User talk:Waldhorn

Paul Jacobs

Hi,

I tried to add Paul Jacobs's most recent album to his page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Jacobs_(organist)). Here is the CD: (http://www.shopsfsymphony.org/shop/product.php?productid=1884&cat=83&page=1). Do I need to cite it differently? I was trying to copy the discography on Yo-Yo Ma's page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo-Yo_Ma_discography). Sorry for the confusion, I am still quite a wikipedia noobie.

DeCombray —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, DeCombray. Thanks for dropping by. I reverted a recent Paul Jacobs edit because it was unsourced. WP requires that we cite verifiable sources (see WP:Source), not perform original research (see WP:NOR), and write only about notable topics (see WP:NOTE). Verifiable sources should be third-party sites, such as newspapers, journals, etc. (Shopping sites don't qualify.) If you have an avid interest in contributing to discography articles or sections, I would encourage you to look at WP:DISCOGS, read over its associated discussion page to get a feel for editor concerns, check out good examples of dicographies and even contact active editors in that area to get their feedback. Good luck and enjoy! -- Waldhorn (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Pipe organ / Montre

Hello Waldhorn, I've found this, written by PETER WILLIAMS, BARBARA OWEN, in the New Grove under ORGAN STOP: Montre (Fr.). The case pipes of the French organ, corresponding to the English Open Diapason, the German Prestant, the Italian Principale, etc. Early alternative names were ‘le principal de devant’, ‘devanture en monstre’ (Reims Cathedral, 1570). The tone of the classical French Montre was somewhat more fluty than the various English Open Diapason types or German Principals. I hope this should be sufficient, however I'll try to have a more meticulous look in some other sources.

While I'm here, tell me what you think of the Organ of the Basilica of St. Martin (Weingarten) article; I've tried to make it look a bit more presentable, although obviously it still has some issues. Any hints and/or comments are more than welcome. --Chrysalifourfour (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's another reference, from G.A. AUDSLEY's Art of Organ-Building, Vol. I, p.544 ISBN 0-486-21314-5:

MONTRE, Fr. -The name commonly applied by the French organ builders to such foundations and organ-toned metal stops as may be mounted or displayed in the buffet or case of an organ; accordingly, the MONTRES, which are usually of burnished tin, may be of 32 ft., 16 ft., and 8 ft. speaking lengths, as in the Organ in the Royal Church at Saint Denis near Paris. Sometimes the name is applied to the PRESTANT 4 ft., when its pipes are mounted. All the MONTRES are most carefully fashioned and finished, producing, when of tin brightly burnished, a beautiful effect in combination with the dark wood-work of the case.

I'll keep my eyes open for any further references! --Chrysalifourfour (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no reply so far, so I'll revert the edit, this time adding the citations above. You're always welcome to make more edits and/or suggestions :-) --Chrysalifourfour (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies--I've been mostly away from my computer and WP editing for a couple of weeks. I took a quick look at your edits at Pipe organ and they look well written and researched. I'll look at Organ of the Basilica of St. Martin (Weingarten) later this week. Regards  —Waldhorn (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, I've just discovered that the English WP doesn't have an article on the Swallow's nest organ type (see de:Schwalbennestorgel) and I was wandering if you'd like to write one. I think it's a fascinating subject for us organ enthousiasts; I'd translate the above article myself, but I'm afraid my German is far from adequate. Anyway, I hope you make a start with it, or speak to someone else who might be happy to have a go. Greetings! --Chrysalifourfour (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Benighten Empire (band)

I thought I followed all guidelines under wikipedia rule under a7 and all rules with genuine references and links to all i have wrote about for Benighten Empire. I used no social media, blogs, and store sites for my reference, all are third party sources like reviews, main sites, and interviews by webzines, magazines, ect.

thank you for your time, and maybe you can pin point where this went wrong, everything I wrote is credible

may i remove the speedy deletion ? --BlackMetalArea (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I sourced everything back and I believe everything in the Benighten Empire ( band ) was correct and following all guidelines of A7 . Page should not be deleted . I found everything to be of third party reference. --Occultwolf (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The provided sources appear to be mostly self-published sites which are not reliable sources. See WP:BAND. The creator of a page can't remove the CSD tag. See WP:CSD. Furthermore, the page fails to make a credible claim of the significance of the band. —Waldhorn (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Then I guess all bands on this site with third party sources should get deleted, I found alot of them that have the same as this page . And the self published sites are not self published, they are big companies that do reviews in this genera of music which makes them third party, all bands besides classical should be taken down from wiki if this is the case. I followed also another big bands page to help me build this page. confused even by the guidelines nothing is adding up. all the bands on wiki are not credible. --BlackMetalArea (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi BlackMetalArea. Have a look at WP:Other stuff exists regarding your argument that compares this article to similar articles. BTW, I checked the web sites for provided references, (about us links, etc.), and they do appear to me to be either self-published or pay-to-play sites, which are considered unreliable. Are there other available sources, such as newspaper articles? In any event, also, have a look at WP:Cite_sources for helpful guidelines on how to format your cited sources. Regards,  —Waldhorn (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of State save

Hello Waldhorn, please note that articles that are not written in English and/or Latin letters are not automatically patent nonsense. So unless you can read the language and can confirm that it is nonsense, please don't tag such pages for speedy deletion, but mark them with {{notenglish}} and list them at Pages needing translation. Articles that haven't been translated within two weeks will be proposed for deletion anyway. Regards, De728631 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, De728631, for your message. A discussion regarding this topic exists on the talk page for that article. Please post your comments relating to this topic there and refrain from posting here. Thank you. —Waldhorn (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Waldhorn. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. For more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Further info on Clerestory Roofed Railway Coaches, in particular Pullman Imports to the UK

The first recorded Clerestory Roofed Railway Coach preserved in the UK (albeit in poor condition) was the coach "Midland" referred to in the article, i.e. the 1874 coach.

I am not so sure about the statement 'from the mid-19th century' in the previous unedited paragraph, if treated unqualified - and will have to check this out at the NRM when I'm next at the search engine. ("Preserved Railway Carriages", Michael Harris, Ian Allen 1976, ISBN 0 7110 0664 4). So the Pullman Import (to the UK) design was relevant to the subsequent design of roof outlines of Railway Coaches here.

Of course, in the US, the roof design was in use earlier, George Pullman first fully own designed coach was "Pioneer" in 1864; the coach then being used in Pres. Lincoln's Funeral Train in 1865 (as being the most impressive 'railroad car' - US vernacular - available at that time, and tradition says the choice of Mary Todd Lincoln). This of course provided notoriety and impetus to GP's fledgling business. (https://www.flickr.com/photos/terry_browne/galleries/72157631416127072/ - and https://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?z=t&w=2031425%40N22&m=pool&q=Lincoln%20funeral%20train ).

As to earlier built clerestory roofed coaches, I have been unable to research earlier than 1865 (US) or 1874 (UK) vehicles, so far.

Certainly your comment about being also relevant to the various Pullman pages is relevant, and I shall be looking at that - but I think a cross reference is enough to start with at least. Possibly some of this reply in a different form ought also to be added to the original article, as well. Cheers. terry nyorks (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)~

Northridge earthquake

Hi! Thanks for your concern, but the link to that video was there already and was not added by me. When I clicked the link, it brought up a page saved on the webarchive. The archived version contains a trojan, yet the active page does not. I simply restored the original URL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.34.173 (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Scoliosis query

Hi Waldhorn...the entry was a straight entry from Spinal curvature page with no citations given. I was merging article between Human vertebral column and the different conditions-including kyphosis, and lordosis. Just thought they ought to be entered in the first place and could be picked up later for ce. It does seem that these articles could be expanded re treatment but I haven't really looked at them yet and didn't want to just leave out the material. Thanks Iztwoz (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Iztwoz. The material appears to be essentially summary material that can be found elsewhere in the article, so perhaps a citation isn't really necessary. One thing I noticed, however, is that it seems overly-specific as a lead-in for the section and suppresses the introductory sentence regarding management: "The traditional medical management...". Would you consider moving it to the end of the parent section, right before or after the final sentence "A growing body of scientific..."? —Waldhorn (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Have done as suggested and minor changes - think it looks better. Thanks......feel free to change anything. Iztwoz (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

References for architecture articles

Hi Waldhorn. Thank you for the note. The editings are based on an in-class glossary that is collected from couple of databases. To the best of my recollection, Princeton's medieval architecture and art glossary has been the main source. I will cite references after locating the databases the glossary was collected from. Meanwhile, i would appreciate your help with the supporting materials. The knowledge edited are basic definitions that could be found in any source on medieval architecture. Best. Brkzdmr (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Brkzdmr. Is Princeton's glossary published in some form way? (See WP:PUBLISHED for guidelines.) If so, it might be considered to a reliable source and used as a reference. A similar test could be applied to the underlying database, especially if it can be accessed online. Meanwhile, I'll search online for reliable references as time permits. Alternately, perhaps support might be found in existing references in some of the articles. Best. —Waldhorn (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Wrench

Hi Waldhorn, I'm new to this and I am the CHRISTOPHER WRENCH of the article. I updated some biographical information, corrected an incorrect reference to the 'Adelaide Symphony Orchestra' (should be 'Adelaide Chamber Orchestra') as well as fixing an outdated website link to MELBA records. EG: I am no longer organist at St Mary's Kangaroo Point (the link to SMKP will verify that and confirm my new position). What is required to have these corrections restored? Musicus6 (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Christopher! Because you are writing about yourself, the first thing to do is to read WP:AUTOBIO and WP:CONFLICT. In a nutshell, Wikipedia strongly discourages writing about yourself or about topics with which you might have a conflict of interest. Avoid editing in a way that could cause the article and your user page to end up getting tagged with COI notices, which reflects poorly. So, go ahead and read those policy articles and any related ones that pique your interest. If anything, it will help bring you up-to-speed on how to contribute to Wikipedia, perhaps in areas that you have expert knowledge. Regards. —Waldhorn (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you - I understand. The factual updates I listed are available on at least 2 of the sources already cited in the article.Musicus6 (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Not sure how to respond to your msg on Wiki, so I'm trying this. Thanks so much for your feedback: I will take your suggestion!

Perhaps you can tell me the best way to respond to msgs on Wiki? I do find it difficult to use! Thanks again!

Sincerely,

Tina

TinaCFLE (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tina. Thank you for the kittens. They're good company. A couple of places to start learning about user talk pages is Help:Using talk pages and Help:Introduction to talk_pages. Most users respond at the user page where the discussion began, as I'm doing here. To watch for responses, place a user's page on their watchlist. As a backup, some users will leave a Talkback template at the user page of the user that they are responding to ensure that they see the message. I hope that this helps! Best —Waldhorn (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi. You received my earlier msg of appreciation, right? I guess Wiki keeps no record of this whatsoever. Thank you again for your help!

Sincerely,

Tina

TinaCFLE (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hanlon's Razor

G'day Waldhorn, Given the wiki already has unattributed material (re Greys Law) I was wondering about the removal of association with Napoleon due to the lack of a citation for a primary source. Can you please elaborate on the subtleties therein? Frankauz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Frankauz. Wikipedia requires that added content be verifiable. Have a look over at WP:VERIFY. For an essay on why Wikipedians try to avoid adding unsourced/unverifiable/unattributed material, even when it appears to be a problem on related Wikipedia pages, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Thanks for dropping in! —Waldhorn (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Help documenting a pipe organ

Hello, I am wondering if you would be willing to help me write an article about a pipe organ restoration that has happened, and has been documented in the NY Times and other such sources.

Would you be willing to assist me if I did the writing, let you edit and provided all of the sources?

Thank you for your consideration. —Aristide1811

Hi Aristide1811. Looking at your edit history, I'm guessing that you're talking about the the Kilgen at Our Lady of Refuge. A Google search reveals a 9/2013 NYT article — plus a smattering of articles from the Catholic press which are not sufficiently independent of the subject and don't qualify as reliable sources. Because it lacks significant coverage, and because the NYT coverage is really about the local-interest/human-interest angle regarding the labor-of-love restoration process, I don't feel that the organ itself is notable (see WP:Notability). Therefore, I think the information is best suited to the organs section of the Kilgen article (or within an article about the church building, should one exist). If you would like to add something there, just keep it very brief, factual and objective, and avoid WP:PLUG (e.g., for persons or record labels). I'll watch the page and tidy up as necessary. Thanks for dropping by. Regards. —Waldhorn (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you getting back to me. Yes it would be about the organ at OLR. I understand the factual nature of Wikipedia.

Just as a general outline could I do one of 2 things?

a. History of the church - which was generated fome old NY Times articles and obituaries of the past priests. The architect frankly is a bit remarkable and some of the artists hired who's children and grandchildren have some through the church over the years, some are notable. The later I have not noted in the history. http://www.olrbrooklyn.org/history/

b. article about the organ. I have the 1933 August Diapason that did a write up on the organ, the 2 NY Times articles. How much of Oliver Latry dedicating the organ to a packed church is admissible? I have some original Kilgen documents and I think I might be able to locate the cost - there are no signed contracts. Are any of the comments from the dedication admissible? Such as: http://www.brooklyndaily.com/stories/2013/43/bn-organ-dedication-2013_10_25_bk.html

There is a lot to chew in Notability sections of Wikipedia. I would like to get this documented would appreciate your assistance in working with me on this.

Aristide1811 (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aristide1811,

a: The church - Who is the architect of the church? If the architect has an article in Wikipedia, then including the church in a list of the person's output is a typical approach. If an article hasn't been written on the person, find published, reliable sources (WP:RS) that cover the architect's work in detail and establish notability. Avoid original research (WP:OR) by digging through unpublished records. That said, you could write a separate article on the building if it is notable in its own right.

b: The organ - It looks like you're working to establish notability based on an event, such as the 1933 new-organ announcement or the recent refurbishment efforts/rededication concert. My question is, are those events notable? Based on the criteria in WP:EVENT, I'm inclined to say that they are one-off news items and don't elevate these events to lasting historical significance. However, the notability requirements for inclusion within a larger topic, such as the builder (Kilgen) or the building's architect, are relaxed and would be suitable for inclusion there. Aslo, keep in mind that documentation of an instrument (contracts, shop specs, correspondence) are not suitable (i.e., reliable & verifiable) sources and don't establish a topic's notability. Sources must be published in order to serve as references.

This leads me to ask, so what makes an organ notable? I'd approach the question in the same way that one would attempt to establish the notability of, say, a performing artist, which is to look for clear, established signs of notability within their discipline (e.g., a Grammy award). See WP:MUSICBIO. On the topic of organs, I'll venture here to a list some notability requirements: (1) significant coverage in published scholarly studies of the organ (e.g., The History of the Organ in the United States or The History of the English Organ), (2) significant coverage in the press, perhaps for an unusual characteristic (e.g., Walt Disney Concert Hall [shape] or Atlantic City [size]), (3) appearing on multiple, well-established record labels (e.g., Westminster Abbey or St. John the Divine), or (4) a historic citation (e.g., from a conservancy or a governing body). No doubt, there are more criteria one could come up with.

Trying to approach this objectively, I don't find a compelling argument for the OLR organ being notable. Kilgen is known primarily for its instrument at St. Patrick's Cathedral. While I admire your genuine passion for the OLR instrument, I sense that, and I hesitate to say this, there's an underlying conflict of interest in your desire to promote the rededication of this instrument. Looking at your very limited edit history, the majority of your edits serve to promote the JAV record label, and since the OLR organ restoration project is featured prominently at the JAV web site, I can only conclude that your proposed edits are another effort to promote the JAV label and showcase a favorite cause (OLR)—both of which you have a very close association with. To understand Wikipedia's prohibition on conflict-of-interest editing, please have a look at the guidelines regarding conflicts of interest (WP:COI) and single-purpose accounts (WP:SPA) and how to avoid having your account or articles you edit being hit with COI tags. In the end, if you feel strongly that this instrument deserves scholarly study, ongoing coverage in the press, an historic citation, etc., consider promoting it through those channels first and allowing public notability to follow over time. On the broader topic of organs, your exposure to a variety of organs is a valuable resource to Wikipedia. I invite you to join the editing community by contributing to articles and topics that interest you but with which you have no close association.

Thanks again for contacting me and I welcome any replies.

 —Waldhorn (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Noah305

Hey Waldhorn, thank you very much for your help on that Bio warfare article. I am still researching on how to add citations and images to a Wikipedia article, but I'm sure that in a few days I'll have it figured out. Wikipedia is fun because it's a way to practice writing informational material while helping others. I'll be glad that I practiced writing this summer when I go back to school and start writing essays...

Happy editing,

Noah305

My pleasure, Noah305. Good luck with your writing practice and with your studies. Here's another pointer for communicating with others on Wikipedia: When using talk pages and user talk pages, place new conversations at the bottom of a page and sign and date your posts using four tilde marks. Help:Using talk pages explains it all in detail. Thanks for dropping by! Best. —Waldhorn (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Alright... I'll do that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah305 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Corpus Christi College, Cambridge - drinking societies

Hi Waldhorn,

Thank you for your message as regards my editing of the Corpus Christi Wikipedia page. I agree that the original manner in which I typed up my edit was not neutral (I will happily admit that I am far from unbiased when it comes to Drinking Societies), however since Wikipedia also serves to elucidate fact for all who care to discover - I feel it's important that the content of my edit be included on the page.

The simple fact is - Drinking Societies do still exist, and although it suits the college to state publicly that they have 'banned' them - they make no real effort to enforce that ban. Thus they get to have their cake and eat it.

My main concern is for prospective students who are thinking of applying to Corpus - I think it would be unfair for them to be misled on something that represents a big social issue for undergraduates who have to commit to spending three years at that college.

Tom 77.96.175.132 (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Tom,

Thank you for dropping in. Looking back at the message that I left for you regarding your edit to Corpus Christi, perhaps I should have chosen a different message. The real issue that I see in your edit is that it is based on your own original research / observations (see WP:OR) rather than verifiable sources (WP:VERIFY). Are you aware of a published source that supports your first-hand account of the true nature of how drinking societies operate at Cambridge? With adequate coverage, Drinking societies could be a sufficiently notable topic to stand as an independent article. Regards. —Waldhorn (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Piano article

Hi, Waldhorn.

Is this the place for my question? You reverted my changes to the Piano article, and before I cite a source I want to be clear what you think needs citing! I assume its the discussion about Bösendorfer rims?

Cheers. Joelthesecond (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joelthesecond. Sure, this is a good place to chat about your edits to Piano. Also, the talk page for the article is also a good place to discuss proposed changes.

Yes, one of my concerns was the addition regarding Bösendorfer rims. Also, I was concerned about what appeared to be original research (see WP:OR) and missing citations (see WP:VERIFY) relating to:

• the changes surrounding the meaning of the text relating to the 1880 patent (if I understand it correctly, it's about the bending process, not necessarily the lamination method),
• "strengthening the cabinet", "violin tops", "ebony", etc. (new data/concepts lacking citations)

Thanks for dropping by, and let me know if you'd like additional help, e.g., with crafting citations (see WP:CITE and the ever-helpful WP:CITETOOLs). Best —Waldhorn (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Waldhorn, yes; a citation for the Bösendorfer rim would be useful. I will dig that up.

With respect to rim bending, the piano is not made of "strips of hardwood plywood". That is not a little comical! "Plywood" as it is understood today is something entirely different. Imagine using strips of plywood to make a piano case. Now that would need a citation. It is a pity to revert to that.

Previous methods of construction attached the bent side to the straight sides via an end-grain joint, which is inherently weak compared to a continuous and multi-plied rim. I don't know that there is a reference to this; it is simply common knowledge that an uninterrupted piece of wood is stronger than two pieces joined at the end grain. If that basic concept of joinery needs a citation in this context, I fear the whole article needs hundreds of new citations.

I don't understand your point about the lamination "process" vs. the "method". Please help me there.

Violin tops are spruce; that's an easy citation. But is it really necessary? Guitar tops are currently asserted in the article as spruce (despite no citation). Unfortunately--and unlike the violin--they often are cedar. I fear you've reverted a well-known fact to a misleading statement.

There is no citation for ivory being protected. Why ebony? Again, it may be reasonable to cite, but if we remove facts because they aren't cited and leave incomplete information (note that the sharps are mentioned as formerly ebony, but then the thought is lost when the naturals' transition from ivory to plastic is asserted...but not cited), we are worse off.

I'll see what I can come up with, but I wonder: How do we decide on a level of citation that informs rather than stultifies?Joelthesecond (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Waldhorn. Tell me, how do I enter text on a talk page so that each successive reply indents?

Thanks. Joelthesecond (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joelthesecond. Thank you for your feedback and discussion. I'm enjoying it.

First, regarding indentation, use one colon for each level of indentation. And, clumsy as it may be, each paragraph at the same indentation level requires the same treatment. See WP:THREAD for detailed instructions.

Looking at your edits, you appear to be an expert in the field of piano manufacturing, servicing or sales. Wikipedia likes experts as they have a more complete understanding of the subject matter and may have better access to sources. See the essay WP:EXPERT. That said, edits by experts still need to be verifiable, based on reliable sources and not based on original research.

Responding to your points:

• Fixing the description "strips of hardwood plywood" seems elementary and doesn't appear to need a citation.
• A description of the bent lamination process developed by Steinway is surely available in a reference. That reference would likely discuss the benefits that you mention, i.e., strengthening the cabinet. One reference for the entire discussion could suffice.
• My point wasn't about "process" vs. "method" but rather that the 1880 patent appears to be about about bending vs. lamination.
• Like any other statement, saying that violin tops are spruce should be cited. And well-known facts should be easy to source. But more to the point, is there a source that explains the relevance of the materials used in other acoustical instruments? Otherwise, it's a bit a synthesis (assuming that there are citations to begin with). (See WP:SYNTH.)

Most of the article is unsourced. That's a problem because is difficult to reliably verify whether what is being said accurate. For example, a recent editor added that harpsichord plucks are "usually made from a crow". Why does this data even matter to pianos? Is the editor an expert? Is this obvious knowledge? Is the pluck made from a feather, claw, beak, intestine, or the entire bird? The reader has no way of knowing without a verifiable source; and future editors have to build their research and verification from scratch if there are limited or no sources.

So, does the article need more citations? Absolutely! I find that the best articles in Wikipedia are thoroughly, even obsessively, sourced, generally by people who are passionate about a topic. Join in and give it a spin!

Best. —Waldhorn (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Waldhorn. Alas, this is a challenge, and I am lazy. You see, experts feel that their expertise is a sufficient source, and that they can simply write out of their heads.

Hahahahahahaha!

But really, your challenge forces the content of this and all articles to lose their casual nature. And of course, that's just what you want, and what will make all articles better, and more reliable.

I'll see what I have time for in the days ahead.

Thanks for the tip on indentation. Joelthesecond (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Efflorescence

Hi Waldhorn,

I do not yet have an account with Wikipedia, but I am certainly happy to create one if that is a problem. Yesterday was the first time I have ever made a contribution, so I am not familiar with due process.

I edited the article about efflorescence to make it impartial. The version that you have reverted is commercially biased and serves to misinform. Perhaps you are the author?

I am happy to discuss this with you further if you consider there are inaccuracies in my description., but I would recommend that my edit is reinstated.

Yours faithfully, Stonesy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.33.45 (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Stonesy. Welcome to Wikipedia! I encourage you to create an account as it allows you greater control over your contributions.

I reverted your contribution because your edit summary didn't explain the reason for removing content, and your changes were not supported by verifiable information. Please have a look at Help:Getting started for an overview of how Wikipedia works and how we strive to rely upon verifiable information. If you have reliable sources that support the changes you'd like to make, please do come back and contribute.

To see the history of contributions to the article on efflorescence, please click on its 'View history' tab (or click here.) You'll note that I made just two edits to the article, the one prior to the revert being where I place a 'refimprove' template alerting readers & editors to the need for improved references for this article. Unless you observe a user engaging in blatant vandalism, we like to WP:Assume good faith.

Thank you for dropping by, and please feel free to return with any questions.

 —Waldhorn (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Waldhorn,

Thank you for the warm welcome. I will take you up on your invitation to create an account, and I will be sure to consider an impartial contribution both carefully and as accurately as possible. So what is your role? I assume you must be an administrator?

Cheers,

Stonesy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.33.45 (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stonesy. Alas, at the moment I'm an ordinary user with rollbacker rights. You can check any user's rights out by going to their contributions page and then scrolling down to the footer where you would see 'User rights'. Best —Waldhorn (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Los Angeles Philharmonic roster

Why is a sports team's roster notable yet an orchestra's is not? There are musicologists, critics and music lovers interested in that, and it's disrespectful when they get no recognition. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pakhtakorienne. My understanding is that individuals within a list of persons should meet the notability requirements explained at WP:LISTPEOPLE. Cheers —Waldhorn (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

But there are lots of articles of football teams playing in non-professional leagues with no notable players where their current squad is included. For example FF Giza/FC Hoyvík. Isn't it a double standard? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I feel like you're making a WP:Other stuff exists argument that doesn't quite float, especially when there is little comparison between an article on a world-class symphony orchestra and an article on on a non-professional league. A more useful comparison, in my opinion, would be with other articles on major symphony orchestras, where you'll find that they list their music directors and perhaps their principal players. Cheers. —Waldhorn (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Alan Turing

Waldhorn, I was quite surprised to see your second reversion of my edit: I am struggling to see why the inconsistent accuracy and removal of clarifying links would be preferable in the lead. I have posted a note on the article's talk page instead of reverting. I would be interested to read your opinion. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)