User talk:Antandrus/Archive16

Talk page archive No. 16.

21 September 2006 to 23 October 2006.

Music question

So, I'm working on Ruggiero (as in the melodic/harmonic formula), and I noticed we don't have an article for Reciting formula, so I went to see if Grove did, which they don't. Is there another word for it that I'm not thinking of? It seems like a fairly important cross-cultural musical/poetic/oral tradition-y concept. Mak (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, yes, I've noticed that Grove often does not have articles on narrowly named or defined topics. Usually they are covered under something larger. I'd look it up in my Harvard Dictionary of Music to see if has other names (but I'm at work right now) ... try googling. I can't think of another immediately obvious name. Does that phrase occur in Grove at all? Antandrus (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that "recitation formula" is a little more common, but seems to refer only to Western chant tradition things. I'm thinking of a larger class of musical formulas, all of which are basically to assist in memorizing and chanting/reciting back stories/poems/epics in a variety of oral traditions. Is there a more global word for that sort of thing? Mak (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any interest in IRC at this time? If you're busy I understand. Mak (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fire

Turns out I was wrong about fire not being a plasma. If the anon adds it again, don't revert, but put a {{fact}} tag on it if he doesn't cite a source. --Coredesat talk! 04:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. In that case, that would be worthy of mention in maybe a sentence or two in the article, but it does not justify transforming the entire first paragraph. Basically, until recently, most classes I had taken had taught that fire is not a plasma or a state of matter, but is simply heat and light energy produced by a combustion reaction. --Coredesat talk! 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Billyjoebob

User:Billyjoebob has created about 5 articles that were completely empty or nonsense. He has been warned several times. Mkdw 15:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I can block him if he vandalises past his last warning; however so far I've just seen him create some low-quality substubs. I need to see malice rather than just cluelessness; I'm pretty careful on the block button. You can report him to WP:AIV though for another opinion. Antandrus (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

whitelist request

hello; i understand that i should contact an en.wiki admin about this, and i have discovered no better means than just picking you out of the admin list, so please bear with me; i was editing an article just now, to include a link to the radio page of my website, but my edit was blocked, due to a blacklisted link; therefore, please would you add my sweet little site -- mashoo.ma.funpic.org -- to the en.wiki whitelist? best wishes Mashoo (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You can put your request up yourself here MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist. Review our external links policy first and make sure that your site fits the criteria. I won't add it myself since I don't know what the reasons for blacklisting were. Nice pics, by the way; you're a good photographer. Antandrus (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you; and thank you for your assistance; perhaps i'll be able to make some musical contributions like yours, one of these days; cheero Mashoo (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

More "Arm"s

User:Armking89 and User:Armkongo just recently created. No edits yet, but I'll try to keep an eye out until I sign off in a bit. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

New "likelies" today: User:ArmKiNg, User:Armzcore, User:Armalai --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question on Mak's talkpage

"are you really arguing at this length, and spending this much time on this talk page, out of the best interests in improving our encyclopedia? ". :Yes, I am . This issue is being discussed by the International Alliance of women in Music. The Vice-President of the International Music council (UNESCO) has been informed. This is being followed closely by any number of scholars and is going to be discussed at any number of Universities this Fall. Gender bias is only one aspect of exclusionist thinking in the Academic establishment which supports the so-called "Standard Repertoire" canon. Gender bias is the easiest to spot and to confront, as it is objective. So, this is the most effective way to discuss what is really a much more complex issue.

I am not saying that Mak is consciously expressing his/her gender bias, but scholars discussing this have pointed out that his/her reactions (especially the reference to the "Don't be a dick" article) would probably indicate that the person making these statements was most likely a woman interacting with a male-dominated hierarchy and trying to become "one of the guys" as means consolidating this power. This is often refered to as "Venus de Milo" syndrome because although the woman becomes a valued part of the male hierarchy, she is "cutting off her arms" in the longterm by supporting the gender bias of status quo. If you've seen the demographics of Wikipedia, there's no arguing about the male domination part. The point is, the resistent to change and the acceptance of suppressing this type of material would almost certainly by a symtome of deep-seated gender bias by a woman. But, I do not expect or want confirmation of the validity of this theory.

Thank you for worrying about spending so much time doing this, but since we have so much help from experts in this field, this isn't really that much trouble. Somehow, I've managed to write three hundred measures of music in the past week, in addition to processing our Fall stock orders, sending out catalogues, working on new concerts/recordings etc. None of us sleeps very much around here...Jean-Thierry Boisseau 10:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Gender bias is "objective"? What exactly do you mean? Because there aren't any women on the lists of composers of opera, that this is proof of bias?

Don't you see the logical fallacies here? You are presupposing that something must be, and then going back and proving bias because you aren't finding what you suppose must be there. People are on those lists because their operas have been performed repeatedly in a wide geographic distribution, not because there is a cabal of evil Male Establishment Dominators saying their names belong there. Consider the possibility that the lists themselves reflect reality.

If you want more operas to be written by women and widely performed, then by all means work towards that goal. I'd like to see that too. When the number and distribution of performances equals that of men on the lists, then they will be listed. And for heaven's sake try to assume some good faith of your fellow editors rather than ceaselessly attacking them as part of some vast male-domination conspiracy. Antandrus (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You ask why "Gender bias is "objective"?". Excuse me, but I didn't think that I had to explain the difference between girls and boys. I think that is a pretty objectively defined difference, unless you factor in "transgendered" people.

It's not what "I" expected to see or who should be on this list; Quite frankly, I really don't care. However, there are enough women who have written opera (especially in the past thirty years) that SOME should be on this list. The sources which could have proved that have been suppressed or dismissed. If they were examined, or if lists that include only men were discarded (aha, I'll bet that you didn't think of that...why are lists of only men neutral and lists of only women POV?), then at least one woman (in the case of these lists, that would be Judith Weir, but it doesn't necessarily HAVE to be her). The point is that the selection process of the lists had the POV agenda of confirming the standard repertoire, and that's basically what it did.

Before you ask "why didn't you express this in the discussion?". The answer is that since I was defined as having a POV bias to living composers and women, I was asked not to participate. I have counted less then ten people who made this list, two of whom were possibly women, the others who were almost certainly men. Regardless of what happens here, my contributions are neither wanted nor will they be accepted, given the "Great Purge" currently underway. So, there you have it.

The "Venus de Milo" syndrome came from a discussion with someone completely unrelated here, who teaches women's studies at an American University and who saw this as a textbook example. I'm not an expert at this, she is. I don't know anyone's gender in this discussion with certainty, so whatever it means to anyone personally becomes a question of their own self-exploration. If this is making people uncomfortable, then perhaps they need to think about this.

Would you mind replying (if you care to reply) on my discussion page? I only saw this by chance. Thank you. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 22:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Great Purge"? "The sources which could have proved that have been suppressed or dismissed" "...my contributions are neither wanted nore will they be accepted" "the selection process of the lists had the POV agenda" --Mr. Boisseau, you are making some bizarre, and quite unsubstantiable charges here.

Instead of continuing this rhetorical tempest, why don't you 1) suggest a woman or two for inclusion, 2) give a good reason why she should be included, and 3) propose a different methodology since you think the existing one is flawed.

I'm copying this to your talk page. This particular thread needs to stay together. Antandrus (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't have time to explain all of this once again, but if you read the RfA at a stage before the non-threaded comments were edited, for example here - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=77605592&oldid=77604325 it's all there if you follow the discussions and click on the links.

In any case, it looks as if Judith Weir is going to be added, as the criteria for the article is being changed. It would be completely unproductive for me to enter into this discussion again, so I'm staying out of it. It may be that there will be...one woman at least on this list. That will be a minimum, but it's better than nothing. And perhaps it will allow other feministed-oriented scholars to correct this when research has been completed. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 22:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if you could perhaps have a look at this and do something about it if you can? Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FJean-Yves_Malmasson__Grouping_issues It doesn't seem very fair that Jean-Marie Londeix has to be dragged into this simply because somebody here changed his categories to Londeix, Jean-Marie...but I guess all of our edits are now suspect...Jean-Thierry Boisseau 22:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"all of our edits are now suspect" -- please STOP that relentless assumption of bad faith. Many of us are quite fair-minded. You could be hurling curses at me and I assure you I will assess someone's notability entirely separately from the current conflict du jour. Antandrus (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've got a commission for a film score and have two weeks to write and orchestrate 90 minutes of music, so you won't be seeing much of me in the next couple of weeks. It's probably just as well...

From your response, it doesn't look as if you actually bothered to read the RfA page that I suggested that you have a look at. that's a pity, because this is not a black and white situation. And although people here keep telling me that this is hurting my own professional reputation, this kind of thing keeps coming up in discussions which prove the opposite.

There is an email which I have received five times in the past two weeks or so, regarding what's going on here. It concerns composer Dennis Bathory-Kitsz who has pointed out the seemingly arbitrary editorial policies of Wiki. I sure that you, as a composer, probably know of this very well-known figure in the new music community...Mr. Bathory-Kitsz states:

"In the "Article for Deletion" (AfD) discussion, I discovered a recurrent theme: the Wikipedia vigilantes wander around the virtual space randomly looking for articles to delete without making an effort to verify the content. As a regular though skeptical Wikipedia user, I was surprised at the extremity of this behavior."

To see his full article about this: [1]

The last person I got this from was Mary Jane Leach whose music I have known and admired for at least a decade. Her article was also deleted.

Sequenza21 has started a Wiki-style new music service and they don't have these kinds of exclusionary polices. The main question among New Music professionals these days is why should we bother this place since everything is either called a "vanity" article or is called a commercial pitch.

Now, I really must get back to my work, as I have a deadline. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. Good luck with your composition. Antandrus (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL

What do you think? I'm too pissed off right now to be logical. Mak (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was torn the first time I saw it, but the fact that they were adding a bunch of them and those were their only edits annoyed me. Humph. The fates are conspiring to annoy me on-wiki tonight. I think I'll go to bed. Mak (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

NCV did stop, just informing you

I wanted to inform you I created User:N. Narcissus to be a good editor. He was unfairly blocked twice, and evntually indefinitely, because this account was making edits which other people disagree with, sucha s that at snigger. I needed to use socks to complain. I don't deserve unfair blocks. You blcoked the account that created him because you though I was vandalizing again. In other words I am considered a vandal even when I am using good accounts, who happen to make one or two very contriversial edits.

Anyway, theres been a recent mess at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/North Carolina vandal. i want it deleted, but the history kept. So I moved it to User:Pinehurst/North Carolina vandal. This led to a mess so i made a good edit, which got reverted again. My accounts were blcoked as page move vandals. Please help me out here, such as by moving the bistory to a new title so i can keep it for historical purposes.Hicking 03:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll help you as soon as you 1) recognize and acknowledge the harm you have done, 2) acknowledge that trolling in the form of making "attack user accounts" in the user creation log is a continuation of your long habit of vandalism, 3) make amends: you have hurled the vilest insults you could imagine at dozens of people, and I want to remind you we are people, not faceless collections of electrons on your computer monitor, and 4) go public with some kind of apology for your long history of damaging the project. Once you do that, happy editing, and I'll welcome you to the project. Antandrus (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock...AOL user...thank you

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Antandrus for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "WOMEN&CHILDREN ARE BEING BRUTALLY RAPED BY JIMBO WALES.". The reason given for WOMEN&CHILDREN ARE BEING Your IP address is 205.188.116.67. Tvccs 04:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I freed the autoblocks; that should do it. Let me know if you have more trouble. Antandrus (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

So, how do you keep from saying rude things when people accuse you of being a Zionist Nazi? Mak (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A "decoction of Seneca and the Stoics" along with a plentiful helping of laughter. Wine and whiskey are also fine assistants. Antandrus (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A Quick Note

I don't have much time to go into detail here as I have much too much work, but I will say that

• There is definitely a language and cultural problem here. I am struck by the especially violent reactions of the people from the United Kingdom, which is almost always the case. The "Objectivity/gender bias" example is a case in point. I understood what you meant, and was reacting in surprize to your reaction. The way I expressed this surprize was to point out the obvious, which should have lead to an discussion of the fundemental aspects of what gender bias is. Instead of seeing the implied subtext and the invitation to explore this fundemental question, you only saw what you perceived as arrogence and insult. This happens all of the time with anglophones and I really do not know what to do about it. I am aware that this problem exists. I cannot completely change the way I think and express myself, which is noticably more formal than the rest of you. I do try not to make things worse, however. You will notice that in the RfA discussion, when the list of Articles for deletion went up with commentary which was not exactly polite, I did not react. I think that I have shown a great deal of reserve in dealing with some aspects of this situation.

• Would you also mind having a look at Carson Cooman and Gian Paolo Chiti? Both people should have sufficient notority to be included in the site and Maestro Chiti (head of the comp. dept at the Academia Santa Cecilia in Rome for 30 years) was very happy to have a complete works list up. Both of these people have a percentage of their catalgoue which is published by us, but that is not their only claim to notority and should not be judged just because of whatever alleged "misconduct" that we've done here. I must also say that I find the commentary on the Cooman AfD to be getting quite catty...Luckily they haven't figured out yet that his principal teacher is Judith Weir..."Le boucle est bouclé" and all of that.

• I appreciate your standing up for Dennis and I will ask Mary Jane Leach to tell him about it, although I think that he's really convinced that this project is a lost cause, given what he's said in that article. The way living composers are treated should be addressed simply because notority policy does not work with the reality of what they do. I could write pages about this, but you probably already know what I'm talking about.

• Now I really do have to get to work. I really wish that people would call us first....and it's certainly very annoying when you're working for hard for something that is going to be signed by somebody else...But that's the way the World works sometimes. Thank you for considering all of this. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 11:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

user creations

Sure would be nice to be able to block his IP for a while. Sigh. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's probably AOL (that particular troll usually is). Sooner or later he'll remember he has homework due tomorrow and will knock it off. Antandrus (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Long term abuse page

Please restore the history of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/North Carolina vandal, then move it to User:Slivelard/North Carolina vandal.Slivelard 02:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia is annoying

[2] All I was trying to do was fill in some stuff from the list of missing encyclopedia topics, and I have to re-add this three times, explain on the talk page, and give a freaking inline citation. For a freaking disambiguation page. This is getting stupid. Mak (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

lol, I got your note when I saved this, although to be fair I did use two sources for that. (this was in response to the note on the talk page of the article about the massive "GA review"). If you see anything in that article which is actually controversial, feel free to point it out to me. I don't think there is, which is part of why I didn't originally give it inline citations. Bah. My worry is that the inline citation fetish is not leading to better-referenced/verified articles, but rather messier wikitext, with completely redundant inline citations. There's also a discussion going on on the mailing list, which I've shoved my oar into (I almost never do). Mak (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

One problem which I have with inline citations is that I feel like it misrepresents the information cited. When I see an inline citation in RL(tm) I assume that the person cited is the main/only proponent of that point of view. When you add inline citations to generally accepted facts, unless you dig up half a dozen books and find the right pages in each of them, I think you do the accepted scholarship a disservice, and are misrepresenting the fact. I seem not to be able to articulate this very well, though. Mak (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they've changed the GA criteria to require inline citations, regardless of the article. It's just this type of cookie-cutter understanding of inline citations which I think is harmful. Mak (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Further comments from third parties re: gender bias

I am averaging about 300 measures a day....and luckily Paul Wehage is doing the orchestration as I go along, so this will get done ahead of schedule. However, discussion of gender bias issues continue on the IAWM list and I just wanted to add this information to let all know that, regardless of what the RfA decision is and regardless of whose articles are deleted, this is not just going to be "over soon", as I've seen elsewhere.

This is from William Osborn, the husband of Abbie Conant (the trombonist ho got fired from the Munich Symphony orchestra because "we can't have women in the trombone section".). He's done this before...and when he does it, the Wall Street Journal talks about it. This is an email sent to Paul Wehage off of the IAWM List (if you want confirmation, email me at oscarlechien AT gmail DOT com and I'll get you his email...)

Quote

I have been in the same position as you are several times -- trying to persuade a group of men that something is wrong with the way women are treated. The men can be much more open and aggressive with a man presenting these ideas. The man standing for the rights of women is generally mobbed. As the men get more into the discussion, the psychological problems that create their sexism often become very apparent. In fact, these psychological impulses help explain why they become so talkative. They have issues to work out. It becomes more and more apparent as they become increasingly insistent in defending the exclusion of women.

Thank you for your work.

End Quote

Is this an accurate picture of what's happening? I don't presume to know, but Mr. Osborn does know about this sort of thing, as a bit of research will prove...In any case, I cannot say that Mr. Osborn's opinion is entirely false...

From another email off of the IAWM list from William - For clarification, he refers to Paul Wehage because Paul is the one here who partipates on this list. He's been a member for more than a decade, on invitation of Sally Reid, a former IAWM president.

Quote

The problems with opera are too numerous to count. It is, of course, a good idea to try to find lost works of opera by women composers. At the same time, it is impossible to overlook that oppression kept the vast majority of interested women from writing opera in the first place. It's is a little like looking for great novels written by African-American slaves. It would be an extreme understatement to say that there are conditions of life not conducive to the creation of art. The evil of human brutality knows almost no end.

The portrayal of women in opera is thus created from an almost exclusively masculinist perspective. And it is unquestionably a demeaning portrayal. Women characters in opera tend to be abused and fallen, or simpletons who make their living by embroidering, or heroines sacrificing themselves for the well being of a heroic man. Their identity is often determined by a degrading relationship to men who are portrayed as superior and in command.

How can we be surprised that a list of the top 100 opera composers might be all male, in a genre so misogynistic that men chopped their nuts off so they could sing the soprano parts? And as Paul Wehage's noble efforts on Wiki illustrate, the psychological illnesses that shape hatred for women are alive and well. The discussion the men are having over there about the list is far more valuable and interesting than the list itself.

It would seem that from any self-respecting woman's perspective, an entirely new kind of music theater needs to be created. (For the very few who might be interested, I have written more about this in the program notes for my music theater work "Street Scene for the Last Mad Soprano" at:

http://www.osborne-conant.org/Street.htm

The examples of misogyny in opera are so extensive it is impossible to detail all of them, but this summer I saw "Salome" in Santa Fe. The work is strange, not because of the supposed perversion, which is actually rather staid and Victorian, but because it has so many odd idiosyncrasies. There is almost no character portrayal at all. Even by the standards of opera, there are no real humans, just one-dimensional quasi-Biblical figures. Theatrically speaking, we don't see too much more than caricatures in Roman costumes chromatically bellowing over the Alpine Symphony.

Perhaps the lack of theatrical depth evolved because Strauss focused too strongly on a calculated, psuedo-scandalous effect. Oscar Wilde, whose play forms the basis of the libretto, had very good reasons for studying what he referred to as "poison," his term for unaccepted forms of erotic temptation in Victorian England. He even went to prison for it. Strauss simply did not have such sincere motivations. The Germans, to their credit, have never been particularly puritanical, and even during Strauss's life, most didn't really give a damn about what consenting adults did in their own privacy. Without Wilde's "poison," Salome is empty, an operatic gesture in the worst sense of the word. There is indeed a kind of sado-anal necrophilia in the darker regions of German culture, and it was very much alive in Strauss's time, but Salome doesn't capture it. The work was, and is, a superficially calculated gesture that could only exist in the utterly stodgy world of opera.

I also wonder if it isn't time we begin to think of at least some classical music as actually a form of ethnic music. Why do we think of the Germanic character of classical music as some sort of neutral norm? The score for Salome is so utterly Austro-Bavarian that the piece could only be plausible if she were wearing a Dirndl, though I suspect a clever director like Sellers could figure out some nifty way of not having Herod in Lederhosen. Especially in the climatic (sic) sections, I had no sense of sexuality, but rather programmatic Alpine tableaus: glaciers, raging streams, a stag in a meadow, timber houses with geranium flower boxes, et al. At one point, even an embarrassed Till seems to stumble onto the wrong set. Even allowing for theatrical conventions, Strauss's Salome is far, far too beery for either ancient Israel or conflicts with British Puritanism.

The poor direction in Santa Fe only served to stress the ridiculousness of Salome and opera in general. In his review in the San Francisco Chronicle ["Santa Fe Opera loyal to vision that's lasted 5 decades" (Aug. 7, 2006)], Joshua Kosman described Santa Fe's "Dance of the Seven Veils" as the "dreariest in recent memory."

I couldn't agree more. Forms of transgressive sexuality can be very interesting, and authors such as Artaud gave them a valuable tradition in theater. But how could Strauss's ridiculously calculated spectacle be anything but dreary? And why would any self-respecting woman want to portray such a silly, one-dimensional role? Opera being opera, Salome is almost bound to sound and look like she is 16 going on 38. In many productions of Salome, it is difficult to determine which is more matronly, the singer's voice or her solidly endowed middle-aged body. And this is by no means a one-sided standard exacted only upon women. The pudgy, pasty-white Roman soldiers -- who looked like they had seen neither exercise nor sunshine for at least fifteen years -- seemed like something out of a small church's Easter Pageant in Amarillo, Texas.

The saving grace was that the velcro problems in the veils scene were hilarious. Things just didn't want to come off. Herod literally had a small tug-of-war to get one veil off. When it suddenly popped loose, Salome almost fell over backwards.

After the last veil we saw a brief flash of a rather broad behind in a body sock. Poor thing. I don't mean to be mean-spirited. It's just that sooner or later we might consider music theater that works theatrically. To belt something out over a hundred piece orchestra you generally need some meat on your bones. So why don't we create opera for the beauty, strength, and dignity of those kind of women (and men.) At least to my eyes, the singer who performed Salome in Santa Fe could be very alluring if she had the right role and direction. Enough with psuedo-skinny bimbos and seamstresses with tuberculosis.

Anyway, I know these words will infuriate some, but if we are going to create a new kind of music theater that truly portrays the dignity of women, we are going to have to start almost from scratch.

endquote

So, what has this accomplished? Has this been a good action for the wikimedia foundation? Do you actualy think that this has done good for what you're trying to do?

In terms of the project, you're going to be able to do exactly what the "majority" (ie about ten people who care) want because most people can't be bothered. If I may use a metaphor, this is like using a suitcase nuke to take care of the neighbors who you think are making too much noise. Sure, it's effective...but you might end up being with some rather surprising consequences outside of the very small subset of people that are the principles here.

I cannot say what this will mean in the long term (although I could make a few educated guesses), but was it really this important to exclude sources which could have included a representative sample of women in order that the "status quo" be confirmed? What is the problem with including the names of two or three women on this list? Why is this such an issue?

I am extremely sorry that this has worked out as it has. I am especially sorry that certain people who self-identify as "feminists" are going to be seen as being enablers of an anti-feminist agenda (and perhaps in surprising places). A feminist stance is something which needs to be taken automatically, and not as the result of some sort of "nice" agenda, since the issue of gender bias is quite real.

I do not regret bringing this issue to the fore and, indeed, making it an issue. I believe that someone (a woman) is going to come forward to try to resolve some of these issues. I would like to state that this woman, who is a teacher at a major university and a former assistant of a major opera conductor, has no connections to us and should not be treated as being a "Musik Fabrik" agent. If she does choose to enter into this discussion, I would hope that she be treated with respect and with objectivity.

Right now, besides this film score, we're also working on the Marguerite Duras hommage in Trouville next week, so this is not a good time to deal with this and quite frankly, we really have better things to do. I would however like to suggest that this be a matter of reflection and discussion among the "powers that be", as this is not just another spat and will not just "go away. I do not think that you have begun to imagine what has happened here and how far the implications might go... Cordially Jean-Thierry Boisseau 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting mildly ridiculous. We are not elevating the level of dispute. You are. As far as I am concerned, that list is finished. It has been thoroughly referenced and made NPOV by accepted Wikipedia standards. Of course it will change, as opera changes - in 10 years there will probably be 5 women on the list - in 20, another 5, or 10, or even 15. And doubtless Folantin and myself will still be writing all the annotations and providing all the references, just as we have done here.

I'd like to take a quote from the e-mails.

"The problems with opera are too numerous to count. It is, of course, a good idea to try to find lost works of opera by women composers. At the same time, it is impossible to overlook that oppression kept the vast majority of interested women from writing opera in the first place. It's a little like looking for great novels written by African-American slaves. It would be an extreme understatement to say that there are conditions of life not conducive to the creation of art. The evil of human brutality knows almost no end."

This may, in fact, surprise you, but I totally agree. But surely the logical implication of the statement that "At the same time, it is impossible to overlook that oppression kept the vast majority of interested women from writing opera in the first place" is that we cannot change the past. We must promote women opera composers now, and in the future, to make up for the disparity, but the past (regrettably) cannot be changed. And the plain truth is that we just haven't had enough time to see whether operas by contemporary female composers have had sufficient impact for their composers to count as "major".

Re the castrati: I know quite a lot about them and Handel et al, and although a young castrato would, as part of his training, play a female role, this was generally not the case as the singer matured. The women were not exactly starved of roles. Please get your facts right.

When this don turns up, I for one will treat her with absolute respect - provided she does not resort to bullying, intimidation, incivility, edit warring, and POV pushing in interacting with other editors, as you have done. If she does, I will have no hesitation in putting her in front of ArbCom as well. Wikipedia does have rules governing editor-to-editor behaviour. Please respect them.

And lastly, I would, once again, like to say that I am most definitely not sexist, or misogynist, or even misanthropist. To imply such things is a violation of just about every single rule in the book. ArbCom will be most interested. Moreschi 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Moreschi for the post, and the comment on the quote: it's right to the point. I agree with that as well. The only thing I'd add to "we must promote women opera composers now" is a couple words: "...but not on Wikipedia." But you know that ... it's only some newcomers we need to get this point across to. Mr. Boisseau, in case I haven't mentioned it yet, another page that might clarify what is going on here, is this: What Wikipedia is Not.. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for those marvelous quotations from your mailing list. Exactly how are you representing us there? From the vituperative intensity of the comments you supply, I have to presume you are doing a rotten job of explaining who we are, and what we do.

Do the people on the mailing list know that you've copied portions of their letters here?

Mr. Boisseau, do you really understand the purpose of Wikipedia? Do you understand the point of the project, and the rules that guide it? We are not in the business of canon-formation, or canon-deconstruction, or canon-anything at all, other than canon-explanation, and we explain by repeating information gleaned from reliable sources. That's all we do. Moving beyond this into what "should" be or what we "wish" would be violates Wikipedia's original research prohibition. We are not a front for a crusade for what is right and just and good. Yes, most of us would love it if we lived in a world where operas by women were as often produced as those by men, but we do not. We report the world that exists, using secondary sources, by others.

Your continued insistence that your conflict here stems from our misogyny and sexism is a complete red herring and I reject it. We are attempting to compile a list of major opera composers. None are women, using the agreed-upon methodology. That's the way it is. It's bad that this is so. It may be so because of widespread misogyny and sexism in the opera world. It may be so because of widespread misogyny and sexism in the culture as a whole. But we still need to report the reality of the situation, not what we want it to be. And if you can think of a methodology for creating the list that allows inclusion of women, and does not violate our core policies, and does not itself introduce "gender bias", then for heaven's sake get over to that article talk page and propose it.

Have you read our core policies? Every time you post, it seems you have again dodged the specific issues, and instead flung invective against our supposed motives. Have you read assume good faith? Will you please go and do so?

Thank you, and I wish you well in your composition. Antandrus (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me if this seems sarcastic, but it's a bit much explaining what an encyclopedia is to a French person...I mean, we did invent the idea and I have a very good idea about what writing an encyclopedia is about, at least historically, one of which is the idea of breaking down the secular and sacred hierarchies by neutraling explaining "what is". This list, which creates a hierarchy (what is the word "important"?) and this insistence on "notability" used here is clearly unencyclopedic, at least according to the historical definition. Perhaps this understanding of what the idea of "encyclopedia" means is perhaps part of the problems here?

I have read the core polices, and I do understand them. Nothing that I have contributed would constitute original research. And I would like to say that I have made great pains not to "hit people over the head" with my knowledge here, and in other discussions. Perhaps I should have completely taken apart the sources used in this article and made it evident that these were outdated and relics of old thinking. Instead, I thought that it would be more diplomatic to allow the process to happen, giving only suggestions. This was perhaps a miscalculation.

In terms of "assuming good faith", I have said repeatedly said that I do not think that any of the people who I have perceived as promoting gender-biased thinking are aware of it (perhaps now they might have at least considered the possibility) and that this is not something which they are doing intentionally. I also feel that I have shown a certain amount of restraint, at least recently. In addition to having a great deal of work, I am intentionally trying to back off a bit here and look at the larger issues involved. I must confess however that this reflection is not completely changing my initial analysis of the situation, nor are others who are outside of the whole system here. I think that the validity of these perceptions should at least be considered before they are dismissed entirely.

On my talk page, you asked that I provide a reputable source for the issue of gender bias in Opera. This source was in my comment here. The reason why I posted the comments by Mr. Osborn is that he is a reputable source who is indeed saying that "the opera repertory or operatic "canon" as being gender-biased" and the link provided above to his website and the description of his music theatre work says exactly that. Mr. Osborn has had a long history of working with gender-bias issues and the selection of articles about his work with the IAWM and with his wife is available on his website.

The main authority concerning this issue that I know is Mrs. Patricia Adkins-Chiti, the head of the Adkins-Chiti Donne in Musica foundation [3], who has the world's largest library of music by women, who has written books, edited collections of music, produced television series etc. It is difficult for me to bring her into this discussion for several reasons - First of which is that her husband is Gian Paolo Chiti and we publish his music. Patricia is actually kind of upset that her husband has been "nominated for deletion" here, especially with all of the unkind (and unsourced) remarks that were made about him. She's not terribly "pro-wikipedia" at this point...and I don't think that this is going to change.

This all goes around in a huge circle. I gave sources which are seen as biased. Then sources which are biased the other way are seen as neutral. I then am seen as having an "agenda" because I publish music by women and by living composers. Because of this "bias", I am then asked not to participate in the discussion. When the discussion is finished, I say that the conclusion is biased because the sources are biased, and then I am accused of "making trouble" and put before this "arbcom" committee. The outside sources (nobody published by us, nor with any direct connection) give indications which would seem to confirm the idea of gender bias here, and they are then called "biased" themselves. And now, you ask me to contribute "sources" which would confirm this idea of "bias".

Frankly, I fail to see how this can be done at the present time, because every source that I could pull out of my hat right now is either a close friend or a colleague who has worked, works or will work with us. We are not just people who look on from the sidelines and we can't just pretend that we're "unbiased, neutral" onlookers. We have tried to make our contributions "neutral" and to use only sourced materials, but we also can't pretend that we aren't who we are and we don't do what we do.

I have toyed with the idea of removing the catalog of works which we added to Germaine Tailleferre as well as nominating the category of works by Germaine Tailleferre and all of the attached articles because although there are sources for all of statements made, there is also perhaps a notion of "original research" because of the way the facts are presented...not to mention this notion of "commerical promotion". If fifteen years of research is seen as a glorified advertizing campaign, then perhaps everything that we've added here should be removed.

In any case, I really don't mind about the article about my own work being deleted (I didn't write it, just for clarification...and only knew it was here weeks after the fact...but, passons...), but the deletion of Carson Cooman was really not fair. He has written over 650 works, all of which are published (not just by us either), has received commissions from major arts foundations and organizations, generated an important new repertoire for the organ (which was listed and which should have been qualification under WP:Music in my estimation) for which he has won awards, written many articles, have had any number of CDs and his next CD will be an orchestral CD released by Naxos. It looks as if Chiti and Malmasson are going to be spared the ax (it's rather beneath him, but Gian Paolo was very happy having an article here...and he's going to be a bit upset if he's axed for being not notable...nevermind all of those film scores he wrote for Carlo Ponti and the commissions from Vatican Radio etc), but the whole process is causing many people (not me, others) to ask the question "what is Wikipedia about"? And increasingly, the answer is expressed in terms of power and judgements which are not based on any kind of sourced reality. I don't presume to know whether these are fair assumptions, but I do think that these perceptions of what is happening at Wikipedia should be examined seriously, this present situation only being a very small example.

I shall not be back on this site for the next few days, which should allow things to quiet down a bit.

Cordially Jean-Thierry Boisseau 11:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:060215 matchbook romance.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:060215 matchbook romance.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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.

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 01:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

lol, yeah Antandrus, stop uploading fair-use band images. Or perhaps you should just stop reverting vandalism. I'm not sure which. Mak (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, yet another "wtf" moment! This page is becoming high comedy ... oh man. Oh, and I forgot all about that backscratch, that's yet another. Antandrus (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:A7X2006BandPromoPhoto.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:A7X2006BandPromoPhoto.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 01:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I answered you on your talk page. These "uploads" were just vandalism reverts, not actual uploads. Antandrus (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on

Here's my plan for what you should do: Restore Wikipedia:Long term abuse/North Carolina vandal move it to User:Bianza/North Carolina vandal, then I will blank that, but don't delted that, then delete Wikipedia:Long term abuse/North Carolina vandal and protect it from recreation.Bianza 02:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

...for reverting vandalism to my page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! I appreciate your anti-vandal work too. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Listen

Listen to "Come on". Quit ignoring me.Bianza 04:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No. I explained last night, but my comment went away. How would such an undeletion help our encyclopedia? Antandrus (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I want the history, for historical purposes.Bianza 04:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

oof, more work than I thought

So, it looks like Grove's "explore" function is less exhaustive in its inclusion of female composers than I had expected. There are a ton of women composers who have articles in Grove that aren't on that list. Now I'm trying to fill it in using the Index from the Norton/Grove anthology of Women composers (online - google book search), but it seems that only composers who are mentioned in an entry other than their own, or in the timeline, so that's not as exhaustive as I first thought... so I guess I'll have to go to the actual library and get the actual book. Then of course compounding the vague irritation that it's not that near done yet, there's the fear that not all those included will be considered notable enough for Wikipedia- which I think they should be, but it still makes me nervous, because it could be a huge pain to sort them out later.

Also, you have mail regarding dogs. Mak (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Help

Hi I'm new to editing and just as I get past being a newbe to editing I am repeatedly blocked because people use my IP address is there anyway to prevent people from useing my IP address from their own ends and geting me in troble sence you appear to know alot about this blocking things please help me I'm tired of being blocked for stuff I didn't do.Superx

Yikes!

You blocked me! [4] - funnily enough I dont seem to be hit by the autoblock :) Good call tho Glen 02:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Help I need food! ;)

Enjoy?? Glen 03:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Eritrea edit

Hello,

You re-edited my link on "Eritrea" where I gave background information to the conflict with Ethiopia. Can you please explain why this site (http://www.konradlicht.com/Texts/ethno/ethio/ethio-ertriea.html) may not be of interest to the reader? Thanks! Konrad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.158.49.178 (talk • contribs) .

Hi Konrad,

I've only edited Eritrea twice, and both were reverts of this edit [5] by 24.186.212.253 (talk • contribs), because it ruined the formatting and duplicated the article (look at the table of contents to see what I mean). If the anon who has now re-written the article has removed your link, you might want to consider re-adding it. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Néstor Kirchner

Thanks for keeping watch over Néstor Kirchner and reverting vandalism. Now there's something I don't understand -- I've semi-protected the page, yet the vandal's newly-created sockpuppets are still able to edit it. Am I missing something? I'd rather not have a full protection, but I'm not sure what else I can do. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

History restoration

PLEASE RESTORE THE HISTORY OF MY LONG TERM ABUSE PAGE AND MOVE IT TO A NEW TITLE!!! ALSO RESTORE JAKE REMINGTON'S USER PAGE!!Bianza 04:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well at least you said "please." By the way, [6] have you actually studied World War II in school yet? It might be helpful if you got some idea of what the Nazis were really like, before uttering things like that, even in "fun". Have a nice day, Antandrus (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Come on, just restore the history. This time you gave no reason for refusal.Bianza 20:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Megatrend University

Since you seem to be Wikipedia's go-to guy for dodgy institutions of higher learning, what do you think of this place? I note that they don't even have a real "edu" domain, and Googling them doesn't look promising. --Calton | Talk 04:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, please disregard. Wrong Talk page. My apologies. --Calton | Talk 04:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Though I admit I have no love for unaccredited "degree mills." Antandrus (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A gift

For you! [7] I hope you appreciate it in the spirit in which it was intended :) My job (now jobs) are taking up a lot of time, of course, so not so much Wikipedia for me! Cheers, Mak (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm never quite sure what edit summary to use for this sort of edit. Mak (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hi there, just read your userpage and thought I'd point out that we're apparently neighbors with similar interests, as I'm currently a Ph.D. student in music theory at UC Santa Barbara. I don't do much with early music, though (I tend toward 19th-century Germany instead). Just thought it was cool that we live near each other and are both interested in music. See you around. Heimstern Läufer 05:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you wouldn't be the first to think I'm German (it's happened several times at HRWiki, my first wiki), nor the last (someone who was angry at my reverts thought I was just yesterday). But it's just my interest in German that made me pick a German name. And yeah, I know the Arts Library quite well, seeing that I more or less lived there for my first year of grad school. Good times. Heimstern Läufer 23:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the vandalism on my page. As it turns out, I'm a music Ph.D. as well -- comp/theory. Wish me luck on the job market this year! Amber388 05:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome -- and good luck. I'd tell you the trick to getting hired if I knew it, but I chose a different career path. In general, you want to show them on the interview that you will be bringing them value; they want good teachers who will bring them students, and along with the students, tuition, endowments, and eventual generous alumni. I never thought about this stuff when I was in grad school ... Antandrus (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I love ticking off vandals....

I guess "Lucky 6.914159265359" now makes me a twelve place decimal! I just know I've gotten under their skin when they do that. Mwaahaahaaaaa! The Evil Admin, aka Lucky 6.9 02:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for watching my back. Seriously.  :)

• Heck, it's just fun. I don't have time to write here at work, so I just do new pages patrolling. I do have a couple of ideas for some new articles, but I'm probably gone for the weekend. Can't be all fun and games picking off vandals, y'know.  :) - Lucky 6.9 02:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Bend an elbow for me ol' chum. I have to run a radio station for the next fifteen minutes! - Lucky 6.9 02:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

not important but...

Is it just me, or does this picture of Guy d'Hardelot remind you of that Weegee picture? Mak (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually that link doesn't work for me (I don't have gmail; it wants a username/password). Antandrus (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, got it (made a login). It sure does. Quite a resemblance ... LOL. Antandrus (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

yay! I thought it was pretty funny, but I'm in an odd mood. Mak (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

oh, I didn't realise, I thought I had gushed to you about it back when I was first working on "Concerto delle donne". Pretty cool, huh? I'm not sure when exactly it cuts you off, and I think they purposefully don't tell you. I think it partially has to do with the length of the book, but I'm really not sure. Generally, though, if you're doing something like finding comparisons of, say Perotin and Beethoven, you only need a couple pages per book you find. It's a lot nicer than going up to the public library and waiting half an hour for a book to be retrieved, and then reading the one relevant sentence :) Mak (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Regarding the copyright violations in the Homophony article, I had no idea these were violations, thank you for pointing this out. I'll notate these in finale right away, and I am very sorry for violating the copyrights. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's done, thanks again for pointing it out to me. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 03:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'd love to help out however I can. Do you have any ideas of examples that need to be notated? Maybe we could even start a WikiProject under Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, or bring up the issue there. I'm a bit new to Wikipedia, so I don't know how we'd go about starting something like that, but maybe you could give me an idea of where to start? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. LaszloWalrus 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks!

Hey, many thanks homie! Rama's arrow 01:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks yet again!

Owe ya big for catching that nonsense on my talk page. If you need a favor in return, just holler.  :)

Montpellier

Yikes! I had not expected to cause such a flurry of attention. I was kind of surprised, and miffed, to find very few articles on medieval MSS here...so I decided to fix that. I can't promise I'll be delivering a lot of these, and so far I have just edited minor things on minor pages (broken links and such)..Anyway, nice to meet you! Chubbles1212 05:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

• 'Tis a badge of honor, O Ant. I am now off to spank a hoax vandal who, if it's the same person, was hoaxing the heck out of both this site and the Disney wiki with fkae artticles on the Halloweentown movie series. - Lucky 6.9 02:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Grizzly Bear

Your October 4th revert of this article may have reverted to the wrong version; entire sections of the article, particularly the extensive References section which took me hours to compile, were deleted without explanation just before your revert, and remain deleted.

Since time has passed, untangling this is going to be more than a one-click effort. Maybe you'd care to look into it. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's ok, I've already done it. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Maestroukr

Thanks for informing me of some of the important rules of Wikipedia. But vanity is not the case. When I first wanted to put up a page of Yuriy Leonovich, I didn't know where to start, or how to begin a page. I found some of his compositions online, and I saw great talent. I read his biography, and decided to contact him. I was impressed in how much he has done in such a short amont of time (Carnegie Hall and completion of the Tchaikovsky Cello Concerto). I searched for help, but nothing turned up...I kept on getting useless information. After hours of trying to create an article I figured out how to create a "User Page", even though that was not what I was going after. Hence, I immediately tried to move the page to its proper spot (figuring out what "moving" meant). But Wikipedia didn't let me do it for about a week. Thus, everyone who saw my "user Page" prior to the move could have thought that the article was about me, which was not the case. I hope this answers any questions you might have had. Sergei Lysenko 12:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Maestroukr (talk • contribs) .

check it out

Ok, now I have a Steve Reich song stuck in my head, but check out Talk:June Tabor. Mak (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm, last time I looked, singers weren't squares, but rectangles definitely confused violinists. Folk musicians weren't particularly good at geometry because Vulcans failed to read logical fallacy. I quote from an awful 1960s TV show: "Oh, the pain, the pain."  :-) Antandrus (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Really sorry to butt in, but only some singers are musicians. In fact, only some singers are singers: I mean, have you ever heard a recording of Florence Foster Jenkins? - do if you can; her Der Hölle Rache is something - I split my sides! By the way, did you see your piece on Philip Glass at Uncyclopedia has been translated into Japanese? I followed your example and added a Webern article there. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The amoeba weeps! LOL! Antandrus (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I think Florence Foster Jenkins is a brilliant musician! I mean, when a performance moves you that strongly, it's gotta be art, right? Mak (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I was accused of vanadalism, What I actually did was change the article before the vandalism started, which I suppose made it look like I made the changes, yes, I made a mistake, as I now see the article a reverted it to, but this is no reason for an acusation of vandalism, if you could please, review the history edit page, I'm sure you'll see your mistake. No hard feelings, -68.202.128.153 23:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC) =)

No problem; I answered on your talk page. Antandrus (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that that's clearer up, do you mind clearing the vandal warning? =)

-68.202.128.153 01:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you =) -68.202.128.153 02:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

E. Power Biggs

Hi there! This page [[8]] looks kinda POV to me. Thoughts? (P.S.: Happy Vaughan Williams birthday!) --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:NathanB1986

Thanks, Antandrus. I was about to go to WP:AIV, but then I noticed he caught your eye. Just FYI, I noticed that many of his vandalisms seemed to correspond with vandalisms from IP address 64.192.68.35, so we should keep an eye on that too. --Valermos 03:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your revert of User:Noloot

Hi, about your revert. You reverted back to what I think is a weird version. Another editor posted a really odd question to the user page. Normally I would shift the comment to the Talk page, but that one is just a little too out there. What is your opinion on that one? -- Gogo Dodo 05:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Another anonymous IP just copied the entire Owens Community College article into the user's page. Looks like targeted attacks to me. =\ -- Gogo Dodo 05:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Re your message: Thanks. Though maybe a delete instead of a blank so that vandalism isn't the first thing they see in their page history? I see that you just blocked that IP. -- Gogo Dodo 05:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Re your message: Glad to be of help. Thanks for taking care of the mess. =) -- Gogo Dodo 16:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Owens Community College

Read what was added under the Editing of the Wiki heading. Instructors at the college do use the wiki to demonstrate to their students why using only the internet for research sources is a flawed concept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.31.91.141 (talk • contribs) .

Your edit was vandalism. Using your own vandalism to demonstrate how the Wiki is a flawed concept is itself a flawed concept. Why don't you try adding useful and accurate information; you might notice that it stays and the article improves; instead all you learned is that garbage is removed by the other users, and an administrator blocks the vandals and protects the page. I can write in a candidate "Mickey Mouse" on my next ballot to demonstrate how "voting" in a "democracy" is also a flawed concept, but I choose not to. I also choose not to litter in my street. Don't litter on Wikipedia. Antandrus (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, I like that democracy analogy. Did you come up with it just now, or has it been used to defend open projects in the past? Hyenaste ^(tell) 21:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No, clearly your response is non sequitur. In fact, any time someone makes a comparison of two situations it must be non sequitur, right? That's what you've suggested. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.31.91.141 (talk • contribs) .

I've suggested nothing of the sort, now stop trolling. So if I unlock the article, are you going to continue to vandalise it, or are you going to abide by our policies here? You can start with verifiability, reliable sources. Thanks. Antandrus (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

WTF?

How can you call something vandalism when it is encouraged? If Bob Barker logged on to wikipedia and wanted to change his own entry would you disallow it? The OCC is using it's wiki entry as a learning tool, it's not disturbing anything else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.31.91.141 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"call something vandalism when it is encouraged" -- please read non sequitur. Your comment is actually full of them. And yes, damaging the OCC entry is disturbing anyone who actually wants useful, accurate information about the place. Please do NOT vandalise any more. Thank you. Antandrus (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ballade

Hello - I expanded a bit on ballade (musical form), and noted that a ton of music-related articles link to ballade, instead of ballade (musical form. Is there an easy way to change this other than physically going in there and editing them all one at a time? Thanks. Chubbles1212 06:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please note that the site for it is ballade (musical form), not ballade (music). I expanded on the page already existing (which said nothing about medieval ballades...) Maybe it should be moved to ballade (music)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chubbles1212 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for defending my user page! :) Jacek Kendysz 21:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! Always happy to help keep this a nicer place. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And from me, too. =) -- Gogo Dodo 23:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You're also welcome ... and needless to say, I'm continuing to keep my eye on that particular vandal (prob the IP and "KeakDaGreek" are the same). Antandrus (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Luna Santin blocked the IP. As for KeakDaGreek, well, see the message on my Talk page. -- Gogo Dodo 23:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I had already seen that; that's what I meant. If he vandalises again I'll block him. (He's probably blockable already as a self-admitted vandal account.) Antandrus (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

whining

Have you ever had to really intensely concentrate for 15 minutes, without any break or moment to space out? I mean seriously? This Reich piece is soooo hard because you can't just zone out when you don't have to sing, while counting to twenty, you have to be continuosly focusing on counting "1-2 1-2-3 1-2 1-2 1-2-3 1-2-3 1-2" in a seemingly completely random pattern. Argh! So hard! I feel like such an airhead soprano. (see Proverb (Reich)) Apparently "Steve" can't come to this performance because he's accepting an award somewhere. I mean, Steve? These guys are hard core, but it's pretty effing cool. They all liked my Mozart t-shirt :) Mak (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the hardest performances I've ever done, strangely enough, was not as a performer, but as a page turner for a pianist doing a fast-fast-fast minimalist piece. Keeping my place on the pages as the notes ripped by with minor variation was un-believably-hard.

Some of those minimalist, and post-minimalist, things are hard in exactly the way you say. If you lose concentration you lose it. I've played John Adams, in the violin section, and that was hard: anybody screws up and you hear it. And someone always screwed up. And these were professionals ...

Wish I could hear the performance!! (...putting on his recording of Proverb ... ) Antandrus (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

<<listening>> --the influence of Pérotin is really obvious. Nice. Antandrus (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It doesn't help that I'm holding a microphone for the first time, the keyboards are crazy (they're period instruments! the exact instruments used in the first performance! which means, of course, that by now they're completely broken). I definitely feel like the slow kid in the class, but I think I'll do fine. The vibraphone players are really good, as are the "tenors" (one of whom is actually a countertenor). The countertenor was saying that he was basically responsible for convincing Reich that countertenors could sing his music, and I'm inclined to believe him. Mak (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Period instruments!! LOL!! are they DX-7s? I used to love those because you could drop them on the parking lot and they'd just shrug it off. Seemed to make them sound better.

One of my favorite New Yorker cartoons: doctors gathered around an operating table, speaking to the (medical school) audience: "We shall perform this operation using period instruments." Antandrus (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Heck yeah they're DX-7s. Ten years of being dropped in the parking lot doesn't seem to have done good things to them, though. One of them has a broken key which was basically ciphering until a wad of paper was inserted. I think I've seen that cartoon before, it's pretty good :) At least we're not using the period tenors, because then I'd be singing with my old voice teacher (well, that might actually be good... I dunno) Mak (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The other problem with minimalist music is that if you sing a single wrong note in a 15 minute piece, everyone notices. Seriously. One. Single. Note. 15 minutes. Mak (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OMG, did you forget the G natural to A sharp? just kidding ... is it done? how did it go? :)Antandrus (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

(resets indent) No, the last rehearsal is over, the performance is tomorrow, some time between 2-6. We have to sit in full view of the audience the whole time :( You know that part? Where it changes key? after the long vibe solo? and the soprano and tenor come in together? My onset was a little out of tune (not the whole note, the onset) and everyone was completely aware. Argh. Stupid professional musicians. Mak (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know the conventional wisdom on dress rehearsals; you actually have to screw up to be hot in the concert.  :) Well, whatever. Sometimes true, sometimes not.

The similarity to Tehillim was striking (it's actually only about the second time I've listened to Proverb ... really like it though) Antandrus (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole dress rehearsal thing has to do with focus - if you mess up in the dress rehearsal, you know that you really need to focus in the performance, and if you don't mess up in the dress, you're more likely to think you can coast, and then mess up. It is a lot like Tehillim, which I love. Mak (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Getting Rid Of Redirects

I noticed that there are a few untagged redirects in Wikipedia:Dead-end_pages. Should I tag them as {redirect} or simply delete them? (And my apologies if this question was covered somewhere I didn't see.) -WarthogDemon 19:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I would think you could tag them, but maybe check to see if there's an obvious mistake first (like a misspelling). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Printers

I have to be careful not to let this become an addiction. =) I happened to be writing a short synopsis of Krummel and Sadie's work for a class, and checked those two entries, which I thought were a little paltry. So I went ahead and pasted a chunk of the paper in each entry. Now, of course, that means I have to put a note in the paper, so I don't get accused of plagiarising myself off of Wikipedia! But I can't promise I'll be updating anything systematically; every once in a while, I just get the urge to look something up, and if it's weak, I fix it. Chubbles1212 22:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You're up early

For a Sunday. Unless I have my time zones confused. I'm trying not to have a panic attack :P Mak (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Something to look at

Hi Antandrus - long time no see. Take a look at Fler and Nippel Nippler. The articles look very familiar. Possible one is fake, or perhaps both? --HappyCamper 15:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the latter is the hoax. I deleted it, and blocked the account that made the article indefinitely. Fler has been on de: Wikipedia since 2004. --HappyCamper 15:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Live-ish webcast

http://www.streamguys.com/playlist/whitney.m3u I think Proverb is next. Mak (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks again for reverting my userpage :-). DVD+ R/W 20:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome; my pleasure! Antandrus (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Trying to reach an infobox consensus here: [9]. Please can you weigh-in with your opinion?129.127.28.3 11:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Medieval music revert?

Someone just made major changes to the medieval music page, and has listed it as a revert, which doesn't appear necessary... Opinion? Chubbles1212 23:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Thanks a lot for reverting my talk page. It's always great to know that others will catch vandalism to your own page before you do. Iamheredude 23:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 03:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Gary Graffman

Hi there: I just did a moderate rewrite of the Graffman article, and it got reverted immediately. What did I do wrong? Thanks. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! P.S.: Am I allowed to ask what Antandrus means? Or is that a no-no here? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S.: I added a couple of references for the Graffman article, but am not certain I did it right. Let me know, in your copious free time. Merci! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Help and ideas needed

Hi,

Sorry you've been spammed, but I hope you'll find for a good reason. I've noticed you are active around the recent changes arena (normally having beaten me to a revert), and I'm currently looking for help with a new project. I would like to harmonise all the warnings and templates we issue, with goal to creating a standard look, format and content to the messages. Even if you use VP, VS or any of the other vandal tools out there, I still feel this is worthwhile. Please visit here for further information, and leave me a message if you're interested, or tell me to get lost ;) if you haven't the time. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias

Hey Antandrus, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Counterpoint midi files

Thanks for pointing out the errors, I've fixed them (I think). I'm discovering once again just how bad I am at reading sheet music. It's the main reason I wrote the files, I was trying to figure out how the examples sounded. Realized right as I was starting the second one that they'd make a good addition to the article.

I'm trying to pick up enough composing to turn a theme that I've got into a soundtrack for an RPG. ... And discovering just how much there is to learn.

-FunnyMan 20:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

listing by date...

First of all, for some reason this is taking waaaaaay too long. Secondly, what should I do with the lady who refused to disclose her birth year? (which I think is pretty hilarious) I'm tempted to put her with people who are most likely 20 years older than her, just to foil her evil plans. (this was Claire Liddell, by the way) Mak (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should make it "Category:I'm not telling you" Mak (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words. I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we? Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be. Again, thank you. –Luna Santin

Thanks for the good faith. :) I won't let you down. Luna Santin 19:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)