User talk:Antandrus/Archive38

Archive 38: March 2012 through December 2014. Please do not edit this page -- use my regular talk page instead, as I will not see your message here.

Paul Sartorius
Hi Antandrus, thanks for spotting the Grove pirates. I fixed this one and added a bit more.

Um, do you know your Austrian archdukes? A conundrum arouse for which I got stuck; it's on the talk page. Best wishes, Opus33 (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Opus! After a bit of digging I think it's Max III; read his article.  Grove must have it wrong.  I wish I had a big book on the House of Habsburg but don't.  Anyhow he was in the right place (Innsbruck) at the right time. Antandrus  (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and this bit "...In 1595 he succeeded their uncle Ferdinand II, Archduke of Further Austria in his territories, including Tyrol, where he proved to be a solid proponent of the Counter-Reformation." would explain why he hired a composer of the Palestrina school rather than a progressive in the mold of Hans Leo Hassler. (But that's wiki-heresy since it's my original research!) Antandrus  (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Antandrus. I think you are right, but spotting two more references to Max II on Google books makes me cautious (are the sources citing each other, perpetuating an error?).  So I just took out the link, pending further progress.


 * Your OR makes me nostalgic for the old days (ca. 2004) when we got to do this all the time. It took me a while to realize the virtues of the ban.  Opus33 (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released
Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox -.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

IP sock of Nachetelig?

 * Hi Antandrus, please refer to this trollish edit/edit summary, as the IP is stalking me again and labelling me as a vandal. Your advice? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for obvious reasons.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoa~! That was fast... thanks heap~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoa~! That was fast... thanks heap~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you; I'm not very attentive today. With this particular troll (as I'm sure you remember) watch for suspicious behavior from sockpuppets (example), and don't bother to ask a checkuser -- this guy loves to show off how easily he can "fool" us.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, all I can say is... as a child, he was abused~! Probably the reason why he is so anal about us two... eh? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

FA status in Piano music of Gabriel Fauré
Does this article deserve FA status? Please see this discussion. Best wishes, Gidip (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Uncanny. I was, at the exact moment you left this message, reading your comments there.
 * Can't answer immediately; will require some looking. Antandrus (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Stars
Antandrus...you can self award this, but I wanted to give it to you anyway...I'm sorry if you're not having the fun you used to have...our best contributors such as you are oftentimes overlooked, ignored and unrecognized...but all around, you are arguably one of the finest Wikipedians...and I really do appreciate all your fine work!--MONGO 02:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you -- appreciate that! Antandrus (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * [/me is bent out of shape with envy of the handsome star, not to mention the pizza slice just below :] But Antandrus is appreciated, quite beyond his deserts I'm afraid! When do *I* get a barnstar for my selfless work to keep wikipedians aware of their failings and teach everybody a lesson? Whereas Antandrus… can people even see his silly subpage User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior without  ? No they cannot! While my keen and forthright observations and useful wikignoming lie disregarded!! Bite!!!  darwin bish  BITE 14:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC).


 * Well you obviously need adminship for at least ten million years, which is but a middling geologic time period. (Was that a cousin I found when I was taking photographs for the article I wrote on the Espada Formation?)  I also owe you a pizza, but are they eatable to Darwinbishes, unless already inside tasty Wikipedians?  Antandrus  (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A man-eating clam, was it? [/me considers creating a cool Tridacna gigas sock. The notion restores her good humour. ] Since I can swallow full-size users whole, as you know, and can also tunnel around inside a cupcake to eat the chocolate chips, I should think there's little that's not eatable to me. Just as long as it's gourmet quality of its kind! The pizza slice looks very good. [Reproachfully :] Whereas the user I tried really wasn't.  darwin bish  BITE 14:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC).
 * MONGOS eat giant man eating clams since MONGOS are not men...we are "quatches"...far bigger, smellier and more poorly tempered than any men....MONGO 15:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

 * Thank you -- yep, eight years. When I first started editing there were no references, no footnotes, no categories, and this was the article featured on the main page that day.  Wow -- that's a long time ago. Antandrus  (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Those platypi platypodes platypuses have been around a long time.  Even longer than 8 years, hard as that is to believe.  Like us other dinosaurs, they just keep on keeping on.  Long may it continue.  :)  --   Jack of Oz  [your turn]  01:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Best wishes from a younger living fossil. (Younger than the platypus, I mean, in case you or JackofOz think I was being rude.) I, too, remember when it was fun. During a personal Wikipedia renunciation, which you may remember helping me through, this was among the wisest perspectives it was ever my privilege to receive. I really believe the Wikipedia pioneers like you have shaped the world for the better by continuing to show us the way. --RobertG ♬ talk 21:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes: I remember that well.  Too well, as I've thought about it many times since, and assumed that I'd have a similar experience if I joined again as a "newbie".
 * Anyhow, thanks guys -- I've so far resisted the temptation to clear my watchlist. I'm still editing, I just don't have much enthusiasm at present.  It may return. (More and more I check my watchlist to see that content I added six, seven years ago is either being tag-bombed, or just removed, for lacking footnotes -- and to provide them I'd have to go back to the library and check out a book again -- ach, the weariness of it.)  The project has evolved.  Adding slabs of new content isn't as easy as it was in those early years, and we all know that.  There's still more to write (thanks Jack for the help with Obukhov last year) and plenty to make better, but it seems that ninety percent of all activity on the Wiki is people running about with rubber stamps, tweezers, or insecticide cans.  And it's really become rather unfriendly.  How quaint the idea of "Wikilove" now seems, in our current civility-optional environment.  I don't think this is tragic or anything, we're watching the evolution of something which has never existed before.  If you step back and look at the encyclopedia we all built, it isn't bad.
 * Not only isn't it bad, but everyone uses it. It gives me a little thrill when I hear a radio announcer quote from an article I wrote.  Has that happened to any of you yet?  Our time here wasn't wasted.  And isn't, if we carry on. Antandrus  (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I've often heard announcers quoting verbatim huge bleeding chunks of articles I started. Never any acknowledgment, mind you, but that's not what drives me.  The fact that a particular sentence that took me weeks or months of neurotic and obdurate tweaking to get just exactly right is being read and being seen as good enough to be used and disseminated to the wider listening public, is what makes my day.
 * I encourage you to shake off your disheartenment, Antandrus. The world at large has become a dangerous and insecure place, but there are places we can choose to live where we can be happy going about our daily activities and spreading our love to whomsoever we happen to encounter.  Don't characterise the whole vast project as one thing or another thing, because nobody knows all of it and it just keeps on getting bigger.  Just live in those parts of WP where you can make the daily differences for which you are rightly renowned, and which make you happy.  Forget the rest. Unless you get back, not just as much as you put in, but actually more than you put in, you will burn yourself out.  Being of service is not a duty we are obliged to shoulder, but a joy we choose to deserve. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬ [your turn]  03:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A year or so ago I had the interesting experience of reviewing a journal submission that plagiarized (as opposed to cited) a few Wikipedia articles to which I had been a major contributor. Guess I should have been flattered, but still... Anyway, I share the feeling that the joy has gone out of this place. The main issue as I see it is that Wikipedia is not coming to terms with the fact that it is a maturing project. Most of the articles that most people care about have already been written, and most of those are pretty decent. So there are fewer opportunities for the everyday Joe to contribute. The project has also accreted its own bureaucracy with goals and priorities that do not necessarily coincide with those of the people on the line doing the actual work. I could go on but you've heard the song before. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) You made me wonder... and this is the featured article on the day of my first edit as a registered editor. KillerChihuahua ?!? 05:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed -- here's the actual version as it appeared on the main page. Antandrus (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary
Wishing Antandrus a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 00:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Message
04:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Natalia Pushkina
Would you mind commenting on this edit? There seems to be a lot of confusion all over the place. I don't know about such things. Thanks Span (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Greetings -- I believe the anon is correct. If the 8 September date is accurate, in the 19th century one gets the Julian from the Gregorian by subtracting 12 days from the Gregorian calendar date.  (See Gregorian_calendar.)  It gets confusing when someone's lifespan crosses the century line, like Rachmaninoff, but with Natalia Pushkina it should be clear.  Antandrus  (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Would you say a footnote is in order as these things get reverted regularly? Span (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably that would work. Another way is an inline caution such as  -- that works if we don't want to bother the reader, but just remind editors who may think the difference is 13 days. Antandrus  (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Will do. Thanks for the advice. Span (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Just commenting on the Rachmaninoff-type issue. There really should be no confusion. A person was born whenever they were born, and that doesn't change just because their life continues into the next century. There is a rule for converting Julian dates that occurred in the 19th century, which is to add 12 days to get to Gregorian. That rule applies to Rachmaninoff, born 20 March 1873 Julian = 1 April 1873 Gregorian. There is another rule for converting Julian dates that occurred in the 20th century, which is to add 13 days to get to Gregorian. That rule does not apply to Rachmaninoff, because he wasn't born in the 20th century. He gets the 19th-century 12-day rule.

I'm aware that various people have taken the view that the date should change when the centuries change. Rachmaninoff himself apparently celebrated his own birthday on 2 April (which would have been the correct date had he been born in the 20th century, except he wasn't) and that date also appears on his grave. But that date is simply wrong. Vladimir Nabokov was another case in point. He was born 10 April 1899 Julian = 22 April 1899 Gregorian. His birth date was often shown as 23 April 1899 in references published in the 20th century, so in Speak, Memory he went to the trouble of explaining why 23 April was wrong and 22 April was correct. This was despite the fact that he had deliberately celebrated it on 23 April and would continue to do so, because that meant he shared his birthday with William Shakespeare - except that's rubbish as we don't know when Willy boy was born at all. All we have is a baptism date. I'm surprised Nabokov didn't know that. -- ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬ [your turn]  23:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- I actually didn't know the conversion rule until I read about it to answer Span's question. Learned something new!  (Which is, by the way, one of the things I love so much about Wikipedia.) Antandrus  (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, you spend most of your time in the Renaissance/Baroque period. But even so, the Gregorian calendar was instituted in October 1582 in Italy, Poland, Spain and Portugal, but not elsewhere till later, so it would be relevant to biogs of people born or died in the period spanning that date.  Given that Russia didn't adopt it till 1918 and Greece not till 1923 (!), it's a subject that anyone writing about the dim past ought to be aware of, because it can get confusing when comparing sources that use different calendars for the same subjects. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬ [your turn]  00:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You're mentioned
Hi! You are mentioned in a post that will run on the Wikimedia Foundation blog this week describing some of the editors who signed up for HighBeam accounts and their motivations for doing so. I just wanted to let you know. If you'd rather not be mentioned, please respond below or on my talk page. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 18:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you -- appreciate your help with the Highbeam access! (I hope JSTOR is feeling generous enough to allow a bunch of us admittance to their database as well; I got there from the link on your talk page.)  Antandrus  (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You have no sense of fun
Inherently funny topics should have funny articles, no ? --ERIC CARTMAN IS THE BOSS (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC) WHY YOU NO ANSWER ?!!!!!


 * On another website, yes. If you step back and think about it for a moment, it should become obvious that such a thing is impossible here.  You have to cite what you add.  What you add has to be factual.  This isn't a joke site; we are a repository of knowledge, not nonsense.  If you went to a bank and instead of getting money from a teller, you got Monopoly money, and the tellers all laughed at you and shoved you out the door, would you be thankful to the bank for being a funny place rather than an entirely serious one?  Antandrus  (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get that. But no-one really needs to find out about mixed gender pre-wedding parties from Wikipedia. It's a retarded topic to have an article about, and it should be a funny article. It's already funny, talks about "getting shoved on the pavement" as a British activity. Why can't I make it better ?


 * Also, I might just ban you. --ERIC CARTMAN IS THE BOSS (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is that a threat? For your sake, I'd hope not because depending on your next statement, it could well be your last here on Wikipedia. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.


 * Got it -- thank you!! I appreciate this a lot.  I've been wanting to be writing again ... Antandrus  (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

parade magazine
hi, do you think this website (Parade (magazine)) would be a reliable source to add to List of modern dictators as a reference to the term "dictator"? you can see my edits of the page on its history. --58.165.38.201 (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I would avoid Parade just because it has a tabloidesque reputation. I think it should be easy to find a reliable source that describes him as a dictator -- what else could he be? -- How about Foreign Policy Magazine (published by the Washington Post)?  That's where Parade got their list anyway.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a piece in the New York Times that describes Raul as a dictator (in the same line with Fidel). I'm sure there's more out there.  Good luck, Antandrus  (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

your sources are great, i have used them. thank you. --58.165.38.201 (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Rami Bar-Niv
This embarrassing piece of PR fluff is causing me new white hairs. I rewrote the article so it would be acceptable, but the editors involved (three, all of whom have done nothing but edit this article and add references to Bar-Niv in other articles) have taken deep umbrage. Now someone has anonymously restored the original claptrap.

Perhaps if you were to revert them, they would understand that it is not just me that finds this stuff inappropriate. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. At least he's trying to cite.  The sockpuppet is obvious.  These are painful cases, because it always feels like a personal affront to have one's own article trimmed, but people need to understand that Wikipedia isn't a free promotional tool.  Mr. Bar-Niv, I imagine you will be reading this too -- please have a look at our conflict of interest guidelines.  It's much better to let other people write articles about you, providing input on the talk page as needed.  Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Antandrus Who is "he" in "At least he's trying to cite"? The false sockpuppet accusation was dismissed by Wiki investigators before you wrote the following: "The sockpuppet is obvious". You should be more careful with how fast and how blindly you agree with your friend ravpapa. I am beyond needing Wiki for my promotion, it won't add a penny to my pay, nor will it give me extra engagements which I can't oblige anyway. Yes, I am reading this too. I do and did let other people write articles about me, etc. I didn't initiate the article, nor was I involved in its preparation. Once it was published (I take it, with the consent of one of the experienced Wiki editors), all I did was correcting mistakes and putting things in the right order and under the right subjects. TY Rami Bar-Niv Barniv (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "He" is whoever is writing the article. The author(s) (I believe there are two separate people) is attempting to cite according to our guidelines, which is good.
 * 2) Sockpuppet investigations cannot prove much of anything, they can only suggest. I use my experience.  "Magazine" and you appear to be the same person.  Doesn't matter much, honestly, since you're editing the same article, and this policy applies whether it's one person or two.
 * 3) Ravpapa asked for my help and I provided an opinion. If you think we are being unfair, start a section at the conflict of interest noticeboard to solicit a third opinion.  Thank you, Antandrus  (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please listen to me and let me be clear about this. I am not anonymous, I am the author of the Rami Bar-Niv wikipedia page! My work on Rami Bar Niv is not an embarrassing piece of fluff. Everything that is stated in the article is verifiable, and supported by the long list of references. My work is not claptrap. Your reference to sockpuppet is obscene and is not obvious, at least not to some of your own investigators. I am on this effort because I want to be and either you help me or you don't, but I certainly don't want you to get any more white hairs. I have no conflict of interest and everything has to go through me. So, Antandrus and Ravpappa, do we go forward or not? I am not using Wikipedia as a free promtional tool, and I will be the point of contact! I want my page restored. If you have questions, let me know. If you want to talk to personally, I can provide my phone number here in San Jose, California and my home address.
 * Thank you, Joseph De AlejandroJoseph10741 (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP. Everything needs an absolutely reliable source, and needs to conform to WP:NPOV.
 * Another suggestion for all concerned: post at the conflict of interest noticeboard to get an unbiased set of eyes, if you want another opinion. To my eye -- and I've been around a long time and have seen a lot of articles on living people written by themselves or their friends -- the article has a strongly promotional tone, unlike what one would expect to find in an encyclopedia.  The way forward is to write neutrally and briefly, citing major news outlets and peer-reviewed sources.  Hope this helps, Antandrus  (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI
As a courtesy, I'm informing you that I mentioned you at, where I criticised to Template talk:Infobox classical composer. I hope that on reflection, you might agree with me that a more accurate summary of the closing admin's subsequent comments was indeed possible. --RexxS (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your revision is fine. However, I do need to point out that I only made a single edit, which does not constitute edit warring; and the summation Andy objected to, while perhaps not the reason for the admin's action, is a fair summation of what actually happened (a TFD nomination with no notification of the Wikiproject that created the template).
 * Yes, I am showing some frustration with a long-term disruptive editor. I appreciate your efforts to find a diplomatic solution for this.  I want Andy to start treating his colleagues collegially, and I have mentioned this at least twice. Antandrus  (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding, and I apologise for giving the impression that I was accusing you of edit-warring. All too often, I fail to express myself as accurately as I wished. It would be an excellent outcome if Andy were able to get on with doing what he's really good at, and could step away from these sort of confrontations. For what it's worth, having met Andy in real life, I found him remarkably genial and good-natured. I hope that with goodwill all round, he can get past these present difficulties. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Precious

 * Thank you, Gerda. Appreciate it! Antandrus  (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A year ago, you were the 110th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (30 June 2007, 5 January 2009, 28 May 2009)! - Four titles are quite rare, and well deserved, for "the broader pespective", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for having my back on this article   turns out User:Tyros1972 gave me a warning on my talk page :/. Whatever I'm just going to lol the whole thing off hopefully. Dan653 (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Made me laugh too. Famous piece of Japanese pornography; I did a little bit digging on the internet to find other translations, but that one's close.  It's one of those cases where an overly-quick vandalism patroller might just look at a few of the words, decide it was vandalism, and issue a warning.  (Interesting article -- read it if you haven't!)  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Holly Pic
Hi pal, I saw that you'd edited the Platform Holly page, and I have an aerial of it from 3/08 if you'd like to add one. Pretty good detail on the equipment above deck. Contact me via email, because I'm seldom on wiki lately. ciao Jw4nvc (talk)

A cookie for you!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Thanks for devandalising my user page!!! User: Adam mugliston has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * No problem -- appreciate the snack! Antandrus (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Cape Hatteras
Right. . . thank you for convincing me that Wikipedia is completely unreliable, I've already started to spread the word. (67.238.253.102 (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC))


 * "Reliable" for us is what reliable sources say, and if the National Park Service says it's a "Seashore", that's what we say. Please read the policy; that's what you've bumped into.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Another tollish IP sock..

 * Hey Antandrus, due to persistent WP:NPA, WP:NOTVAND, and WP:BATTLEGROUND from this IP. Could you take a look at this to decide if it would be best for me to stay out by not reverting and/or if any admin action is needed? Another thing, I'm stymied by his insistance of nicknaming another admin -, as "Eyesore". A snide way of mocking at us, I gather, judging by the way he's trying to push his luck here, especially on the article page of Judge Judy. Thoughts? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Antandrus, due to persistent WP:NPA, WP:NOTVAND, and WP:BATTLEGROUND from this IP. Could you take a look at this to decide if it would be best for me to stay out by not reverting and/or if any admin action is needed? Another thing, I'm stymied by his insistance of nicknaming another admin -, as "Eyesore". A snide way of mocking at us, I gather, judging by the way he's trying to push his luck here, especially on the article page of Judge Judy. Thoughts? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't studied it in depth, but it appears to be a case of a rather long-term IP editor who is angry at what they perceive to be unjustified reversions of their additions (I only looked at one example, so far, but it was clearly a good faith edit), and they're also angry because they feel people are ganging up on them. This kind of thing happens a lot, with a presumption the IP editor is in the wrong.  173 if you are reading this -- I presume you will -- my unsolicited advice would be to stop calling people names, take the issue to the talk page, politely, and work it out there.  We're volunteers, we don't like being called names, and doing so is the most certain way to make sure it ends badly for you.  Put yourself in our place.  When someone treats you like you are treating EyeSerene ("eyesore") are you suddenly inclined to believe that the person is right?  Do you automatically apologize to someone who starts bullying you?  Or is your impulse to put a boot in their face?  WP:CIVIL exists for a reason.  Really.  That's the way through.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Dave I'd recommend not reverting the IP's talk page -- that specific issue has come up at ANI and tends to be a tarpit. You can be sure 173 has read your messages, and anyone can get the "whois" info by clicking the links. Antandrus  (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that is why I came to you for advice first before I do anything stupid... More popcorn? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

NNU wrap-up time is May 30
Hello. There are still some articles at School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012/Student list that need moving to the mainspace. Some have rubbish references and could be AfDd, so best not move those. But many just need a bit of cleanup and a move. If you have time to do a few, we would be much obliged. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for help concerning energy...
Hi,

I noticed you listed yourself as a participant of the Energy WikiProject.

There are 2 new outlines in this area that attempt to consolidate Wikipedia's coverage of their respective subjects, gathering and organizing the articles about them into one place and including descriptions for convenience. The purposes of these outlines are to make it easier for readers to survey or review a whole subject, and to choose from Wikipedia's many articles about it.

The new energy outlines are:


 * Outline of solar energy
 * Outline of wind energy

Please take a look at them, and....


 * if you spot missing topics, add them in.


 * if you can, improve the descriptions.


 * add missing descriptions.


 * show parent-offspring relationships (with indents).


 * fix errors.

For more information about the format and functions of outlines, see Outlines.

Building outlines of existing material (such as Wikipedia) is called "reverse outlining". Reverse outlines are useful as a revision tool, for identifying gaps in coverage and for spotting poor structuring.

Revising a work with multiple articles (such as Wikipedia) is a little different than revising a paper. But the general principles are the same...

As you develop these outlines, you may notice things about the articles they organize. Like what topics are not adequately covered, better ways to structure and present the material, awkward titles, articles that need splitting, article sections lacking Main links, etc.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines.

Thank you. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC) P.S.: see also Outline of energy


 * Excellent -- thank you for the note and invitation! Good idea to have such outlines. The first thing I notice is the absence of Outline of nuclear energy, Outline of geothermal energy, Outline of hydroelectric energy, Outline of biomass energy (better name?), Outline of tidal energy, Outline of coal power (I never hear it called "coal energy"), etc. Antandrus  (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

New outline: what's missing?
See Outline of nuclear power.

I did my best, but I'm certain there is much missing. Please take a crack at it. The Transhumanist 03:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Bo Guagua
There's a new user adding original research to the Bo Guagua page. Not really sure what to do about him/her. See the most recent diff. Among that is unsourced info and original research. I don't want to get into a weird edit war with some completely new user, or get them banned and scare them away from the project. Any suggestions? There should be a protocol for dealing with this situation. I've been here two years but haven't actually come across someone belligerently adding OR to a BLP. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's actually pretty common, though that level of belligerence is not. I saw that too (because I spotted the edit to your user page on recent changes, and checked to see what the anon was doing), but it was in the gray area where I wasn't certain.  My impulse is to change the unacceptable section header and remove the Youtube link (we can't use those) -- but it's possible the entire section has to go.  Looking at the talk page, I see there are multiple people vs. the IPv6.  I think it should come out at the very least for talk page discussion. Antandrus  (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see some data on how many hours were spent in aggregate on such discussions. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be horrifying. Fighting off junk added to BLPs must amount to thousands, or tens of thousands of hours, over say a year. Antandrus  (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The anon warns me
STOP using lame excuse "original research", if any of those things are NOT facts, feel free to delete them. stop vandalizing the whole page! I challenge you to show me any of those "original research" are not FACTS. Go ahead, i will be waiting.

are you bo guagua's personal publicist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:953E:CF78:4C31:415F (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Such a strange username. I just noticed this one too:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Anna. It's IPv6 which just went live last week.  We'll be seeing a lot more of these. Antandrus  (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Violin purchase
Hi Antandrus. I saw your posts here and thought you could help me by responding to my post at Miscellaneous Violin purchase. -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Continued copyright violations and legal threats at Matt Goss
Hi, I noticed you are the one who blocked User:Changli1200. Based on past behaviour I believe he is a sock of User:Saint Artjunkie, but this is beside the problem. The same person has returned as User:Timsmith8976 and then User:90.211.75.73 with exactly the same edits, so they may both need to be blocked. The page may need to be semi-protected as well. --Muhandes (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, was away for the weekend. I blocked a couple of the most recent, and it appears another admin has protected the article.  Antandrus  (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Request to look at an idea regarding Baroque composers
Hi Antandrus:

Please look at the following:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FeanorStar7/sandbox

Another user and I are discussing revamping the List of Baroque composers to use a tabular format (similar to List of Renaissance composers)

I would like your input. I believe it would help improve the structure of the list and help users more easily find information about various composers; more so than it does now.

Thanks,

FS7--FeanorStar7 (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Greetings! I think it's a great idea.  All of those composer-list articles would benefit from such an upgrade.  I've been wondering if we should routinely subtract 20 years from floruit dates for the purpose of sorting -- and state at the top of the list that we do this as a convenient generalization to allow sorting, not because we necessarily think a composer was probably born 20 years before their works start to appear in the record.  That reminds me, there are still some bits of plagiarism in the List of Renaissance composers that need to be purged; something I've never gotten around to doing (some of the single-line descriptions were copied by a long-ago editor from hoasm.org, and I don't think I ever finished cleaning it up). Antandrus  (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input; I appreciate it.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Piano Key Frequencies page
I guess I didn't realize that a guitar is a transposing instrument, sounding notes one octave lower than written. I've played guitar before, but it's been a long time ago. Being more of a violinist (6 years in middle school to high school) I was sure the D-string on a violin and D-string on a guitar were the same pitch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.170.71 (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries ... the pitches are written that way for convenience (otherwise it would be necessary either to use two staves, change clefs frequently, or use an unusual clef). Antandrus  (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Need a second neutral party opinion

 * Hi, can you please come over to "User talk:The Bushranger/Archive15" and give your frank assessment? (FWIW, I've been accused as a vandal, a biter and a troll by anon IP editors for my action.) -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 01:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I found something really interesting (http://bewareofgarbagetrucks.com/wordpress/) and the first thing I read was about "The driver who accelerates when he sees your turn signal", that is something I can relate to (and on WP) because I've encountered the likes of such so called "garbage trucks" so many times that I've become zen to their ranting. Thoughts? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 01:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting, my internet security program blocked the "bewareofgarbagetrucks" page as soon as I tried to load it, with a stern warning that it was unsafe.
 * Personally, that user page doesn't bother me so much -- once the editor has done some good work on Wikipedia, no problem at all. It doesn't look outrageously promotional like some I've seen, that are straight up SPAM.  The biggest risk I've seen with such pages is that people sometimes quietly move them into mainspace, thereby evading new page patrollers.  Do we have a guideline somewhere telling people not to spend too much time on their user page until they've done some mainspace work? Antandrus  (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I did checked up his contribution history, 25 counts of which only 3 are to article pages (last active edit was 10 March 2012) and yet he calls himself an active Wikipedian. I find that ridiculous, really. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 02:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Riyas202. Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Nucella, not Nutella
Nice occasionally to add something to the encyclopedia that belongs there and isn't in Grove: Nicolaus Ricii de Nucella Campli. Taking bets for how long before it gets a "needs image of composer" or "C-class stub" tag... :-) (btw, can you delete the sandbox page for me?) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Alas, another manuscript lost in the Franco-Prussian war (I'm assuming an 1870 date on a fire in Strasbourg would be exactly that). Very fine little article!  I'm sure it will get the "stub class" stamp by some tagging project (i.e. "Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition." see WikiProject_Biography/Assessment).  But perhaps I'm being unduly cynical.  -- I'll delete the sandbox page for you.  Cheers! Antandrus  (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As always, "Michael Scott Cuthbert is skeptical."  :-)  -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And here we go! . f'ing annoying.  :) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately we've become a giant bureaucracy, and you need the right rubber-stamp for the higher "grades" -- I'm trying my best to ignore the situation, but that's one of the things contributing to my current lack of enthusiasm here. Congratulations on making the main page though!  I wish the hook said "in the Franco-Prussian war" rather than "in 1870" (pretty sure that happened in the shelling of Strasbourg; I encountered another manuscript destroyed then).  I notice that you've already got support on the talk page to changing the rating (thank you Deskford).  Should be A-class, but I'm not sure the project uses them. Antandrus  (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. I do need just to learn to let go.  You're almost 100% right that it was the Franco-Prussian war that destroyed it, I just can't actually find any source that says that.  I've looked in Coussemaker, Lippiman, van den Borren, but nothing.  I don't have the Welker dissertation on the MSS....AHA! finally found a reference in Staehlein.  Will add that.  Thanks! m. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

 * Thanks, and yum! It was just a vandalism-only account and I blocked it for you. Antandrus  (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

observations on Wikipedia behavior
Firstly, thanks for your essay, it was an interesting read to get a feel for what it's like to be an experienced Wikipedian dealing with community issues.

Secondly, I've fixed anchored list - it was generating invalid anchor names. Unfortunately this means any old links to list items in your essay will now be broken.

··gracefool&#9786; 21:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- yes, I'm not sure how many of the incoming links go to a specific item. Probably a lot.  The majority are in talk page archives so I doubt it's a big deal.  Regarding the copy-paste -- that's ok, we're GFDL after all -- and it's not as bad as the one who copied and pasted it just to add nasty comments!  I have to laugh that the thing I've written that has gotten the most attention hasn't been any of the hundreds of articles, but my remarks on the people who write them.  So it goes .... Antandrus  (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While correct html is good, the people who post links to the essay are unlikely to learn the new anchor system, and there are probably lots of places which someone will read, and which use the old anchors. So, if wanted, I would be happy to manually insert  at the front of point 1 in the essay, and similar for the other points. I can do that without much trouble, so please reply here if it is wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea, and would solve the broken links issue. (If you start and get bored I'll finish.)   Thanks! Antandrus  (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done (it was just a single search-and-replace and some trickery). I guess there won't be much re-ordering of the items, but of course the whole point of anchored list is that the anchors will automatically change to suit the list numbers if items are re-ordered, but the manual anchors will need fixing. If you ever want to move stuff around, I would be happy to fix the anchors. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to confirm here: was this a purely theoretical problem, or did any browsers actually break? Because if it's the former, we'd be far rather being good netizens and proposing that HTML5 accept purely numerical tags. In fact, even in the case where it only worked due to hacks in old browsers we'd be better doing that. Comments? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Cori Spezzati / Venetian Music
Hey Antandrus,

I'm looking for a better way to solve the confusion with the articles about Venetian Music. I've listed the pages involved and I'm suggesting a way to solve it, on my talk page. Since you commented about it, I thought maybe you would want to take a glance at it. :)

Here's the direct link User_talk:RenatoBorges

RenatoBorges (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

—Preceding undated comment added 05:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Advice
I have an editor who has followed me to multiple articles for about a year now. He insists on arguing ad nauseum over every single minute detail. He will insist that if I don't give in to his content demands taking every minute detail through every step of WP:DR. If there is a 3rd opinion, he will extract the one bit of advice that backs up his comments and ignore everything that contradicts it. It is starting to make me very irritable as I would much rather be working on content, however, if I simply give in, his edits are often focused on shifting POV towards particular nationalist viewpoints. What do you think I should do? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you think he's wiki-stalking you or genuinely is interested in the same topics? (I could probably figure out who it is with a few clicks, but won't for now). Nationalists are a genuine plague upon Wikipedia, as they are in the "real" world; by their very nature they're not going to see your point of view.  Use the NPOV noticeboard, respond blandly and always one notch more civilly than your opponent, and don't take the bait are my most general advice.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think part of my problem at the moment, is I've swallowed the bait several times and responded accordingly. Its a constant wind up but he seems careful to remain superficially civil.  Past experience shows this isn't always appreciated by those coming cold to the problem. I'm convinced its wikistalking, he made a big fuss when I inadvertently edited an article shortly after he did (a different part of the same article), he took it to WQA and accused me of wikistalking him.  Ever come across Projection bias.  Wee Curry Monster talk 17:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Francis Poulenc
You seem to do better with difficult IPs and edits to music articles than I do. Perhaps you could take a look at the Poulenc article? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Last time I looked at it -- within the year -- I ran screaming in horror. Dare I look again?  (One of my very favorite composers, by the way.  Deserves a top-notch article.) Antandrus  (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT COMMENTS
Hi. Good day. I cite US LAW, my article also does not contain copyright material from the book I cite. I only cite FACTS, HISTORY, context, provide references and links...

Thank you... It is legal.

Christopher Origer 21:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Christopheroriger
I noticed you tried to reason with this user regarding his FAIR USE disclaimer. I've been going on and off with him since last night when he was posting chapters of this supposed book of his.

Just an FYI note that he deleted your comment on his talk page and put up his FAIR USE notice again. I'm confident that this editor will not be constructive in any way, and will eventually be blocked. See this diff to my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AManway&diff=500606388&oldid=500605430 - interesting for an editor who has been registered for less than 24 hours.

I'm not sure who to take this up with. But he's a definite thorn in our sides and will sooner or later be removed.

Thanks for your help on this. Any little bit is greatly appreciated. Regards, -- Man way  21:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a nasty diff -- thanks for pointing that out. I'm starting, as usual, with a couple tablespoons of AGF.  Once drunk with a glass of water, other acronyms may apply.
 * The book, by the way, is probably notable -- the film The Ninth Day is based on it -- but you're right, he doesn't quite have the "wiki way" down yet. I'm watching.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Just saw this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Priestblock_25487:_A_Memoir_of_Dachau_:_Fr._Jean_Bernard&diff=prev&oldid=500711926 - he needs a healthy dose of WP:OWN. I'll try once more, counsel him on that policy. Don't expect much, though, but you're right - AGF is needed. Once more, my friends, once more into the breach.... -- Man way  22:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed ... I'm also trying again. By the way, FYI.  One of the reasons I'm trying to be a little extra kind, if his user name is any guide, is that he may be directly related to the Jean Origer who was murdered by the Nazis at Mauthausen.  There's a lot of emotional force behind his comments, and that's probably where the straw-man Holocaust denial charges are coming from.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

My Sincere Thanks. I contend, not strawman....But we will leave that for now....

Christopher ORIGER

Christopher Origer 00:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopheroriger (talk • contribs)

Thanks. I really appreciate your help. Kind regards. Christopher ORIGER
Christopher Origer 00:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopheroriger (talk • contribs)

Antandrus: One more PS. Everything I wrote to begin with WAS MINE. All I had done at one point was to take the beginning of the first Chapter of the book and included that in the Article. Per Title 17 U.S.C. It IS/WAS FAIR SCHOLARLY USE of the DATA. They kept deleting my drafts and my submittals.....

Thanks for the Reference to THE NINTH DAY. I saw this film at an International Film Festival I volunteered at in Minneapolis a few years ago. It was one of the most emotional films I have ever seen. PURE MORAL COURAGE in the face of Tyranny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopheroriger (talk • contribs) 02:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks,

Christopher Christopher Origer 00:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. I want to see that film too.
 * Let me know if you need further help with the article for creation. If all else fails I will create a draft myself with a few references to reviews and to Harold Marcuse's page here.  He's an expert on Dachau as I'm sure you know.  It should be possible to put up at least a small page on the book, as a start, which conforms to all Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  I will be away for several days but back early next week. Antandrus  (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank You. Talk to you soon. The Film is well worth watching. Yes, I have been to Dachau a few times. Thank you for linking Prof. Marcuses page.

Kind regards,

Christopher

Christopher Origer 04:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Antandarus. Hope you are well. Had to shift focus for a while. Hope to talk more when I can start working on my family history/Luxembourg history and Priestblock again. Talk to you soon. Cheers Christopher Origer 19:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopheroriger (talk • contribs)

Feedback request
Forgive me for I know you must be busy, but on the basis of our brief acquantance I would appreciate your opimion on Talk:Tree shaping. Did I do right? Many thanks Mcewan (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think so. It looks like a borderline case.  I tend to be a little easier on "spam" than most people; if a link is likely to provide useful information not in the article, in my opinion, I let it go.  Other editors are quite vigilant, pulling "spam" links as though they were invasive weeds.  I wish the radio shows she mentions had links.  Honestly, I think that one could go either way.  Antandrus  (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm I was a bit influenced by the fact that the article is already somewhat of a pitch for their work, great though it clearly is. I'll see if we can get links for the radio from them. Mcewan (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance at WP:ANI
Could you have a look this ANI Page. There is an issue with an editor and even the ANI page is being vandalized and seems out-of-control. If not desired, by yourself, could you please introduce another administrator to this job? Repeated requests and warnings are not functioning anymore for this spilled over ruckus. Thanks! 99.251.125.65 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Greetings -- sorry, was busy yesterday evening. Appears the ANI thread is closed now.  If you want my opinion, go with lc "the Beatles" vs "The Beatles" -- that's the way the magisterial 29-volume New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, which is kept up to date, does it, and they're incredibly careful and consistent about such things.  Their article is by Ian Macdonald. Antandrus  (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a problem due to the confusion that gets introduced every time somebody tries to address this problem. This particular case was not about The Beatles but rather about the behaviour being output by the editors. Many attempts to resolve these issues (content) but each time the combatants involved confuse the issue, at hand, with more behavioural problems. The issue then becomes confused and closed in frustraton by another editor that can't be bothered to actually read what has transpired or even the title of the complaint. Unbelievably frustrating! *sigh*. Thanks for the ref. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Advice?

 * Hi! Please see Talk:Brazilian aircraft carrier São Paulo (A12), what would you have done? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow. Curiously intense argument over -- a space.  Sometimes you just have to step back a notch.  To my eye, the extra space is slightly more pleasing but I would never have noticed if I hadn't read the thread.  Do other articles on ships have the space?  I looked at two which did not (I'm using IE at this moment, though I do not normally).  My advice regarding arguing the dispute -- 91 is being shrill but other parties are responding to the shrillness, turning up the heat unnecessarily.  No matter how trivial the issue, once sides dig in, it becomes difficult to solve.  This one could easily end up on WP:LAME, and if it gets attention at a noticeboard a crowd will pile on with "they're arguing over a WHAT??", tarring both sides.  Looks like you have clear consensus to keep the hidden comment (and space).  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that pretty much sums up most regular editor's view point but not that of the IP-hopping troll. Best to ignore, eh? Best and cheers. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 23:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated
If you are not yet aware of Calling All Dawns, you need to acquire that album post-haste. I guarantee that, given your musical acumen, you'll get a number of eargasms. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Greetings! Thanks for the recommendation -- I'll look at it.  I'm enjoying a longish (for me) break from this place.  Back eventually. Antandrus  (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit to Albertus Magnus
From 2004. Can you remember where you sourced this from? I am studying the growth of articles in Wikipedia! Quisquiliae (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup. We didn't footnote things then, or even (often) list references, incredible as that may seem.  I got that from the Edward Booth's article in the New Grove (online version available by subscription).  There are a number of other sources I might have used, but since everything in the paragraph I added is somewhere in the article that's probably what I used (it was eight years ago ... tempus fugit ...) Antandrus  (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Quisquiliae (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Juan Pujol
Hi Antandrus, I was browsing through your list of contribs when I noticed that you wrote about a cut-and-paste move to Juan Pujol. Since I enjoy recovering obscure or semi-obscure page history, I've history merged it for you, so all your edits are finally where they're meant to be. Therefore I've removed the note about the cut and paste move from your contribs page. Hope you don't mind. Graham 87 05:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you!! Really appreciate that.  It was one of those things I intended to do myself eventually but probably never would have gotten around to it.  Interesting that the page sizes show as zero; there may be something on bugzilla about that.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

California Oil Field Maps
Hello! I recently found your maps of the oil fields in California,. I've been having a hell of a time trying to figure a way to turn GIS files from DOGGR into .kml format so I can see them (specifically the oil fields) as overlays on Google Earth. Would you be able to help me with that at all?

Thanks! --CumbiaDude (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have ArcGIS 9.3 or above? There should be a tool for that.  I haven't used it but I'm pretty sure it is there.  (I don't have ArcGIS on my laptop but will look next time I have it.)  Convert .shp to .kml and make sure to select the "field name" attribute to be the label in Google Earth. Antandrus  (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Greetings again -- I verified that it works in ArcGIS 10; I was able to make a .kmz of the entire layer of California oil fields retaining the attributes. Shoot me an e-mail if you'd like me to send it to you. Antandrus  (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Christian Tetzlaff
Have you seen the recent New Yorker article on him? I know almost nothing technical about the violin and/or violinists, and I found the article absorbing. I have a link to the abstract here. You can take a look and see if it is worth your while pursuing. Bielle (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting! Thanks!  Yes, there are different schools of violin playing, esp. regarding color.  I can look on Youtube to see if I can hear his sound -- sometimes it's perfectly appropriate to have one "leached of color" (think the opening of the Chausson Poème, at least the way I hear it).  Often good stuff in the New Yorker ... Antandrus  (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The magic of the writing in the New Yorker is that it can approach a really technical subject -like colour in the sound of music- that talks neither down to the knowledgeable nor over the head of the novice. (If only WP could do the same!) I am certain you got much more out of the article than I ever could, and yet it managed to engage me completely. So, when you find a youtube (or two) that demonstrates the essence of the article, could you post a link here? I need a lot of help, but I am willing. Thanks Bielle (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

lets talk shall we
why waste all of your time on tees hey? what up yo mander? really, why should we waste our time with this the MOS proves it is true do you think the MOSes are liars yo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.30.247.200 (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't work that way. There is an active discussion on this issue.  Make your point there; that's the correct way to proceed. Antandrus  (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Troll
Watch User talk:Hot Stop Ground Zero. Well, Until he learns-- intelati  /talk 03:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been methodically blocking all his ranges at the /24 level wherever he appears (look at the log). I want him to get the point that there is a mediation active on the issue.  Other than that, he's just shoveling sand against the tide. Antandrus  (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! I presume you meant this one?  (I've written four or five ... here's another, and this one ended up in project space -- there's probably more).  Appreciate it! Antandrus  (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Brandenburg Concerto #3 In G Major -scored for mandolin, banjo, guitar and usual panoply of strings.
I wasn't expecting to like this, but it made me smile all the way through. Imagine if the sound was anything other than YouTube. Bielle (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not only is the transcription good, those guys are amazing. Joyful.  Very fine.  Thank you!  Antandrus  (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

FAR notice
I have nominated Gregorian chant for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Looks like the article's actual authors -- those that took it to FA -- are no longer active.  I wrote part back in 2004. Antandrus  (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * IT'S STILL YOUR FAULT!!!!MONGO 17:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL -- I remember now, I wrote that on commission from Opus Dei, just before I started getting the monthly CIA checks for guarding the 9/11 articles. Antandrus  (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe...well, the cats out of the bag now...I think we both should be asking them for a "sanity" raise.--MONGO 01:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

French classical music edit-a-thon
Hi Antandrus, I saw that you were the main contributor to French classical music, so you might be interested in a classical music edit-a-thon organised for 8-14 October, to coincide with the Australian ABC Classic FM radio countdown themed Music of France. There will also be a meetup in Sydney, so we are using Meetup/Sydney/October 2012 as our main collaboration page. I hope you'll be able to find time to participate online. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent -- thank you for letting me know! It's possible.  I've been on a bit of a wikibreak, the extended low-activity kind, but I may have some time to contribute here and there.  All the best, Antandrus  (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Enigmatic matters
Hello, Antandrus.

Thanks for your support at Talk:Enigma Variations. I must get around to reading Sir Padgett's blog in full; I'm sure it's full of fascinating insights. But I confess I'm afraid I might be converted from my current pet theory, which can be fully explained in a short paragraph rather than 36 chapters, a prologue and an epilogue. Ein Feste Burg must have been mentioned in the literature before Sir Padgett came up with it, but we don't mention it.

We really do need to clean the article up, though. I now support having a separate article where the major theories are covered, showing what prominent commentators have had to say pro and con each one. Without, of course, coming to our own wiki-conclusions. Whaddaya reckon? --  Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  01:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes. I have my own ideas about the thing too!  (By the way, such a beautiful piece, and I never tire of it.)  I think a separate article is probably called for:  the only difficulty would be the relative lack of watchers, along with it being a magnet for crankery.  As with other articles of similar nature (imagine a solutions to Goldbach's conjecture or Ways to trisect an angle) a few dedicated Wikipedians would have to pull the weeds from the garden every now and then. Antandrus  (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure the relative lack of watchers is a problem. That's never been on my radar when writing articles about obscure musicians etc, and I doubt it's been on yours.  Cranks will always be with us; Wikipedia is their natural home.  The cranks, and others, have been having their say about the solution to the Enigma for over a century now, I have no doubt they'll keep on for at least another century, and it's become a subject quite separate from any consideration or analysis of the music itself.  --   Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  01:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Good grief. I just looked at his talk page.  Found someone tried to tell him about policy three years ago, and that someone was me.  Laughed out loud; I'd completely forgotten.  Antandrus  (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Wind quintets
You have edited the article Wind quintet in the past.

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Wind quintet over the criteria for inclusion of artists in the "Prominent wind quintets" section, where the vast majority of entries are WP:Redlinks. The proposal is that listed quintets should either have their own Wikipedia article or should have a link to a reliable source (not the quintets own PR, but an external source) to show that they are notable.

Please add your opinion here. - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

My archives
Hello,

Just wanted to let you know that I've archived my talk page. You can view them in my talk page. Cmach7 (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Return of the bogus discographer
Ho hum! Best. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 18:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow. Same IP, too -- I see I've blocked him a bunch of times already.  Do you remember if this person uses other IPs?  Antandrus  (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, all these spurious recordings (AFAIK) are the same (Sardinian?) person. I only noticed the revert because I spent a lot of time quite a few years ago sorting out Médée (Cherubini).  Suggest you put him on your watchlist if he isn't already there. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 23:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He's been busy again at Italian Wikipedia as well. I just reverted this absurdity which had sat there for almost 2 weeks. As far as I know, it's always the same IP. Voceditenore (talk) 06:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes -- appears only to be active in Italian and English. The one edit in the Sardinian wiki is older, and ok.  It's a static IP so there's no harm in blocking it.  By the way I did look at the contributions of some of the other Italian IPs on some of the articles 79. edited, and everything I looked at checked out, but I wasn't completely thorough. Antandrus  (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR
Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swalling@undefinedwikimedia.org) with...


 * the subject line "JSTOR"
 * your English Wikipedia username
 * your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) • talk   21:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow! I think I will start writing again!  That's fantastic; I can do a lot with one of these.  Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Christmas Music
Almost without exception, the only aspect of Christmas I like is the music -the older, the more traditionally arranged, the better. I do have one "new" recording we play a lot. Have a listen to the Robi Botos (pronounced as if it were written: Robbie Boatawsh) Trio's "Christmas Eve". Do you have a favourite to recommend, one that I might not have experienced yet? Bielle (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Bielle -- don't know how I missed this message. Well.  Lots of good stuff.  Here's a recording by the Baltimore Consort you may enjoy -- they were quite good in their early days, IMO (when they had Custer LaRue singing with them).  I like old Christmas music myself, e.g. from before about 1650.  For me walking into a mall where they're playing Christmas Muzak, Jingle Bells and all of that, is like a drizzle of nitric acid.  I like simple, pure, and elegant. Antandrus  (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Have some awards
Thanks for your mountain of work on Wikipedia! Kevin12xd... &#124; speak up &#124; take a peek &#124; email me 15:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Kevin -- appreciate it! Antandrus (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry
I would like to sincerely apologize for my stupidity in the last week. I just got angry because I was blocked. If FisherQueen had sent me a message instead of just blocking me, I would not have gotten so angry. When my movie is a little bit more publicized, I would like to make the page again. This time I will have correct sources, get Wizard or some other magazine to write an article, and get everything together. I would really like to be forgiven and once again I am sorry for my idiotics.

Cody Kear

Invitation to WikiProject Brands

 * Thank you!! and happy holidays to you too. I'm actually hoping to get a little time over the holiday break to do some writing here.  :)  All the best, Antandrus  (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

 * Thank you and happy holidays to you as well -- here, have some of my oranges! Antandrus (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow...looks tastey! The only thing anyone can grow here now is icicles!--MONGO 21:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI
User:Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabett) has used Boxing Day to commission a bot to remove the request on composers pages not to add an infobox: and moreover this has been effected within four hours without any formal notification to the project (or anywhere else) has used Boxing Day as the day to remove pertinent infobox comments relating to biographical infoboxes in articles on classical music and composers. The discussion is taking place at Bot_requests. Can you please take a look at this matter and see what needs to be done? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Composer infoboxes - again.....
Hi Antandrus - I see another has beaten me to it on this one - what to do, do you think, about this rather aggressive intervention? PS compliments of the season, happy 2013, etc. etc. Best, --Smerus (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi guys -- wow, just wow. Thanks for the alert.  Sorry, I've been away.  Looks like the new notice being added "Before adding an infobox, please consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes and seek consensus on this article's talk page" may work as a compromise.  I hope.  This can turn nasty quickly though.  The last time this ended up on a noticeboard the community -- or a slight majority of those who chose to comment -- ended up siding with Andy and against the Composers' Wikiproject.  Antandrus  (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You've (will have) got swag!
&mdash; Coren (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you!! Appreciate that.  (Yes, I prefer having a lowish profile.  For whatever reason.  :)  ) Antandrus  (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Christmas greetings, and H.L. Hassler question
Hi there! I hope you have been having a merry Christmas, and have been well. I'm also wondering if you happen to know of or have access to any recordings of either of the Miserere settings by Herr Hassler? I have come up completely dry on this one. CPDL has scores for them and a (dopey) computerized playback option, which I may have to resort to, but it would be nice to hear actual human beings singing it/them instead. I'm casting around for repertory to plug into the March concert of a group of which I've just been named the interim music director. I'm not especially familiar with his music, and have some 40-45 voices and 8 brass players at my disposal. Schütz has been deemed too challenging (a great pity in my view) though they might just dislike singing in German, but we've got some Gabrieli, the Purcell Funeral Music for Queen Mary, as well as the Rutter Gloria (!) and RVW's O Clap Your Hands, a personal favorite. Any thoughts on any of this I will be glad to hear. Au revoir! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 01:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merry Christmas as well! Are you sure you can't do Schütz?  It's the obvious choice.  Anything by Praetorius (Michael or even Hieronymus)?  I don't know any recordings of Hassler's Miserere.  I heard the Tallis Scholars on their last visits to my town do some of his music strictly a cappella, You could also be brave and arrange a sixteenth century mass for voices and brass ... I have a nice recording of Cristóbal de Morales' Missa mille regretz done that way.  But with the other stuff you've got, I vote for early 17th century German. Antandrus  (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I had forgotten about Praetorius (Schütz is going to have to wait, unfortunately). As a result I've disinterred something I remember from an old Westminster LP we had when I was a kid, Canticum trium puerorum, which I think will work well, plus the 11-voice Hassler; I plan to replace one of the four-voice choirs in the latter with brass and double the other four-voice choir (2 trp, 2 trb in each case). Those two plus the Rutter/RVW/Purcell/Gabrieli (the inevitable In Ecclesiis) should give us somewhere around 75-80 minutes of music, which should be plenty. (Of course, concocting brass parts from PDF scores will be a great deal of fun, n'est-ce pas?) --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 22:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S.: What's the accepted wisdom nowadays on the proportions between 4/2 and 3/1 in Praetorius? Does the beat stay the same and the value changes, or do they both stay the same so the 3/1 becomes half the speed of the 4/2, or does the old duple/triple "triplet" relationship still hold sway somehow even at that late date? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 03:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Greetings -- I really don't know the answer to that. I'd suggest finding a couple of examples in pieces and then listen to how some of the professional groups do them.  You might find it is inconsistent.  Good luck! Antandrus  (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Purcell vs. Morley
Hello, me again. I am hearing a rumor that some of the music in Purcell's Funeral Music for Queen Mary is in fact by Thomas Morley, not Purcell. Do you happen to know anything about that? Merci! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. No, that's the first I've heard of it.  Do any of my talk page stalkers know?  Which parts?  I sure don't "hear" Morley's voice in it anywhere.  But stranger things have happened! Antandrus  (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (TPS, raising head above parapet): This publication probably explains the rumour: http://www.amazon.com/Funeral-Music-Queen-Mary-Bruce/dp/0853605521 (Ducks down behind parapet again.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you; that makes sense. Antandrus (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

File:SantaBarbaraOranges.jpg
Hi Antandrus,

Could you tell me whether the following statement corresponds to your expectations for a publication in my next book in French-speaking countries, or if it lacks an element declaration :

« Photo by Antandrus, SantaBarbaraOranges.jpg. Source http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ASantaBarbaraOranges.jpg. Reproduced under license cc-by-sa-3.0 Unported - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en ».

I thank you in advance, Arevalb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.203.105.29 (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Arevalb -- that looks fine to me. Hope publication goes well!  Antandrus  (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Antandrus,

I thank you very much indeeed for your prompt reply, Best regards. Arevalb. Arevalb (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  15:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you!! appreciate it. Antandrus  (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Admirable quantity, and then also quality! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! And please keep up the good work yourself:  your article work is really good and I'm glad people are noticing. Antandrus  (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Lully
Hello, Antandrus! It's been a while. I happened upon the Jean-Baptiste Lully article the other day. It's awful! I have begun writing an entirely new one, based on Marcelle Benoit's Dictionary article (which is very solid, by Herbert Schenider) and especially Jerome de La Gorce's fat book which is 100% trustworthy and full of new facts and insights. I'm writing it right now on my word-processor, haven't touched the Wiki article at all. But I don't want to cause turmoil at Wiki. What is the best way to proceed? Write my bio, delete the one currently there, put in my new one (and insert solid footnotes)??? Then move on an patch up the Music section, saying something about his operas (none of which are even named!)Or should I just leave things alone? Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)ranumspa
 * I'm going to start redoing the article, paragraph by paragraph. Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Ranumspa.


 * I found the Help pages that provide code options, amidst that file with all the Wikipedes. Inserted the problem photo with no trouble. Best to you, Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Ranumspa


 * Greetings and welcome back! Sorry about my delayed response; I've only been very sporadically checking Wikipedia for a while now.  Hope to be editing somewhat regularly again, sometime.  Looks like you are doing excellent and much-needed work.  I've always appreciated your work on Charpentier. Antandrus  (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edward Clark (conductor)
Greetings, O Lord Antandrus.

I wonder if you've ever come across the conductor and BBC music producer Edward Clark (1888-1962) in your travels. I realise you're an early music specialist and he was very much a contemporary music specialist, but you get around and you know your stuff. I'm hoping he rates a fairly substantial article in New Grove, and if so, can I impose on you to send me a copy of whatever they have to say?

I have to admit his name meant absolutely nothing to me a month ago. I'd just written José Cubiles, who played the world premiere of Nights in the Gardens of Spain, where I read that the UK premiere in 1921 was played by the composer (Manuel de Falla), and the conductor on that occasion was one Edward Clark. Edward who?, I asked myself. Red link, no entry in Grove V, obviously a non-entity who just happened to be in the right place and the right time for that particular performance. I put him to one side of my brain, but when I had the chance I thought I'd better at least check him out.

Well, what a revelation! World premieres and British premieres by the dozen (incl. Verklärte Nacht orch. version, The Firebird 1919 Suite, and Doktor Faust), either as conductor or producer; student, close friend and chief champion of Schoenberg for decades; intimate with Berg, Webern, Stravinsky, Hindemith, Walton, Bartok, Dallapiccola, Britten and too many others to list here; heavyweight of the BBC's Contemporary Music Department; created the structure of the BBC Symphony Orchestra; second husband of Elisabeth Lutyens; his first wife was a traitor who spent a year in jail after the war; President of the ISCM; Stravinsky wept when he heard he'd died ... the more I looked, the more fascinating information I kept finding. I'm sure there's more yet.

My assessment is that he was a profoundly important figure in the history of (particularly British and European) 20th century music, whose name should mean a great deal to any student of this subject - but he's almost completely fallen through the cracks of history. I'm keen to wiki-publish my article asap. The current version is in my sandbox. It contains a great deal of detail and I'm still at the stage of separating the wheat from the chaff, but there's just so much good stuff that getting rid of material is a real challenge. And now I want even more. I can't believe New Grove doesn't have him, and I could not possibly do without it, even if just to corroborate material I've already sourced.

Over to you. Cheers. --  Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  11:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The other thing I found curious about him is that his interests seem to lie solely within Europe/UK. I know Schoenberg and Stravinsky both migrated to the States, but they were culturally German and Russian. I have now close to 100 sources on Clark but I have yet to see a single solitary mention of any American-born composer.  Maybe he felt they were well looked after there and his job was to help the struggling Europeans.  Fascinating.  --   Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  11:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for sending me the Grove stuff. It all checks out, and now Edward Clark (conductor) is a blue link.  Cheers.  --   Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  04:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

interwiki links
Hi Antandrus, please consider that your edit in Gustav Mahler was unnecessary, as interwiki-links are solved differently now. My proposal: it would be best if you "revert" your said edit yourself. Thanks and regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. For my talk page stalkers, some info is here; I didn't know about this. Antandrus  (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

100,000 edits!
Hi Antandrus...you have almost nine years of editing, no blocks, no controversies of note, and 100,000 excellent edits. Thank you!...--MONGO


 * And thank you! You're still churning out articles, and I'm not -- hope to get some enthusiasm back some day.  Along with some time to edit ...  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar time

 * Thank you Jack -- really appreciate that! -- no worries, I'm here and will continue writing ... hope to break free some time to do more. (I remain hugely impressed at your output by the way!  Carry on ...) Antandrus  (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Linn Energy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Permian Basin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

WP Composers in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Composers for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:George Frideric Handel
You are one of a handful of editors who has made at least 25 edits to George Frideric Handel. I am not a musical scholar or student and was hoping you might be able to help me organize George Frideric Handel.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Opera
I'm writing to members of WikiProject Opera who have been active on the talk page over the last year. We currently have a proposal to add infoboxes about individual operas to their articles. As this would involve a fairly major change from our current practice, and lead to a potentially lengthy transition, it would be helpful to hear the views from as many project members as possible. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- --JamboQueen (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hi Antandrus, you were mentioned at ANI by this editor, who failed to notify you. The thread is at Bullying and ownership concerns at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach and Sparrow Mass over the use of infoboxes. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh sweet lord. Not this again.  -- Thank you for setting the record straight.  I'm really busy today in "RL"; I'll try to read the whole thread later, and will comment if I can think of something helpful to say. Antandrus  (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * O sweet Lord, you got into it by mistake, fear not ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * closed, happy wikibirthday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Click -- happy Wikibirthday to you!
Missed it yesterday, but thanks for nine years of improving the world! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! When I look in my journal for that date, I see the reason I "discovered" Wikipedia and started editing was -- I was procrastinating on doing my income taxes.  And it was as addictive as heroin.  (Imagine a time when Obrecht was a redlink!) Antandrus  (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Isn't there a site somewhere where you can browse Wikipedia as of a certain date? I remember looking with envy about that time. It's incredible how far the project has come.  Thanks so much for being such a part in making it so much better.  I still tell people that you're almost certainly the most read author on early music (and probably classical music as a whole) in the world. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks ... Haven't seen that site, but it's certainly possible; would require querying the database for version and date, for every click, with a subquery for everything nested in the article (images, templates, ...) If the site didn't get too many visitors it would be possible.  Interesting.  It would be easier if it were set up with some key dates you could choose, and everything cached in advance.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it was just a couple of different years you could choose from, so I assume it was cached. I can't find it now though. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is one I remember. It's only one date though (end of 2001). Antandrus  (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Greetings, Antandrus! If we have not met, I'm. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Nadia Boulanger
Hey there, my favorite admin musicologist, long time since I've bothered you. If you have the time and inclination, could you take a look at the recent editing history on the Boulanger article. I was unhappy with an unsourced addition to the lead and then realized that what was in the lead wasn't really supported in the body, so I removed a piece. User:Maunus (I didn't even know he'd relinquished his tools until I checked just now - wonder why) reverted me but didn't fix the problem. I understand his substantive point but am unhappy with the fact that the lead and sourcing doesn't comply with guidelines. I also don't have the books available to me that you have to fix it properly (and I am rather busy on other issues, too). Anyway, it seems a bit nervy of me to ask you to do the work I'm unwilling to do, but I've never been accused of lack of chutzpah. Besides, you can always say no. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Greetings -- well, yes, as a matter of fact you are both right: Maunus in that it belongs, as part of a general statement of her incredible importance as a composition teacher for so many famous people, and you in that it's not cited or supported in the body.  Some material backing this up needs to be in the article somewhere.  (The Grove article claims that Leonard Bernstein was one of her students, but I can't find anything to corroborate that.  I was going to use it for a list, but now I don't want to!)  I'll see what else I've got. Antandrus  (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Austin SO
Thanks. --  Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  02:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

San Diego Comic-Con International meetup discussion
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Interac (Japan)
Can you give me some help with Interac (Japan)? Please see the Tak page for the last year of discussion.Taurus669 (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Gustav Holst
As, proverbially, no good deed goes unpunished, I take the liberty of mentioning that User:Brianboulton and I have Gustav Holst up for FAC. Knowing that you are a musician, and one, moreover, who has contributed to the article, I invite you to look in the FAC discussion: if you have the time and the inclination BB and I will be greatly indebted. Tim riley (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I had a quick read a few days ago, but had no comments ... I'll try to look at it again soon. So far very nice work. Antandrus  (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Wikinic

 * That's really tempting. It conflicts with the riotous and hedonistic Santa Barbara Summer Solstice Parade, which I usually like to see, ... but we'll see.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you Ocaasi, I really appreciate that! Antandrus (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Richard Wagner
This is a note to let the main editors of Richard Wagner know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 22, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/May 22, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Richard Wagner (1813–83) was a German composer, theatre director, polemicist, and conductor primarily known for his operas. His compositions, particularly those of his later period, are notable for their complex textures, rich harmonies and orchestration, and the elaborate use of leitmotifs—musical phrases associated with individual characters, places, ideas or plot elements. These innovations greatly influenced the development of classical music; his Tristan und Isolde is sometimes described as marking the start of modern music. Wagner revolutionised opera through his concept of synthesising the poetic, visual, musical and dramatic arts. He first realised these ideas in his four-opera cycle The Ring of the Nibelung. He had his own opera house built at Bayreuth, containing many novel design features, where his most important stage works continue to be performed in an annual festival run by his descendants. Wagner's controversial writings on music, drama and politics have attracted extensive comment in recent decades, especially where they express antisemitic sentiments. The effect of his ideas can be traced in many of the arts throughout the 20th century. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hummingbird Sage photo
Hi Antandrus,

You took a lovely photo of hummingbird sage. Would be possible to use your photo for some plant ID signs if I credit you as the photographer?

Thank you,

Sara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.63.171 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Sara -- I'm not Antandrus (but a friend) -- he's released the image File:Hummingbird_sage.jpg into the public domain, so it's free to use for any purpose. I'm sure he'd appreciate his being credited as the photographer. Most images on Wikipedia are free to use for any purpose.  Insane, but great, isn't it?  Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes -- Myke is right -- use it for anything you like. (Been on vacation; didn't see your message until now.) Antandrus  (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Pietro Cerone
Hi Antandrus, I don't know if this is still on your watchlist, but just a note to say that I added an image of the title page of his El melopeo y maestro and an external link to the complete copy of the treatise. Feel free to tweak the image caption and/or link description. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent, thank you! Looks good.  Sorry I haven't been very active around here ... stuff going on in that "RL" place. :) Antandrus  (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Britten
The Britten article is at peer review. I'm dropping this note as you have contributed extensively to the article, and if you have time and inclination to look in at the PR that would be very welcome. Tim riley (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ha ha -- I'm but a distant second. But I'll have a look at the article when I have a moment.  It's been pretty good, last few times I visited.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup
You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) &mdash; Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 04:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup
Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at "Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. --Olegkagan (talk) &mdash; Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 01:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm Liam987. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone, to Lorenzo de' Medici because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The reverted edit can be found [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=571515826 here]. Liam987 (talk)  14:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies. This was a mistake. Liam987  (talk)  14:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries; I've done that myself. Antandrus (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Antandrus....you're quite modest....to my knowledge I have never seen you make a single mistake. If the vast majority of admins emulated you this would truly be an incredibly well run website.--MONGO 15:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguate Avaré?
I've just created a wiki page for the free open source Avare aviation app that provides GPS location on FAA charts along with FAA static and dynamic aviation data. I noticed that doing a search for Avare turns up the Avaré, São Paulo page that gets about 12 views daily so I named my page Avare gps. The app currently gets over 100 new installs daily, and I don't know how that will eventually translate to daily wiki page views. Especially once one of the big aviation publications publishes a positive review, which is increasingly likely.

Now I'm thinking it was a mistake to name the page "Avare gps" because aviators and Brazilians alike will probably just search "avare" to find either the app or the city. Few aviators would think to add "gps" to the app name, and few non-Brazilians would think to use the accented "é" or add "São Paulo" (or maybe even Brazil). So I started reading War & Peace, aka Disambiguation and woke three days later with a realization: Antandrus could sort this out in the time it would take me to do the pre-flight checks on an airplane. :)

Would you be willing to bless the Avare page with a quick disambiguation solution? Jw4nvc (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Greetings! 'tis done.  Let me know if that looks OK.  :) Antandrus  (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * In the blink of an eye! I'll email to schedule that pre-flight. :) Jw4nvc (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Redirect goes from correct form of title to incorrect form
Hi Antandrus--

Last night I posted the following question on Jerome Kohl's talkpage, and as you see, he has suggested in response that an administrator may be needed to fix it. Rather than just throwing this out at random at the Help desk, I knew that you would understand capitalization rules for French titles. The text of the article does use the lower-case m; I think the article title is the only problem. Thanks for your help. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jerome-- I was trying (again - I had earlier left a note on the talk page) to change Les Millions d'Arlequin to Les millions d'Arlequin, but there's a redirect from "millions" to "Millions". It wouldn't let me just reverse the redirect because that would again create a duplicate name, the same reason I couldn't simply move the article title to start with. I tried moving the redirect to a temporary misspelling to avoid the duplicate titles - this move worked, but even so, trying to then move the article still gave me the same error message. If there's a way to delete the bad redirect, I don't know what it is. Do you know how to fix this situation? Thanks for any help. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you may need the help of an Administrator to do this. I suggest asking over on the Help desk or at Editor assistance/Requests.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've done it -- yes, correct capitalization in French -- let me know if you need anything else. Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. (That was a very fast response.) Milkunderwood (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

A well-deserved prize
Hi, Antandrus. Our paths haven't been crossing much of recent times. Good to see you're still very much around, and as a token of the respect in which I know many hold you, please accept this:

* To present this award to others, simply type   on their talk page, and then sign and date your post.

Best. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ha! Laughed out loud.  Thank you -- appreciate it.  Now to the difficult work of checking my watchlist after being away almost a week ... Antandrus  (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Bad link
Hello, Antandrus, I was reading your user page and found, in the box regarding Administrative stuff, that the link at the very end leads to a 404 page. I'm not sure if this information is available elsewhere but I thought I'd let you know that the link doesn't work. Happy editing, Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC) P.S. I used to live in SB so it was nice to see the local photo! L.


 * Hi Liz! I'm still looking for a replacement link; haven't found one yet.  (You can always go to an admin's contribs, choose logs, and then pick that way.)  Also not sure I know an answer to your question on my "observations" page.  It's a good and thoughtful question.  I remember a time when Wikipedia was not so information-rich (as I'm sure you do) -- when it was possible to add slabs of new content to rather ordinary topics.  It's possible that some people are primarily motivated to remove bloat and the accretion of drive-by trivia -- but it's probably also true that some are just burned-out, late career editors who do nothing but check their watchlists once in a while, reverting any additions they deem not up to standard.  Reminds me, I need to do some writing again.  All the best! Antandrus  (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Hey thank you -- could use a beer about now. (I presume you mean my "observations" list?)  Cheers -- *clink* Antandrus  (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

California Oil Field Maps?
Hi there! I noticed that you are credited for creating an image of oil fields in California, and I'm wondering if you have an image of the entire state. Or, even better, do you have ArcGIS shapefiles for California's Oil Fields? I'm having a really tough time tracking them down! If you do and would be willing to share, I'd really appreciate it if you got in touch with me - adamdorr @ ucla dot edu. Thanks!


 * Greetings -- I emailed you an Esri ArcGIS shapefile of the oil field boundaries. Those and others are available on the DOGGR website or FTP site, though they require some digging.  Caution -- they're mostly in NAD 27 datum and may need to be reprojected, especially if you use them outside of ArcGIS.  These are the de facto field productive boundaries as determined by dissolving buffers around all wells, grouped by field, that were ever productive. Antandrus  (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Renaissance and Baroque composer lists
Hi — I appreciate the time you've been taking to deal with the changes to dates in the List of Renaissance composers. I see that you've now removed the temporary edit protection there — but I think we may not have seen the end of this. In the Baroque list the same editor keeps adding composers who even on the most broad criteria don't belong there. As I don't have the ability to alter protection settings, can I ask you consider temporary protection there? —( RT ) talk  11:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. I haven't seen any edits today (yet) but I'm watching both pages as well as both IP talk pages.  If the IP continues to add unverified, probably fictitious information to either page, I'll try protecting the pages again (a slightly gentler approach than blocking, and unlikely to inflict collateral damage since there's only about one useful IP edit per month on either page).  I really want the person to respond to our messages.  I'll block if there is no other choice.  Thanks for your help with this. Antandrus  (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Seems a reasonable approach to me. —( RT ) talk  17:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi (no admin action necessary)
How are you doing, Antandrus? Hope you are well. This message is not about anything in particular. I just noticed it's been such a long time since we last spoke and I didn't want you to think I was studiously ignoring you or anything like that. I've been busy on and off Wikipedia and the time has just flown. Anyhow, all the best again.--Folantin (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Greetings -- honestly I haven't been around much either, other than checking my watchlist and occasionally responding to specific requests. Tons of (good) stuff going on in that "real life" place.  Good to hear from you though, and glad to see you're going a bunch of work on interesting stuff.  I'm hoping to rekindle my own enthusiasm for this project one of these days.  All the best as well, Antandrus  (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Asking permission...
Hello Antandrus,

I'm interested in incorporating one or two of your photos into a history of oil spills that I am compiling in my spare time at NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration). In particular, there are some nice shots of the Lakeview Gusher site attributed to you. Do I need to do anything special to obtain your blessing?

Thanks,

gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gshigenaka (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Gary -- go ahead and use them as you like! Attribution to "Antandrus at Wikipedia" (or Wikimedia Commons if that's where you are finding them) would be nice but it's ok if you don't.  That Lakeview site is interesting; if you study it on Google Earth you can see a plume of stained earth going almost a mile downhill even after more than 100 years.  Antandrus  (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello: thanks for mending that Charpentier birth date
Hello, I've been busy with carpenteriana on my website (st. Cecilia and st. Charles Borromeo, plus the Jesuits of Trevoux) so hadn't checked in since last May. That month and day that someone inserted was NOT a discovery: must have been a prank inspired by the day the person visited the page? Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Ranumspa

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

According to Josh Fox's new documentary "Frackland II", the Los Angeles oil field is once again a productive field and is currently being fracked for methane. Do you know anything about this development? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelleitner510 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the first I've heard of it. I wonder how precise their terminology is -- do they mean the Los Angeles City Oil Field or are they generally referring to another of the many fields under the city of L.A.?  I'm not aware of any well drilling going on north of downtown.  It would be huge, and obvious.  Is the documentary available for streaming download? Antandrus  (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Long-term nonsense
Hello Antandrus, I I feel something should be done about long-term disruption featuring edits like. Page protection? Unfortunately the people active at WP:RPP are too soft when it comes to page protection. Regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That one's been bothering me for a while -- it's a strange situation because some of the edits seem to be in good faith, but enough aren't, that they all become suspicious, and the anon is refusing to talk to us (I presume you read their talk page). I will try protection.  Antandrus  (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Antandrus, this IP's edits remind me of User:Cmach7 who did similar stuff in December 2011, although this IP's location is different from the one that editor used when logged out. Best Voceditenore (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, there's quite a lot of IP hopping. This new IP locates to New York. In 2011 Cmach7 appears to have used both 24.209.139.161 (which locates to Wisconsin) and 101.160.148.192 (which locates to Australia!). See also Sockpuppet investigations/Cmach7/Archive re mention of various (unnamed) IPs being blocked. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. There is a similarity.  I just blocked the IP for a month, for continuing to add unverifiable dates -- that is what Cmach7 used to do.  The editor at that IP appears to be obsessed with forcing people on the list into chronological birth order, no matter what damage to verifiability ensues.  Antandrus  (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

From London



 * Hey, thank you and merry Christmas from ... where am I today? ... central Arizona, where it is not dark and not, at the moment, snowing!  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

J'adore
Dior of course, but also your insightful essay that I recently stumbled upon. Thank you for sharing your wisdom. Happy New Year, and happy editing. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, thank you! Appreciate it.  Happy new year to you as well, Antandrus  (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:ArtemisiaCalifornica-GaviotaCA.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:CatCanyonLoc.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:CatCanyonTanksFlare.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Minor error in your peek edit count ranking on your user page
Hi Antandrus, I noticed on your user page that you noted that your highest edit count ranking was #20. I was curious about this, for the selfish reason that my edit count is now a bit higher than yours (chalk that up to me basically having no life). So I went and checked, and found that your highest ranking was in fact [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/latest&oldid=145106685 #22] (#21 if you count [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/latest&diff=145111626&oldid=145106685 this change]). According to the revision history search tool, you changed your highest edit count ranking from #21 to #20 in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Antandrus&diff=188971979&oldid=188949038 February 2008]. (You were also ranked [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Antandrus&diff=138275302&oldid=137941064 #23] until [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/latest&diff=141695418&oldid=141438075 this removal of a bot from the list]). It seems I do in fact need a life. :-) Graham 87 13:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Help welcome
Hello Antandrus, since you appear to be interested a lot in Renaissance music, I figured you could help with the following: one editor has just changed the birth date of the entry for Johannes de Lymburgia from "1340" to "c. 1370", and his date of death from "1440" to "1430". The aforementioned link is a redirect to the page Johannes de Limburgia, which has the data "fl. 1408 - 1430". Your insights are welcome. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out. It looks bad.  The page is cribbed from here, with very little change, so it's plagiarism/copyright violation.  I can do a quick rewrite using the NG and one or two other sources when I get some quiet time, probably not until this evening (I'm on the US west coast) or weekend.  Nothing is known of his place or date of birth; the NG entry gives fl 1431 and some tentative identifications of the composer in some activities in the 1420s. Antandrus  (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Did a little digging and I think I know what's going on. The HOASM.org page from which our article was taken is based on the article in the 1980 New Grove by Keith Mixter, which is itself based on 1967 research by José Quitin, since superseded.  The man he thought was Johannes the composer turns out to be someone else (or several someones).  The new article by Margaret Bent in the online NG trims back the biographical detail greatly.  "fl. 1431" is about as good as it will get.  I'll try to put this together later. Antandrus  (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Great maps of the California oil fields
Antandrus -

I am working on a project related to the oil fields in the San Joaquin Valley in California. I came across the great maps highlighting various fields in some articles. Is there a general version of the map available where no particular field is highlighted?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCEngin (talk • contribs) 19:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I know I should make one, perhaps for use in one of the overall history-of-the-industry articles.  You can find one (not public domain) at DOGGR -- here for example.  I don't use those because they don't come with a free license. Antandrus  (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

2 violins, viola and continuo vs. String quartet
The article Vox Christi describes the utterances of Christ in J. S. Bach's Matthäusp. as being in recitativo accompagnato "highlighted by an accompanying string quartet". I looked at my score and what I see is that Christ is accompanied by 2 violins, a viola and the continuo. To me 2 violins, a viola and the continuo do not make "an accompanying string quartet". Therefore my opinion is that the use of the term "string quartet" on that page is erroneous and does not describe the situation accurately. I tried to argue this on the article's talk page but without success. What do you think? Contact <font style="color:blue;font-family:Courier-New;">Basemetal <font style="color:red;font-family:Courier-New;">here 17:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not a "string quartet" in the conventional sense, and describing it as such is misleading. Without looking at the talk page -- to make sure you are getting an unbiased opinion -- how about phrasing it as a "quartet of strings"?  (Or, of course, "three strings and basso continuo" or some variant.) Antandrus  (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Interest in contributing to California related articles
Hi there! I saw your named on Wikiproject United States and your interest in California. I'm new to Wikipedia editing and would like to contribute to this area as well. Do you have any suggestions for articles that need work? I lived and traveled throughout northern California for the most part, so that's the geographic area I'm most comfortable with/have interest in. But I'm of course willing to help out however I can with the project. Looking forward to hearing from you, Thanks! ArielEBarry (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Greetings and welcome to Wikipedia! There are thousands of articles that might interest you.  Probably the best way to get started is to start reading and following links, including categories, and you're bound to find something substandard or in need of fattening up with current and verifiable information.  Often it's good to get started by making minor fixes and additions.  If you find something in need of major work, before spending the time to do a thorough rewrite, it's always wise to visit the talk page to make sure there isn't one in progress.  Also, any article with one or more of those unsightly cleanup banners at the top can benefit from a little attention.  Have fun, and once again welcome. Antandrus  (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A quaint way to write accidentals!
Could you take a look at this manuscript version of the Prelude in C-sharp minor (BWV 849) from WTC I?

If you look at m. 11 (RH Note: written in 1st line C-clef/LH), m. 12 (RH) and m. 13 (RH), the F-double-sharp (which is in modern editions of course written as a double-sharp) is in this manuscript written as an F-sharp. Same thing at m. 35 (RH/LH), m. 36 (RH/LH) and m. 37 (RH).

The F-double-sharp being written consistently as F-sharp in so many cases in the manuscript and it being so written in all relevant cases (i.e. it being nowhere written as a double-sharp) seems to preclude this being an isolated mistake.

The idea behind this seems to be that the accidental is written relative to the key signature.

In other words the F-sharp in the key signature and the F-sharp in the staff seem to work cumulatively to give an F-double-sharp.

In contrast, in our current convention, staff accidentals override whatever is at the key signature.

What do you think of these examples? Are you at all familiar with this way of writing accidentals? Have you seen it used anywhere else?

I could find nothing in the Accidental (music) WP article on this sort of convention.

If what's going on in this manuscript is indeed an alternative convention that was in use somewhere at some point, it would seem important to talk about it in the article, if only for the benefit of readers who'll have come across cases such as the one I've come across.

Contact <font style="color:blue;font-family:Courier-New;">Basemetal <font style="color:red;font-family:Courier-New;">here 21:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Very interesting -- thank you for that. To the best of my knowledge I have never seen this before, but I haven't spent a lot of time with 18th century manuscripts.  (Do you know anything about that manuscript?  I can't find any metadata on a quick look on the IMSLP page.)  It's quite obvious that the notes you point out are, indeed, double sharps but given just a sharp sign.  All I can find in David Hiley's article in the NG is "The modern forms of double flat and double sharp were also accepted generally by the 18th century."  Antandrus  (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I emailed to Richard Rastall, the author of "The Notation of Western Music", Travis & Emery Music Bookshop, 2008. At first not only did he say that his book didn't deal with the phenomenon, he even questioned whether that phenomenon really existed. That's until I emailed to him the score I referred to above. He then admitted that the phenomenon does indeed seem to exist and that the score does indeed present a legitimate example of it. This from the author of what I thought was a standard textbook on the history of Western music notation!!! The absence of any treatment in standard reference works of a significant variant in the notation of accidentals in manuscripts of a not insignificant composer seems very troubling. What article by David Hiley in the New Grove was that you took a look at? Contact <font style="color:blue;font-family:Courier-New;">Basemetal <font style="color:red;font-family:Courier-New;">here 17:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure it was the article on "accidental" (I'm at work and can't look it up at the moment). Honestly, I was surpised I'd never seen this before.  I thought I knew most notation quirks from the common practice era.  Perhaps one of my talk page stalkers or Jerome Kohl might know?  It seems to make sense, in the development of musical notation, that a sharp or flat would at some time have been 'relative' rather than absolute.  Anyway the F# in the example you gave is most definitely an F double sharp. Antandrus  (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * <De-cloaking>Hiley's article on "accidental" does not directly address this question, but the anonymous NG article "sharp" is a little more helpful, observing that "In some early sources a double sharp is shown simply as ♯♯." In this example, that is exactly what Bach does. The key signature specifies four sharps in the usual manner; therefore, when Bach adds a sharp to a note already sharped in the signature, it means a double sharp. I don't know exactly when the modern double-sharp symbol became differentiated from the ordinary sharp, but keep in mind that in earlier notation there was only one symbol for transforming fa into mi, and that was the "quadratum" mark (originally a square letter b). Those accustomed to reading 16th-century notation will know that there are several variations on this symbol, which is used both to cancel a previous flat (in other words, where we today would use ♮) and to sharpen an ordinarily "natural" note. Sometimes these symbols are very close in appearance to the modern sharp sign, but more often they are set on a diagonal (therefore looking like two superimposed Xs), and sometimes they are just a simple X (the sign that eventually becomes our double sharp symbol). The comparative rarity of key signatures with more than three sharps in music from Bach's day and earlier probably accounts for the unfamiliarity of this practice of doubling up sharp (or "mi") signs, but it should also be remembered that accidentals did not "carry through the bar" at that time, which makes the use of "cautionary" accidentals less frequent, as well. This in turn makes it easier to remember that a sharp raises the pitch of any note: if it had a flat on it before, this means it becomes natural; if it was natural before, it becomes sharped; if it had a sharp already, then it becomes doubly sharped.
 * And thank you, Antandrus, for exempting me from the category of "page stalkers". I really have no idea what drew me here to your Talk page—I just had an intuition that my assistance was needed (sort of an invisible "Bat searchlight"?)<Re-cloaking>.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I see that my "alerts" indicate that my name was invoked here. I assure you I had not seen this until after I had saved my reply. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you get a red "1" at the top of the page just from Antandrus referring to your user page? Just mentioning someone's user page (Jerome Kohl) would now work exactly the same as pinging them: ? Forget your pal's dad's ghost, why and how (and who) changes at WP is what Horatio would have real trouble with! Incidentally I deleted some material I had inserted on this page in response to Antandrus asking above "Do you know anything about that manuscript?" I deleted it because it was sort of a digression from my main question (but you can see that material with hopefully an answer to Antandrus's question in this old version of this section). Richard Rastall and Don Byrd recommended the long article "Notation" in the New Grove, but I have no access. Are you familiar with that NG article? I'm told it is very long. What do you think of Rastall's book? Would you agree it is a standard textbook on matters of notation? Any other titles that mignt qualify as such? Contact <font style="color:blue;font-family:Courier-New;">Basemetal <font style="color:red;font-family:Courier-New;">here 19:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, inserting a linked reference to a user such as yourself, Basemetal, will trigger an alert, just as if you did a "ping". I think it is a very useful shortcut. The NG article on "Notation" is quite long, though perhaps no competition for Harold Powers's article on "Mode". I don't know Rastall's book, and should certainly look into it. I'm afraid I am far enough behind the times to still regard Gardner Read's 1964 book as the gold standard (all the best sources were published in the 1960s, of course ;-).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you see any analogy between the quirk of notation exhibited in the score mentioned above and this (obsolete?) feature of figured chords whereby a sharp would indicate (a triad containing) a raised major 3rd above the bass even if that raised major 3rd happened to be a natural or a double-sharp, like so:




 * Whereas nowadays you'd be more likely to have this




 * The principle at work would seem to be the same. The value of the sharp was to be determined relative to the prevailing key signature. (Sorry for these examples. I wanted to have my G down an octave and not to have such long staves for just one note but I'm not yet very familiar with LilyPond). Contact <font style="color:blue;font-family:Courier-New;">Basemetal <font style="color:red;font-family:Courier-New;">here 19:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is much the same sort of thing. The practice of crossing a 6 or a 4 with a single, short line has the same effect, of sharping that note regardless of whether the key signature specifies its normal state to be a flat, natural, or sharp. A crossed-4 over a C-sharp in the key of C-sharp (major or minor) would therefore result in an F𝄪.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (Antandrus must love it! After taking over Hyacinth's talk page now we've moved to his! :) But this is just an observation regarding your edit summary "there is a rational explanation for everything in the 18th century".) One might be entitled to call the convention of writing accidentals relative to the key signature more "logical" even if it can be argued it is less convenient. Of course there must be a reason why the practice of not taking the key signature into consideration when writing accidentals (i.e. the convention that accidentals override rather than cumulate with key signature accidentals) finally prevailed. The old convention forces you to be aware of the key signature when interpreting accidentals in the score whereas the current convention doesn't and that may seem easier, although the current convention of course does require you to keep in mind the key signature when interpreting the "null accidental" (as a mathematician or a logician would put it) that is the notes that have no accidentals: that's the whole point of having key signatures. But here is an example where the old convention is clearly superior: have you ever tried that hellish exercise called "sight transposition" using (change of) clef and (change of) key signature to transpose at sight? Music students get it drilled into them in Europe. I don't know about North America, except maybe places where Europeans have been influential in shaping the curriculum? In any case, if the score is written according to the current convention not only do you have to imagine another clef and another key signature and read the score accordingly but accidentals in the score may also have to be changed, and there are several special cases taking into account the accidental, the actual key signature and the imagined key signature. It would be cumbersome to describe an actual case, and I'm not yet proficient enough in LilyPond to typeset an example but this is the idea. But if the score is written in the old convention then the only thing you have to do is to imagine your new clef and new key signature and you're done. No need to tweak the accidentals in the score. They're already as they should be. This is one type of reason one would be entitled to say the old convention was more "rational" as you put it. Contact <font style="color:blue;font-family:Courier-New;">Basemetal <font style="color:red;font-family:Courier-New;">here 21:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That all makes a lot of sense. But it's curious that none of us usual suspects have ever come across this before now. Which suggests the practice was comprehensively suppressed, despite its apparent merits. Fascinating stuff. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * But is this someone using an old fashioned notation when everyone had moved on or someone doing what's common around him? The example is from Book 1. Another case: the manuscript of the previous C♯ major prelude of BWV 848. There are 19 bars with double-sharps except that the modern edition I've looked at is not sure if the F in the LH at bar 34 is sharp or double-sharp. There are corrections. Were some double-sharps (current convention) changed back to sharps (old one)? How about 20 years later? If you find in Book 2 the convention is different mention it on my talk page. If you come across examples of the old convention also. I mean not just Bach. Watch for: sharp at key: sharp for double-sharp, flat for natural; flat at key: flat for double-flat, sharp for natural. In principle also double-flat for flat when sharp at key; double-sharp for sharp when flat at key, but I'm sceptical. I'll leave a note on the talk page to the Bach article so if anyone has come across something we'll know about it. Have fun reading Bach manuscripts e.g. at http://imslp.org or at http://www.bach-digital.de. As to updating actual WP articles we'll have to wait till RS notice the phenomenon. Contact <font style="color:blue;font-family:Courier-New;">Basemetal <font style="color:red;font-family:Courier-New;">here 03:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Bach lived at a point in time when these notational conventions were changing. Keep in mind that he occasionally used the old-fashoined German organ tablature. As far as the WTC is concerned, there are also some instances (the D♯/E♭ minor pairs in both books, I believe are amongst them) where Bach transposed pieces from "easier" keys by simply changing clefs and key signatures. This must have caused in some cases awkward choices in added accidentals.
 * I had to laugh when I read your question, "have you ever tried that hellish exercise called 'sight transposition' using (change of) clef and (change of) key signature to transpose at sight? Music students get it drilled into them in Europe. I don't know about North America …". As a North American myself, I can testify that this is in general not common here, but North America is a big place, and in my own case I was encouraged to acquire this skill (though not "drilled"), by a professor who was accustomed to reading music from orchestral scores in this way and whose wife was a professional piano accompanist who transposed at sight in the same way. At about the same time, I began performing early music with a group led by a harpsichordist who had exactly the same view, and never saw the point when playing recorders (for example) to learn any but one fingering, since all the other options could be covered by a simple change of clef and key signature. Consequently, I long ago learned the skill, and find it amusing that some people think it "hellish". I personally feel sorry for those poor souls who never learned to do this, when they are compelled to play an F trumpet part on an instrument in B((Music|flat}} or C, and instead must transpose each and every note individually "by interval". Now that is "hellish"! I almost choked once when a colleague expressed alarm when I picked up a G-alto recorder to play a part being rehearsed for a concert that same evening, saying "Are you sure that's a safe thing to do in performance?" What, do you mean actually use an instrument to play an instrumental part? No, of course that's very dangerous. Maybe we should hide under the bed!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Another oddity: the fugue (5 v.) in C♯ minor (BWV 849) in the forementioned manuscript, m. 32 (RH), that's nine staves down, last bar of the staff, the E of the 2nd v. (a quarter-note) is drawn inside the E of the 3rd v. (a half-note). Has anyone ever seen anything like this in ms.? In print? Contact <font style="color:blue;font-family:Courier-New;">Basemetal <font style="color:red;font-family:Courier-New;">here 19:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To take a leave from this discussion and to abuse one last time Antandrus's hospitality, in the 4 part fugue from the Prelude and fugue in B minor BWV 869 look at measure 55. There's an F written with a ♯ (3rd beat, 1st eighth-note or 6th eighth-note if you prefer) in the left hand in the 3rd voice (tenor; only soprano, alto and tenor are speaking at that point; the bass is silent). In modern editions it's written in the lower staff in bass clef but in this manuscript it is written in the upper staff in 1st line C clef (soprano clef so called:) together with the soprano and alto (a mess). In this manuscript the fugue starts on its own page and extends over 3 pages. Measure 55 is the last (complete) measure of the 2nd page of the fugue. You can see at the bottom of the 3rd page "A fine" and Bach's well-known "S. D. G." since this is the last piece of book 1. See you later in 20 years in book 2 (maybe).
 * I'm mentioning this fugue not because I've checked all the pieces of book 1 and this is the only other example I've seen besides the ones I've already mentioned but because I was told that Philipp Spitta in his big book on Bach analyzed this 4 v. fugue (in an open score of 6 staves! isn't that odd? but that's what I've been told) and uses the same style of notation for that F, i.e. writes it as an F♯. For someone in the 19th century (if this is indeed the case) to use this style of notation this is noteworthy. But the person who told me this wasn't completely sure they remembered correctly as it had been several years since they had looked at Spitta. So just if you happen to have Spitta within your arm's reach and you don't mind taking a look, I'd be interested to hear what you found there. Just leave a message on my talk page, not to clutter Antandrus's page with more stuff. Thanks everyone. See ya. Contact <font style="color:blue;font-family:Courier-New;">Basemetal <font style="color:red;font-family:Courier-New;">here 09:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: OWB
Hi. Sorry about that. I read and re-read the sentence several times earlier today and I hesitated to make an edit, but ultimately I couldn't make the sentence work in my head at the time. After reading your edit summary, I understand now, but I still can't help but feel a bit burned by the (arguably tricky) phrasing. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This afternoon I thought about ways to rephrase it, but didn't come up with one that didn't weaken it somehow. Maybe I'll try again.  (You're not the first person to make that edit.  It's happened at least twice before.) Antandrus  (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Euromaidan
Dear Antandrus, if you have the time and are willing, could you please consider taking a look here in your capacity as administrator, and reverting if you agree? Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure thing! Should be ok now. Let me know if I messed anything up. Antandrus  (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 1000 thanks!--Smerus (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Asking for your help in getting unblocked
Hi, excuse me for IP-based block evading on your talkpage but I've been left no other choice to reach my fellow editors. I found you, Acalamari, and Al Ameer son under "A" on the list of administrators. I checked further only to see if you had recently edited. I've asked others for help before, typing long personalized messages, but for the first time I'm going to tell each of you three pretty much the same thing, and point you to some diffs that you may judge the situation if you choose to.

I was blocked without warning or explanation close to two years ago. My blocker said I was a sockpuppet. I never did that, I abandoned a single prior account for privacy reasons. I felt the need to be honest and upfront about this in my very first edit, here:. Ironically my blocker took this as ammunition to block me as a sockpuppet.

I tried the usual avenues of appeal but found the deck stacked against me at every turn. In my opinion, the administrators that monitor the block appeals notification page reject an extremely high percentage. None would listen to me, and most just say "sock," or "I don't believe you," or "you must never criticize your blocker." I tried Arbcom, who declined without explanation. WP:BASC, the Arbcom subgroup charged with considering block appeals, had a reject rate of literally 92 percent the last time it released its statistics.

I've tried other things but I've somehow amassed a bunch of administrative participants that follow me around everytime I try anything, saying "block him, block him, block him." It is like a gang of schoolyard bullies chasing the awkward new kid around the playground yelling at him. I can't shake them off, they won't go away and they sabotage any attempt I make to get unblocked.

Anyhow this runs on too long. You can read the latest thing I tried, an RFC/U, here:. It's long but tells you the story. My fan club sabotaged it with a lot of negative commentary. Those people making the bad comments are largely not normal RFC/U participants, rather they followed me there from my talkpage they watchlisted, so they can criticize me more. I never sockpuppeted. If you want to know the worst thing I ever did, a lot of people seem to think it's this:. The part where I call Nomoskedasticity a provocateur and so forth. I am not proud of that, it was a WP:CIV violation but the back-story there is that I had just a day before read Youreallycan plaintively ask Nomoskedasticity to leave him alone after two years of wikihounding. That's here:. I was uncivil, but I viewed myself as confronting a bully. I was shocked at the behavior that occurs at WP:AN/ANI, but I wasn't really *saying* that Nomoskedasticity never contributed anything constructive, I was genuinely *asking* that. I slipped, okay, but a fair review of my editing history shows a constructive editor. I shouldn't be blocked forever for saying that to Nomoskedasticity.

To wrap this up: I need a defender who is an admin. Somebody willing to stick up for me, and say "lets follow policies in handling him." This is because I have so many attackers and suspicion-mongers that sabotage every community process I try to undertake. I don't like to ask for a defender, but without administrator buttons I'm at the mercy of any administrator, and there are several that have acted against me without any policy at all. I hope one or all three of you will help me. Thank you for even considering it. This is Colton Cosmic. 14:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: I like the picture at the top of the aspen and fir grove. Everywhere I travel I am always looking at trees as I go. I planted some swamp white oak trees and some column juniper and various other ones. I am always thinking about those and how they might turn out, years from now. Colton. 14:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Antandrus, excuse me for being so impatient, but I am sick of being blocked. Could you tell me "yes," "no," "maybe," or "I need to know more." The RFC/U makes it all complex, but the information is there. If you prefer a simple approach, then ask yourself "he is blocked for socking, but what is the evidence?" If there is no evidence, then I should be unblocked. I cleanstarted for privacy reason, as authorized by WP:CLEANSTART. I never went back to that account. I do not have "alternate accounts." I am a single account editor. Does the fact that my prior account can still technically edit mean it's my "alternate account?" No. I said I wouldn't use it and I never have. There is no easy mechanism that I know of to destroy an account, to make it not exist anymore. "Salt" it? I was a content editor almost entirely, how would I have known or anticipated that I should do anything like that. Anyhow, please consider going out on a limb for me and unblocking me. You should discuss that at my talkpage first. If you then unblock, and I turn out to be the Hannibal Lecter-like editor some people assert me to be, then you can reblock, and say "sorry, I did what I thought was right." I think it unlikely that you would lose your tools for unblocking in good faith, but it is true I have high-ranking critics like arbitrator Wormthatturned. Helping me would put you on the outs with them. That intimidates a lot of administrators, I've noticed. This is Colton Cosmic.

Thanks for your efforts!

 * Thanks Carrite - appreciate it. Wish I could do more at present -- I've not been doing much besides checking my watchlist for a couple years now. Antandrus  (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR Survey (and an update)
Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a fantastic resource. I've used it a *lot* this year -- not so much for adding new content as for checking the accuracy of additions and edits by others, work which is quite invisible as there is nothing to appear in my edit history.  I suspect a lot of other people use it the same way.  Survey response submitted.  Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. (You say I've not been doing much besides checking my watchlist for a couple years now - you're still here, ain't you? )

Best regards, —  Scott  •  talk  19:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ten years! The wonderful world of Wikipedia ten years ago...when giants like Antandrus ruled! That was before the birth of MONGO even...it must have been a much more cordial and peaceful place back then! Congrats!--MONGO 19:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks both... peaceful and cordial -- yeah, it was, sometimes, probably most of the time. More so than at present, I think.  Everyone was busy writing stuff, and just doing their best to get it right.  The skyscrapers are taller now, the freeways wider, the financial district humming, but every night bodies stack at the morgue, crack-houses proliferate, alleys fill with garbage, and ill-tempered police shrug at what they can't arrest.  Even so, the skyline is pretty from a distance, and the city's reputation is well established.  Yet everything in life changes and ends; all empires corrode and fall; and someday it will be a magnificent ruin. Antandrus  (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And one other thing Mongo -- I'm really glad you've toughed it out all these years too. You and a handful of others have succeeded in keeping fantasy and conspiracy bullshit out of a lot of important articles.  Antandrus  (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> broad perspective

Thank you for placing a single composer in the context of Renaissance music, a single mass in the context of parody mass, and for watching a vast number of articles for accuracy, with a vision for the broader pespective, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Two years ago, you were the 110th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, - thank you for 10 years of broader perspective! After the Passion, I am busy with Cantiones sacrae, hit the Main page before I got where I wanted it ;) - I am going to thank the arbitrators for my 2-comment-restriction, helping not to waste time, - I don't understand though why they blessed only two people that way ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Gerda -- appreciate it! Glad to see you are writing an article on the Cantiones sacrae -- I love those pieces.  If they were the work of an old man I'd compare them to the Lagrime di San Pietro; there are interesting aesthetic similarities, e.g. in being "impassioned".  Stunning stuff.  I have a nice recording I'll probably listen to when I get home.  -- Imagine what it must have been like to live through the Thirty Years' War. Antandrus  (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I got hooked by singing SWV 81, see my Season's greetings, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Rachmaninoff
Mr. Antandrus,

Thanks for your note. I thought when piano expert David Dubal mentioned several times on his WQXR.org radio program "Reflections from the Keyboard" during his Rachmaninoff series that he was born on April 2nd that he knew what he was talking about. I did not know about the conversion giving one date, but Rachmaninoff himself used a different one. Why did he do that? Why did he not celebrate on April 1st?

Larry88kc (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Larry -- it's a good question. He was born on April 1 (12 days being the Gregorian/Julian difference prior to 1900) but after moving to the US he decided to celebrate his birthday on April 2.  I have the big New Grove article on hand, but not any of the big biographies which might address the issue; Geoffrey Norris just states the facts without giving a reason.  Maybe he just wanted to adopt the 20th century 13-day conversion principle to avoid confusing people?  Or maybe to avoid April Fool's Day?  I'm just guessing though.  All reference books I have give April 1 as his birthdate.  Antandrus  (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Page stalker here. Back in 1973, when Rachmaninoff's centenary was being celebrated, I treated myself to "The Complete Rachmaninoff", 5 boxed sets of LPs with all of his recordings.  They came with a handsome brochure containing nice pictures, a potted biography and a timeline.  The timeline says he was born on "1873 March 20 (o.s.) / April 1 (n.s.).  OK, so far.  But there's a footnote to the timeline, which reads: In the 19th century the difference between the Julian calendar (OS), still in use in Russia, and the Gregorian NS) was 12 days.  In the 20th century this difference grew to 13 days and thus technically Rachmaninoff's birthday fell on April 2  (my bolding).  I have circled the bolded bit and written "RUBBISH!" next to it.  It is wrong-headed, and well, just wrong. The fact that the gap increased in the 20th century, and that Rachmaninoff's life continued into the 20th century, have nothing to do with the fact that he was born in the 19th century.  People's birth dates are determined from the day they were born, not from anything that happened to them later in their life. If he had been born on March 20 (os) 1903, then, yes, that would mean he was born on April 2 (ns) 1903.  But that was not the case.


 * See also Notes a, b and c at Vladimir Nabokov for a similar case. Nabokov knew that his real NS birthday was 22 April, and that 23 April was wrong, but celebrated his birthday on that date to make his day coincide with those of Shakespeare and Shirley Temple (I bet you never saw those two names in the same sentence before). Also, Marc Chagall miscalculated his birthdate, and for many decades it was shown everywhere as 7 July.  But it was really 6 July, and Note 1 at his page explains why.  Cheers.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Nosy browser
Hi Antandrus. I was just nosily browsing your User:Antandrus/watch page (I got there by seeing what Antony Hopkins links to), and noticed Andrej Eschpaj. I think you'll find this is blue linked under Andrei Eshpai. And Boris Tischtschenko is surely Boris Tishchenko. Two down, 4 zillion to go. Cheers. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem, thanks! Had completely forgotten about that page.  Thanks for the information above regarding Rachmaninoff, Nabokov, etc. by the way.  That's one of those issues that keeps coming up again and again.  Sometimes I find my self typing the same comment I left five or six years ago ... that must happen to you too. Antandrus  (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh yes. I can usually remember where I or someone else left a similar comment previously and just direct people there, but sometimes you have to start from scratch.


 * Oh, it's 7 May here, so Happy Birthday to Brahms and Tchaikovsky. They once spent a couple of days together comparing notes (pun); they had the greatest respect for each other personally, and for each other's artistic philosophies, but could not stand each other's actual music.  Weird.  I love 'em both.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Me too. -- I think I can quote from Tchaikovsky's diary without looking it up (courtesy of Mr Slonimsky's delicious Lexicon of Musical Invective):  "... once again I played through the music of that scoundrel Brahms.  What a talentless bastard!  Why, compared to him, Raff is a genius!"  Or something like that.  :)  Antandrus  (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Scale run
Just a spontaneous stupid question. Would it make sense to have an article Scale run? Is there anything interesting to say about scale runs in the first place? They're not trivial to perform on piano or guitar at least, and apparently neither on violin ... and "I have to practice my scales" is something I hear from musicians all the time, so it seems to me that the topic is not obviously unencyclopedic or un-fruitful (fruitless?). Would love to hear your thoughts. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hm, interesting. I think it's encyclopedic information, but where to put it?  When I taught orchestration, I covered this topic -- which instruments can play scales cleanly and quickly, and which keys are better than others, and why, which led to discussion of the development of the Boehm system for wind instruments, scales vs. glissandi, etc.  I've never used the term "scale run" (is it of recent origin and I've just not heard it?)  In orchestra playing they're loosely called "runs", and when you're practicing they are of course "scales".  I think it's possible to develop an article on this topic.  What do my talk page stalkers think? Antandrus  (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the hint regarding terminology; "scale run" is definitely in use, but I was not aware that they're usually simply called "runs". The use of "scale run" might be confined to popular (especially rock) musicians then (I know nothing about the age and origin of the term, but its formation is pretty much obvious) and may never have penetrated into classical circles. We do have Run (music), but it is no more than a redirect to a definition in Glossary of musical terminology. Through Scale (music) I found the stub Melodic pattern – aren't runs a type of melodic pattern? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email
As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitz@undefinedgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Greetings -- I did already (a few hours ago) -- I presume I will receive an email with my new access information? Thanks! Antandrus  (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

 * Hey, thank you! Appreciate it.  :) Antandrus  (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Gary Tedman
Hello Antandrus, I am looking for an adminstrator who is neutral and/or who knows something about the arts, specifically philosophy and even more specifically, philosophy of the left. Are you, or do you know any adminstrators/editors such as this who could look at a Afd page. The article is on the subject of 'Gary Tedman', I believe the discussion on this Afd page has been biased from the beginning. I am quite new to Wikipedia and am wondering if the lack of sympathy of the participants could or should be counteracted by those with an alternative or more knowledgable view of the subject (they almost all seem to say the same things over and over and do not engage in any serious debate about the subject). Thank you Aestheticinfo 20:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Enigma Variations
Under the section Possible musical themes the current article mentions my melodic solution 'A Might Fortress' without providing an accurate attribution or relevant link to my free eBook Elgar's Enigmas Exposed in which that solution is fully presented. The conductor and composer Adina Spire did not originate that melodic solution, but merely endorsed it publicly in a performance with the Bezdin Ensemble. The article also advances the patently absurd assertion that Elgar allegedly disapproved of hymn tunes. The facts plainly prove otherwise, for his personal library contained multiple hymnals as well as a copy of John Brownlie's Hymns of the Early Church. Such a claim overlooks the influence of early hymn tunes on The Dream of Gerontius, not to mention Elgar's own contributions to Protestant and Catholic hymnals and other forms of sacred music. No informed Elgar scholar would ever contend Elgar despised hymns when some of his favorite composers (Bach, Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, and Wagner) quote hymns in their music, specifically Ein feste Burg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertPadgett (talk • contribs)
 * Greetings -- that may be, but you still need a reliable source that indicates where the idea came from, and a self-published work is not considered reliable under our policies. I am going to copy this to the article talk page, where this conversation belongs.  Please read the policy links we have provided on the talk page of your previous account over the last five years, .  We do not use blogs and self-published sources.  Antandrus  (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you ... have you ever noticed, that whenever sockpuppets show up, that's the side of the argument that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia? I'm not sure I've ever seen a single exception to this rule. Antandrus (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also...I named you if that is okay...here.--MONGO 08:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Block of Indefinitelybanned

 * Hi Antandrus, I came here because I noticed you are the one who blocked Indefinitelybanned. I'm not disputing your actions, obviously it wasn't a real account. However, I do think the observation they made was valid, and I did not agree with the removal of their comment. I've had a less-than-pleasant experience so far in my conversation, and after reviewing the archives I found that this is not unique to my experience: it is an endemic behavior. The local community will even defend each other in personal attacks, and this is precisely the type of unproductive behavior which Indefinitelybanned was calling attention to.
 * Things change, and consensus is not written in stone. I checked every single source listed on September 11 Attacks under Bibliography and Further Reading. Every single source from 2002-2007 does not mention conspiracy theories, while every single source from the last five years does, with as much as a full chapter devoted to them. Check the RfC and I've completely reworked the language and sources in response to legitimate feedback. Clearly I am not out of line for making my talk page suggestion and clearly I am interested in finding broad areas of agreement. As you graciously acknowledged I have maintained a civil attitude, yet despite this I have been threatened, rudely told to leave, and falsely accused. So to the point - what is anyone to do about this toxic situation? Are there procedures in place for this type of thing? Smitty121981 (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like you've made a strong and good faith attempt to change consensus -- but I don't see a new consensus emerging. Then again I haven't been following closely.  Since I've weighed in on the content the only admin actions I will take on the page are to shut down obvious disruption sockpuppets like the one I did today.
 * It's standard practice to remove comments by disruptive sockpuppets. You are within your rights to read them, of course, and build on their arguments if you like -- but (just speaking from my experience now) anything touched by a sockpuppet turns to poison.  No sockpuppet, or puppet campaign, has ever successfully changed consensus, any more than bombing people has made them more peaceful.  I don't myself approve of the nasty tone on the page, but the only behavior I can control is my own.  Remember that a lot of people are frustrated because the page has been the target of a long, long, long campaign by some editors (many now banned) to get conspiracy stuff in the article.  Those opposing -- which appear to be the consensus position -- are sometimes short tempered.  Because they are worn out and tired of it, in my opinion. Antandrus  (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't know if consensus is actually going to change significantly (although 4 editors have now changed to full support), and I've been OK with that from the start. My point was that I was not at all being unreasonable to challenge the consensus. I am discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories as a significant historical effect and this is quickly becoming the mainstream viewpoint - I am not presenting them as an alternative explanation. If it still doesn't belong in the article, that's fine, but there's no reason this can't be explained to me calmly and logically. Please go look at how I was treated when I added The 9/11 Encyclopedia as a source. This is completely inexcusable behavior, and this is what the sockpuppet comment was observing. Further, you told me "You are within your rights to read them, of course, and build on their arguments if you like" but this is simply not true, my thoughtful response to the comment was removed as well!
 * There is absolutely no excuse for the way I've been treated, particularly after a couple days of conversation where they can see, as you easily did, that I am serious. Yet even now as I type, editors are trying to prematurely close the RfC. I'm not asking you to take steps as an admin. I'm just asking you what options are are out there because you seem level-headed and I am new and do not know what to do; I just know that something is seriously wrong.
 * This brings up another question - So how do we even determine consensus at the end of the RfC? I've never done one before. Many opposing editors have stated plainly that they refuse to accept any consensus except the one they insist upon, but this seems to go against policy. Advice? Smitty121981 (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK so I've done some more homework and I think I've answered the last question for myself. Per WP:CLOSE I think I will request an uninvolved editor to formally close the RfC. But I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts on what to do about the general situation there. Another editor has recently expressed similar concerns at the RfC... and has been met with derision. Smitty121981 (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been busy with non-Wikipedia things, and haven't been paying attention. As you discovered, to close the RFC you need an uninvolved editor, and I suggest someone who has been around for a while with some experience in closing contentious RFCs.  Regarding the "general situation" -- if it's the lack of civility that bothers you, well, I don't blame you for being annoyed by it, but it's a hard one to fix -- at one time you could have posted at the Wikiquette assistance noticeboard but that been marked historical, as it seems less and less people are interested in enforcing our WP:CIVILITY policy, which itself may be marked historical within a year or two, if the current rate of erosion continues, as it has become quite fashionable to bash it.  You can try the NPOV noticeboard, but I doubt that would help, since if anything I think CTs push the article away from NPOV.  You can take the high road and ignore nastiness, which is what I suggest.  I personally do not think that any more material on CTs belongs in the article, but I've already stated that.  Probably the best course is to wait for the RFC to run its course.  It could get a great deal worse now that one editor has pinged a whole raft of editors previously involved in demoting the article from GA status.  Tarage makes a good point about no one attempting to work on the rest of the article -- where are they?  Why this maddeningly insistent emphasis on conspiracy theories, when so much happened that day, and so much of it could be better written about? Antandrus  (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. Someone mentioned adding a template at the top of the talk page warning of a dispute and I think that would be a very good idea. Do you know where I can find more information about this?
 * You and others complain that no one wants to improve the rest of the article... but right now, the only suggestion listed at the top of the talk page for article improvement is to expand the conspiracy theories section! And what happened to assuming good faith? In case you're curious, the most recent edit on the article is mine (updating a reference) . I personally think that the insistence upon polarizing the conversation into us-vs-them is what hurts the article, no matter which "side" the offending editors are on. Smitty121981 (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Renaissance Music
Hola - Been recently having a go at updating various articles on musical instruments, and then I read this article. While admiring the obvious effort that must have gone into it, the time spent and all... I.. am lost for words. (a bit of a problem for a newbie editor.} Willing to assist in any democratic, courteous and, how to put it - don't want to offend here... effort that actually seems informed by knowledge of the subject. Was confused/exasperated enough by the text to mess up with my own typos.. User:Pupsikon Pupsikon 06:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a horror, isn't it? A few years ago I had it on my own to-do list for a thorough rewrite, but didn't get farther than the lede, and that in 2012.  (See the last two sections on the talk page, for example.)  Feel free to start!  Writing overview articles on topics this large isn't easy, as I'm sure you know.  Maybe we could start by banging out an outline, at least on the talk page, and see if anyone else is willing to help.  I haven't done much article writing for a couple years -- just too much else going on in my life right now. Antandrus  (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

IP Block 94.124.138.40
Hi Antandrus, I was wondering if you think that Special:Contributions/94.124.138.40 is worthy of a block? Lots of edits from the IP over the past year, all disruptive and some difficult to detect. Thanks! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree - 'tis done. Sorry for the delay -- have been overseas -- I'm just now checking through all the backlog. Antandrus  (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Block query
Hi mate, you blocked ((User:Pgarret)) for sock-puppetry but I couldn't find a corresponding SPI. He's been a thorn-in-the-side for a number of editors and topic areas and if his problematic edits extend to other articles, I'd be keen to review them with a viewing to doing some cleaning up. Cheers,  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That's correct -- I did it on behavioral evidence. It's screamingly obvious once you start to dig into it.  Look at the edit histories of




 * ...for starters. They're the same person.  I've also identified about ten other socks that haven't edited for many years.  Same writing style and interests, and when one becomes active after a long break -- surprise! the others do too!  I left Major Torp unblocked since my intent was *only* to shut down the sockpuppets, not issue an indefinite ban.  He's currently POV-pushing on the Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov‎ articles (anti-atheist, anti-gay, has a tendency to lecture other editors about policy while running a sock farm himself).  I've left his most recent edits since I'm choosing to intervene as an administrator, rather than in any content dispute.  I'll defend my actions at any venue if questioned.  Checkuser may not be useful, since he's been around long enough to have figured out how to fool the system. Antandrus  (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, his edits as Pgarret (posting long rants about alternative theories with regard to homosexuality) seemed strange all on their own. Not surprised to now find out that other things were going on at the same time. He seems to have a particular dislike for contemporary (historical) accounts of homosexual activity finding their way into articles here because he believes that historical homosexuals shouldn't be labelled with modern terms like "homosexual". It's a fringe-of-fringe view. The talk page for that article is insane - if he is all of those accounts (I agree, the evidence is overwhelming when you look at it) then he contributed to the same discussion using three different accounts, when in reality, his fringe view is supported by nobody else. I'd support block of the primary accounts also, on that basis, and would happily defend your actions "at any venue".  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that Pgarret has previously claimed that one of the articles he was editing was a "family member" and that the person's categorisation as "LGBT" was an embarrassment to his family. He never told us which one and was editing so many at the time (disruptively) that there was no way to tell.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Here are some of the other socks I have figured out (most are historical -- though they may come back if I don't block them):




 * I agree -- I'm tempted to shut down every one, since he's a serial sockpuppeteer, and getting away with this since at least 2010. I could leave an offer to ask for unblock on one of the accounts if he promises to behave.  A post at ANI would be a crapshoot, as it always is, and SPI would only confirm the obvious.  Did you notice that I warned him on 20 February of this year, on the Tchaikovsky talk page, at which time he declared *one* account?  I knew at the time he had others, but hadn't done all the research.  Note that I am less than 100% certain on a couple of the older ones on the above list, since they don't all have many edits.
 * Is Wikipedia a better encyclopedia with him as an editor, or without? Estonian sockpuppeteer, are you reading?  Respond on one of your talk pages, or here, if you have a defense.  Antandrus  (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * His editing has been marked by blatant sock-puppetry and unrepentant edit-warring. What good can come of allowing him to continue doing so? I'd support blocking them all. He has access to the standard offer like everyone else. But the POV-pushing hasn't even been particular ideological or justified - it's just ranting, opinionated crap.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Returning to this after a few days: he seems to have become inactive, at least for the time being.  Another admin can block the main account any time for the reasons above.  Because of this policy I should not, since earlier this year I was involved in a rather heated conflict with him both on the Tchaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov articles.  Shutting down his socks was obviously needed and I didn't think it necessary to wait for a bureaucratic solution to a problem so obvious. Also, since he's added a lot of good content over the years, it's not a clear-cut case of a blockable disruption-only account.  If he comes back and POV-pushes I'd need the assistance of another admin.  Antandrus  (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds sensible. I'll keep an eye on it too. Cheers,  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. ''Possible compromised account? this edit, this edit, this edit. Block saying "You're banned - get lost"?'' DS Crowned (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * He's been vandalizing, trolling, and evading a ban for almost nine years. I know perfectly well who I am dealing with, and so do the Chicago police.  Thank you. Antandrus  (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Here, I'll give you one link that shows the depth of the problem. There's lots of other ranges too.  But he's become an IP-hopper on T-Mobile now. Antandrus  (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not the person I am talking about. Sorry about that. DS Crowned (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding your account security. Thank you. DS Crowned (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you! There's a first time for everything -- and I do believe this is the first time in more than ten years editing that anyone has started a noticeboard thread about me.  Look, if you'd like to learn about the pest to whom I refer, please read some of these links:    You'll learn a bunch from the noticeboard discussion history.  He's easy to spot, and I block him all the time. Antandrus  (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

LEDB
Hello fellow comrade. I would like to request that you delete LEDB as it is a senseless redirect to List of Dragon Ball characters. I want to point out to you that it is not even an acronym, definitely not one for the latter link. I must say that I was the IP user who originally tagged it, with the intention of bringing it to the attention of dear sysops such as yourself. No action was taken as of yet. As for the range blocks you performed on 175... and 208... I feel it is my duty to make you aware that the puppetmaster // is the one behind all the anon vandalism (you're going to have to trust me, I have been closely following the sock cases with diligence. This has been going on for more than a decade, and I must convey that I am nauseated by this persons' continuous actions. Currently on English Wikiquote, this moron poses a problem, constantly creating socks to either blindly revert any and all contributions, or just blatantly vandalize. I can give you an entire history lesson of this menace if you so desire, along with a slew of his other puppet names. If only further action can be taken against him. Think perhaps a community WP:BAN can be put into place. I don't know. What I do find is that LEDB was created by another abuser,, whom I find suspect as well. Look further into this, but delete the aforementioned redirect first. Thanks for your time. You have my blessings, and I have your respect. Farewell. Zarbon 12:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Greetings -- I deleted the redirect, agreeing with you. If some entity is actually acronymmed as LEDB, it could come back.  As of 172.56.0.0/23 and 208.54.64.0/24 - that's a person who has been harassing a lot of us since early 2006.  He's not really a vandal, but he has extreme WP:COMPETENCE issues and has no awareness of the significance of policy (i.e. he's nuts).  Since he started making threats of violence I took the time and trouble to figure out who he was and where he lived, which I have reported to authorities.  I will continue to revert and block him whenever I seem him; it's my job as an admin, if for no other reason than to spare other people the painful experience of welcoming him, trying to help, and then having him blow up in their face.  Antandrus  (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Illinois? Well so long as this madman is within US jurisdiction, he is subject to such charges. I must say, I do appreciate the time you took making a case. It's great that measures are being taken against him. However, I am not exaggerating when I tell you that this particular individual has been cyber-stalking me for the last 10 to 15 years, even coming to my website for the sole purpose of disruption. Is there a way you can permablock the IP ranges? I mean, is that too much to ask? Bear in mind that his inane activity has only been halted until the next year or so, unless he comes back sooner with yet another series of IP addresses. Several checkusers have been done, but even this hasn't resulted in permablocking his various IPs. I am at ends with this fellow. Like you said, he's nuts. To be frank, I'm curious: what did the Chicago Police Department tell you exactly? What steps are they going to take? Zarbon 16:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoaringFlamer41 (talk • contribs)

answer the question please — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoaringFlamer41 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to "Wiki-star" "Dragonron" "Taracka"? If so that's a different person.  Nothing whatsoever in common with the guy I'm talking about.  Writing style, interests, general modus operandi is completely different.  If you want to read about the Chicago guy, type 'George Reeves' into the administrator's noticeboard and incident archives search box; lots of stuff will come up. Antandrus  (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I shut down the ranges for a month this time, since the "George Reeves" kook came back right after the previous block expired. This is an unusual situation since your troublemaker happens to use the same T-Mobile range that the lunatic in Chicago uses.  There may be collateral damage, to good users, but logged-in users can still edit, and some editors are so disruptive that sometimes that collateral damage is acceptable (i.e. how hard is it really to make an account?)  Besides I've been watching carefully for good edits from this range for the last month, and there are few if any.  Antandrus  (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
for you help with Ararat arev socks. Got back yesterday after 3 days away and found my PC with 3 fouled fans! By the time I'd managed to get them replaced (new power supply and sound card required) I had to go out for a fantastic meal, so no time to deal with them until just now when I set my PC back up. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome. Had to do a little background reading because I never followed the Middle East nationalist battles much, back in the day, but I think I'll recognize him in the future.  I shut down one of his ranges (166.170.14.0/24) and protected a bunch of stuff.  And yes sometimes you need to step away from this place!  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And nice to see someone else around. I thought about a range block but I've never done one. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Talking about range blocks, I'm hoping to get feedback for a new tool I wrote that calculates what CIDR range covers specified IP addresses. Please see Template talk:Blockcalc. Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's an excellent idea. I remember years ago using one (I think it was non-Wikimedia, a site in Finland maybe?)  Right now I just calculate them in my head. Antandrus  (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad

 * Thank you Tony, and may you also have a wonderful Christmas season, you and your family. Antandrus (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)