stating what is obvious to any visitor who is not blind? If you see someone broken down by the side of the road, thumbing a ride to a service station, do you stop and hang a sign around his neck, "this person is thumbing a ride! give him one!" and then drive off?

Readers outnumber editors by a thousand to one, at the minimum. Maintenance tags are for editors, not readers. They're a plague. I know you didn't ask me what I thought, and it's nothing personal, I'm just telling you what I think. Antandrus (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree, more tagging, more botting, more bureaucracy all atwitter, all time spent which would be much more helpfully given to finding at least one or two references for the barren article. Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not really sure where to take it from here. Very few people question the adding of big maintenance tags to the top of articles; if such a discussion is taking place, I've missed it.

A common, and ironic, edit summary I've been seeing on Recent Changes is "adding {{unreferenced}} to article, using {{Friendly}}". Often the person doing this is running fifty or a hundred at a time, and I am yet to see one of them pausing to do some research, add references, and remove a tag. When it's happened to an article on my watchlist, it feels anything but "friendly." If someone adds references to an article, and removes the hideous header, can we do it through a tool called {{unfriendly}}?

Ooh, look, a windmill! Where is my lance? I'm not feeling hopeful about getting anything to change, at the moment. Just a hunch, and not supported by actual statistics, but I think our core group of actual writers is eroding, while we have more and more people who do not write, but want to help, and do little besides tag, thinking it is helpful. Antandrus (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The funniest thing I've seen recently is an editor interpreting a "This article may contain original research" warning tag as an invitation to add his own research to the page. Wish I could find the link. -- Folantin ( talk) 18:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hm. Maybe we need another set of templates: "This RFA may contain vindictive political posturing masquerading as principled arguments" ... (heavens, did I just say that? I must be a horrible person). If you ever find that link, though, let me know -- that's hilarious.

I am at a loss as to what to do about the template fungus. Gwen's response on her talk page I think is accurate. As a completely unverifiable, and original research aside, my friends, co-workers, and acquaintances in "real life" have told me on numerous occasions that those templates are annoying and obtrusive and belong somewhere visible only to people who write this damn thing. Not that we'd ever listen to non-editors, but so it goes. Antandrus (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. It's nice to see (er, hear) a few more voices in the wilderness on this subject. I consider article tagging a significant problem, and I wonder what can be done about it. What is so frustrating is that the arguments we present (and I think, by and large, we've developed similar arguments independently because they are so logically obvious :) don't seem to have an impact. I fear it's the Wikipedia culture that's changing—I don't want to sound "ageist", but it's very hard to avoid the conclusion that the tagging behavior is at root an immature behavior. If you can't reason, you make a rule, I suppose, and I wonder if Wikipedia needs a policy on meta-elements being added to the article page. I'm done for the night, not putting thoughts together too well, but wanted to drop a note. Outriggr ( talk) 10:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC) reply

For me, the telling pith of Wikipedia:CiterSquad's goal is, it's so much easier to scatter 1000 tags with a script than to read 1000 articles and come up with a few thousand fit citations. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, I was musing on this very subject and feel a carrots better than sticks approach may be helpful, and to that end...ta-daaa - see last award on Wikipedia:Personal_user_awards#General_awards - added source/sauce...(I crack myself up sometimes...) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for keeping up the good fight. I know WP can still be the most important publication of the 21st century. But we gotta keep the content primary. Cheers! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Outriggr, you are spot on. The central issue to me does seem to be adding meta-elements to the article page rather than a page for meta-elements. Rather than hanging a sign around the lonely hitchhiker, "hey, give this person a ride!" and then driving off, it's OK to post in a public location "hey, there's a hitchhiker roasting in the sun at location X who needs a ride; I didn't have room, but maybe someone else does?"

Casliber -- yes. I haven't responded on the Wikiproject talk page because I was feeling surly and nothing I said would have, at that moment, helped. Somehow we need to encourage people to do the actual hard work, using a carrot approach, rather than just snarling at the idiotic, and lazy, drive-by taggers. One of the arguments I see on the talk page is that adding an "unref" tag will "encourage" the original author to add references, but since thousands of non-editors -- readers -- see the hideous thing, it's akin to hurling rocks through the windows of houses on your block that may need some repainting or general sprucing up. How about leaving a note visible only to sprucer-uppers, rather than making the place look even worse?

Maybe I should copy this to the talk page. Why on earth aren't more people complaining about this? It seems so bloody obvious. Antandrus (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I appreciate it. Dave ( talk) 05:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 13:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply

But the problem is, administrators who are doing the editing cannot be verified as well as authors? Differs from the real news media who will verify their work on the internet. Sorry, but a weak answer. Borismule ( talk) 15:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Read WP:V, and let me know when you have. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I see you now have two excellent responses on you talk page from two different people; they explain clearly (and quite politely) how Wikipedia works. Let me know if you need any further clarification. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I was wondering whether you'd ever gotten around to reading The Kindly Ones. If so, I'm curious what you thought of it. If not... well, I'm not sure whether I'd recommend it or not. MastCell  ^Talk 07:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually I haven't. While I was intrigued by the connection with the Oresteia -- one of my my favorite of all the ancient Greek canon, and by far the richest -- your comment about transgressiveness vs. literary merit told me something essential (I'm almost allergic to that exact thing you mention). I still may pick it up next time I'm at a bookstore. My most recent read was Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian, which was exactly what I needed for a jolt of perspective on contemporary culture. Antandrus (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I do love Wikipedia's summary of the plot of the Oresteia: "[Orestes], at the instigation of his sister Electra and the god Apollo, has killed their mother Clytemnestra, who had killed their father, King Agamemnon, who had killed his daughter and their sister, Iphigenia." Besides, I don't think Littell's novel can hold a candle to the transgressiveness of Greek mythology, right? I mean, Eumenides was so shocking that it literally killed a pregnant woman in the audience (according to Ancient Tradition^®). That's srs bizness. MastCell  ^Talk 22:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Good thing she did not witness Oedipus Tyrannus!

I always felt the overarching theme of the Oresteia was the emergence of civilization out of barbarism and chaos; it was a crystallization, in art and language and movement and music (the latter now unrecorded, and usually un-noted by scholars of anything other than ancient music), of the ancestral memory of bringing together the first ever human harmony out of that tribal chaos that predated the emergence of Greek democracy, fractious and abortive as it was. Why more modern writers do not look to the Oresteia mystifies me a little: the end of the Eumenides is as strong as the last movement of the Beethoven Ninth Symphony; if you want to understand ancient Greece, what they thought of themselves, and understood of the history and promise of the human race, I recommend to anyone: read it. (I never write about this stuff on Wikipedia since my thoughts about it are all so subjective, and damn it, I cannot read it in Greek! Wish I had the time to learn that too...) Antandrus (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I suspect that the average person's knowledge and conception of ancient Greek culture is probably summarized by the movie 300. You know, the Spartans as defenders of freedom and American values, kicking some ass against a 10-foot-tall, effeminate Great King Xerxes of Iran Persia. Anyhow, I think Littell did draw thematic material (in a broad sense) from the Oresteia, so you might find it interesting from that perspective. MastCell  ^Talk 21:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Given you were the unblocking admin [4] I would appreciate it if you at least voted one way or another at the discussion on ANI:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#probation.2C_or_something_at_Talk:Centrifugal_force

but I don't blame you if you steer clear!- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 22:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh great. Sorry, I haven't been following the drama zones for a while; the fun and joy have faded, as I'm trying to get back to just writing an encyclopedia rather than policing it. I always wondered when that one would bite me on the backside. Antandrus (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, The situation is that a compromise had nearly been reached at centrifugal force. Then FyzixFighter removed the edit. You really need to check out the full reasons for FyzixFighter's removal of that edit. That's what I have been asking them to do on the ANI thread. I think that an investigation into my last edit on centrifugal force would be most revealing. David Tombe ( talk) 23:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, I really think that this entire issue needs to be fully investigated before any action is taken. FyzixFighter has got a question to answer. Are you all going to let him off the hook? I was not inserting unsourced material. Ask the other editors that were involved in the debate. It is only FyzixFighter that has been making that allegation, and it is a false allegation. You must look into the history of FyzixFighter in relation to his continual deleting of my edits. The entire issue needs to be reviewed, going right back to 2007, before any action is taken.

I am surprised at the hostility that has surfaced from editors who I don't know and who have usually begun by stating that they don't know me either. There are a few editors who are trying to get me off the project and they have stirred all this up. David Tombe ( talk) 23:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually Antandrus, the more I think about it, the more I can see now exactly what is happening. You unblocked me last year and I undertook not to engage in any more edit wars. I have held to that. There may have been a few cases where circumstances came to the brink of an edit war, but I have always backed down at the last moment. So essentially there is no substance to any of the allegations that are being made over at the ANI thread.

Wolfkeeper who is well known to be a bitter opponent of mine, saw the opppotunity that the ANI thread presented. He came to your talk page and informed you that there was trouble, and that David Tombe was involved. You immediately thought that you had made a mistake last October and immediately backed up the call for a 3 month block.

If you think the matter through carefully and examine the facts, I think that you will realize that you disn't make a mistake last October. The centrifugal force page has improved alot since last October, as have many other articles. There has been some very beneficial collaborative editing at centrifugal force, and all parties have learned. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing on my part and I hope that when the dust settles that you will realize this. David Tombe ( talk) 15:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:WQA#User:David_Tombe_on_Talk:Centrifugal_force seems to be saying that David Tombe is being disruptive. In other words, it's a continuation of the behaviour he was blocked for [5].- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 15:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Saint-Saëns Cello Concerto, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint-Saëns Cello Concerto. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JackofOz ( talk) 01:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number of concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Music of the Trecento/GA1. I have de-listed the article. You may challenge this decision at WP:GAR or make improvements and submit for review at WP:GAN. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply

As soon as you include, as part of "GAR", an actual assessment of content by someone who knows something about the topic, and cease to insist on footnotes for completely uncontroversial statements, I will consider working with the "GAR" process, which right now I find odious, bureaucratic, and a pointless exercise in ritual humiliation. It's much more satisfying to write articles to one's personal standards of "good" than to Wikipedia's arbitrary ones, and to let Google and thousands of readers find them. So no thank you.

If anyone thinks I am wrong, I am open to persuasion, and I won't object to your help, but I really do not see the point in working with a process I personally feel completely misses the point. Antandrus (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply

When the same question arose at a FAR of an article I had written, I humoured them and did this to it. I gave up on article assessments of this kind when the result was considered an improvement! It is completely false to say that sentences without citations are unreferenced: they are only unreferenced if you can't be bothered to check.

I completely agree with Antandrus. Furthermore, the calibre of the process and the relevance of the criteria show themselves at fault when an evaluation fails to discern that this is a good article. -- RobertG ♬ talk 21:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply

GA's a waste of space. I actually submitted an article which was perfectly in line with WP:CITE, had 30+ "inline citations" and it was quick-failed for a "complete lack of references". I agree with the rule of thumb that what needs citing are quotations, statistics and statements likely to be controversial (to the average reader, not the Wikipedia equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition). In a long article, I might cite per paragraph if I use multiple sources. I've tried doing it the "reference every sentence" way and writing like that was an unbelievable drag. I imagine the results are almost as boring to read as they were to write. -- Folantin ( talk) 21:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The anonymous editor who has been messing about with Felix Mendelssohn has now started as well on Fanny. He has now tried the same edits three or four times on Felix, despite reversions by yourself and by me - I don't know the procedures for dealing with this persistency, could you advise please?-- Smerus ( talk) 09:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

It's User:Fiddleback/ User:Matthaeus Tomlinson (the latter is banned for sockpuppetry) -- we tangled with his anti-Jewish, pro-Catholic POV-pushing about six or seven months ago. You could mention it either at the composers project, 3RR if that happens, or ANI if it becomes necessary. Mendelssohn is the most famous Jewish composer who ever lived, as can easily be verified by any reliable source, and his insistence to take away his Jewishness just ... isn't going to fly here. Gwen Gale remembers him too. Antandrus (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Ew, I do recall that. If he's on roving IPs and flurries up the article can always be semi-protected a few days at a time. Gwen Gale ( talk) 13:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply