User talk:GFHandel/Archive 2013

Liana Cornell

Thankyou for calling me a liar. I really appreciate that. Especially after you yourself piointed out that the existing SMH reference refered to her as a model. And why remove a perfectly good reference because it does not mention one of multiple aspects involved? duffbeerforme (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not call you a liar, and you should now be very careful in how you proceed with such allegations here. Could it be as simple as I'm picking you up on things like proper referencing and policy? To be described as a "former model" means what exactly (in terms of WP's requirements)? Every article which has model claims needs to demonstrate notable modelling work. Who knows, perhaps she walked up and down a runway once at her local shopping centre? If modelling was a notable part of her career, other reliable sources would mention it. Wikipedia has to reproduce facts from reliable sources, and you have not addressed the simple fact that Woman's Day is stretching the "reliable" part of sourcing to the maximum. I also find it worrisome that you have added "|occupation=model" to the {{Infobox person}} when the best source you can find describes her (in passing) as "former".

The text you placed your "perfectly good" reference against was already covered by another "perfectly good" reference. There is no need to pile on multiple references. If you want to expand the article text based on finding a reference that covers additional information, then so be it – but that is not what you did.

I reverted your edit, and gave explanations backing my actions. Could you please read WP:BRD and appreciate that attacking me on my talk page and simply reverting my revert is against the spirit of collaborative editing on Wikipedia? You would do much better to calm down and start a fact-based discussion on the relevant talk page.

Please understand this next point very carefully: I do not wish for this debate to continue here. This belongs on the relevant talk page, and I will remove any text you add here that should have been place there.

GFHandel ♬  22:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sydney meetup on Thursday

Just a quick note to invite you to the next Sydney meetup this Thursday evening. Details here. Hope to see you then! (You received this invitation because you are listed here.) --99of9 (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

way of st james

Obviously I agree with removal of this stuff from the article, personally I think WP:indiscriminate or WP:SPAMLINK may be more relevant than WP:RS in the case of external sources. Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. GFHandel ♬  20:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm not sure if this is the approriate channel for communication but I clicked your username and couldn't find a contact link, just this editable talk page. I hope you'll excuse my ignorance of the wikipedia interface so that we can momentarily communicate here.

I'm writing regarding the fact you removed a link on the Camino de Santiago page (road-to-santiago.org) which you described as '95 photos set to music.' Whilst I appreciate the time and effort you contribute to wikipedia, I'd like to politely refute your assertion about this site which you might have understandably mistaken for blog spam.

The 'music' you refer to is actually field recordings from the road and includes 5 interviews with pilgims as well as a wealth of ambient noise, the likes of which a prospective pilgrim could expect to hear.

Regarding the photos (and I feel it's important to add here that the site is mine), before walking the camino I could find no single resource which efficiently and effectively detailed the countryside and vistas I could expect to see on the French Way. Consequently, this made it very difficult to choose between the French way, la Via de la Plata or the Northern Route. It is for this reason I made the site as a service to prospective pilgrims so that they may make a decision about which route would suit them best and that they would expect to see and hear.

If you take a look at the other camino resources you will see that photos are presented in a very ad hoc style. The site I posted is a chronological journey on the French Way with field recordings and full screen photos. It is in no commercial, I gain nothing from it other than providing an informative service to people looking for information on the Camino. I would kindly ask you again to consider your decision, or at least take a further look at the site as I feel you may have been unduly hasty before.

Finally, I see no reason why the other links are anymore informative or encyclopedic. 2 are commericial forums (advertising) with very little useful information and the third is a virtual tour of the Cathedral!!

Also, since this is an audio tour, it's probably the only non-written resource accessbile to the blind or impaired of sight about the Camino on the internet. I beleive it is worthy of a place in this article for the reasons stated above and would kindly ask you to reconsider your decision. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.120.170 (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

In my years of editing at Wikipedia, I've learned two main things: A) every other editor just knows how things should be, and B) most other editors believe that I've just made a mistake. :-)

Since you've been shown the relevant policy links above (which I'll assume you've taken the time to read) and yet you still posted the above text, I can only come to the conclusion that you also fit into A and B. Accordingly, I'll not revert you if you decide to re-add your external link, and wish you all the best in deciding and implementing your own policy as to what will constitute appropriate external links at the article in question (which I trust you will monitor?). Best of luck with that, especially since in the absence of consensus policy, the floodgates will inevitably open to the inclusion of links to other collections of images and sounds (which unfortunately are not likely to aspire to the obviously high standards that you attribute to your own collection).

The only other thing I'll request is that you continue any discussion on this issue at the Talk:Way of St. James page (and not here). Thank you. GFHandel ♬  01:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasoned response. I can indeed monitor the page, will continue any discussion on the Camino page itself and, of course, should other people have a problem with my link, I would be more than happy to remove it. Thanks for your time,

I happened upon this discussion when reading the Way of St. James article and deciding that there are multiple issues with external links. I have started a discussion on the talk page about two of the links in that section, citing WP:ELNO. It is my honest opinion that neither of the two mentioned are relevant to the article, and as for the photos and sounds themselves, they could easily be released under a free license and uploaded to WP:Commons where they could be more widely enjoyed. I invite anyone interested to come voice their opinions. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to link the discussion: Talk:Way of St. James#External Links -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I was interviewed and approved the changes he made

Dear sir,

This is model/athlete John, I was interviewed and my friend showed me the changes he was going to make on the page about me. He said he was going to organize the references as there were links that were, as he said DEAD and lead to nowhere. He said he would enhance the page to only reference the more important links on me rather that wasting a reference on a person's business. He also added updated info about me from our talk about my tattoos and being a cover model. He showed me it when he edited it and I thought he did a great job. I thought it was a nice gesture that he did for me. He is a nice person. I would ask you if you could please go back to his revised version. That would mean a lot to him. And like I said, I did authorize it. I appreciate everything you do GFHandel. Good people like you are there to make sure things are OK and this was OK. Thanks

I suspect that this is about this revert I made today. Before you "go back to his revised version", please have a careful read of WP:BLP and WP:RS so that you can appreciate why changes to articles based on interviews with friends are not appropriate at Wikipedia. You might also like to explain the purpose of the removal of the cite web templates? Please make any explanation about this issue on the article's talk page so that other editors can be aware and make comments. Thanks. GFHandel ♬  20:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I am just a model/athlete who is not computer savvy. I call people "friends" that I know in passing. It was just a person that wanted to research me as he found me interesting and told me he would make some updates. That's it. I have no idea what a template even is. Just wanted to get back to you and show you respect in a prompt manner. I did think the info was relevant as updated tattoos and links were listed that were removed. Just my thoughts I guess

Tattoos

Dear Sir; My name is John P Benedict Sr. Owner of Blackstone Forever Ink Tattoo Parlor Located at 3 Main St. Blackstone, Ma. 01504 http://www.foreverink.net I am writing you today to verify that Mr Quinlan was in fact in my tattoo parlor today 2/13/2013 to receive touch ups on some of the 19 tattoo's that he currently has. Today he also added another tattoo to his right pinky finger. As far as we are concerned the tattoo section is relevant, do to the fact Mr. Quinlan is the most tattooed romance cover model in the world to date. You may ad this information to the tattoo section of His page as you see fit. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter should you feel the need to contact me, please feel free to call <redacted>— Preceding unsigned comment added by BigJohnSr (talk • contribs)

You should have a careful read of reliable sources. I think it's getting closer to the point when the unreferenced tattoo information should be removed. GFHandel ♬  20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Place name linking

I just wanted to say that I think your solution is a good compromise. This issue is probably discussed in the Manual of Style somewhere, but I couldn't find it in the page that you provided. There was a section on geographical coordinates, but nothing on linking place names. Do you know where this information could be found? Thanks! --qwekiop147 → talk 00:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(This is in relation to edits at PepsiCo today.) I made a mistake with the example policy link, and should have linked WP:MOSLINK. Have a look at What generally should not be linked and Link specificity. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  00:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --qwekiop147 → talk 00:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Missy Peregrym

Thanks for the help regarding the MP article and showing me how to correctly format the table much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchhousefantatic (talk • contribs) 14:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. GFHandel ♬  20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Question about dates

Had a question - I am also a fan of a certain date format and noticed your recent changes. I did this change for a long time as-well until I found out tools like Reflinks, Checklinks and [ Google book tool etc dont have this format - I have tried to inquirer about this fact but to no avail - how do you deal with all thats produced by theses tools in articles you fix? - they get converted back - no way one editors can keep up - what do you do?.Moxy (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've never understood why editors are allowed to run scripts that leave articles in an inconsistent state (which is contrary to policy). I also don't understand why there can't be different variants of the script so that the one matching the underlying date format can be run. If anyone wants to propose that such editors are required to manually return articles to a consistent state after they run their scripts, I'll be very easy to find for a support !vote. GFHandel ♬  20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Dangers of datebot

In Jallianwala Bagh massacre the date technique you use incorrectly changed the name of a (paper) document from "18/3/1940", probably not actually a date, to "18 March 1940". I'm not sure how you'd go about avoiding this, maybe need to manually check all changes. I've used the Template:sic hopefully to prevent this recurring: "{{sic|18/3/1|940|hide=y}}", which displays as "18/3/1940" but shouldn't be seen by an automatic date seeker; do you have any better suggestion? What would happen with an ambiguous date such as "9/11/2001"? Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I do check, but instances like this are so rare that they can slip through (in other words, I didn't check carefully enough in this case – so apologies). I think your solution is a good one. By the way, I'm not aware of any bots doing these sorts of date updates (just manual running of scripts). Cheers. GFHandel ♬  20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I was concerned that some automatic procedure was pumping out these changes; the occasional human error is less problematical (I make enough myself). My "sic" is hardly necessary if everything is checked; I'll leave it in place but not use it elsewhere. Pol098 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Accusation of being a racist

This edit has accused me of being a racist – something that's never happened to me on (or off) WP. My intention in reverting the editor responsible was the opposite, in that I couldn't see the point of linking the information in the table to race. I also believe the editor's strategy to be flawed in that only "W" (white) and "B" (black) are being currently used (unsourced), and that there will be problems when cases of mixed race are encountered (something the editor in question has ignored when asked). I don't want to transgress 3RR, and I think someone else should look at the situation. Thanks for any assistance that can be provided. GFHandel ♬  20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Another editor has removed their classification, pointing out that "black" and "white" are hardly races. Hopefully the IP will drift off to do more productive things. I have put a warning on their talk page. Sorry you had this bad experience. -- Dianna (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

GFHandel is the last editor I'd accuse of being racist. Tony (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Referencing style change

It is my understanding that it is not appropriate to change the reference style used in an article. That is because different editors prefer different styles. So to avoid edit wars on this, the style in place should not be changed. So while you like the references at the end, I find that unusable. So to each his own. The only reason to name a reference is if it is being used in multiple places in the article. Since none of the ones were I did not see a need to leave the name there. If you really want to leave the names, I guess you can. I seem to recall that some bot or script will remove names when they are not really needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

(What I find unusable is the approach of posting a reply on a different talk page to the question – with no navigation link between the topics, so here is my original question.)

"Unusable" in that it can't be used? Clearly not, as is evidenced by its use in countless articles; including, to take a random example, today's featured article. I'm sure that with a little help (which I'm more than willing to provide), you'll have no trouble learning to use (and appreciate) the style that is achieving a huge groundswell of support across WP. If the scheme of placing referencing information at the end of the article is usable in featured articles, perhaps it's usable in the Graceland Wedding Chapel article?

References are often not named well, so pre-naming them before mutli-use sets a useful standard for other editors. It also saves work by other editors, and helps in the case where other editors may not know the syntax of naming citations. Since you mention it in your support, could you please do a little more research into which "bot or script will remove names when they are not really needed"? I've not seen it in practice and need to know more about it.

Personally, the hardest thing in all this is the demoralising and halting effect that an edit such as yours has on someone who clearly was trying to improve an article. The article (which is obviously on your watchlist) was very ordinary: containing unreferenced information, grammatical problems, a dead-link, and limited information. The article had been in that state for years – during which time your efforts to improve it have consisted of about eight reverts. That's fine, because no one is required to work on an article, however when an editor comes along and demonstrates a desire to improve the article (and you had to AGF that based on my demonstrated content-building history I was willing to do a great deal more work – which I was), then it would be a far better strategy for you to hold fire for a day or two to see what develops (from the one editor who has worked to improve the article in the previous many years). At the very least you could have started a discussion before acting. For your information, I had started to research more sources both to replace the deadlink and to find support for the rest of the unsupported information, however based on events, there's no way I'm going near the article again (and have removed it from my watchlist).

There have been a number of demoralising on-wiki incidents lately, and I'm afraid that this is another. (I'm not saying that this is necessarily characteristic of the original poster, but...) more and more I'm finding that Wikipedia is dominated and controlled by rule-book-enforcing editors who have little remaining true content-building activity; and in IMHO, content-building means researching reliable sources and adding/updating article text (and not activities such as organising and reorganising categories). A word to the wise to all: effective enforcing means knowing when not to enforce.

I fear that the time for departure is approaching. :-(

("Unusable"? Really?)

GFHandel ♬  20:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Vegas, do you mean that those appalling inline styles where each citation takes what looks like a whole paragraph of text, making editing extremely difficult in the edit box ... they can't be updated with a less dysfunctional method? Tony (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Samcoghlan

Category:Amritsar Massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samcoghlan (talk • contribs) 11:12, 7 March 2013

(talk page stalker) I have refactored this. Samcoghlan had added it without a preceding : and had thus put your user page in this category. Voceditenore (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm copying below the message he had placed on that category page which does not belong there:

Hello GFHandel, I changed the reference on the Amritsar Massacre from pages=692 to page=692, as you'd requested, but then you undid the edit. Please could you explain why? I'm sorry for using pages= the first time (I'm new to Wikipedia), but I when I changed it to page= you undid the edit. I have re-read the book, and the reference is clearly on page 692. Please let me know what I can do to add the script to the Amritsar Massacre. Many thanks. [1]

I have removed it from the category page. Voceditenore (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Voceditenore for the tidy-up. (I'm not sure why the category is needed here?)

Yes, there was a miscommunication, and I mistakenly took your edit for a straight-out revert. Please note that you should not use an edit summary of "Undid revision 542425220 by ..." when you are not doing an exact revert. You were (as per my request) correcting "|pages=" to "|page=" so perhaps an edit summary to that effect would be more helpful? My apologies to you because I should have looked more carefully at the edit (instead of not getting past the edit summary). Anyhow, all good now. Cheers.

GFHandel ♬  20:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello GFHandel, I've just added a reference to Churchill's speech that includes a page range, not a single page. I inserted it into the pages= section, not the page= section as this is the instruction that pops up when I allow the mouse to hover over pages= and page=. But from your previous message, I understand pages= is to be used for the total number of pages. Which is correct? Please let me know and I shall amend the reference, if necessary. Many thanks. --Samcoghlan (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

According to the documentation it is fine to use "|pages=" to indicate a range that supports the source (and I'm not sure where I got the idea that |pages was used to indicate the total number of pages). I must admit that I don't like using {{cite book}} by itself; instead, I prefer to use it in conjunction with {{sfn}}. I have corrected the |pages parameter in the article, but that case is the perfect example why {{sfn}} should be used – to avoid the repetition of source details when citing a source more than once (with different pages involved in the citations). You can find other reasons supporting {{sfn}} use at User:Diannaa/Citation templates. I would be more than happy to go through that article and update the referencing scheme (if I didn't think that attempt would lead to misery and heartache). :-) GFHandel ♬  20:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello GFHandel, I've had a recent exchange with Ratnakar.kulkarni on his talk page, and would like to refer it to you. Please let me know what you think. --Samcoghlan (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not understand his purpose of referring, in any case it is my talk page.--sarvajna (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Annemarie Kremer‎

Any chance this could get to the point where we save it? It seems a shame that we delete articles like these. I tried but I couldn't find much more than what's already there. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we did save it! :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, although I have no idea why the citation syntax was moved out of {{reflist}} and back into the article text? It is so hard to work with article text (especially for the casual editor) when more than 50% of the article consists of reference syntax. Sigh. GFHandel ♬  18:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No idea. I guess different editors like different formats, although I tend to refer that one, honestly. I agree that it's impossible to do any meaningful work with inline citations. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:George Frideric Handel

You are one of a handful of editors who has made at least 25 edits to George Frideric Handel. I am not a musical scholar or student and was hoping you might be able to help me organize {{George Frideric Handel}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all that, and I'll keep an eye on it. I suspect the devil-in-the-detail will start with trying to categorise the "Other" entries; but maybe not everything has to be in the template? Perhaps follow the section headings on List of compositions by George Frideric Handel? E.g. "Oboe" -> "Concertos" (and absorbing the stuff out of "Opus" in the template), "Works -> "Orchestral works", "Flute, Solo & XV solo Sonatas" -> "Sonatas"? I would also change the link text from "Compositions" to "List of Compositions". Cheers. GFHandel ♬  05:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey GFHandel; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Jiroemon Kimura

Hi! I restored my edit. Most of the Japan-related articles use MDY format and the original format of the article was MDY. That was why I restored the date format as WP:DATE says "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor". If the article uses DMY format from the beginning, I would not have done anything. What's wrong with the original MDY format? Please do not change it. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Answered on the article's talk page – so please take the discussion there so that everyone can share and enjoy. GFHandel ♬  06:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Adriana Karembeu

Hi. i managed to complete the article about Adriana Karembeu in English by using information and sources from her article in French. i have also mentioned it when i published the new page. The article in French is quite good and has a lot of correct information. i want you to explain me why did you remove what i have done, i just don't understand. It is unfair and not normal. i have not spent two hours completing the article to see all my work deleted a few minutes later for no reason. --- Hypuxylun (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking about my revert. Where to start? Oh yes:

• You can't just add information to the English Wikipedia and say that it is supported because it came from the French Wikipedia. If you want to do that, you must bring the sources over from the French article. Have you carefully read WP:BLP and WP:RS?
• You have added a large amount of unsourced information (paragraphs of it) – reason enough for a revert. The article state to which I reverted doesn't read as well, but at least it is (mostly) sourced. I think there is only one sentence not covered by sources – something I will fix (and thank you for that reference).
• The community here long ago abandoned date linking. What on Earth does a link to 1990s bring to the article?
• The "Official website" you provided is basically an advertisement for Silicium that uses the subject's name and face. That doesn't meet the requirements here for being an "Official website".
• I do realise that over-linking is rife on the French Wikipedia, and you should be aware that the English Wikipedia has much higher standards for linking. Here we resist things like fashion model, actress and television personality.
• The addition of diacritical marks ("Sklenaříková") which are not found at the FMD source.
• Why would you change a "cite news" to "cite web" for a BBC News citation?

I'm sorry, but the total of poor changes simply made it easier to do a single revert – hopefully with the aim that we can build up the article slowly, but consistently. This only confirms what I've long experienced: that the English Wikipedia has much higher standards than the French Wikipedia – standards that I'm proud to do my part to uphold. If you want to add swathes of text, it is your responsibility (in a BLP) to supply sources. That said, I'm more than happy to help you add properly referenced information to the article, so why don't you propose your changes and sources on the talk page, and I'll give you a hand integrating them into the article? Cheers.

GFHandel ♬  21:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Apology needed

You deleted my message [2]. Kindly replace it. You can of course revert the archiving. You can't delete other peoples messages. --Kleinzach 01:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Content moved from main userspace

He was despised, you helped me with that, now you join good editors in their exodus, - I don't want to complain but it makes it harder to stay. Best wishes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)