User talk:Antandrus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Greetings, welcome to my talk page. Please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new section at the bottom. I usually notice messages soon. I like to keep threads all in one place, so if you left a message here I will respond to it here; if I left you a message on your talk page I likely am watching it and will respond there.

Demons watch over this page. Shiny ones. Wat Phra Kaew, Bangkok, Thailand, 2014. (Garuda, the mount of Lord Vishnu)
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, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39

Welcome[edit]

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your note at Wikipedia:New user log.

I'm sure there are plenty of things you can contribute to here. You might want to check out List of classical music composers, List of musical topics, and Wikipedia:Requested articles/music. The last one, especially, has a lot of suggestions for articles that don't exist yet, but that someone would like to see.

Here are some links you might find useful:

You should also feel free to drop me a question on my talk page. I'll answer if I'm here.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 18:23, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why did you remove my writing?[edit]

I am the author of the copy-pasted work from Moglen's wiki. Can you please stop deleting it, this is for a final assignment for his class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaa2204 (talkcontribs) 15:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Because the text is not in compliance with cc-by-sa. Look at the disclaimer at the bottom of the page [1] -- it would have to be marked as 'authored by Eben Moglen' in order to be licensed under cc-by-sa -- else it is 'All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors' which does not comply with our copyright policy. The disclaimer on the bottom of the page needs to be updated if you want to copy-paste without the 'Eben Moglen' attribution. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
As you can clearly see, this was written by a contributing author, me, not by Eben Moglen. It's not my website so I can't control the disclaimer but the work is my own, therefore I have every right to post it on the wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaa2204 (talkcontribs) 16:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Antandrus (and Jaa2204). I've left a note with further explanation at User talk:Jaa2204. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Pismire[edit]

That's my new Middle English word of the day. I imagine it's closely related to the modern "piss-ant," now that I think of it. Acroterion (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I do believe you are right. Formic acid and all. It's a fun word. From Desert Solitaire: "Don't actually care for ants. Neurotic little pismires. Compared to ants the hairy scorpion is a beast of charm, dignity and tenderness." 01:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

Piero della Francesca - Nativity - WGA17620.jpg

May you have very Happy Holidays, Antandrus...


and a New Year filled with peace, joy, and beautiful music!


Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! And the happiest of holidays to you and yours as well. Love that Piero della Francesca. Antandrus (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

L.A. event on Tuesday, January 20[edit]

Wik-Ed Women editing session (1/20, 6-10pm)

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

Please join us at an event this coming Tuesday: the third Wik-Ed Women editing session will take place on January 20 from 6pm to 10pm at the Los Angeles Contemporary Archive downtown. This series of informal get-togethers is designed to encourage Los Angeles women-in-the-arts (though all are welcome!) to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, specifically expanding content about women artists. Please RSVP here if you plan to attend.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Demons[edit]

That image you took of the gold characters in the image at top is very cool...nice job!--MONGO 01:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It was an awesome trip. Did some performing, saw some cool things, took over a thousand pictures, got away from work. My girlfriend was there for work, I was visiting her. And hey, congratulations on the decade. Antandrus (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Very nice...sounds like you had a good time. Have you posted similar images online?--MONGO 02:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Not yet -- I was just starting to look at them this weekend for possible use on Wikipedia. Trying to find things without illustrations is increasingly difficult -- heck, a lot of the articles have gigantic galleries already. Antandrus (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

CITEVAR redux[edit]

Sigh! I do wish the College of Editors would assemble and decide on a uniform citation standard for all Wikipedia articles. In the meantime, thank you for your edit and comment at Symphony. The identical situation has arisen at Aquarius (opera), with perhaps even less justification.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome ... I think the problem is with the tag itself, the generic {{Citations}} tag:
Since it specifically demands inline citations rather than just, um, "citations". As its name suggests it would. Antandrus (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Ack, it's a redirect to "no footnotes". Which is a different thing. Can o' worms. Antandrus (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I love Article of Improvement for the day. It's so great when the whole community can come together and demand a footnote that Beethoven's 9th includes a chorus. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Ha ha ha ha!!! I didn't notice that until you fixed it. I remember an argument some years ago in which a stubborn editor insisted that the key of Beethoven's Fifth needed a citation, since "C Minor" was not in the title. Antandrus (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Laugh if you must, but it was an awkward sentence to tag (my fault). The intention was not to demand proof that the symphony includes a chorus, but that there was no precedent for choirs in pieces titled "symphony". This was in conjunction with a "contradiction" tag, since the article had earlier discussed the sinfonie of such late-16th and early 17th-century composers as Gabrieli and Schütz. The problem has now been resolved by an edit from Michael Cuthbert, who probably has little idea of the edit history of the Symphony article, which has been long and at times bitter. Indeed, I am waiting with bated breath for one particular editor to discover that the sentence he fought tooth and claw to retain in the lede has just been blithely snatched away (not a moment too soon as far as I am concerned, but opinions will differ).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, Jerome -- though we sometimes differ on the amount of citation we find necessary, you certainly have good reasons for all of them, and indeed the part about calling using a chorus unprecedented needed a context to have it make sense. As far as the other edits, people can revert; I tend not to get in fights about such things. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

LA edit-a-thons on February 14, 17, and 21[edit]

Redondo Loves Wikipedia (2/14), Wik-Ed Women (2/17), and Unforgetting LA at the Getty (2/21)!
Getty Museum (3334818780).jpg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

The LA Wikipedia community has three events in mid-February -- please consider attending!

First, we have a Valentine's Day edit-a-thon appropriately named Redondo Loves Wikipedia, which will take place at the Redondo Beach Public Library from 10am to 1pm on Saturday, February 14. Join library staff, the Redondo Beach Historical Society, and others to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of Redondo Beach!

Second, we have a Wik-Ed Women editing session on Tuesday, February 17 from 6pm to 10pm at the Los Angeles Contemporary Archive downtown. This series of informal get-togethers is designed to encourage Los Angeles women-in-the-arts (though all are welcome!) to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, specifically expanding content about women artists.

Third, we have an Unforgetting LA event put on by East of Borneo in collaboration with the Getty Research Institute. Come help improve Wikipedia's coverage of LA design and architecture, and have an awesome free day at the museum -- parking will be validated for edit-a-thon participants! If you'd like to use particular books from GRI's great collection, be sure to email before 2/13 (instructions at event page).

And be sure to check out our main meetup page, because we already have three SoCal events scheduled for early March!

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

More block evasion[edit]

You blocked an IP sock of a blocked user, the same user apparently uses more IPs doing exactly the same edits [2].Jeppiz (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My spidey-sense says this isn't a new user. No complaint about the block, just immediate sockpuppeting. Antandrus (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My edits[edit]

I edited the page Antonio Vivaldi by correcting typos and adding to intro of the page. What I added was to the statement "Composed many instrumental concertos for violin and a variety of other instruments" I added "Composed over Five hundred instrumental concertos" You then messaged me saying that you removed my edits and saying that they appeared to be vandalism. Why do you consider this as vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Bononcini (talkcontribs) 19:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary for your last edit was "I added capitalization and punctuation mistakes" -- which you did. You added mistakes. Your previous edits are equally problematic: "Fixed a typo" did no such thing, but added the WP:PEACOCK words and opinion "the Greatest Italian Baroque composer and ..." And then there are bunch more. What are you doing? Antandrus (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I corrected typos and my comments as "Greatest Italian baroque composer" are opinions as are all the comments on his music, the page says "one of the greatest baroque composers"you didn't flag whoever that was for adding opinions. Neither did you flag the person who wrote "he is recognized as one of the greatest Baroque composers" thats an opinion as well what is wrong with adding such opinions? I just added facts and corrected typos for example the page said "employed from 1703 to 1715 and from 1723 to 1740" to which I added "employed from 1703 to 1715 and from 1723 to 1740 a total of forty years". Is that vandalism? Did I put in incorrect dates? No. Did I delete previous work? No. Did I add any incorrect statements? No. Did I delete anything? No. The words I added were just descriptions like "He is known mainly for composing many instrumental concertos" I added "He is known mainly for composing over five hundred instrumental concertos" which is more descriptive and is a fact and I believe this was better than the original. I would not consider anything I added as vandalism. What are YOU doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Bononcini (talkcontribs) 23:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop being obtuse. Why did you deliberately add mistakes with the edit summary of "I added capitalization and punctuation mistakes". Answer my question. Antandrus (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WHAT spelling mistakes did I add? If I wrote "I added capitalization and punctuation misteaks." It was an accident but I did not add any spelling misteaks to the page so WHY did you send me a warning about vandalization. Or was it just because I gave an incorrect description of my edits? That hardly constitutes vandalization. If I wanted to vandalize I would have done it by now, or don't you think so. I have vandalized nothing you have no basis for deleting my edits and I use my previous rebuttles as my arguments. Also capitalizing the word "Greatest" as I did was not a spelling error as in this instance it was used as a title, so it's not a spelling error. I added no spelling or punctuation mistakes, so what did I vandalize? Did delete dates? No. Add incorrect dates? No. Did I erase anything? No. What did I do which constitiutes vandalizm. The most I did if anything that would be debatable is incorrectly describe my edits but other than that I ask again, what did I vandalize? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Bononcini (talkcontribs) 07:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of differences of opinion and/or misunderstandings at Wikipedia. I replaced the message with a welcome in the hope that there will no longer be a need to discuss the past. You might check that other message on your talk page about WP:SIGN. Also, please make sure your edit summaries match the edits. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ;D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Bononcini (talkcontribs) 18:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)