User talk:Antandrus

Greetings, welcome to my talk page. Please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page. I usually notice messages soon. If I think it is important to keep a thread together I will respond here; otherwise I probably will respond on your talk page.

Dawn, from my back patio.
Haec dies quam fecit Dominus. Ex ultemus et laetemur in ea.

Talk page archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.

Peabody

Hi again! What about the links for Peabody Institute faculty who do not have entries in WP? Many of them probably will not have one; in one case (Paul Johnson, whom I know and who is a good guy) the link took us to a disambiguation page that does not include him. I'm also wondering about the faculty links that take us straight oout of WP to an external bio page. Is there a consensus on how to handle these things? As a Peabody alum I am glad to have a good entry here, but I find it hard to fathom the rationale for some of these things. Merci as always! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of Victor Borge's remark about somebody or other as "being a household name...in his own household." --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

About a block

Just curious... I noticed on recent changes that you indef blocked User:Wknight1116 even though he hadn't made any contribs at all. What's up with that? Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 16:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Interesting, you'd think he would be a bit less blatantly obvious about it after a while. I mean, he's just getting blocked instantly. And almost the same name so many times... Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 16:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you have a big fan! User_talk:Antandrusalt2. Congrats. Kaisershatner 16:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is the same troll in this thread. LOL. The funniest thing is that obsessive Wikipedia vandals accuse us of "having no life". That's side-splittingly funny, and they probably can't even see it. Antandrus (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletions

Dear Antandrus,

Would you kindly stop deleting my entries about composer Lera Auerbach. I am not sure why you are doing this. If you have a problem please discuss it with me first, before simply deleting it. Specially deleting it as self promotion, when it clearly is not. I am a graduate of the Juilliard School with a special interest in contemporary Russian composers. I have grown fascinated by Ms. Auerbach's music and general creative output as poet and pianist as well. She is probably the single most important exponent of polystylism after Alfred Schnittke. Please visit the website of her publisher Sikorski in Hamburg to learn all about this very significant composer of the living generation. So please cease and desist deleting my references to her work. Thank you.

I understand I am new to Wikipedia, but please respect my entries. DeStella (talk)

````DeStella

She does not belong on lists that contain the most famous composers to work in a given genre: you have been putting her alongside people like Bach, Barber, Hindemith. Consider what Wikipedia would be like if every one of 30,000 active composers put him or herself, or their own favorite minor composer, in the encyclopedia in such a way. We have a lot of problems here with over-promotion of minor figures, and I have noticed that Lera Auerbach is quite aggressively promoted in this way. We are not a vehicle for promotion. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. As a polystylist, I have put her name with Alfred Schnittke, John Zorn, etc. Very much her peers. I have noticed that Wikipedia has in general focused its content about composers from an American perspective.If you want to get technical about the direct connection with Schnittke - please research her work thoroughly before asserting your opinion. I have noticed that Wikipedia has in general focused its content about composers from an American perspective. Many major and significant composers not well known in America, but likely more significant in the global view are omitted repeatedly from its lists.

Please stop deleting my entries unless you can effectively prove I am incorrect, not simply because of your opinion. Wikipedia is a factual encyclopedia edited by users around the world, not a forum for academics to exert editorial control. In the case of this composer. You speak of minor, when by the age of 30 she has a catalogue of over 80 major works, thousands of performances and is currently and actively performed by a great number major artist today. What I am doing is not promoting a favorite composer, but bringing to light a very significant living composer - to you and others that share an interest in the history of music. So please do not delete without disussion with me.

best wishes, DeStella

DeStella (talk)

DeStella,

I am not deleting your entries "because of my opinion". Lera Auerbach does not even have an entry in the New Grove, which is the most commonly used standard for notability of composers on Wikipedia, and you have been inserting her name into places that are clearly inappropriate -- lists of famous cello sonatas and violin concertos, alongside Bach and Britten and Hindemith. No. Please provide a cite from a reliable source before inserting her into more lists as you have been. I am an administrator here, and part of my job is to watch for single purpose accounts which exist only to inflate the importance of their favorite topics. And remember that the burden of evidence is on you to assert notability, not me. That's policy here. See WP:ATT which explains it. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Antandrus,

Thank you again for your response. I do understand, appreciate and agree with some of your points. But do YOU decide what is innapropriate. If so, then the whole point of Wikipedia is lost. I will certanly become more familiar with WP policies. BUT, I understood Wikipedia to be a bit more visionary than the New Grove, which misses most of the 20th and 21st century. I seriously question this particular case. Cello Sonatas. The aricle is Cello Sonata not Cello Sonatas by Dead Composers or Famous Cello Sonatas (and this title would be very deceptive as famous is a reltive term). This article is missing 80% of the existing sonatas, not even the "famous" L. Boccherini, performed by most every cellist, is listed. Not to mention the 20th century and 21st century works! - If Wikipedia aspires to be of real relevance in the future of the global community it cannot assert the type of editorial control exhibited here. IT MUST BE BETTER AND MORE COMPREHENSIVE THAT ALL OTHERS! I understand that a separate list of Sonatas by epoch may be needed. But that can be done after a list is unmanageable.

In this case, the programming of Auerbach's cello Sonata by the Music Directors of the Lincoln Chamber Music Society David Finckel (Emerson Quartet Cellist) in his inagural and most visable performce yet is credible enough for the work to be included in a list of Cello Sonatas, which is what this article is!

Please do not delete without discussion with me. You did it again! Please put back the Auerbach cello sonata in the CELLO SONATA article. Or, change the name of the article to Cello Sonatas by Dead Composers or at least Famous Cello Sonatas (which would be challengable) i.e. Frank Bridge's sonata. I must insist you reconsider what you are doing. From my perspective, you are standing in direct conflict with what Wikipedia is. I appreciate your committed work to Wikipedia, but please kindly consider what I am telling you, sometimes a detached perspective can be very useful. At this point I trust that you are an unbiased administrator, without personal issues with succesful living composers.

With best wishes,

DeStella

Well hello again. I strongly recommend you read what Wikipedia is not. We are not a publisher of original thought; we are not a vehicle for correcting wrong biases, or means of establishing a new worldview beyond what you seem to think the New Grove represents. We develop our content from secondary sources, such as the New Grove, and those only. It's all in our policies. Speaking of "detached perspective", I would like to point out that your entire purpose on Wikipedia appears to be promoting a single living composer. Are you detached? With all due respect, I would take you more seriously if you had done something besides promote a single composer who is not even listed in the New Grove. Please beware of ad hominem attacks and red herrings, such as accusing me of having "issues with succesful living composers". Do you think that thousands of living composers should all add themselves or have their friends and enthusiasts add them to every article and list on Wikipedia? Do you? Exactly how "detached" are you? Your edits show you to be a single-purpose account, specifically in support of a campaign to promote a composer named Lera Auerbach. Yes? Please do not add any more references to her without citing a reliable source. Sincerely, Antandrus (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see your user name matches her husband's name. We wouldn't have a conflict of interest here, would we, Mr. DeStella? Antandrus (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Antandrus,

Yes, This is not hidded. My profile asserts it. I am also a Contemporary Russia buff/expert with several degrees in music. And who do I have the pleasure to talk with? I could not find your name anywhere. I became aware of Wikipedia while issuing it as a research tool. I do not see your name accesible in your profile. To avoid conflict of interest in this case I would like you to answer me about the issues I raised with the Cello Sonata article in General and Wikipedia in General. You became defensive, is there a reason? I am interested and in awe of Wikipedia as an idea AND you did not address the points about Cello Sonata article and how this is handled. I added Elliot Carter Sonata among others less known, and will continue to do so. I am very curious as to how you will handle these.

And yes, with appropriate managed lists yes, Wikipedia should have comprehensive listings of creative artist in all disciplines. In example critiria similar to the Recording Academy. Where an artist that has a minimum of publishing or recording credit is listed. There are such lists in Wikipedia. This can be done with cello sonatas, violin concertos, etc.

By deleting relevant entries, regardless of their source Wikipedia will never achieve what it strives to do. This can be a very productive dialogue at many levels. Hope to continue it. It is not personal. If anything it is about the relevancy of living composers. And from this I cannot be detached. And I have a lot of experience with this. I plan to become much more active in teh WP project. Thank you for the back and forth.

All the best,

DeStella

Let's separate these topics. 1) I'm happy to see you editing the cello sonata article; the piece by Elliott Carter is extremely important. Please continue to improve this article and others. If you are familiar with the cello repertoire, go ahead and write about the specific compositions; I would be elated to see someone knowledgeable arrive, for there are not many editors in this area working at present. Second issue: 2) I ask you to abide by Wikipedia policy regarding conflict of interest. Please do not edit articles about people you know. That includes your wife. Only an uninvolved person, who does not know the subject should do that. If someone is truly notable, others will write about that person.

Red herrings will not confuse me, since I have studied logic. By blaming this conflict on me because I am "defensive" or because I "have an issue with successful composers", you provide lovely examples of ignoratio elenchi, i.e. red herrings. Please do not do that; these are also ad hominem attacks. The topic here is conflict of interest: please do not edit articles about people you know, or insert mentions of those people into Wikipedia elsewhere. No one who does this can conform to the neutral point of view policy for reasons which should be obvious. That's why we depend on uninvolved people to do that.

We welcome knowledgeable newcomers in the field of contemporary music with open arms. Unfortunately, many of them engage in self-promotion, and that is something that Wikipedia's administrators are tasked with preventing. This is what I am doing. I wish Lera Auerbach's career well, and I'm sure her music is lovely; I'd like to hear some. But Wikipedia is NOT a vehicle for promotion.

Thank you for your time. Antandrus (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Antandrus,

"Logic sometimes makes monsters" Henri Poincare

Let's stick with the Cello Sonata article. I am intrigued and bothered by your editorial logic. And I have a very valid point you are ignoring.

YOU are deciding which is a relevant cello sonata and what is not. You have decided that the Carter is relevant and the Blackwood sonata is also relevant (I would be surprised if most cellist would even know Blackwood - I happen to like the work) and they belongs in YOUR version of this list.

This article as well as other similar ones need to be a list arranged by epoch, or other criteria, otherwise it is not accurately titled.(CELLO SONATA - LIST OF CELLO SONATAS) This information needs to be aquired from all source available. Then organized accordingly. Otherwise you are hindering the true potential of Wikipedia. I am sure of this! Specially in the awakening of internet 2 technologies.

I cannot but agree with the personal promotion issue. But in this case you are making a particular composer the issue. I have many other composers I'd like to ad to this lists and possibly write about - and I would not mind being edited or corrected by the Wikipedia community, but not by ONE person. This cannot possibly be what Wikipedia intended. If it is so, the visionary model would be compromised and lost in long term.

If information arrives, which is factual, accurate and sourced. Regardless of source. Should it be included? or is it subject to Editorial opinion based control by ONE person. Please answer me this one question.

And, is the Cello Sonata List a list of existing cello sonatas or only of certain Cello Sonatas which an administrator agrees with as relevant?

All the best wishes,

--68.161.47.171 18:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)DeStella

All righty then. If you think I'm biased, go ask for another opinion from another administrator. There's 1200 of us. Do it. The list is here: Wikipedia:List of Administrators. I'm sure you can find one who is not "defensive" or does not "have issues with successful composers". Please leave a post on the administrators' noticeboard if you think I am biased. Do it! If you truly believe that I am biased, go get another opinion! And don't accuse me of having "my version" of the cello sonata article, for I have not edited it except to remove your promotion. I did not write the article. Antandrus (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Antandrus,

You still did not answer my questions :) Which do not relate to the self promotion issue, which of course is clear. I will in the future refrain from adding any information about family members. But, If information arrives, which is factual, accurate and sourced. Regardless of editor. Should it be included? Isn't it a loss to WP? - And, is the Cello Sonata List (and this question applies to all open lists in WP) a list of all existing cello sonatas or only of certain Cello Sonatas to be determined by administrators? In any case, thank you for your time in clarifying a lot about WP and its mechanisms.

These are relevant quotes from information I have found in WP guideline pages:

"Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. "

In this scase the list title is LIST OF CELLO SONATAS. So adding any existing and published cello sonatas should be valid unless the listing title is changed to narrow the list. I would suggest adding the criteria to Cello Sonatas that are in print or published. Do you agree?

And, I simply politely ask that if you have a problem with an entry, you tag the sentence or listing by adding the or use another WP guideline way to allow for the editor to respond. Not simply arbitrarily remove. In particular with lists.

Thank you again for your time and I look forward to becoming more involved in the WP community. Kudos to all involved!

--DeStella 09:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)DeStella

Hi again; thanks for promising to follow our COI guideline: that's my main issue, as an administrator, with your edit that started this thread. As an editor I have no problem with you adding or removing names from lists, and I encourage you to improve articles in any way you would like. Regarding the list of cello sonatas--this is a problematic issue, and has to do with the evolution of Wikipedia. Within the last couple years most of the embedded lists within articles have been moved to their own articles, but several years ago that was not the case (see the history of Renaissance music and List of Renaissance composers for an example). Cello sonata is a sadly neglected article and needs a lot of improvement. Have a look at List of compositions for cello and piano and List of solo cello pieces for two more places some of these things are written up; and I suggest it may be time to split off List of cello sonatas as its own article. Our evolving guidelines increasingly suggest moving these lists out of articles. (See symphony for another ghastly article that needs a major content improvement, and contains a list which ought to be pruned/moved elsewhere -- though others, as always on Wikipedia, may disagree.)

There have been many discussions on whether lists should be all-inclusive or "most famous only" -- and I've seen two approaches. Most of the time the "most famous only" does not work because of the POV inherent in making the choice. A new precedent, and one of the finest examples on Wikipedia (in my opinion) is here: List of important operas (and also List of major opera composers). I think these are two of the best lists on Wikipedia. Look at the methodology used to determine which items were or were not famous enough to make the lists, and look at how well everything is explained and sourced.

Hope this helps. I am happy to have you here editing on Wikipedia in spite of our initial collision over the conflict of interest issue. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Internationalism

Hoo-boy. I see your point. Aren't there various versions of WP internationally? Wouldn't those each have their own orientation toward their own language/culture? Or are they supposed to be essentially all the same, just using different alphabets? Is there a policy about that? I certainly don't envy you this particular chore. This is the kind of thing that makes me what I think is called a gnome here...I don't like being in the crosshairs. Ya know? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Block Request

Hi, Antandrus! Long time, no talk - hope you are doing well & enjoying what passes for winter in sunny So CA!!! <g> Please take a look at the user contribs for 207.177.55.252 and take whatever action you deem appropriate. Can we do a "third time's the charm" number on this one? Thanks for your help! ~~ Mpwrmnt 18:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the help! ~~ Mpwrmnt 23:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Question About Soft blocks/School Blocks

Hello Antandrus! As a newbie administrator I would appreciate your help with something. I've become more familiar with the blocking system a bit now and slowly starting to get the hang of it. In the future I'm aware that I would most likely encounter some school IPs which need to be given soft blocks to prevent collateral damage. I've learned the language of the tick marks somewhat good however, I would appreciate your advice. What is the best way to implement soft blocks in such cases? Thanks in advance.¤~Persian Poet Gal <sup>(talk)</sup> 19:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

BoxingWear/GRP and Semi-Protection

I see you are still on BoxingWear patrol. It seems he shows up every few days under anonymous IPs to revert any edits on the Rocky Marciano, Bob Baker (boxer), and Floyd Patterson page, as well as the Marciano talk page. Would semi-protecting those pages put an end to this? I don't mind keeping an eye on those pages and undoing his damage, I just wonder if it's the best use of time. I'll defer to your wisdom here, but I figured I'd throw the suggestion out there. Thanks for all your work with him. MKil 23:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)MKil

Thank you

Just wanted to say thank you for the help dealing with the guy that is vandalizing all of my pages.--Looper5920 03:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

dealing with topic above - "Shoveling sand against the tide, they are." I like that, its what it feels like at times. Do they not realize a simple undo or a two edit or more RV takes care of it. With a complete history at our fingertips its not like we can't look back. Oh well. "Shoveling sand against the tide, they are." :-)--Xiahou 03:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi, sorry to bother you- just looking for an admin who's online at the moment. Could you possibly help out User:Shenme who seems to have made a mess of a change to her monobook.js. See request here:[1]. There doesn't appear to be a security risk in the deletion being requested. It seems sysop access is needed to modify a monobook.js page. Or perhaps you can suggest the right forum for making such a request- it doesn't seem to fall obviously within the ambit any board. Thanks, WjBscribe 05:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep a lookout for posts from Shenme either from her account or the IP address. Thanks. As to doing things the "long" way, that's easy to say for someone who has a rollback button! :-) WjBscribe 05:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My most massive thanks! Removing those lines allowed me to login again, and then semi-revert to using the old popups.js with the fix referencing a prior copy of it. Thank you! Strangely enough, though, now that everything is 'alright' again, I think I'll tip-toe quietly away and hope nothing else breaks tonight! ;-)

Thank you again, Shenme 05:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Uuhh...I'm confused

Sorry to be denser than usual, but I don't follow where Schütz enters into this. I agree totally with what you say, but how does it relate to Peabody faculty, or unwarranted deletions ([irony alert!] as a possible solution to that problem, have you considered adding something to the drinking water? [end irony alert!]), or Victor Borge, etc.? Maybe I'm just not totally awake on a Saturday morning... --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 12:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I get it. Thanks. My wife played for a Lutheran church in Baltimore for fifteen years, and occasionally they drift over into higher-church stuff than one might think (though nothing compared to us Episcopalians!). Plus the link takes you to the Lutheran book of saints or something. But it certainly does look odd at first.

And I certainly do not envy you the task of dealing with the husband-promoter. I have toyed with the idea of writing an article on my wife that is so over-the-top that WP could use it as an object-lesson in how not to create entries. Oh well--it's more important that I find a job, as things stand. Ciao! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for revert

Thanks for the revert and block of the vandalism on my user page. --TeckWiz <sup>Parlate</sup>Contribs<sub>@</sub> 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Another day, another vandal ... where do they all come from ... Antandrus (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Spears article

I would appreciate a response here, since you hold the power, the benefit of the doubt, and the current revert stands 69.119.239.138 02:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

for reverting vandalism on my user page! Natalie 03:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know. Kids these days! Natalie 03:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Its nice to see someone take the time.--Crossmr 03:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

tell me about it. Number one reason I didn't want to see PAIN go. There were some admin that seemed to regularly take care of it, but thats gotten disrupted and now stuff like this can go on for awhile before someone takes care of it.--Crossmr 05:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

that peace lasted long.--Crossmr 06:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think 71 is the user who's off-topic comment I removed. Jake b or something like that, I'll find it. I seem to recall that he logged out and started harassing me with an IP then, I'll see if I can dig it up see if it is in that range.--Crossmr 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, jake b was using a 67 from colorado[2], so unlikely, but it also wouldn't be the first time someone used a proxy around here.--Crossmr 16:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

obviously this is going to continue until these people are unable to edit here anymore [3].--Crossmr 15:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And again, [4]. I think these users have effectively exhausted any good faith that could have been afforded them.--Crossmr 22:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you were right. As soon as 24 was blocked for a week, 131 stepped right up and restored his harassment to my talk page [5]. There have been more than one IP in that range involved in harassment on the Kim talk page and vandalizing my user/talk page.--Crossmr 14:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure how effective a 32 hour block will be, he's already been blocked. Trialsanderrors offered to semi-protect my page for a bit, so I think that might be in order for say a month or so to see if thats long enough to get them to blow off and move on.--Crossmr 16:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I can do that too if you want. It does appear that 131 is semi-static; I'll block it for longer if he bothers you again after 32 hours expires (just remind me if I miss it). My Antandrus (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Its from an air force based, back in December there was another AFB Ip from a different base, so the individual may have moved.--Crossmr 17:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I think a 1 month semi-protect of the user page and talk page is in order. given the relentless nature of this. It might be long enough to get them to move on finally.--Crossmr 17:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from a fellow violinist

From one violinist to another, thanks for reverting my user page. I have no idea how you found me, but I guess I owe you one. crazyviolinist 04:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

59.101.178.197

Be a pal and 'splode this guy, please? He's been doing this for the last ten minutes... HalfShadow 05:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Bah. Damn kids. *grumble* HalfShadow 06:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user subpages and the vandalism by the IP trolls out in mainspace. — ERcheck (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for reverting vandalsum on my page--♥sailor cuteness-ready for love♥ 20:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Lotsa trolls on a Sunday ... Antandrus (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mail

You've got some. Cheers, Moreschi <sup>Request a recording?</sup> 20:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Don't feed Antandrus

I assume this is not you? I have reported the name.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  23:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already blocked the account. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I had a pretty big dinner, so I appreciate the sentiment. Man I never know what to expect when I log on here after being away. That's funny. Antandrus (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That is hilarious. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  04:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks very much for reverting the vandalism to my userpage earlier. It's much appreciated :-) Will 22:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! happy to help. Antandrus (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage, it is greatly appreciated.--ChesterMarcol 03:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You are also welcome! Happy to help, Antandrus (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide to deletion

is no help at all, so I'm coming to you: how do I nominate an article for deletion? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  04:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe if I had actually scrolled down on the AfD page, I would have seen it. :) Thank you for your other words as well. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi, Antandrus, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I very much appreciate your confidence in me as a strong candidate. I'm glad to be joining the ranks of administrators with a mind toward classical music. I do wonder, though, if it isn't a little disproportionate to have two admins from Santa Barbara County with the same interests? :-) Anyway, if you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Cliff

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		This is for your words of support on his talk page regarding what happened to him - the definition of what this barnstar means, "being nice without being asked". Thanks. Will (Speak to Me/Breathe)(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash) 10:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My Ladye Nevells Booke

Hi

Im Sorry Sumo777