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 may respond on your talk page. Or maybe both. A foolish hobgoblin little minds consistency.

Tuolumne River, Yosemite National Park, California, July 2008. Mount Dana and Mount Gibbs in the distance.
Haec dies quam fecit Dominus. Exultemus 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, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29

ta!

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

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Drive-Thru Records logo.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

David Tombe requests unblock

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

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

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

revert

Thanks. Dlohcierekim 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Another case of Sockpuppetry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello

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

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

Hey, thank you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice

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

State vs. federal waters

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

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

Orphaned non-free media (Image:HotTopicLogo.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Tidying up talk pages

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

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

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

I have to agree with you

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

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

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

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

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

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

75.142.138.10

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

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

Changes to Composers Project banner?

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

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

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

Update on California National Forests

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

Cheers

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

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

Question

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protect Violin?

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

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

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

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

Beethoven

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

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

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

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

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

Fan mail

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

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

Userpage

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

against trollss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rip Van Winkle's semi-return

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

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

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

Schubert

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

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

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

Third opinion

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

Nathan Hale (Game Character)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glad to help!

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

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

Assessments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

WikiThanks

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

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

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

Advice on supplying a private e-mail address

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello

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