User talk:GFHandel/Archive 2009

deletion stuff

Hi, I see that deletion occupies quite a proportion of your commentary overleaf. What is it that fires you up? Is there a problematic boundary between deleting and not deleting? Maybe, but there are certainly many articles and images that should not be given any oxygen at all. Take the one on some practice of laying turds on a partner's chest (it has a real name I can't recall). I voted to delete that, because it was an embarrassment to a project that is accessible by all, including children. What about the map of medical systems around the world that had Afghanistan with a full medical system, funded by the US military. We said good-bye to that one as well. Tony (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My views on "one man's trash is another man's treasure" are of course tempered by decency, taste and accuracy. HWV258 21:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

card

Thanks for your very stylish "be merry" card! Tony (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

I know you are a big Handel fan so I want to invite you to join the opera project in our push to improve all things Handel. He is going to be our editing focus for the month of March (I know it's January right now) and we hope to feature him prominently on the opera portal in April to honor the 250th anniversary of his death. We probably won't be ironing out all the details until late February as to where we will be concentrating our efforts, but the conversation is already beginning. If you're interested, have any ideas, suggestions, etc. let me know.Nrswanson (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know we are talking about the March Handel push right now at the Opera Project (see here). If there is anything you would like to collaborate on let us know. Also, not everyone who edits opera is difficult to work with. Please don't let a few individuals get a bad taste in your mouth. Nrswanson (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Hi HWV. You say "Almost all citations - especially when made to external internet pages. The concept of repeated edits honing in on accurate information should obviate the need for citations. I'm aware I'm in the minority with this view, however I believe the fundamental basis of WP is the convergence on accuracy. Citations can even act as a hand-brake on that process."

Oh well, perhaps I'm just an academic nerd. I can't see how convergence is as reliable/verifiable. What's wrong with a strategically laid-out set of sources? Are you too trusting? Tony (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HWV448... HWV437

Thanks for the note - you were right to challenge my accuracy, I'm afraid. Should have - and now does - relate to HWV437 not 448. I've left a fuller (if possibly incomprehensible) explanation at the Talk Page, along with suggestions for a separate page dealing with this particular piece, which seems to be quite popular in certain circles. ntnon (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've responded here. HWV258 00:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extra! Extra! Read all bout it!

Even Rubin and Cole say Tennis expert has lost it. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop

Please don't revert me on the page, I'm the acting clerk for the case. The statement from Greg L is still on the talk page where discussion is more appropriate. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but how ridiculous this whole debacle is becoming. The Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Workshop page is exactly that—a place to debate and discover solutions. That page is full of so-called proposals (which are often little more than personal vendettas), but as soon as something concrete comes along, it is removed to the talk page. I don't believe that that action is justified, and I sincerely hope that "See the mess I've created" is not somehow prophetic. HWV258 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acis and Galatea

Hi there. You seem to be a bit confused. I didn't move any pages but rather fixed the link to the correct page. user:Calliopejen1 moved the page on 14 February [1] and I merely corrected the List of compositions by George Frideric Handel‎ link to reflect that change. If you go to Acis and Galatea and click on "What links here" in the toolbox section, you will see what articles link to that article. You can then go to those articles and fix the links manually as needed. I hope that answers all of your questions. Cheers.Nrswanson (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Frideric Handel

It is ridiculous, just to call him an English composer; I think the way the German, French, Spanish Wikipedias put it is better, in the whole world he is known as a German, so we gonna give a shit for what you describe as naturalization as an governmental act. Why not write German, naturalized English, as the others do. A lack of composers? --91.62.96.229 (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Your forceful edits ([2], [3], [4], and [5]) at Handel do nothing to promote your argument. Why don't you present your point of view in a calm and considered way at the Handel talk page? That way a wider audience can take the time to properly appreciate what you have to say. HWV258 02:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Please talk to me there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.96.229 (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Please note that I have filed a complaint about the abusive comment by User Kendrick7 earlier today at WP:LINKING.Tony (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah don't let morons like that get you down mate. We know you are an intelligent editor not a "retard". Hope to see you back soon, Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize once more to you for my unkind insult. As is traditional among Irish-Americans in Boston on Saint Patrick's Day, I got myself rather seriously intoxicated that evening, which is a lousy excuse as I edit drunk not all that infrequently, but having suffered an unexpected and tragic death in my family on Monday,[6] I was additionally distressed and upset more than I had fully realized. As such, I beg you not to take my lashing out personally, as I was simply suffering an incoherent rage which could have ended up being directed at anyone. Again, I am deeply sorry. -- Kendrick7^talk 13:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems at all—I thought it must have been something like that. I'm sorry for your loss, and thank you for bringing me back down to Earth in realising that there are far more important things in life than what happens at WP. Cheers. HWV258 21:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility warning

Requesting that users "invest in some form of small serviceable dictionary" is incivil. Please remain civil. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite, this is an overreaction—particularly the title you chose for this section. HWV258 is one of the politest WPians I have ever encountered. Your response in that context was sufficient, IMO, and to raise it here in this manner is potentially escalatory behaviour (new word). If I'd been you, I'd have taken his advice about spelling, anyway, perhaps in good humour. Tony (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this here so other readers can gain an insight into the user Hipocrite. Greg_L and I offered support on UC_Bill's talk page (following his block), which prompted Hipocrite to (needlessly) make the following post: "A heads up to the kibbitzers. Because of UC Bills block, he is unable to edit this page or use the email this user feature.". Hipocrite missed the point of both Greg_L and my posts, and added the pejorative "kibbitzers" for good measure. "incivil"? (shakes head in wonder). HWV258 19:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill's page

Hello... FYI, I have removed the actual link to Bill's page as it would be bad form to link to a page that Bill may not have had the chance to undo. The current version is completely unrelated to the autoformatting discussion, and linking to it is inappropriate. I'll not edit war over it, but I would ask that you please do not restore it until the link actually relates to the topic at hand. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. (The demo page in question is here, and my post that prompted Ckatz's post above is here). HWV258 23:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

With regard to LC’s allegations of your being a sockpuppet, have you tried “You, Locke, are a bug splat on my windshield of life?” Greg L (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desperate

Locke failed to force his 'son of DA' on the community, and cannot accept that it's truly what the community wants. Instead, he is going around searching for extraneous reason why his campaign failed. He has always blamed me, Greg and Tony. Now he is waging a new war as to how we cheated him out of his deserved victory, and although our emailing/canvassing hasn't helped, you are the fresh target. I see that you are already aware that Locke was sanctioned by ARBCOM in the past for harassing another user. His accusations are a resumption of this behaviour which he appears to have largely suppressed up to now. I believe he is now acting out of his despondency. Locke's attempts to smear you as a sock/meatpuppet are doomed to failure. Few people, if any, are taking notice of him now. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The post I like in all this is this one—a simple reminder that there is more to WP than dates. I hope when all this is over, LC finds an area of WP where he can successfully contribute (and I wish him well in that). HWV258 03:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates, maybe? ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiero

User_talk:Hieronimo, and Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach#Tightening_up_this_article. Tony (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops

I meant to make it Cuisine of Portugal. Sorry about that. :) Fixed. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, GFHandel. You have new messages at Beeblebrox's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia software

I understand that, in your statement to NYBrad, you were talking most specifically about the evolution of the nightmare which became of the Dynamic Dates software, but want to just share with you my opinion that the open source Mediawiki is an amazing piece of software. OK, the editing interface could do with a lot of improvement, but the whole transparency framework is a real credit to the vision of total transparency and accountability. The fact there is public access to the entire history means that all edits are entirely traceable, allows storage and visioning of all version revisions, giving the capability of comparing any two articles or any version thereof, and also allows reverting to any previous version.

The Mediawiki product was IMHO brilliantly conceived and expertly executed. I do not know how the developers got there with it, but presumably they didn't have to worry about consensus at the point when was developed, and jobs were done professionally in those days. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but that's not the point I raised. It matters not that they have the best tools available, rather what's important is what is being built with those tools. The obvious problem is that no community consensus (let alone specification) is required before development commences. HWV258 03:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments to Tennis expert

Posting a comment like this on the talk of a recently indeffed user is really bad form, and could well be taken as baiting. Please note that the banning policy makes it clear baiting banned users isn't appropriate. Please don't do this again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are right does nothing to remove the foul taste that dealing with TE has left in my (and many other editors') mouths. HWV258 05:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can believe it, from what little experience I have with him. Still, there are plenty of ways to let off that steam not on his talk page (perhaps by talking to Ohconfucius elsewhere, ideally off-wiki so it's completely away from the rest of the community). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you at MOSNUM

Thank you for your ever helpful contributions at MOSNUM. I will say no more as it will get jumped on; but thank you for your constructive criticism to make it better. I will happily argue with you over particular points, but they will be particular points, and no more or less than that.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Variety

BrEng? Tony (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YYYY-MM-DD numerical date format in footnotes

Hello, an RfC is now open for your comments on this issue at Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal_on_YYYY-MM-DD_numerical_dates. -- Alarics (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup Time in Sydney :-)

Hi all,

It's meetup time again in Sydney - hopefully you'll be able to come along for friendly chat and drinks about all things wiki - topics will no doubt include the Chapter - perhaps with planning for the upcoming AGM, the general state of wiki-play, and the traditional candle lighting to encourage the mythical flagged-revisions extension to make its way on to the wiki. At this point, I usually mention that sitting wiki arbitrators are compelled to buy everyone a drink, but one of our number has taken a rather extreme route in avoiding this duty - if you have no idea what I'm talking about then you're probably busy writing and maintaining articles - but come along anyways on the 21st October, from 18.30 til late, to find out :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK?; Discussion at 2nd AfD of The Shells (folk band)

I hope it is ok that I added an indent to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination), when I posted my comment below it.

I did it without asking assuming that you would be ok with it (I did it so your comment would not be lost in the flow), but if I overreached by doing so I apologize.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the indents as we are both responding to the same "Idea" post. If you indent in the fashion you created, it seems we are replying to each other (which we're not). HWV258 00:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Didn't know that! Sorry. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you?

And why should I be paying the slightest attention to your fishing expedition? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is who I am relevant to the question I asked? HWV258 09:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CalendarWatcher has replied on my talk page, and I on its talkpage.

WP:ANI for Rjanag

I have reported Rjanag at the ANI here based on what I believe was grossly uncivil behavior during the Epeefleche/Shells affair. You should know that I cited some of your comments. Regards - Draeco (talk) 06:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rjanag and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, --Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag Conduct RfC

A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you are mentioned in this RfC, and discussed Rjanag's conduct at the prior RfA and one of the prior AN/Is.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or

(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack on this video

On the Fortnum & Mason website they have a video about the store which has a very lovely soundtrack, just wonder if anybody knew what it was. --Thanks, Hadseys 20:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC) P.S isn't it a great little shop[reply]

Must admit that I don't know. HWV258. 03:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Baselt

You said I was sourcing the article to "web references", but I'm not. One reference is a book and the other is a journal article. I did indeed find them online and you're right that the URL could break at any time, but the sources would still be valid even if that happened: an editor could still verify the information by getting hold of the journal or book in print. If you're not adding sources because of a worry about linkrot or paywalls then you're worryingly unnecessarily. To underscore my point - please always use and provide references to reliable sources when adding any information to Wikipedia. If you don't, how can anyone trust that your edits are correct? I don't want to have to look up sources myself to verify Wikipedia articles when I'm reading them, but I'm forced to do this if they're not properly sourced. Notability is another matter, but at least comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability, a core content policy. Fences&Windows 02:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with Verifiability, compare these:

Lead paragraph of Wikipedia:Verifiability in mid 2003

The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete, accurate encyclopedia. Verifiability is an important tool to achieve accuracy, so we strongly encourage you to check your facts. However, don't be too keen to remove unverified information at the cost of completeness.

Lead paragraph of Wikipedia:Verifiability in late 2009

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three.

Which gives an inkling of what I believe has gone wrong. However, I still prefer to go back further than the early versions of Wikipedia:Verifiability, and focus on the basic principle that WP was created under: repeated edits homing-in on completeness and accuracy. Note that Wikipedia:Verifiability started over two years after the inception of WP.

In terms of the current issue regarding Bernd Baselt the first of your links is of course to a web page. Whether or not the contents of those four pages of web text have been taken from a booklet is irrelevant (and in fact they aren't). The booklet has no displayed ISBN or Dewey numbering, and therefore is not obtainable in a realistic fashion (e.g. in a library). The online version is open to change at any time and is, I believe, not a good source of reference. Also note that you are just linking to the web text as the booklet is said to contain 34 essays (which I'm betting you didn't look at for your response). You are in fact referencing someone's comments on the essays—did you realise that? Just because you want there to be good sources in order to support your assertions, doesn't make them exist (which of course leads nicely back to the Notability issues from which this debate originated).

HWV258. 03:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see you don't even respect verifiability as a principle. Verifiability was established as a policy because we cannot trust our contributors. Once Wikipedia became successful and expanded beyond the early adopters such a policy was inevitable. Neutrality and avoiding perpetual edit wars is impossible without reference to external sources. You seriously want Wikipedia to be made up of personal 'knowledge' of editors, rumour, trivia, hoaxes and all? Look at Sei Wee Lim - unsourced for over 3 years and almost certainly a complete hoax. Should we leave that article in place in the absence of evidence that he existed and when evidence contradicts the claims in the article? At least Bernd Baselt is now verified as existing, and I've added that he was a professor of music (using a source, rather than received wisdom). I know that these sources aren't great as he died about the time that Al Gore invented the internet; if you actually cared about creating a reliable biography of the man then you might even pay for sources or get information from a library, instead of just creating an unsourced stub. If you want to get rid of verifiabilty as a policy, you're tilting at windmills. If you want the freedom to operate without it, Citizendium is that way.

Notes is published quarterly by the Music Library Association, ISSN 0027-4380.[7] The article is about the book of essays dedicated to Baselt. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Fences&Windows 20:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we're looking at the history of policy, see Rules to consider from 2001: "Cite your sources. When external sources are consulted in the writing or verification of an article, provide a list of references (books and articles as well as web pages). If an article is about a person or organization, list its homepage. Not only is this intellectually honest, but it will help readers to find more information. Do it especially if topic is controversial (like Genocide). If an article has a large number of sources, consider creating a separate /Bibliography subtopic."; "Write stuff that is true; check your facts. Don't write stuff that is false. You should write that P only if it is true that P; contraposing, if it is not true that P, you should not write that P. This might require that you check your alleged facts. (Rule added Sept. 29, 2001.)" So the concept of verifiability preceded the writing of the Verifiability policy. Fences&Windows 21:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Are you being deliberately obtuse"—no, but I'm resisting the temptation to ask you the same question as you have now admitted to having referenced the text on a web site (and not a publication). That was the point of my original post.

Regarding your statement "You seriously want Wikipedia to be made up of personal 'knowledge' of editors, rumour, trivia, hoaxes and all", you are making a common logical mistake: taking up a stance that I didn't make, and inferring from that position. Why? I've created and edited many, many articles; all with the intention of improving WP. Hoaxes will always be found and corrected. There is no deadline at WP.

You have missed the point with statements such as "Now I see you don't even respect verifiability as a principle" as I do respect references in articles, however I don't demand them. Perhaps you could take some time to think about the point of view that WP will evolve much faster if people are entitled to simply add (and correct) as they please.

Have you heard the expression "hard cases make bad law"? You will always be able to find isolated cases of problems, but that's not the reason to put the brakes on WP as a whole. I'm sure we have at least three million articles that contain unreferenced information (and they will contain unreferenced information for ages and ages to come). Should that unreferenced information be deleted, or do we take it in our stride and move forward?

Regarding "Rules to consider", have you considered the implications of the word "consider" in the title? They were not mandates. The first "rule" on the page ("Ignore all rules") refers to the spirit I believe is the most important aspect of WP.

Thank you for your updates to the Bernd Baselt article.

HWV258. 21:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Hi HWV, I saw the afd you opened up for Oboe concerto in G minor (HWV 287). Since you had just created that article with the incorrect title, you can simply move the article in question to the correct name. This will leave a redirect behind and not an article. In the case that you would really like it to be deleted entirely, a tag for speedy deletion can be left at that article. At any rate, an afd is not required, so I have taken the liberty of closing it and redirecting the article to the correct title. Hope this helps. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

date Links in the wikinews import pages

You recently made a query to n:user:Zach about a bot maintained by w:user:Misza13. I would recommend that you write Misza instead. Bawolff (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you review a list for me?

I was following the en dash discussion at MOS, and wanted to know if you would give me some feedback on a list I have been editing? The list of cutaneous conditions. Any feedback on how to make the content, organization, etc better would be greatly appreciated. Regardless, thank you for your work on wikipedia. ---kilbad (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an impressive list, and I'm now disturbed to find out that so many things can go wrong with the surface of the human body. Normally I like lists of information in a sortable table, but in this case there is no point as there isn't anything to sort (that can't be found easily by searching text on the page). It is especially impressive that all of the 2,009 conditions have linked pages (and that none of the links are red).

Perhaps "or affecting" is not needed in the first sentence (it seems to break the flow)?

I'm not a fan of supplying too much detail at the top of a list page; and any information that is there should relate directly to the contents and structure of the list. In this case, I feel that the three paragraphs about the epidermis, dermis, and subcutaneous layers are probably superfluous (anyone who is interested will follow the links in the first paragraph). If the description of these is important to the page, perhaps each entry in the list should indicate to which layer(s) it belongs? The last paragraph is good, and I believe it could be expanded to give more detail about the categories that are used to organise the conditions.

Well done to all who contributed to this impressive (if not disturbing) featured list.

HWV258. 20:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

????

Hello Mr or Mrs HWV 258, I don't understand your message, can't you be more clear and give me a clue? Thx. Taksen (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This post was in response to my post. Discussion has started here. HWV258. 21:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]