Archive of my talk page, 27 May 2007 to 10 July 2007. Please do not edit this page -- it is unlikely that I will see your edit. Go here instead.

Contents of this page include nice comments, thanks, requests, gratitude, requests, information, nice stuff, awards, enormous nationalist rants, ... all in a day's work. Or a more than a month's, in this case.

That's exactly the right phrase. I'm rather tempted to right an essay of my own along the same lines, detailing just how evil bureaucracy is. Put a man inside a bureaucracy and you strip away his conscience and his soul. Someone I know wrote a top-class book about the The Holocaust. One of the points he made was that the efficient German bureaucracy allowed men to feel they were doing excellently at their jobs, just not think about the jobs in question. He goes into it in better detail that that, but that's his general point. Anyway, I think you've written one of the best explanations of IAR I've seen thus far. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 09:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Dear Antandrus, you caught me in the act of dropping you a line! :) I'm so happy that you liked the modest gift, sweetie - it took the wikifairy 12 days to come up with it, but I hope it was worth the wait ;) Just a tiny thing: please check a few missing links in the text, particularly one or two at "Contributions" and "Administrator", since I believe they were lost in the copy/paste process. I'd do it for you now, but I've been up most of the night, and I desperately need a little rest; or if you prefer, I'll do it for you in a few hours, so just let me know if you want me to fix it. Again, thanks so much for the beautiful words and the lovely flower! :) Have a beautiful day! Love, Phaedriel - 15:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Even though I have no artistic talent whatsoever, the new userpage looks great. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)( 会話) 03:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

It looks great! I was just going to drop a line about the "Administrator" link. Phaedriel, you do great work! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes: thanks again, Sharon, not only do I love it myself, other people also think it's beautiful. I think I'm especially fond of the pastel color bands under "subpages".  :) Antandrus (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, Antandrus. I posted some of Tchaikovsky's views on other composers here, where I also referenced Fisk's extension of Morgenstern's Anthology as my source. Now this is something I've been thinking about recently, and I would like your advice on whether and how it would be possible to include this kind of information in the articles.

Pro: It's obviously fascinating information and could flesh out some of the articles.

Con: My source is but an anthology of excerpts, some of them a bit longer, some quite short, probably omitting a lot of context. The book mainly presents quotes from primary sources or translations thereof, with hardly any secondary comment by the editors. Also, there's Wikiquote.

Any thoughts on this? --- Sluzzelin talk 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Greetings! I think you have correctly identified both the pros and cons.

In the case of composers who were noted for having strong views on their competitors -- like Tchaikovsky -- I think the material is good and can be included. (There's probably also some juicy bits from Mozart's letters, I'd guess.) Other composers who were noted as writers and critics, from Schumann to Ned Rorem, probably can have their biographies enhanced with this information as well. Does the book have an introduction that could be used for cites on context? In general, I think you can probably use it in some way. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the swift reply. Unfortunately, the text is primarily drawn from primary sources and offers little comment or context. There's a preface on the merits of composers writing about music (reminding me of Marcel Reich-Ranicki's quip that most authors don't know more about literature than birds know about ornithology) and an editor's note on how Fisk changed and updated the old Morgenstern anthology. And every composer has a very brief introductory comment (usually less than ten lines, even in Schumann, Wagner or Varèse's eloquent cases). So, yeah, I guess I'll need something to back this up with. Thanks again, though. --- Sluzzelin talk 00:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Antandrus - that's an impressive userpage you've got there. Anyway - I was hoping you could aid me with your expertise. I've been working hard (when I have the time) on the Tōru Takemitsu page. I'm not sure he's a composer you're familiar with, but if you could have a look, make any changes you think are necessary etc. I would be really grateful. He's one of my favourite composers, but it's pretty disheartening when you're pretty much the only person working on an article. Hopefully your interest/knowledge of contemporary composition will come in use here. Many thanks Matt.kaner 23:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

As you could see. The Ghost of George Washington assumes Bad Faith. Is there a place where I can report him? Angry Sun 01:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I took care of it for you--it was a vandalism-only account, so I blocked it. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank You. Angry Sun 01:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks Antandrus (talk) for the revert. • ShoesssS ^Talk 17:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello. I was referred to you by Angry Sun.

TTN claims that the guidelines set by the WP:FICT do not mean that all minor characters of a particular franchise should be added to a list of that franchise's enemies, and instead claims that only semi-minor ones should be added.

The WP:FICT says that nothing is too minor. In fact it mentions nothing of "too minor", and only gives two categories: "Major" and "Minor". According to the rules, "Minor" characters should ALL be added to a list, and there is no mention of any characters being "too minor", contrary to TTN's belief (which has led to the mass editing of some articles).

I think the articles should be reverted. General Banzai 03:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Greetings. I've looked at the talk page where you are having the dispute, but I'm unfamiliar with the details. Probably the most useful advice I can give is to make sure you follow the verifiability rule, since other guidelines such as WP:FICT are derived from the sitewide principles of verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and so forth. Are the minor characters verifiable by a reliable, published source? Would putting in details about them be original research, and can you write about those details, for example, without playing the game? There is a quote from Jimbo somewhere that "our standard is verifiability, not truth."

This stuff isn't cut in stone: there are differences of opinion, and sometimes it's just best to respect that, and try to achieve consensus, remaining as calm and civil and reasonable as possible. Another thing you can do is seek advice at one of the Wikiprojects dealing with video games; probably Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nintendo is the closest fit, but this is way outside of my area of expertise. Good luck, Antandrus (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks anyway. Off to that project. Angry Sun 03:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello old friend. Since someone has had fun and games with my old user page, and my request to have it deleted again has been denied, would you be kind enough to convert it into a #redirect to my talk page? - or at least do something to remove the red-linked "Archive" link top right so people stumbling upon it will credit me with a modicum of competence? Protecting it was probably a good idea, though. Thanks. Very best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 13:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Greetings! Yes, I've done it for you. Miss you here; hope all is well with you, and best wishes always! Antandrus (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Baysidelongstories.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bayside sirens.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Answered on your talk page. There were many hundreds of these, and in no case am I the original uploader. I don't do "fair use", ever. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Antandrus, your block summary indicates a 15 minute block, but the user's talk page shows an indef block. Wrong template? Caknuck 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oops!!! I was too fast on the pull-down-list of block times. Meant to be indefinite. Thanks for letting me know--otherwise I wouldn't have ever noticed. I fixed it now. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello! What's your view of my question regarding keys of Shostakovich's 14th symphony & 2nd cello concerto? -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 11:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Cityofevil.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I've blocked the bot until this gets fixed. Can't go wandering round giving warnings to completely the wrong people. Moreschi ^Talk 18:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the fix - I had intended to go back and fix that :) One problem, I'm having trouble figuring out with any degree of certainty whether the original chanson Adieu mes amours was anonymous or was perhaps by Jean Mouton, or was certainly by Mouton. Any insight? Also, did you get my reply to your e-mail? Cheers, Mak (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I believe it is anonymous. See Fallows on p. 575 of the Josquin Companion (ed. Sherr); Louise Litterick doesn't mention it in her writeup of the Josquin chanson (p. 355-6) (which seems universally to be considered genuine Josquin). Fallows implies that Mouton wrote his setting from a monophonic, anonymous original.

Yes, thank you for the e-mail!! The particular issue I brought up I've been avoiding, though I have to admit it's made me feel like not writing. Bleah. But I'll persevere. I'm still chipping away at Pierre de La Rue: I wish there was at least one other detailed overview besides Meconi's, since I dislike writing extended articles where the sources are all by the same writer. Glad to have you back! Antandrus (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Could you do something about it?

His username is Marioman12. You can find out what he said in my Talk Page History. Angry Sun 01:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

If someone leaves a personal attack for you, you can warn him yourself. Here's a good compilation of warning templates: Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. Look at the section on personal attacks--they have names like {{uw-npa1}}. Caution: never use a template on an established editor, only a complete newbie: try to write a calm, civil, kind message to an established editor in your own words. If you are too angry to do it, wait a while, or do what you did--just remove it from your talk page.

If a person persistently attacks you, you can report it to WP:AIV, one of the noticeboards, or an individual admin--violations of the no personal attack policy can be addressed by blocking. In my experience, it's best just to remove attacks, and respond calmly and reasonably.

By the way, there is a thread on this already here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Angry_Sun. I suggest answering him there--calmly. Editing on Wikipedia can get hot, and all of us experience it: you just have to stay cool. Cheers!  :) Antandrus (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello again, Antandrus. I reverted another homosynchrono entry at counterpoint. At the same time, I reverted this diff. Txwu has asked me how to present references (see my talk page) and I tried to give him/her some advice, but your thoughts and experience would be much appreciated here, as I am interested in seeing non-Western perspectives on Western themes being included in articles. Thanks. --- Sluzzelin talk 10:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

FYI, the IP currently editing spam into Mastercard is probably a sock for User:Paynet, who's a wannabe spammer. I'm giving up for the evening; thought I'd pass it along. Rmasbury 03:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Answered on your talk; I'll take care of it. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

This article has been "in need of an attention from an expert" for nearly a year. It is going nowhere and has no significant content. In my opinion it should be just directed to North Pole and South Pole where all the subject matter resides. I have tried to make that change but you (along with others, human and inhuman) keep reverting. I'm not sure if this is a considered revert, or a dumb one where you are just hitting a button without thinking. All my requests for explanation have been ignored. Please take a look. If you disagree with my change then that's fair enough, but it would be courteous to explain why you are reverting. If you agree then please go ahead and implement it. Thanks. Matt 01:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC).

No, Matt, actually I did look to see what you were doing. The article contains a definition of the concept "geographical pole" which is a general concept distinct from, say, "north pole." The definition does look it can be improved, for example by specifying that the poles are the endpoints of the axis around which the body spins (or the points of intersection of the axis with the surface--however you like). I don't see what's wrong with leaving it as a short article with links to north and south poles. You may wish to leave a note on the talk page if you have concerns, rather than reverting. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

ME reverting? That's good... it was MY edits that were repeatedly reverted without any note or explanation! If you looked, why did you not at least say "I think it's OK as is, discuss on talk page" or something? Anyways, the "expert" technical information requested on the talk page is covered at North Pole and South Pole. The issue of "Geographic" Poles on other planets is also covered at North Pole. There is no point rehashing all this again at Geographic pole. If Geographic pole were to be turned into a proper article (rather than a very barely enhanced dictionary definition) then it would only repeat what's already at North Pole and South Pole. What's the point of that? Better to just turn it into basically a redirect page IMO, though perhaps my original wording was a little too sparse. Matt 01:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it was you reverting. Five times I count. Please see the WP:3RR. The last time, the time I noticed you, since I was watching recent changes, you used an edit summary of, and I quote, "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". If you wish the article to be a redirect page, then say so on the talk page, and explain why: but I still think that the general concept of "geographical pole" is the correct place to define it as a general concept--since "north" or "south" pole is a subset of geographical pole. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I fancy that you are deliberately misunderstanding me. I made the edit. It was reverted. I made the edit again. It was reverted again. Etc. Who is doing the reverting? In any case, normal revert rules cannot reasonably apply when an edit is misidentified as vandalism by a bot, and then the bot's actions are instantly repeated by other accounts that fail to give any explanation of their actions and appear not to be applying any conscious thought processes. However, moving on, I agree with you that the definition as a "general concept" should remain, but I feel it should be made clear that all the significant content is already available at North Pole and South Pole, and the "expert" tag removed so that it is clear to others that they need not start writing an article from (almost) scratch. I will probably do this some time, but not right now. Thanks for the welcome elsewhere btw, but I have actually been Wikipediaing for several years... Matt 02:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the vandalism cleanup/block! Cquan ^{( after the beep...)} 01:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! I like this to be a nice place; best to show those kind the door, politely, firmly, and decisively. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I am gonna start vandalizing now. just fyi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.108.192.178 ( talk • contribs).

I see. Answered on your talk page. Antandrus (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thankyou for the little cleanup you did on my talk page Crabman123 10:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome... that was a troll we blocked under several different IPs. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello again, dear old friend. After fewer than 100 mainspace edits as a bold but "clueless" newbie I have reluctantly confirmed my perception of a serious decrease in the quality of interpersonal interactions on the Wiki, and dismissed any idea that it was an illusion caused by my being an admin taking potentially unpopular decisions. I assure you that my decision to start contributing again under another name was not an experiment, but genuine. But I conclude that either I have become hypersensitive, or everything has changed on Wikipedia since I wrote on my old talk page, "I try to be civil, and have mostly met civility in return". If my experience is indicative, then the Wiki must be entering a new phase where it is now damaging itself by allowing potentially good new contributors to be driven away left, right and centre. -- Ferstel 14:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes that was me. -- RobertG ♬ talk 14:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Confirm it was me. -- Ferstel 14:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Whoa, greetings! missed you! What the heck happened? I'm at work right now and only have a couple minutes, but you bring up a large issue that deserves addressing in detail. Yes, there has been a general decline in the level of civility project-wide; I'm not sure what to do about it, and certainly hope I'm not part of the problem (but confess I'm getting increasingly irritated by collisions with self-promoters, spammers, and indignant amateurs who are *sure* they are right). It's a very serious problem with Wikipedia, paralleling the transformation of a town into a city, with the associated decline of neighborliness, friendliness and altruism. I'm not sure it's fixable, but does need to be studied. Anyway, more after I'm home from work ... Antandrus (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

No, Antandrus, you are certainly not part of the problem. I was sort of hoping you might be part of the beginnings of a solution? No ideas immediately spring to my mind, and I know I'm probably a bit out of touch now (and perhaps somewhat grumpy at the moment) but let me know if I can help… -- Ferstel 15:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? -- Barberio 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I would like you to check something for me. Everytime I try to "protect" the Victor Pellot article from continous vandalism, it appears as "unprotected". It seems as if I'm having some problems with the buttons. Anyway, that page needs a temp-protection (a least 7 days) to discourage the sockpuppet vandal and I was wondering if you would do it for me. Thanks Tony the Marine 17:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Thank you my friend. Tony the Marine 17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I just wanted to say thanks for helping me clean up my userpage. So, thanks! -- Bongwarrior 05:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! I like Wikipedia to be a friendly place, and swatting userpage vandals is essential towards that end. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

We're having some serious problems here, here and to a much smaller extent, here. Can you try and help please? —  $PЯING rαgђ  20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for sorting out the link from Josquin - it was past my bedtime, I was feeling a bit pissy and I couldn't face the fiddle. My recollection also is that there is a 3-part instrumental verion attributed to Josquin (at least that's what my Munrow 'Art of the Netherlands' disk thinks...) and I've noted that in the FD stub but not in the Josquin article. (Hasn't the Josquin article come on well - well done everyone!)

Amongst the tunes someone added early on to the cantus firmus article, that leaves only ' fors seulement' as a red link,... I found the following on the web

Fors seulement latente que le meure,

En mon las cueur, nul espoir ne dmeure,

Car mon las cueur si fort me tourmente

Qui n'est douleur que par vous je ne sente,

Pourceque suis de vous perdre bien seure.

but with notes suggesting serious variations from this text exist, and with no English translation. Can you point me to anything?? (Or kick a stub off)? Bob aka Linuxlad 20:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Bob! Thank you for starting fors seulement; we've needed that. All of those tunes on which numerous masses are based need articles. On "fortuna desperata" I remember that someone attributed it to Brumel, but can't remember who. If memory serves me right it's anonymous in 29 out of 30 sources and the 30th (from Spain?) has "Busnoys"-- but for some reason that is considered to be fairly solid. I'll have to look it up... Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the encouragement - I've taken the liberty of now using the first two lines from the translation in the Black thesis I quoted, since they seem to fit the French text above also, and give a feel for its melancholy tone (golly, I do pick 'em :-)) Bob aka Linuxlad 20:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

He's a Vandal and he doesn't deserve a warning... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/200.232.230.184 Angry Sun 18:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, Antandrus/Archive23, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RFA, which passed 58/0/0! I will try very hard to live up to your expectations – please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again! Krakatoa Katie 19:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or drivers such as Paris Hilton.

8-O

I am so jealous. —  $PЯING rαgђ  20:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Gotta get away from Wikipedia ... LOL. I'll have lots more to write about when I'm back.  :) Antandrus (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Forget the away from Wikipedia part—I just envy you hearing all that music. :P —  $PЯING rαgђ  20:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm looking forward to hearing the Concord Sonata live ... that's a handful. I think the best one I went to was ? four years ago--Pierre Boulez was music director, and they did the Mahler 9th on the closing concert. It was, just, just, incredible. Antandrus (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Pierre Boulez? Wow. Too bad he conducts with an invisible baton. :P Tell me what you heard when you get back OK? —  $PЯING rαgђ  20:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Welcome back, I hope you found the festivities enjoyable? KOS | talk 11:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Watch out vandals, Antandrus is back! reply

Thanks! It was great ... I loved every minute. Five concerts jammed into three days. Nice userpage makeover, by the way: Sharon's incredible at that! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Indeed she is very good at, I had to award her a graphics designer barnstar for it. KOS | talk 19:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

So what did you hear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Springeragh ( talk • contribs)

Yeah, it was incredible ... here's the whole show: [1] -- standouts were the Ives Concord Sonata performance, each movement of which was prefaced by a reading from Essays Before a Sonata, the closing Ravel Concerto in G, and the Sunday morning Nexus concert, and Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde. It's just wonderful to go to a concert series specializing in contemporary music where the performance standards are first-rate. Pierre-Laurent Aimard is one fine musician. On the closing concert he played three piano concertos (someone else played a fourth) -- typically interesting Ojai programming. Antandrus (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello there! I can't believe it, but I found a music topic that does not have an article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_%28music%29) so I have created one. Is there a better stub category to use than the one I picked? I couldn't find another that made any sense. And obviously it's a very half-baked first stab, which I will try to flesh out when I can...though as you know the topic is so amorphous that one could say almost anything about it (as in fact they did back in the day).

I asked you a couple of other questions a while back but do not remember seeing any answers go by...did I miss them? One concerned Latin grammar and I forget the other one.

Ciao! -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Good catch! We do need something on the topic. Maybe Category:Music criticism for a start? There are probably others as well -- can you think of other terms more-or-less like it that might have categories? I just went to serialism to see what categories it was in, and to my horror, it is in none.

As of other messages, I'll look through the recent archives... I sometimes miss messages if there are multiples in a day, or forget to reply if I'm busy. Antandrus (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Ah, I see: I found a couple messages in late April. Yes, you had asked me about revert wars on a couple articles that involved infoboxes. There is some difference of opinion about whether or not a consensus exists whether or not to include them--the consensus is clear, for example at the composers' Wikiproject, that we do not want them, and the "difference of opinion" is mostly that of a single editor, who believes that he can prevent the consensus of editors actually knowledgeable in a topic, if he bangs on the table long and loud enough. I think using the infobox designed for popular musicians makes us look amateurish and I completely oppose it. "Genre, classical music", says the infobox on Shostakovich, as I write. We're an encyclopedia, not a CD shop. Sigh... Antandrus (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Antandrus, I appreciate your comment very much. The Lord of the Flies remark occurred to me spontaneously (one of my tormentors is only 13) and perhaps a bit over the top. In fact, my plan is to ignore these boxes henceforth and happily go on editing Harpsichord and Haydn. Yours very truly, Opus33 23:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your note. The positive feedback made my day :)

I can handle being on the receiving end of a "snap" once in a while, especially if there is opportunity to "clear the air" afterwards. And, having followed discussions in various locations, I believe I understand your being frustrated and/or irritated.

I have been thoroughly enjoying doing the work on the Cavalieri article; it is more rewarding (and has less potential for conflict :) than doing a WPBio assessment!

Although it does seem like the right thing for me to do, having been a member of the project for a while (months before the assessment drives ever started), to attempt to make a "conscientious assessment" on those bio articles that I come across that do not have one yet, where I feel I have enough knowledge of the subject area to know how much material might be available on the person.

One take on the whole thing - Wikipedia is a rather chaotic place, with people going in all sorts of different directions, often at cross-purposes, stepping on one another's toes; the "rules" are rather nebulous; one sometimes wishes that we'd see some people who are wise, and just, "in charge" who'd set things to rights, but that's not really how it works; things are subject to change faster than one can keep up with them, and yet the challenge is to contribute positively to the encyclopedia in the midst of all this. And in return for the opportunity to be part of it, I have to accept it for what it is.

Well, enough rambling, good day to you! Cheers, Lini 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Lini -- you have a most wise and sensible perspective; it's refreshing and quite nice.

As the project has matured, our gaps in coverage have been progressively filled, to the point where it is difficult for non-experts to add large slabs of good content to articles on traditional encyclopedic subjects. Yet we have more and more new editors, people with energy and enthusiasm and -- youth. Directing all this energy into useful enterprises is one of the most serious challenges we face at the moment, and I'm not sure how to solve it. These people are drawn to things like "drives" and "contests" -- it's more fun and sexy than fixing typos, disambigs, redirects -- and of course the making of widgets, including infoboxes, templates, userboxes, and so forth, is also one of the most common foci of all this energy. And vandalism reverting, which always needs to be done!

Sometimes these people collide with those that I perceive to be our core group of editors, those who actually build the encyclopedia, and the conflicts can be quite damaging for the project. I've seen, again and again, expert editors leave in frustration. Managing these individual conflicts, and acquiring a clear understanding of the forces underlying the transformation of Wikipedia from a frontier town to a big impersonal city, are what we need to do. And we have to do it without "leaders" in the traditional sense. It's quite an unusual undertaking, in intellectual history, and I'm still impressed at how well it all works: we have, after all, already built the largest encyclopedia in the history of the human race. Best wishes always, Antandrus (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply

ok new message.

don't erase my comments. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.141.78.120 ( talk • contribs).

There doesn't seem to be a category for collecting up all these little chanson like Fortuna Desperata, Mille Regretz and similar 'dismal ditties' - 'renaissance tunes used as a chanson basis by several authors and as cantus fermi (?) for mass settings' sounds a bit overlong

Any ideas? Bob aka Linuxlad 09:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hmm ... Category:Renaissance chansons? Possibly Category:Chansons may be sufficient, but I think the word has some contemporary and more general meanings. Antandrus (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

But the trouble with that is that there'd be lots? Needs to be a test for significance I suggest. But I'd go for Renaissance Chansons in the interim... Bob aka Linuxlad 07:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Antandrus, for your good wishes on this great literary day! "Hoping you're well and not in hell". Much love from Penelope, from Nora and, of course, from Clio the Muse 04:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC) reply

to amaze me with your revision speed at times. Beat me three times in a row and then beat me to the block. A barnstar would be redundant, but nonetheless great work my friend, Wikipedia is all the better for you. KOS | talk 00:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks!! appreciate that. Yeah, a lazy Saturday watching RC with my laptop while dinner is cooking ... :) Antandrus (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thats your secret then eh? Revert while dinner is cooking :P. I'd have replied sooner but I was just cleaning up a nasty bit of page move vandalism, never ends. Cheers, KOS | talk 00:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yah, I got up to go into the kitchen and that's when User:Light current started moving pages. (Yep, that's who it is.) Thanks for fixing it! Antandrus (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Indeed it was, based on the pages attacked and his block history. He made an appearance on AN/I today as an IP talking about how he wants to be unblocked. I know you shouldn't insult the vandals, but how foolish of him. KOS | talk 00:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi! You have endorsed one of the candidates in the current board elections. However, you have not provided a link from your local project (this one) to your user page on Meta, so we have no way of confirming that you are the same person. Please provide a link to Meta from your user page or user talk page to Meta, then reinstate your endorsement, which I struck and indented. If you like to have your user page in a certain way, you can do it in a diff, like http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User%3AJon_Harald_S%C3%B8by&diff=138817866&oldid=136122013 this], but then you have to provide the link to the diff for us. Thank you for your cooperation! Jon Harald Søby 19:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Jon Harald Søby 21:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		You are diligent and I appreciate your hard work around this place! MONGO 04:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, MONGO: appreciate it. Trolls come, trolls go, but some of us keep plugging along. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

124.179.201.115

Here is a new LINKSPAM domain name he is using:

ERICAPACKER.COM

Yale s 02:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I was hoping to get at least the words for this from www.cpdl.org, but it appears to have been down for several days - anyone know the reason? Or another source? Bob aka Linuxlad 08:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for all that you have done! How much love resides therein! All one's gifts are never gone: Not seen, perhaps, but stored within. Kindness is an inner sun. Your unspent heart a message sends Of grace and sacrifice hard-won Upon which happiness depends! Thank you so much, dear Antandrus! :) Love, Phaedriel 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply

i think Nancontari told me, you did not have to as well.-- Lollypoplollypopohlollylollylolly 05:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Antandrus. You are off to such a great start on the article George de La Hèle that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page would help bring publicity to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Why can't you nominate the article? I'm confused. Mak (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Anyone can nominate an article for DYK, Antandrus doesn't have to himself just because he wrote it. You can. Moreschi ^Talk 08:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm taking you up on your offer of help tendered on your user page. (We've met, you'll probably remember, on several articles here, music and other stuff.)

I'm dealing with a rather vexatious editor who I suspect is using sockpuppets to create a false front of "consensus" (god, how I'm starting to hate that word!). (The current vex-er is User:Cholga.) I've filed a checkuser request, which I think has been accepted (not sure, and not sure how to tell what exactly its status is), but so far it's just sitting there. Any way you can expedite this, or do the checkuser yourself? (Don't know if you have those magical powers or not.) Anyhow, it would be much appreciated. + ILike2BeAnonymous 04:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't understand why your checkuser request isn't showing up on the main checkuser page. No one will ever see it if it isn't. Since it's not getting attention, you may want to nudge one of these people; it looks like they are supposed to do this part. I don't have checkuser (though there have been times I've wanted it!) and understandably those who do are sometimes hesitant to wade into that cesspool.

Looking at the actual content dispute, your edit is clear, sourced, and uses proper English. Try leaving a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject California or one of its subprojects for help. Good luck ... vexatious editors are one of the perennial plagues here. Antandrus (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my userpage! ... discospinster _talk 00:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Quite welcome, as always! keep up the good work, Antandrus (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks from me too! :-) Will (aka Wimt) 00:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

My pleasure! Antandrus (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage and blocking this guy.-- P4k 02:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome--one less troll tonight. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Antandrus has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Antandrus's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Antandrus! Love, Phaedriel 02:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Totally. Completely support and endorse. ;) —  $PЯING rαgђ  03:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Well that's certainly a nice surprise! Why thank you!  :) Antandrus (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Happy Antandrus's day! :) Hope you enjoy the rest of it! Riana (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks from me also for all your hard and underappreciated work.-- MONGO 06:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

My sweet, dear Antandrus, thank you so much your kind words, and seeing my humble gift giving you a smile makes me happier than I can say with words. But trust me, and all our friends here, when I say, you deserve this and so much more. You're one of the most dedicated and hard working editors our project can boast of having, and on a personal note, you're among the kindest, friendliest and greatest persons I've been blessed to meet. Enjoy this, your well deserved Day, and be happy today! :) Love, Phaedriel - 12:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Nice; happy day Antandrus! :) Acalamari 16:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Happy day Antandrus! And thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage! :D ♠ TomasBat 19:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome; happy to help. And I really appreciate any effort people make to create a more pleasant atmosphere on Wikipedia (Sharon--you're an example to us all...) Antandrus (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• I agree; helps make Wikipedia a greater place to edit. :) Acalamari 20:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Have a great Antandrus Day! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I can't believe I missed Antandrus Day, and on Lena Horne's 90th birthday celebration, no less. Well, happy belated day, Antandrus and Lena. --- Sluzzelin talk 05:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Indeed, indeed, glad the day finally came mate, (ain't that right Sharon :P) hope you enjoyed the day fine sir, you deserve 10 more. KOS | talk 06:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

And probably a final voice to say I hope it was a day full of delights. Nobody I know of around here deserved (& deserves) it more than you do. My excuse for missing it revolves around the fact that two days before, I had put my family on a plane to England for a three-week jaunt while I had to stay put and go to the office. Not a happy-making time. (Also, your day was also my son's fifteenth birthday; also, I'd just gotten the word that I was offered a new job several hundred miles away and we'll be moving...it's been quite a time here) But I sincerely hope you are/were happy about all the hoopla! Ciao! -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 12:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hehe, thanks, and all due praise to Kingsley Amis for coming up with the distinction. No problem with the Corteccia. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 10:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I just sent you an e-mail which might be eaten by your spam filter because it has an attachment. Cheers, Mak (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Erm, I actually sent it now :) (oops) Mak (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Very nice!! listening now ... Antandrus (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Sweet. There are issues, but not with you (I think you know what I mean). Enjoyed that! Antandrus (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks :) Yes, I tried to give the cellist a little "feedback" but she was having none of it. (ah, sometimes being a young soprano is such a joy) Mak (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey again Antandrus. I've put the Takemitsu article up for peer review. It's not done but I think it deserves at least a GA rating. Would you be able to do review? Would be v. grateful! Cheers! Matt.kaner 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll definitely take a look. I've been watching it transform as you've worked on it, and I think it's close to FA quality already; nice work! Antandrus (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for taking the time to comment at the Assessment drive, and I can understand your frustrations, but I can assure the assessments are done in good faith. Any editor is capable of altering the assessment of the article (except arbitrarily raising to GA or FA). As you said, you wish editors were at least knowledgeable of the topic - it may in fact be better that they are not since any education they receive on the subject will come purely from the article they are assessing. Personally, I try my best to stick to the guidelines of the WPBiography project when assessing an article (in terms of its content and how much I walk away learning from it). Again, I do understand your consternation and hopefully you will become involved with the project so we can perhaps better fine tune it. -- Ozgod 02:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

How can an assessment be meaningful unless the assessor knows whether or not the article presents all that can be realistically written or not? This requires knowledge of 1) the subject, and 2) sources on the subject. I've seen hundreds of "start class" assessments on articles that have to remain short, unless we start permitting original research.

How can anyone assess quality on anything if they are ignorant of the topic? An article could be all that is known; it could be a hoax; it could be a few paragraphs about an important topic that could be expanded. Do I really need to explain further why people ignorant of a topic should not be assessing articles on that topic? We're building an encyclopedia here. People are treating this like it's a big MMORPG. Regards, Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict)The question is not whether the assessments are being done in good faith or not - Antandrus is the best at persistently assuming good faith of anyone I've met on Wikipedia, the question is whether they are useful and not harmful. Are they done in good sense? If an editor has no knowledge of an entire subject area, they will not know how much is known about a person, or even where to look to see how many sources there are on a person. Antandrus writes a lot on sometimes rather obscure composers. If you do not learn all you wish to know on a composer from one of Antandrus' articles, it is quite likely that the crucial bits of information are unknown to the doctoral student who wrote his dissertation on the composer, and thus to every other modern scholar. Unless you wish to fly Antandrus to Europe to do original research, much of the time his articles will contain all you're going to find on a subject. That's the issue. If someone has gone to the trouble to dig up all the information on a given subject, it is pointless to unhelpful to harmful, as well as downright insulting to have some kid drive by and label it as "stub class" or "start class". What is the point of having the article assessed if the assessor has no clue where an article is compared to what is available on the subject? What good does it do the encyclopedia to say "this article needs a lot more stuff" when, if someone else looks for stuff, they won't find anything additional? It seems like a total waste of time and energy. I mean, are you aware of what information you're likely to find on a 14th century European composer, to evaluate how complete an article is? Should you have an exact date of birth? Country of origin? Wife's name? Mak (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I cannot speak for others, but I view my time here on Wikipedia as that of an educational experience; especially with the Assessment drive. I am giving myself the chance to expose myself to a broad range of topics that I most likely would not have had the chance to encounter otherwise. Again, I personally feel it is best for the assessor to be ignorant of the topic, because if they are assessing an article with outside knowledge of the subject that is not contained within the article, than they are giving the article a false assessment in terms of what has been written. Example, if the article states that the subject did X Y Z, but I am familiar with the article and know that the subject not only did X Y Z, but A B C as well - yet that information is missing from the article, I could assess it as B class, even that chunk of information is woefully missing.

Again, I look for basic things when assessing biography - how much of the subject is covered - is it just their life? Their work? Their achievements? Is it fair for the creator of the article to assess their own work? Ignorance brings with it objectivity which is key in assessment. The more I do not know about the subject the more truthful an assessment I am able to give to the article. The assessment isn't about the subject itself, but about the quality of the article itself and the information contained therein. -- Ozgod 02:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

It is possible to assess some things while ignorant of a topic area. Writing clarity; use of citations; references; style; layout; probably a few other things. Content is not one of those things. Gilles Binchois is start class; easily 10,000 words could be written about him. A specialist, or someone with an active interest in Renaissance music, knows this. Jehan Fresneau contains just about all that can be written about him without using unreliable sources, or doing original research. (OK, there's one 1966 article by F. Lesure that might contain some useful tidbits; I can check next time I'm in a good research library.) There's no way anyone can know this without some knowledge of the topic area.

I would appreciate the assessments if they made no claims about assessing content, but studied style, writing, citations, and so forth: that would be useful. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Assessments are always a sticky issue - I always try to refer here as my guidelines. -- Ozgod 02:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

That's precisely the page that I find so infuriating. From "start class" -- "Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article usually isn't developed enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built." -- This completely invalidates the "start class" rating on 90% of the cases I've seen it used on articles on composers. "Not developed enough for a cleanup tag"?? "Still needs to be built"?? Don't worry--I'm not yelling at you personally--I'm just incredibly frustrated with this tagging project, and find it to be an utterly useless exercise. Thanks for listening, Antandrus (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I completely understand; perhaps it is time for an overhaul on the Assessment criteria, especially if this is how you feel. Remember, be bold when editing Wikipedia. If you feel that strongly about that the current state of the Assessment rubrick, I do not feel anyone is going to hideously oppose you for revamping it (provided you come along with a brand new ideology/methodology to revamping it). My hope has been with the tagging is that it show some TLC to these articles, so that while in the process of assessing these articles editors will tag them appropriately (as I always try to do when assessing). -- Ozgod 03:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The problem isn't so much with the assessment "grades" and how their respective comments are written, it is that people are not applying them correctly. The main reason they are not applying them correctly, is that they understand nothing about the topics they are rating, and therefore, and what is most critical for article expansion, they understand nothing about the available sources for those topics. You cannot assess article completeness without knowing this. About 90% of the "stub" and "start" tags I have seen spat on articles in my area of expertise have been quite wrong; the taggers would have done better with a random number generator. "Boldly" changing the criteria won't fix the problem; only a change in behavior of the assessors would do that. That said, I appreciate that you try to do it correctly. I believe you are in a minority, based on what I have seen. Antandrus (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Excuse me for butting in here, but I have been very frustrated with the ratings as well. Antandrus couldn't have expressed my views better. I have written hundreds of articles on Spanish colonial officials in America and the Philippines, mostly from scratch. A majority of these articles are from Spanish sources only, because there is little or nothing available on the subjects in English. I look at my contribution then as not just to Wikipedia, but to the English historical literature. But nearly all of my articles have been rated Stub or Start. I can't help feeling that this was done by people who have no idea what information is available in any language, and who very well might not even read the primary language. This is very frustrating to me. I have refrained from changing any of these because I didn't think it is appropriate to rate my own articles. However, I believe the current ratings are very inappropriate as well. It is much better not to rate articles at all than to rate them badly and inappropriately. -- Rbraunwa 06:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

(copied from your talk page) -- Thanks, Robert. I'm happy to meet you, for a couple reasons: 1) you're a splendid content contributor, in another area where we need coverage; 2) you also understand the problem some of us have been having. Here is another thread where this is being discussed, and this is where a couple of us poked a stick in the anthill. I'm rather pessimistic that it will help. What we may need to do is organize our own "Cleanup drive of the assessment drive" with experts in each area to fix the "ratings". What Wikipedia seems to be missing, and I might be saying this because I'm a manager in a corporate environment, is an overall mechanism for quality control. Not just for content, but for assessments of content. The "assessment drive" should be a QC mechanism, but it's not: it's a bunch of kids having a contest to see who can do the most the fastest.

Thank you for leaving me this note--half of the trouble here is thinking that one is alone, as Geogre pointed out on his talk page. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

You're not alone in your views (or frustration); though I must say, the MMORPG analogy is so fitting. Though finally, someone on WP:BIO removed the 10 Easy Steps to a B-Class article after noticing what has made me laugh for some time: that there's no mention of research, writing, having expertise, etc.!  :) I don't know how you keep your endless good humor. I've had to cut out nearly every article except obscure medieval music from my watchlist just to avoid dealing with the anonymous/no-consequences social network aspect of WP, which was beginning to drive me up the wall. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thought you might find this edit funny along with this deleted page. I guess you're a long term rouge admin. =) -- Gogo Dodo 00:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

LOL... Let's see: OCD, compulsion to vandalize, needs a job ... number 44 applies. It never ceases to amaze me how repeat vandals/trolls choose insults that exactly describe themselves. Antandrus (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reverting the racist and erroneous drivel on the Absolute Pitch Page Albion moonlight 11:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome--I swat those as fast as I can move my pointer to the "rollback" button. Antandrus (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your suggestion of the "peer review journal" being a requirement for my Pi theory's being included in Wiki. I am a retired engineer, so I don't have any experience in publishing "music-history-puzzle" information.

I have been told that the peer review journals I was considering can be very slow in the time from submission to publication. Can you suggest any appropriate journals that may have a relatively quick turnaround time? Or can you refer this request to someone who might be able to help me get started? Thanks. Dnlsanta 15:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your suggestion, and you were right to warn me about rejections. Julian Rushton, editor of the Elgar Journal, was the first to reject publishing this theory. That would seem to me to be an ideal place to introduce new ideas, but I suspect that he may have an ulterior motive. If members of the Elgar Society to have a chance to see a new theory, his 1999 book about the "Enigma" could appear to be "out of date."

My son is a published author in music theory and I may have to wait for him to finish the textbook he is currently working on. He has offered to co-author a paper when he finishes his book which is under review at a publisher. That would be a way to get the university credentials "requirement." I would prefer to do something sooner, so I will keep looking for a "short cut" while I wait for him to finish his book. Thanks again. Dnlsanta 17:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Dear friend, I wish you the best 4th of July you have ever had, and that you enjoy living in this great country as much as I do.   —  $PЯING rαgђ

If anyone has started 500 articles they deserve some kind of special barnstar or commendation...I'll try and come up with something since I know you'll meet that threshold soon.-- MONGO 20:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reverting vandalism in my talk archive. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome ... I have to laugh at these people who have nothing better to do than troll user spaces. Oh well, all picnics have bugs. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

More cookies

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

Howdy again...I'm sure you've noticed there's this DWS person who has uploaded a bunch of self-produced recordings of early music lately...they sound a bit odd to me and I suspect they are all of himself overdubbing himself to do all the parts. They just seem kinda odd to me. Are there rules or guidelines or anything about quality control for this kind of thing? Just because somebody uploads a song or a picture or whatever, it has to stay regardless of whether or not it's any good? Speak to me, O wise one... -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 12:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yah, I tried to listen to one on this computer (laptop) but the file wouldn't play and then I forgot about it. I'll try again in my music studio when I'm back there. It's a sticky issue regarding quality control: indeed, speaking as a corporate manager with a lot of years of doing this, I think Wikipedia needs an overall quality control mechanism, which right now it does not have. Since it's a wiki, I'd suggest just removing files that strike you as substandard. I'd like a couple other people in the usual group of music people to have a listen (Makemi, Moreschi, Myke...) Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I tried to find some, but there's nothing under User contribs for DWS or Dws here or on commons. Wspencer, could you post a link or two? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Dwsolo ( talk · contribs). I still haven't listened to one... Antandrus (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ah, figured that just after posting -- I've listened to the Josquin and the Monteverdi Lamento -- I think they are overdubbed, and that means some of the parts are not in his best vocal range. But I think they give a pretty good impression of the work, and given that the Hilliard Ensemble is unlikely to release their recordings under GFDL any time soon, I think they are definitely better than nothing, particularly for people who don't know the works or the composer. They're as good as many student recitals I've been to. It's something I'm thinking about now, because for MIT's Opencourseware I need to decide between linking to 30-second professional clips of the pieces at Amazon.com or to free recordings like this. (I'll probably end up having the OCW staff link to both). I do think we can label the section, "Recordings of amateur performances" or something like that. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

That's a good compromise: keep, and label. I've actually recommended to some of the good performers here to try overdubbing to do polyphonic works (see the Tu pauperum refugium on the Josquin page for an example on bassoon--done by Kat). Antandrus (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict) I agree with Myke - they're clearly overdubbed, and I would be more comfortable if the image pages made that clear, but they give a good idea of the works (at least the ones I've listened to), and they're definitely better than a midi version, and they're properly licensed, etc. The information on the image pages can always be fixed. Also, I'm trying to figure out why the play in browser option isn't working - either it's because of toolserver death (does the toolserver ever work for English Wikipedia?) or because they aren't actually ogg, and only have that as part of their filename. These should also be transwikied to Commons so other projects can use them, maybe I'll work on that, since I'm an admin on both projects. Mak (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC) (ps nevermind about the not playing in browser, Greg fixed it.) Mak (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes sorry, it is still being tested, I am sorry for the inconvenience. Adam McCormick 04:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, he took the computer from me, and as I was attempting to revert it, I found it had already been reverted. Jesus is a pretty watched page, so I was expecting it. Crispus 04:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Giacomo Scotti
Italian literature in Dalmatia - A falsified history
[2] Imagine what would happen if in the whole world this habit of appropriating the present and the past of the conquered or acquired territory were applied. The new political owners would become, ipso facto [because of this mere fact], also the owners of the history, the spirit, the culture and the literary and artistic work created in the preceding centuries by the people or the peoples of that territory. Not casually this principle has been extended from Dalmatia to Istria and the Islands of Quarnero after World War Two. So, for example, the Istrian poet and musicologist Andrea Antico, born towards 1490 in Montona [Motovun] and lived in Venice, has become "Andrija Montuvljanin" and Andrija Stane; thanks to him the beginning of Croatian music has been moved to the XVI century.

Italian literature in Dalmatia

A falsified history

In the distant 1926, in the series of publications of the Yugoslav Academy of Arts and Sciences of Zagreb, it was published the work by Gjuro Köbler with the title "Talijanisko pjesnistvo u Dalmaciji 16 vijeka, napose u Kotor i Dubrovniku" that means "Italian poetry in Dalmatia in the XVI century, expecially in Cattaro [Kotor] and Ragusa [Dubrovnik]". After that date no Croat scholar has talked anymore about an Italian poetry or literature in Dalmatia in the past centuries. It started instead a process of transformation of that literature from Italian into Croatian, process that has caused colossal falsifications until now. In an article of 1969 the historian of Croatian literature Andre Jutrovic wrote: "The writers of Dalmatia who in the past wrote their works in Italian language must be inserted in our literature and in our national history." In other words: considered Croats. This same intellectual, then, talking about each Italian Dalmatian writer of the past centuries, in other words Dalmatians of Italian culture and language, defined them "Croatian writers of Italian language". And today this has become a rule: in the books about the history of Croatian literature, in the encyclopedic dictionaries and in the encyclopedias, almost all those Italian writers and poets are labeled Croats. The exceptions are the most rare, and regard Zara [Zadar] alone, and only in the case that they are so-called "irredentisti" [Italians who wanted the annexion of some lands, as Istria and Dalmatia, to Italy] of the XIX and XX centuries. In October 1993, on the pages of the "Vjesnik" of Zagreb, the President of the Society of the Croatian writers in those years charged me of "having turned into Italians a whole series of Croatian writers of the ancient Ragusa". And this because, in an essay on the review "La Batana" (n. 109), I had reported the original names of some Ragusan writers of the XVI and XVIII centuries, showing the original titles in Italian and Latin of their works: Savino de Bobali (1530-1585), Serafino Cerva (1696-1759), Sebastiano Dolci, Stefano Gradi and others whom we will meet soon. I challenge all the scholars of literature of this country [Croatia] to bring me a single work by these writers and poets that had been written in Croatian language; I challenge them to bring me a document alone, starting from the same books by these authors, in which their names are written in the way their falsifiers write them today. Some years ago the journalist Ezio Mestrovich, on the newspaper "La Voce del Popolo", reported the words of an anonymous "illustrious Croat" to explain the aversion that some Croatian intellectuals feel towards Italy and the Italians: "We are so much fascinated by Italian culture and we feel it so close that we risk to be included into it and feel subjugated so much to renounce to ours. When you go in this direction, love can become hate". And, moved by hate, somebody tries to appropriate what doesn't belong to him, to the point of defining Marco Polo a Croat! Or of declaring "Croatian forever" - where that "forever" could lead us to the beginning of the human kind - each piece of contemporary Croatia that in the far or recent past has been instead inhabited also by Italians and fertilized by Italian culture, and before it by the Latin one. Today, sadly, the Croatization of Italian literature, art and culture flourished in Istria and Dalmatia in the past centuries has become a rule in the text books for schools and, as already told, also in Croatian encyclopedias. For this aim they resort to counterfeit even names and surnames. The appropriations start in fact from the names, in other words with their Croatization. Once forged, in other words Croatized, the name and surname of a writer, of a painter, of a musician and of any other personality, and checked that he was born or lived in the territory that today is part of Croatia, his work becomes automatically Croatian. Imagine what would happen if in the whole world this habit of appropriating the present and the past of the conquered or acquired territory were applied. The new political owners would become, ipso facto [because of this mere fact], also the owners of the history, the spirit, the culture and the literary and artistic work created in the preceding centuries by the people or the peoples of that territory. Not casually this principle has been extended from Dalmatia to Istria and the Islands of Quarnero after World War Two. So, for example, the Istrian poet and musicologist Andrea Antico, born towards 1490 in Montona [Motovun] and lived in Venice, has become "Andrija Montuvljanin" and Andrija Stane; thanks to him the beginning of Croatian music has been moved to the XVI century. When it is not possible to falsify the surname, it is falsified at least the name and thus the Fiuman painter of the XIX century Giovanni Simonetti becomes Ivan Simonetti; always in Fiume the illustrious doctor Giorgio Catti becomes Djuri Catti, Giovanni Tuppis is transformed into Ivan Lupis or even Vukic and we could go on for a long time. But almost always it is followed the rule of the total forgery, of name and surname, in a way to delete every trace of Italianity. So it happens that the great Italian philosopher and poet of the Renaissance Francesco Patrizio from Cherso [Cres] is gradually changed into Frane Patricije-Petric in 1927 (M. Dvomicic) and in Franjo Petric in 1929 (F. Jelasic); he stays Francesco Patrizzi for I. Kamalic, in 1934, but is written Franje Patricijo by N. Zic in the same year; then he is Franjo Petric-Franciscus Patricius for Ivan Esih in 1936 and Franjo Petris for S. Juric in 1956 and Fraciskus Patricijus for V. Premec in 1968; for other ones again the surname changes into Petris, Petricic and Petrisevic, finally the so- called "father of Croatian philosophy" has become Frane Petric stably, after that he was called in this way by V. Filipovic and Zvane Crnja in 1980. The "Days of Frane Petric" are held in his honour in Cherso, the days of an un-existing man. It is impossible to honour a man taking away his name and surname, falsifying them. If Francesco Patrizio could resurrect from his grave, he would curse his falsifiers and everybody who have crowded the history of Croatian art and culture with personalities that nothing or very few have to do with the Croatian culture. I am very sorry - and here again I dwell upon Francesco Patrizio a bit - that the inhabitants of Cherso haven't rebelled yet to the abuses accepting, for example, that the name "Frane Petric" was imposed to the local school. I care to repeat and to underline - given that every man, of the present and the past, is what he is thanks to his language, his culture - that Francesco Patrizio didn't write a single line in Croatian during his life. "La Città Felice" ["The Happy City"], the "Dialogo dell'honore" ["Dialogue about Honour"], the "Discorso della diversità dei furori poetici" ["Speech about the diversity of poetic furies"], the "Lettura sopra del Petrarca" ["Lecture about Petrarca"], "La gola e il sonno" ["The Gluttony and the Spleepiness"] and "Le oziose piume" ["The Otious Feathers"], the little poem "Eridano", the treatises "Della historia dieci dialoghi" ["About History Ten Dialogues"], "La militia romana di Polibio, di Tito Livio e Dionigi di Alicarnasso" ["The Roman Militia by Polibius, Titus Livy and Dionisius of Alikarnaxos"], "Il Trimerone", "Della Poetica" ["About Poetry"], "La Deca Disputata" ["The Disputed Decade"], "La Deca Istoriale" ["The Historic Decade"] and other works by the great man of Cherso that now Croats are forced to translate into their language to boast the "greatness of the Croatian philosophy" were all written in Italian by an Italian. And on the title page of those works the author signed Francesco Patrizio, sometimes Patrizzi and Patrizi, as in the polemic essays with the titles: "Difesa di Francesco Patrizio dalle cento accuse dategli dal signor Iacopo Mazzoni" ["Defence of Francesco Patrizio from the one hundred charges moved by mister Iacopo Mazzoni"], "Risposta di Francesco Patrizi a due opposizioni fattegli dal Sig. Giacomo Mazzoni" ["Reply by Francesco Patrizi to two oppositions made by Mr. Giacomo Mazzoni"] and "Paralleli militari di Francesco Patrizi" ["Military Parallels by Francesco Patrizi"]. Our philosopher and poet published a total of twentyfive works, almost all printed in Venice, and of them five were written in Latin language, all the others in Italian. As already seen, some of these works have the name and surname of the author in their own title, as "Le rime di Messer Luca Contile, con discorsi et argomenti di Messer Francesco Patritio" ["The rhymes by Mister Luca Contile, with speeches and arguments by Mister Francesco Patritio"]. In comclusion, Patritio or Patritius as he signed in Latin, was never Frane Petric, and even less Petris, Petrisevic or how in hell his forgers want. It isn't a matter of spelling, but of simply respecting the historical truth. Why then, somebody will ask, the Croatian historians stick out so much for making Croat this man? On what foundaments do they base their assertions? They recur to a legend. The Croatian literary critique Franjo Zenko wrote in this way in 1980 in the preface of the Croatian translation of the work by Patrizio "Della historia dieci dialoghi": "About the origins of the philosopher of Cherso we cannot say anything with certitude. The mention made by the philosopher himself in his autobiography, where he tells that his ancestors came from Bosnia as descendants of the royal family, cannot be accepted as worth of faith; and till now we haven't found documemts that attest from which locality or region they reached Cherso." And nevertheless, it was enough the mention by Patrizio to a family legend, according to which the Patrizio were descendants of a Bosnian royal family, to induce almost all the Croatian intellectuals, until the organizers of the "Days of Frane Petric" to affirm, repeat, write and engrave in marble the Croatian nationality of Francesco Patrizio. It is the demonstration, this one, of the moral and intellectual meanness of the falsifiers.

And here, before going on with other examples of falsifications, I want to tell my thought about this matter at once. The counterfeit of history and the Croatian unjust appropriation of the great men and great works of the Italian culture of these lands - Istria, Dalmatia, Quarnero - is an old-new form of nationalism and chouvinism. The frustration caused by a sense of lesser valour and the cultural insufficiencies are turned into myths of victory, behind which envy and hate are hidden. In this case the hate for Italy and the Italians. It happens as it happened some years ago in certain regions tormented by war. To make an ethnic cleasing or they killed people of different etnicity or they were terrorized and forced to flee; but also after the flight their homes, churches or mosques stood as a testimony of the centuries-old presence of that people in that land; at this point the churches and temples were destroyed by fire or dynamite. Anciently, when Christendom prevailed on Paganism, all the chruches were built on the ruins of the pagan temples to delete the traces of the Greek-Roman gods and to affirmate the only true religion; but they got the opposite effect: the ancient pagan foundations remain, have been preserved in a better way. It is possible to forgive the ancient Avars and Slavs that destroyed Epidaurus, in other words Ragusavecchia [Cavtat], Salona [Solin], Nona [Nin] and other Dalmatian Roman cities: they were barbarians, pagans and illitterates. But how can we forgive the new barbarians of our age? The offences made to the philosopher of Cherso, to the musician and poet of Montona, to the painter of Fiume and to many other representatives of the Italian culture and art in the Istrian- Quarnerin region or in the lands that in 1945 were declared "newly free" are the consequences of an effort made by newcomers to erase the history of those who had preceeded them and to rewrite a new history more convenient for them; but since in these territories the Italians, even though few ones, remain, the destruction of the memory was not able to be total. Instead in Dalmatia nobody can be saved. Reading the history books and the histories of the Croatian art and literature you can have the impression that that region has been culturally Croatian since at least 3,000 years ago, starting with the Illyrians; Romans and Venetians were only temporarly invaders, without langauge, without writing and without culture. The Croatian farmers and members of the lower classes created exceptional sculptorial and pictorial works since the VIII century, and wrote books of poetry, treatises of philosophy, scientific works, etc., while the Romanic and Italian patricians and citizens of the cities along the coasts of Dalmatia and of the largest islands played the part of the inept watchers, or they offered the unskilled workers, given how much they were ignorants and illitterates. Have you ever read a book in Croatian about the history of the art of the masterpieces by Giorgio Orsini, sculptor and architect born in Zara at the beginning of the XV century and died in Sebenico [Sibenik] in 1473? No, because this man doesn't exist in those books, because he has been Croatized: Juraj Dalmatinac. The writer, lexicographer and inventor of machines Fausto Veranzio-Verantius, born in Sebenico and died in Venice (1551 - 1617) becomes Faust Vrancic. The author of the work "Dialogo sopra la sfera del mondo" ["Dialogue about the sphere of the world"], published in Venice in 1579, the poet and comediographer, mathematician and astronomer of Ragusa Niccolò Nave (1510 circa - 1578) is presented as Nikola Naljeskovic. Fellow countryman of Nale, Marinus Ghetaldus-Ghetaldi (1568 - 1626), author of important scientific works published almost all in Rome and some in Venice, one of the greatest European mathematicians, friend and corrispondent [meaning that they wrote letters to each other] of Galilei, known as Ghetaldi and only Ghetaldi, in the whole world, becomes Croat with the name Marin Getaldic. His friend and fellow countryman Niccolò Gozze, Ragusan too, philosopher, from the noble family of the Gozzi, author of the works "Dialogo della bellezza" ["Dialogue about Beauty"] and "Dialogo dell'amore" ["Dialogue about Love"] is Croatized and presented as Nikola Vitov Gucetic. The poetess Flora Zuzori, to whom these two works were dedicated, who lived in the same time, who moved from Ragusa to Florence after having married the Florentine Bartolomeo Piscioni, is presented unfailingly as a Croatian poetess with the name Cvijeta Zuzoric! "The first Croatian writers about medicine come from Dubrovnik", has written Dubravko Horvatic, compiler of the most recent history of Croatia, mentioning among these "Croats": the Ragusan Giorgio Balivi (1668 - 1707) who was professor of medicine in Rome and one of the most illustrious of Europe. Then he affirms that "the first historic essay work in Croatia" was written and published by Ivan Lucic of Traù [Trogir], name under which is hidden Joahnnes Lucius, in other words Giovanni Lucio (1604 - 1671), as he signed in the Latin and Italian versions. Again Horvatic writes: "One of the first Croatian writers about scientific matters was the Ragusan Benko Kotruljevic, who lived in the first half of the XV century", adding soon after that this Kotruljevic wrote his works exclusively in Italian and Latin "so that they were able to circulate more easily in the foreign scientific circles". In other Croatian texts we find two versions: Kotruljic goes alongside Kotruljevic. But he never existed: under these name and surname saddled by the usual falsifiers hides the very Italian Ragusan Benedetto Cotrugli de Costruglis, as he himself signed his works in Italian, or Benedictus Cotrullus when he used Latin. The same Croatian soruces tell us that the ancestors of this illustrious man, born in a family of merchants, had the same Italian surname, even though slightly modified: Citrulli, Citrullo and Cotrugli. Please let me dwell a little longer upon this personage. Leaving apart everybody who, in the same Ragusa, in Italy, in Germany and elsewhere, wrote about Cotrugli since the XVI century till the beginning of the XX century, let's choose an author of this region, Antonio Bacotich: a monograph by him has the title "Benedetto Cotrugli da Ragusa, primo scrittore di aziende mercantili" ["Benedetto Cotrugli from Ragusa, First Writer about Merchant Companies"]. The work dates back to 1930 (published in "Archivio storico per la Dalmazia", issue 5). The first texts in which Cotrugli is called Kotruljevic date back, instead, to 1949. The false coin minted then still circulates with the imprimatur of legality. According to the results of the most recent researches, Benedetto Cotrugli was born in Ragusa in a time between 1400 and 1416 and died in Naples in 1469. Come from a family of middle-class merchants moved to Ragusa from Cattaro in the XIV, he followed the drill traced by his father Giacomo and by his uncle Giovanni who had extended in Italy a vast web of commerce, while in Ragusa he owned houses, lands, weaving factories and dyeworks, and ships. After having finished the elementary schools in Ragusa, Benedetto studied in Bologna. Upon the death of his father, in 1434, he took the direction of the company in society with his brother Michele and his uncles, extending the business in Southern Italy, in North Africa and in Catalunya. Since 1458 he was consul to the Napolitan Court and ambassador of King Ferdinando to Ragusa, to Bosnia and to Hungary. In 1460 he became director of the Mint in Aquila, charge that, after his death, was assigned to his son. Some of his works have been lost; instead "Della mercatura e del mercante perfetto" ["About Merchant Business and about the Perfect Merchant"], four books printed in Venice in 1573, reached us. It was translated in French in 1582 and in Serbo-Croatian four centuries later, in 1963. Essais about Benedetto Cotrugli have been written by his fellow countryman Savino Maria Cerva ("Benedictus Cotrulius", in "Biblioteca Ragusina", Tome 1), F. M. Appendini in "Notizie istorico-critiche sulle antichità, storia e letteratura de' Ragusei" ["Historico-critical Information about the Antiquity, the History and the Literature of the Ragusans"], vol. II, Ragusa, 1803; Simeone Gliubich in "Dizionario biografico degli uomini illustri della Dalmazia" ["Biographic Dictionary of the Illustrious Men of Dalmatia"] (Vienna-Zara, 1856); A. Montanari in "Benedetto Cotrugli" (Italia Centrale, 25.XII.1890); Vittorio Alfieri in "La partita doppia per la prima volta esposta da Benedetto Cotrugli" ["The Double Entry Exposed for the First Time by Benedetto Cotrugli"]. All these ones, and other ones, have underlined that Cotrugli is the author of the first Italian treatise about merchant business, a work that has nothing to do with Croatian literature and culture. It is right, thus, that - reacting to the most recent attempt to take away his nationality - also we consider him as what he was and stays: an illustrious personage of the Italian culture and literature, who - as many men of science of the Italy of his time - had several scientific and cultural interests, as is demonstrated by his other two works, of which, sadly, only the titles "De uxore ducenda" ["How the Wife Has to Be Directed"] and "Della natura de' fiori" ["About the Nature of Flowers"] survive.

One of the most illustrious Italian poets of Ragusa of the XVI century was Savino de Bobali, known as "il Sordo" ["the Deaf"] (1530 - 1585), member of the "Accademia dei Concordi" [a Ragusan academy of writers] and author, among the other things, of a volume of "Rime amorose e pastorali et satire" ["Amorous and Pastoral Rhymes and Satyres"] printed in Venice by Aldo Manuzio in 1579. According to the historiographers of Croatian literature, instead, he is their poet: Savko or Sabo Babaljevic-Glusac. Let's dwell upon Ragusa for a few minutes, again let's remember the patrician and poet Stefano Gradi, a personage who has entered the history of Croat literature, as usual, smuggled, with the Croatized version of his name and surname: Stjepan Gradic. Born in Ragusa in 1613 and died in Rome in 1683, coming from a patrician family, he was sent in Italy to study in various Jesuitic colleges, he became priest, writer and custodian of the Vatican Library, member of the "Accademia dei Ritrovati" of Padua and founder of the "Accademia Reale" of Rome after having been the animator of the literary circles in Fermo and Bologna. He signed his numerous books, his letters and other documents always and only as Stephanus-Stefano Gradi. In front of a too much Italian name and surname for a "Croatian poet", what to do? Nothing, add a "c", and the game is over. Unluckily for the falsifiers, in the XIX century there has been another Dalmatian writer, Niccolò Gradi (born in Zara in 1823 and died in 1894), an Italian poet too, who didn't allow manipulations of his surname during his life and entered the Croatian encyclopedias of our time as Gradi, with the annotation: "last Dalmatian poet of patrician ancestry, descendant from the noble Gradi Ragusan family". Another Ragusan writer, the gentleman Serafino Cerva (1696 - 1759), author of a famous "Biblioteca Ragusina" ["Ragusan Library"], that is the first encyclopedia of Ragusan and Dalmatian literature, is presented as Serafim Crijevic by his falsifiers, forced, by the way, to translate the work by Cerva from Latin. The same encyclopedia by Cerva, comprising as many as 435 biografies of scholars of the ancient and illustrious "Athens of the Adriatic", demonstrates that, with very few exceptions, all the Ragusan writers who lived until the XVIII century wrote in Latin and Italian. It couldn't be different: both because the small seafaring republic "imported" rectors and school teachers, it was linked directly to Italian culture, and because all the sons of Ragusan patricians, without distinction, studied in Italy and many intellectuals spent in Italy most of their life. The Ragusan literature was thus a true and real appendix of the Italian literature. The same thing can be said for the literary history of Zara and for most of the literary history of Spalato [Split], Sebenico, Lesina [Hvar], Traù, expecially for the time of Humanism and Renaissance. Now I should make a summary, even though very short, of the so-called Croatian literature in Dalmatia, to discover that it is mostly a colossal falsification, because it is for the most part Italian literature. But finding ourselves in a boundless field it is necessary this time to limit ourselves to a few segments, postponing to other circumstances a deeper course. Again, I will add a few other examples of falsifications, venturing even outside the political territory of Croatia. Let's go to the Bocche di Cattaro [Boka Kotorska], coastal territory of Montenegro. Giovanni Bona-Boliris, born in Cattaro about in 1520 and died towards 1572, was a humanist poet and wrote in Latin and Italian. He signed Giovanni Bona, Johannes Bona and Ioannes Bonna, he studied in the university of Padua, that he attended to study law. With very few exceptions, the Serbian and Croatian historians insert this poet in their national literatures changing his name respectively into Ivan Bolica and Bunic. We find him, translated of course, at first in the anthologies of the "Croatian Latinists" of 1969 and then in the Montenegrian Anthology of 1979. Luckily for him, he had entered the first Italian anthology already in 1555, four centuries earlier. The main work by Giovanni Bona de Boliris is "Descriptio sinus et urbis Ascriviensis" (per D. Ionnem Bonam de Boliris, nobilem Catharensem) ["Description of the Gulf and City of Cattaro" (by Mr. Giovanni Bona de Boliris, noble of Cattaro)] a poem of 331 Latin exameters with which he glorified the Bocche di Cattaro, Cattaro itself and the other localities of the fairy Gulf. The work was published in Lucca, in Tuscany, in 1585 by the Ragusan Dominican friar Serafino Razzi, in appendix to his "Storia di Raugia" (Ragusa) ["History of Raugia"]. Bona de Boliris kept close relations with the literary circles in Italy, particularly with the poets gathered around the court of Naples. When G. Ruscelli, in 1551, collected poetic texts for an anthology in honour of Giovanna d'Aragona, the beautiful Napolitan wife of Ascanio Colonna, he invited to write also Bona de Boliris of Cattaro who, joining the initiative, was present in the volume published in Venice in 1554 with the title "Il tempio della divina signora donna Giovanna d'Aragona, fabbricato da tutti i più gentili spiriti e in tutte le lingue principali del mondo" ["The Temple of the Divine Lady Mrs. Giovanna d'Aragona, Made by the Most Gentle Spirits and in All the Principal Languages of the World"]. Bona entered it not with poems in Croatian or Serbian language, languages that clearly didn't belong to his literary creativity, but with an Italian sonet and a Latin epigram, signing Giovanni Bona da [from] Cattaro. Certainly he didn't imagine that, four centuries and a half later, Montenegrians and Croatians would have quarreled to declare him a Serbian, the formers, or Croatian poet, the latters. The Croatian essayist Slobodan Prosperov Novak, already President of the Croatian Center of the Pen Club, has written recently in a book that "Ivan Bolica (our Giovanni Bona de Boliris) stays eternally recorded in the Croatian literary history". Friend, admirer and fellow countryman of Bona was Ludovico Pasquali (1500 - 1551), author of the collection of poems in Italian language, "Rime volgari" ["Popular Rhymes" - Italian was often called, well into the XVI century, "volgare", with the meaning of "popular": it was thought to be the popular version of Latin] of 1549 and the volume in Latin language "Carmina" ["Poems"], printed in 1551. The historians of Serbian and Croatian literature have taken possession also of this poet and, to seize him, the formers and the latters have deleted his nationality: for the Croats he is Ludvig Paskvalic and Paskalic, for the Serbo-Montenegrians he is Ludovik Paskojevic and Paskovic. The preface of the anthology "Croatian Latinists" is revealing where it talks about Pasquali: its editors admit indirectly the falsification writing: "Having to establish the name of the poet (and in other words having to choose how to Croatize it, we say), we have opted for the version Paskvalic because it is favoured by the Latin form (Pascalis) and the Italian (Paschale, Pascale) one of his surname, as the author himself signed alterantively, form that his descendants changed into Pasquali in the XVIII century." I think that at this point any comment would be wasted. When the anthology of "Croatian Latinists" appeared we were surprised by the presence in it of poets as Bona, Pasquali and others who didn't belong to Croatia not even territoriarly, because were born in Cattaro or on the Bocche, thus within modern Montenegro. But our surprise turned into astonishment and incredulity in front of another anthology appeared in September 1993 with the title "Stara knjizevnost Boke" ("The Ancient Literature of the Bocche di Cattaro") in which the editors - the essayists Slobodan Prosperov Novak, Ivo Banac and Don Branko Sbutega - declared expressly that the aim of their work is that of returning to the Croatian literature the writers of the Bocche di Cattaro, and in other words of a piece of Montenegro, because those writers, being Catholics, cannot be considered Serbo-Montenegrians but Croats! Supposed but not granted that every Catholic born in any territory on the East coast of the Adriatic must be considered a Croat, we ask ourselves how is it possible to attribute to the Croatian literature poets and writers who didn't write their works in Croatian language. Here who shouts "Thief! Thief!" is he himself a downright thief catched red- handed. In fact in this anthology of Croatian literature of the Bocche di Cattaro, that covers from the end of the XV century to the end of the XVIII century, we find 48 authors born in the Bocche, of whom 12 are anonymous. Subtracted these 12, 36 remain. Of these 36 as many as 22 haven't left a single line in Croatian or Serbian language, so that it was engaged a large squad of 11 specialists of Italian language to translate their texts from Latin and Italian and insert them in the anthology. To be precise, in two cases the translations are from Latin and in all the other ones from Italian. The question, an annoying one, is always the same: how can Italian texts in poetry and prose belong to the Croatian literature? With which right, with which cheek such operations can be done? In this anthology appear as Croatian poets and writers: Ludovico Pasquali-Pascalis, Giovanni Bona-Boliris, and again Giovanni Polizza, Giorgio Bisanti, Girolamo Pima, Timoteo Cisilla, Giovanni Crussala, Giuseppe Bronza, Girolamo Panizzola, all, undenaibly, Italians, along with others of Slavic ancestry, at least judging from their surnames, but also they are authors of Italian texts. Now let's start from Cristoforo Ivanovich, whose surname is clearly Slav, let's even say Croatian. But how much is it possible to define this Cristoforo Ivanovich a Croatian writer? He was born in Budua [Budva] in 1618 and died in Venice in 1688. Two big volumes of poetry stand among his works, both written and published in Venice: "Poesie" ["Poems"] and "Minerva a tavolino" ["Minerva at the Desk"]. In this latter work Ivanovich published also a part of his epistolary and about 80 pages of his "Memorie teatrali a Venezia" ["Theatrical Memories in Venice"]. Besides being a poet, in fact, he was also a man of theatre and wrote many librettos whose music was set by Pier Francesco Cavalli (the dramatic opera "Coriolano"), by Domenico Partenio ("Costanza trionfante" ["Triumphing Constance"]), Giovanni Gagliardi ("Lisimaco"), Pietro Andrea Ziani ("L'amor guerriero" ["The Warrior Love"]) and Domenico Freschi ("Circe"). All these musical dramas were played in the public and court theatres in Piacenza, Venice, Bologna, Vicenza and other Italian cities. Given these bio-bibliographic elements, is it possible or not to consider Ivanovich a Montenegrian or a Croat? The answer is provided by the poet who, in one of his works - all written only in Italian language - wanted to underline his exclusive belonging to the Italian literature, adding: "even though my birth langue is completely different from Tuscan". The same thing might have said the other writers and poets present in the anthology by Slobodan Prosperov Novak, whose Croatian texts have been translated from Italian: Vincenzo Buiovich, Marco Martinovich, Cristoforo Mazzarovich, Marco Ivanovich-Moro etc., until Stefano Zannovich. Except for the birth-place - from Cattaro to Perasto [Perast], from Permango [?] to Budua - all these writers studied in Italy, in the universities of Padua and Rome; lived part of their lifes in Italy, some lived their whole life there and there died; they considered themselves and were protagonists of the Italian literary currents. From the essays by Novak, Banac and Sbutega who precede, go along and follow the texts of the anthology of "Croatian" literature of the Bocche the names of other writers and poets of the Bocche emerge, whose texts have been lost, here defined "humanists and Petrarchists"; their names were: Bernardo Pima, Nicola Chiurlo, Luca Bisanti, Alberto de Gliricis, Domenico and Vincenzo Bucchia, Vincenzo Ceci, Antonio Zimbella, Fracensco Moranti... all "Croats"! In conclusion. Since about 80 years ago - the phenomenon started timidly after the constitution of the first Yugoslavia in 1920, then becoming larger and larger - the Croatian, and in part also the Serbian, critique and essays have got ahead with the systematic appropriation of the Italian writers of Dalmatia and of the Montenegrian coast; and there has been, consequently, the insertment of all the writers and poets who wrote in Latin and in Italian into the Croatian and Monenegrian literatures (some names are repeated in both), if they were born and had lived in the territory of today's Croatia and of today's Montenegro. Almost always the theft goes along with the Slavization and falsification of Italian names and surnames, as we have largely demonstrated. At this point let's consider a "curious" circumstancy: the Croatian literature since the beginning till the XVI century is a succession of writers almost exclusively Dalmatian, from Marko Marulic-Marulo to Hektorovic-Ettoreo and others. It's thus spontaneous to ask ourselves: why the Croatian arts and literature didn't start in the inner regions of Slavonia, Baranja, Posavina, Zagorje and others, while they flourished before the XVI in whole Dalmatia where the literature was expressed particularly in Latin and Italian, and only extremely rarely in "Illyric", in other words Croatian? Jutrovic, Horvatic and the many other essayists who believe it's necessary to enrich the Croatian literature with works written in Latin and Italian by Dalmatian authors completely inserted in the Italian culture make a theft in daylight, it's true, but must be commiserated. They do this moved by the extreme need. The appropriation of the culture of somebody else, in this case of the Italian literature in Dalmatia, is the only chance of the bride to present herself to the spouse with a decent "dowry". About what can they brag, at least until the XVI-XVII centuries? Only starting from those centuries, in fact, it is possible to find the first pages of the history of the Croatian literature, as those of sculpture, painting, music and other arts; and all bring us in Dalmatia and, generally, in the regions that for long centuries were of the Most Serene Republic of Venice or of the Republic of Ragusa, that was a state of Italian culture and language too. In other words, the Italian culture of Dalmatia was the seed and the fertilizer, without the presence of the Italian Dalmatian artists and writers - not to talk about those who came from the western coast to settle in Dalmatia - the beginning of the Croatian literature and many arts would be moved many centuries nearer us. Not casually the first Croatian syllabary in glagolitic letters was printed in 1527 in... Venice, the first grammar of Croatian language was written by the Italian missionary Jesuite Bartolo Cassio of Pago [Pag] (1575 - 1650), who is presented as Bartol Kasic today. The first laical city schools appeared not in Zagreb, Osijek, Koprivnica, Varazdin etc., but in Zara in 1282 and in Ragusa in 1333. The first net of high schools wasn't created in Slavonia, in Zagorje or in other Croatian regions, but in Dalmatia, starting with the Jesuitic college of Ragusa (that was part of the Roman province of the Company of Jesus) until the Dominican seminary of Zara. All the intellectuals of Dalmatia since the XIII century till the XVIII century and almost all also in the XIX century attended exclusively the Italian universities in Padua, Bologna, Rome. With these observations certainly we don't want to put forward territorial claims or ask modifications of the borders; but nobody can deny our moral claims, nobody can appropriate our culture, our wealth of civilization written on the books and on the stones.

Giacomo Scotti

I understand you feel strongly about your point of view, but how reliable is something that calls Antico a "poet and musicologist, who lived in Venice"? Seriously. He was first of all a printer, and secondarily a composer, and his major contribution to music history took place in Rome.

The article in the exhaustive and definitive New Grove lists him as one of two Croatian composers not from Dubrovnik, composers who made names for themselves working in Italy. The portion of Istria in which he was born was under Venetian control from 1409 to 1797, but that doesn't automatically make everyone there "Italian" during those years.

I love the way that nationalist warriors show up to argue and scream about names and categories, but they always wait until someone else has done the hard work of actually contributing the content. By the way, are you Giovanni or Giorgio? Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

And I need to add a little more. The person who wrote that us-poor-Italians, Croatians-are-bad diatribe is not knowledgeable about Renaissance and Medieval music (I am presuming, 84.221.66.162, that it is not by you, that you copied it from somewhere). He says, "thanks to him the beginning of Croatian music has been moved to the XVI century." Beg to disagree. There are numerous sources of music in Croatia preceding this date. The first named composer is Augustin Kaztić, bishop of Zagreb, in the 14th century; that's before even the Venetians had appropriated Istria and Dalmatia, so you can't claim him as Italian. Prior to that, there are several good sources of monophonic music, e.g. chant, from several monasteries. Dubrovnik had an active musical culture well before the Venetians arrived. I'd like also to remind you that Slavonia was governed by the Ottoman Turks from 1526 until 1699, and anyone writing music in Slavonia between those two dates does not correspondingly become a "Turk."

Let us please have more focus on content and matters of significance rather than nationalist squabbling. Most sincerely and respectfully, Antandrus (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

BEARS!!!!!!!!!!!

I see the Bears got to you to. I kknow you won't talk about the bad side of ebars ebcause you are agraid, but don't worry, I'll continue to help fight this fight.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Homer2931 ( talk • contribs).