` address.  If he vandalizes from IPs, we block them for short periods (to minimize the risk of affecting innocent people).  If you spot other obvious sockpuppets, though, let me know and I'll block them for you.  Best,     == Joseph Szigeti ==  Hi there! Would you mind taking a look at the Szigeti article and giving me some feedback? I put it up for peer review a few days ago and all it got was a review generated by a bot. The only comment that I found useful was that I can sometimes be too wordy, there are apparently still redundancies and peacock termsbut I can't see any of that stuff in my own writing right now, I need someone with fresh eyes to look at it. I'm hoping to put it up on WP:FAC as soon as possible but I also don't want to nominate it before it's ready. Thanks,    :Looks good; it's thorough and reads well.  As is my nature, rather than listing a lot of nit-picks, like they do at the Featured Article Pillory, Good Article Gauntlet and A-Class Inquisition, I uncapped my nit-picker and picked the few nits I found.  Optionally you could expand the ``reception`` section; there's lots of commentary on  Szigeti's playing, and contrasts with his contemporaries  oh, you know, everyone from Kreisler to Heifetz to Nathan Milstein might be interesting  none of that is necessary, though, it's just something I might do if I were writing it.  I wondered about separating out the ``family life`` section from the main biography, since you cover the ``bureaucratic entanglements`` part twice, but in different levels of detail, but if you stitch that into the main part of the biography it could overwhelm it, so ... maybe fine as is.  Good article!      :Oh, one other minor thing  I eradicated a lot of ghost hard returns, such as   I hope I didn't inadvertently bork your paragraphing, since the paragraph is together in the visible text but appears to be split in the edit window.  I assumed the lines were meant to be together.     ::Thanks for the nitpicking, it was exactly what I wanted you to do. ) I've had the same thoughts about the ``Reception`` section, just not really the time to go paw through the stacks to find interesting little tidbits. Any ideas on what books would be most useful in that regard? ::I meant to take out the now-redundant part about bureaucratic entanglements, must have just slipped my mind. Completely mortified that I got the poor man's date of death wrong this whole time, btw...    == Hard times? Hard spaces! ==  Hi Antandrus. Sometimes tells me you could use a little distraction from Beethoven and your other recent concerns. I invite you to shift your gaze briefly to this transcluded text:    – Noetica♬♩    :I like it. Nice work; fine idea. I commented on the talk page, and added my name to what I thought was the appropriate place.  Thank you for the nicely timed distraction!      ::Thanks! We will need wide support from admins and master editors as we move this forward. Good to know that you see the value of what we're up to there. I have taken the liberty of including you on the list of participants. Feel free to remove that, of course. But your presence is highly prized! ::– Noetica♬♩    == Re: Speedy deletion ==  Sorry ( didn't know. Yes an indeed very bad thing they did.     Good to run into you again, and again beating me to noticing. -) Hope you are well, also  and thanks for the assistance! Cheers,     :Bwahahahaha! You know who copied it? Take a look at that URL.... that's my current university. (Though I'm sorry to say I've never been to their music department.)     ::LOL!  I knew it was a familiar name.  Oh that's rich.      ==Essaying== I always worry when I write such things that no one will read them—and as a really slow writer, that's a significant worry! Perhaps that's my skill... killing discussions by writing messages so long no one can be bothered to read them to respond. -)  But it is a real worry. I've never been a fan of polls, but as the community grows the problems only get worse... Thanks for your feedback; you agreeing is always a good sign!  I've been mostly invisible for a while because sometimes I need a break from the crazy (well, one flavor of crazy), and because there's enough I feel I can't do without blurring roles... but I'll try to show up more often. -) Cheers,     == question for a musical admin (again) ==  Is making persistently worthless and detrimental edits sufficient reason to block someone? That German IP fellow is back at it on Franz Liszt and I'm about to give up hope of that article ever being worth reading. (Disclaimer: I'm not one to talk, having barely edited Liszt for the last few months.) He seems to have no grasp of encyclopedic style, neutrality, what is important and what isn't, what to leave out, when to cite a source, and of course, how to write in proper English. And he's still inserting favorable comparisons to Thalberg and Tausig everywhere, and making snide remarks at me in his edit summaries even though I have not communicated with him at all since he returned. So...what is to be done in such a situation? Cheers,    :Honestly ... no.  Nothing blockable there.  While I admit I haven't looked at all of his additions, he is trying to improve the encyclopedia, as are you.  Content disputes such as this are among the most stressful things on the project. I'd just edit out the POV and uncited stuff after a little delay, adding cite tags for things that look plausible, and try not to interact with him personally.  He may be enjoying you overreacting to him, and enjoy tweaking you:  I know it's hard to let this stuff go (see my ) but sometimes you just have to.  Looking at one of his edits at random, , the bit about Saffle in the reference appears to be his personal opinion, and should go (and how do you cite something within a cite?)  I hope this helpsI really think he's trying to improve the encyclopedia, but just doesn't quite get NPOV and need for citing.  A good reality check might be a quick trip over to Israel/Palestine articles, or maybe the talk page for waterboarding  this one really isn't that bad ... Cheers.... )      == Vandalism ==  Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page.     :You're welcome.  Seems like a semi-static IP.  Let me know if you have any further problem with this one.  Cheers,    ::The problem is coming from a number of anonymous IPs. It seems to be retaliation for my reverts of repeated content removal on The Cure. Maybe the page should be semi-protected?     ::This should be all the proof you need: .     :::It looks to me like a content dispute with a singularly immature and retaliatory editor.  For some reason he disagrees with the Billboard article, but won't provide a reliable source for another point of view, instead vandalising your page (and, maybe without realising it, shooting his foot right off).  People come here from elsewhere on the internet thinking that they can be bullies just like they are elsewhere, and are surprised when those tactics get them ejected wi