Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:57, 17 July 2007

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.

Cookies

I'm sorry, you've created so many gosh-darned high quality articles, you need more cookies than just those. Mak (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yum!! thank you! It'll take a while to digest the one on the left ... oh, wait, that's a wafer, not a doubloon. LOL... Antandrus (talk)

Fantastic work, on this as well. No, it doesn't really matter, but it shows great dedication. Truly wonderful to see. KOS | talk 03:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks!! appreciate that, a lot, actually. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

More cookies

Too long, and not enough thanks for I think the hardest-working sysop I've met! :) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  03:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! LOL, soon I'll have more cookies than Bishonen ... I think I'm going to have to get up and have some of the "real life" variety about now ... :) Antandrus (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fux and drive

The phrase (either in its full or especially its four-note version) is just far too mundane to be considered influential without external documentation. I'd say it's original research, but you know, it's just possible that some musicologist said all that (it still would be false though).

Thanks for pointing me to Geogre's talk page--I'll see if I can add a sonnet or something.

I agree about lack of Google coverage of alternative encyclopedias being a big drawback. I've been thinking of just writing whatever I want on my own website, dual licensing it (GFDL & CC) and then adding the page to both projects. If the other one takes off, then it's a boon. If not, it's still here. (Added bonus of contributing that way: attribution required; sounds selfish, but sort of nice to do it that way). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and congrats on 500 articles! Wow! msc 00:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S.: do you have a copy of Atlas's Renaissance Music? I notice you often cite Reese. I have no cookies, but sometimes Norton sends extra things my way... -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Beer Too!

Oh man that looks so good right now ... LOL ... cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I took the picture and then drank the beer! It was good...I have a preference for Moosehead which is what that was.--MONGO 05:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Usage of word terrorsim to describe the Japan attacks

Hello, I see you reverted my changes. Please let us discuss this issue so we can reach a solution. I have left a paragraph in the article Talk page. Thanks, SeiteNichtGefunden 23:21 08/07/2007.

You're attempting to apply a contemporary usage of a highly-charged and loaded term to a historical situation.

Please read about the history of the Second World War, paying close attention to the scale, scope, and intensity of the actions of both sides as it drew to a close. Both sides used every weapon they had available in that colossal death-struggle. Nothing about the actions of either side is comparable in any way to "terrorism" in the common sense in which that term is used today. I would not even use the word to describe the Blitz, the bombings of Coventry, the destruction of Rotterdam, or even the ovens at Auschwitz. It's the wrong word.

Once standard reference works on the Second World War use the word "terrorism" to describe those attacks, then we may cite it and use it; until then it is an original coinage, original research, and a violation of Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Alto flute/bass flute

If you feel the need to decompress from thinking too much about one or another nationalist tempest in a hot caffeinated beverage conveyance, you might want to weigh in on the mini-tempest brewing regarding clarifying the terminology used for alto flute vs. bass flute in the article on The Planets. You have way more oomph than I do...I mean, you even got a day named after you, after all! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my page. — thesublime514 • talk • 02:12, July 11, 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! happy to help. Antandrus (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thanks ;) -- FayssalF - 05:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem ... I think you're right about who it is, btw. Antandrus (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean this one. -- FayssalF - 05:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes: I was following. The attack on Deeceevoice was particular despicable. I suspect we haven't seen the last of her/him. All in a day's work here ... Antandrus (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

DCV's been editing less frequently lately. I don't think it got something to do w/ this case. -- FayssalF 05:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to this. It's the same user, as you know ... she uses a DSL in Houston, TX, USA. The last was a proxy in China, but it's obviously the same person. I only blocked it for 31h. She will be back on another IP or username in short order, I'd guess. Antandrus (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes just struck again. -- FayssalF - 06:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks in part to your support, I am Misplaced Pages's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Anachronism

I would have put this on Geogre's page if I weren't a wuss. Some anachronisms for you

And my suggestion for what the right fields should really be.

{{Infobox Anachronism
| Name                =
| Patrons             =
| Printers            = 
| City-state          = 
| Associated courts   = 
| Standing in society = 
| Composers           =
| Size of dowry       =
}}

What do you think people would say if I went around insisting on adding the second to every article? Mak (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I love it! Maybe add "murdered by". Antandrus (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, also perhaps "exiled to". Mak (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Great! It's too bad we can specify "voice type" in hexachords. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Discographies

Discographies...do they really serve much purpose here? The one in The Planets is driving me buggy this week. If it's supposed to be comprehensive, how can we be sure it is? We're not discographers, typically. If "selected" (as this one was for a good while), what are the criteria for the selection? Is Lennie's in just because he did it? Are we to include the one that the West Chatham Clambake Chamber Players did because it's the only one made of the version concocted by Irving Berlin? I guess I'm just thinking more & more about quality control. It seems to me if someone wants to see what recordings are around, they can go to Amazon or Gramophone or something. Is this what WP is for? How should I look at this question? Or should I just walk away? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a problem, similar to the problem encountered in compiling lists of "most significant this or that." I've added a few recordings to articles on Renaissance composers, especially those for whom there are only a very few recordings, but even that I don't do often. In the case of The Planets -- bleah. I'd say just remove it. Picking "selected" is POV by nature unless you go to the lengths seen, say, at List of important operas (the most spectacular example I know on Misplaced Pages of people attempting to assess what various authorities all thought--but is it worth the trouble for discographies? eh, no, I think). Antandrus (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

New York Yankees GA/R

New York Yankees has been nominated for a good article review. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are delisted. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

As always, thank you for your support. Long live the musicabal. :-) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thriving! You're quite welcome. I didn't get all my wishes on that election, but it looks like I got one.  :) Antandrus (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

They got me

Well...I dunno if I should be honored or what, but I actually got my user page vandalized for the first time! Some nice person put it back right away. Never ever thought it would happen to me, since I try to keep such a low profile around here. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 10:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yah, it happens pretty much to all active Wikipedians, sooner or later. It's a badge of honor. See No. 26. Those incapable of building, destroy; those incapable of collaboration, disrupt. But yet that Misplaced Pages continues to improve and grow is a massive proof that the former outnumber the latter, and that in the world there is more will for creation than destruction. Welcome to the club.  :) Antandrus (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This collection of "Wiki" wisdom is nice, very nice indeed. In fact, worthy of quoting... ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ext links on classical music

Whereas before it was unclear why you removed the link to the "Classical Ear" weblog, I now see what you intend by removing it. However, this is not linkfarming, I'm simply listing a resource that I, personally, found helpful. Also, the wiki page on External Links says: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority, are normally discouraged." The writer of Classical Ear is no doubt an authority... I happen to know him (not intimately, but i do know him) and he is a recent graduate of Cornell with a major in music, and has ample experience in the field of music critique. Therefore, please allow this link to be on the list. (Near the bottom this time) Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaybirdjustino77 (talk • contribs)

See also Special:Contributions/69.123.3.102 Mak (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you feel strongly that a link belongs on an article, and multiple people revert you, really your only recourse is to take it to the talk page, make your case, and try to achieve consensus to put it back. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

@Antandrus re Pange Lingua and the stretch to Fux and Mozart 41 - it is original research by me allright that I corresponded to several musicologists and musicians, and which I never found meaty enough myself to publish an article on it, but it has been quoted by several. Hence, I inserted the Rampe citation. It loops back to citing me, but it is a "regular" citation allright I guess. Michael Zapf 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of...

You speak of temptation, with all those cookies on your page! It's only a half day's drive for you, nothing much, right...? --Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

a breath of fresh air

just came wafting out from my computer terminal - and it was your message. Or, to re-use your analogy of the empty beer bottle - your note is like a full, ice cold beer bottle suddenly appearing on my porch on one of these 90° + days. Thanks for taking the time to contact me. I'm not really as upset, or as big of a jerk, as my posting there might suggest, I just reached one of those places where doing some silly thing felt good. I will look at the links you've presented and probably feel, if not better, at least not soooooo alone.

My area is American sculpture history, but when I wander into music it is Rock & Roll. My band of real old folks is the pathetics and although I've not yet figured out how I can get away with an article about them, there is a photo of us that somehow appeared doing a benifit for KLDK - where I'm one of the DJs. Stay in touch, 'cause I feel better already and I wasn't even feeling that bad. But better is ALWAYS better. Carptrash 18:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Block this, too

I saw this interesting name and wanted to see the contributions. Disappointed! Purely vandalism. Against Metros...why? ....I don't know. I don't know who Metros is. Since you blocked someone else who did the same thing, how about http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Dr._Kookal_Man Fineday 04:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an attention-seeking vandal. I don't remember his "name", but he harasses Metros and a couple of other people pretty regularly. I blocked the one you listed; it's just another in a long series of throwaway sockpuppets. They're just shoveling sand against the tide, and get bored and go away eventually, if you just block them and ignore them. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Already been through this

Please see the following dscussion: disagreement between moderators regarding nature of "self promotion" to which I would only add that in the case of the Compere piece I forgot to delete the "sung by the dwschorale" which I did delete from the others. Will you agree that it is OK to restore the wikimedia link but to delete the dwschorale reference please? Dwsolo 04:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)dwsolo

Greetings: yes, I do not see a problem, as long as you are licensing the contributions under GFDL, and not putting your own name on the composers' pages (it's fine to have it on the actual media page: indeed, it's a good idea to put it there.) Additionally, it's not a dispute between moderators: I see only one person objecting, and he only has four edits on the project, the first of which is a warning that you're about to be blocked. You're not. Two good editors in the music area have already weighed in, and they're both admins. I'll add a third voice if you like: you're doing good work. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A featured article candidate

Hello. Jonyungk and I want to nominate Tchaikovsky for a featured article, but I've never done it before. If you're not to busy could you do it and I'll watch you? Then I'll be able to do it myself from then on. Thank you. :) —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  04:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never done it either, LOL. That's not my favorite corner of Misplaced Pages. I think the instructions are fairly clear, and I'll help out in the assessment if you like: last time I looked at it, it was coming along nicely, and was in great shape. Antandrus (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Has it been through peer review yet? Antandrus (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, I don't know. I'll have to go look… —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  04:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No it hasn't but I don't know how to do that either :( however it looks easier than nominating for featured article so I will try it. —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  04:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, peer review has to be first. I'm just starting to look at the article. The biography section reads well, but I skimmed it. The section on the music needs a lot more detail on the actual musical style, and it also has POV issues (e.g. "undeservedly neglected"). Best to tweak it before it gets battered by peer review/FAC, which has a risk of being quite an unpleasant affair, especially if one has put a lot of work into something (it might feel like you're just getting a lot of carping criticism with very few thank-yous for your dozens of hours of volunteer time). Antandrus (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Drive"

My pleasure. I think I said similar things about the "drive" weeks ago. Grading articles without leaving a clear explanation of your assessment is a form of incivility as far as I'm concerned and who knows how many good editors it's driving away. A few biographical articles I've worked on have been "dealt with" and I've countered with appropriate action where I disagreed with the rating. Some have so far escaped. I plan to translate a French FA bio, so it will be interesting to see how that scores with the anglophones. Also, I've just noticed a page with an inflated grade (I don't think Berlioz is anywhere near deserving a "B" yet - I've been planning to fix it for some time). If they're not careful, the biography project are going to make many, many enemies with this drive. They may think the size of their membership gives them safety in numbers, but that's what Esperanza and the AMA believed and if they're not more careful eventually WPP:BIO will go the same way. Cheers. --Folantin 07:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Carl Nielsen article

Happy Bastille Day a few days late! The Nielsen aerticle has apparently been nominated for good article status. TYhis is something I know nothing about, but the Nielsen article is far from being good, I think. Am I on the right track for fixing it up? I don't have the source access that the citations would require, I just have a ton of experience with his music (thought about writing the diss on the symphonies but changed my mind), and there's a lot of guff in there, some of which I have tried to remove but some I can't without heading into original research-land. Lemme know how to proceed, if at all. (Feel free to hoist a Kronenbourg in my name, by the way! Haven't seen one in years...is it still imported to the States?) --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents (absuing Antandrus's home because it's better decorated, has a well-stocked cookie jar, etc.): Good Article status means, "does it play by all of WP's rules?" It has little to do with whether the article is good or not (some are, some aren't) -- judging factual accuracy, completeness, quality of research, is rarely a consideration. For example, on GA Talk there was a consensus to not allow anyone in a relevant Wikiproject to judge the article--so no one in WP:Composers should be allowed to weigh in. I'd say improve it if you want, but otherwise, don't worry about whether it gets good article or not. P.S. Why not add your diss to the bibliography of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra page? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Want a red link?

Ok, the librettist of Handel, Moses Mendes is red. It's a juicy red and ripe for the picking. Imagine someone that big still without an article. Oooooh, doesn't it make your fingers itch? Well, if you want him, he's yours. I've got enough in the way of little poets and philosophers to do just now. Geogre 03:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You busted me. I was hanging around reading threads (including some of yours) not wanting anyone to know I was actually editing. Good pick though; I'll look around and see what I have. Antandrus (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm, he's not mentioned in Grove. Which opera(s) did he write librettos for? Or oratorios? Mak (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding a musical entertainment by William Boyce (premiered 2 Dec 1749) with libretto by Moses Mendez, but so far I'm not turning up information on Mendez (that's the spelling in the New Grove) Antandrus (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. I have a feeling he'll go hot in DNB. He had more than one play that was acted. He also looks darned interesting. Yes, he seems Jewish, but he also seems like one of the Lisbon Jews. England got tolerant exactly when a fair number of European nations got intolerant. Geogre 12:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And some stuff on JSTOR but I can't get there from here ... need to go to the library for that one ... Antandrus (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's something good -- I wonder how reliable it is. Appears he was a friend of Swift. Antandrus (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Be careful, there. In Gulliver's Travels there is the kind Spanish captain that many, many people have wanted to Make Something of. Geogre 12:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if he was Jewish? It seems to have been a common Jewish name in England at the time. It looks like he wrote "The Chaplet" with William Boyce. Mak (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This looks, according to the review, as though the introduction would be useful if you can find it: William Boyce. The Shepherd's Lottery: A Musical Entertainment. The libretto by Moses Mendez. Introduction by Robert J. Bruce. (Music for London Entertainment 1660–1800, Series C, vol. 4) London: Stainer & Bell, 1990. Mak (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, and the ISBN 0852497709 Mak (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Also I think you might be right about his being Jewish, but it's just a guess: he's named Moses, his father's name is Solomon, the family is from Spain, though no one mentions how long the family had lived in England. Evidently they petitioned for the family name to be changed to "Head" . That database has some good stuff on him, but they claim his father's name was James, not Solomon, as given here. Interesting. I don't see a connection with Handel, yet. Antandrus (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I was hallucinating, it appears. Charles Jennens has an article. On the other hand, Moses Mendes is red, and he had plays with music by Samuel Boyce (1749 in literature is where I picked up the red). Sorry for the hopeful note. We do have some big librettists red still, esp. if we go hunting down the folks who worked with Arne, Lampe, and J. C. Smith., but I confused Boyce with Handel (yeah, I know!) and Jennens with Mendes. Geogre 12:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

He has a short article in the Jewish Encyclopedia, here. --Rbraunwa 13:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That article is taken from the 1898 DNB, and you can tell. Loads of judgments passed on it. Even still, you can tell that this fellow was a big wheel. Sure, some of that was from money, no doubt, but those are some big time productions he got there, with some significant collaborators. Needless to say, it's impossible, probably, for any of us to reassess him and get rid of the insults, as he is just another example of why every doctoral program in the English speaking world needs to insist that half their graduates in literature get trained in textual editing. Geogre 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true--I've seen lots of doctorates in the arts where the authors of theses, disseratations, papers, clearly have had no training in assessing these kinds of things critically. "Mendes" is a Portuguese spelling, so your suggestion is sensible. ¶(swiping this trick from you, so people don't break up my writing) -- Not all that long ago, Misplaced Pages had lots of articles copy-pasted from the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia. The issues there were similar, but even heavier. And we still have loads from the 1911 EB; many of the articles that retain those as their core just push me away as being more trouble than they're worth. Franz Schubert is one. But it's become so hard just to delete an article and start from scratch. Antandrus (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Moses appears in 1751 in literature, too, with two productions. The guy needs an article, alright. I remember meeting a doctoral student at Duke University who was upset at having to take Anglo-Saxon at UNC-Chapel Hill. She was working on a 14th century female poet (of course) and needed to read Cretien and Wace and Pearl Poet and Wulfstan and such, and she was really upset. Why, she asked, did she need to bother with this stuff, when she could work from translations? It beggars the imagination. Utgard Loki 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 17 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article San Rafael Wilderness, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 13:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)