User talk:GFHandel

Hi HWV258. Welcome to WP. Someone will come along soon and paste in the standard greeting and provide basic information. Tony (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Handel

Nice work, my friend. I've touched up one of the tables. Have you seen Wikipedia:Featured_list_criteria? And you might consider reviewing a few Featured list candidates if you can manage the time: they could do with a strong contributor, and it's a task that can be broken into little bits (each nomination). An objection can be lodged merely on the basis of failing to meet one of the criteria; full reviews are welcome, but not necessary to make an impact on the culture there. Tony (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Violin Sonata

The definition of a classical Violin sonata is for violin and piano, so there is no need to put the piano in the name as per Violin Sonata No. X (Beethoven). Although I will put the piano back into the article. Centy – reply• contribs – 02:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, GFHandel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Centy – reply• contribs – 03:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

took long enuff!

Finally, your welcome. They should have a bot to do it automatically and promptly. The MOS hierarchy issue crashed and burned because it brought out every little ego that's attached to the sub-pages, and that doesn't want to hear of MOS central prevailing over them by default when there's an inconsistency. Dumb. Tony (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User page filling out

Nice, HW. Now perhaps a pic from the Commons—surely there are one or two really good ones of Handel, or of Handelian themes. Tony (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

By "Commons", I meant "WikiMedia Commons" [1], a huge repository of copy-left images and other media. You're free to use them on your user page or anywhere else. Here's the Handel category. Tony (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I rather like these, for example:

The Handel House at his city of birth, Halle

And this nice performance:

The Arrival of the Queen of Sheba

dash it

Dashes as interrupters: many styleguides say it should be an unspaced em dash—but that's thought old-fashioned by some folk, who prefer a spaced en dash – MOS allows both, but hints that spaced em dashes — like this — are not the norm. My preference—you know—is for the unspaced em.

Me, I hate those spaced em dashes, coz they're just too likely to hang at the end of a line — besides, they're so wide that they're visually intrusive.

What do you think? You might wish to have your say here, where Noetica is trying to garner consensus for proscribing the spaced em dash – leaving just the standard two options.

PS Here's the stark difference:

• diddley squat - yadda yadda [hyphen – not allowed]
• diddley squat – yadda yadda [kewl]
• diddley squat—yadda yadda [yumm]
• diddley squat — yadda yadda [yucko]

Tony (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't decide between the spaced en dash and the unspaced em dash. The unspaced em dash seems to have hyphen-like overtones, whereas the spaced en dash loses effect when it breaks a line (non-breaking spaces could always be used). But, if push comes to shove, I'd probably use an unspaced em dash (as opposed to entering  – ).  HWV258  21:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the hard-space is necessary only before the en dash, if at all. Sandy fought hard for that to be a rule, but I don't think we went along with it in the end. More folks nowadays prefer the space en dash than the slightly old-fashioned (unspaced) em dash. Me, I'm old-fashioned. Also depends a little on the font: some fonts display HUUUUGE em dashes; and the column width (which is why most newspapers avoid em dashes). Tony (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Handel Categories

I usually wait until there's a few articles before I create a new category, but I suppose that's just an editorial preference of mine. I just didn't want to leave the article with a red link (basicallly uncategorized), so I put it in a category that existed. Its hard for editors and bots to find articles that are not categorized (and not many really check the stub category). If you end up eventually creating the psalm settings category at a later date, then you can recategorize it then.DavidRF (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hercules

Is it possible to mention the Greek legend from which the story is drawn? TONY (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from Down Under

Hi, HWV258. Tony1 mentioned you to me. I see on your user page the following philosophy: "I fully encourage any contributor to create a page, no matter how little it is of 'note' to another reader. The point being that if it isn't 'notable' it won't be found by people who aren't looking for it. One person's trash is another person's treasure". Welcome to my club!

Which leads me to let you know about an article I recently created, Posthumously born notable people. It’s in danger of being sent off to AfD for its alleged lack of “notability”, and I’m having some difficulty in justifying (in WP terms) why it should remain. I wonder if you can take a look at the talk page and let me know your thoughts, or add them there.

Oh, in case you haven’t already seen it, I’ve proposed an edit concerning Handel’s date of birth, which may interest you. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick support. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Remarks

Greetings, you noted in your response to my question at Tony1 (talk) that you'd be willing to help. I approach you for that reason. It is difficult for me to objectively evaluate the text because I spent time writing and researching the article; perhaps too much time :) . I feel that I am a good writer, but at the same time an article of such prominence as the Louvre (it is of top importance in WikiProject France) must offer something better than "good" to our readers. Specific worries of mine are that some of the text may not be adequately explained or not flow logically from thought-to-thought. Such things are difficult for the content-writing editor to notice because his mind automatically "fills in the blanks" with his prior knowledge of the subject. Anyway, I would greatly appreciate any assistance. Lastly, I like your point about wikilinks; it is not something I had thought of earlier. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

About Kleinzach....

Not to engage in talking behind his back or anything (which I guess this is...though he could easily be watching this page too), but I'm happy to see I'm not the only one annoyed by much of what he does, and I'm not just imagining things. Though I do think that you are forgetting about the WP:BOLD rule: a change without consensus is allowed just fine, it's just a matter of doing exactly what you did -- reverting and putting the discussion on the talk page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. If you feel inclined, please let me know of some of the things that have annoyed you. I hate this sort of stuff, but things are getting closer to a point where other actions may have to be taken. I'm in favour of being bold, but it is still possible to be bold in a sandpit area in order to demonstrate to the wider community the necessity for change. To blissfully disregard all the reasonable points made as one steam-rollers through the work of other editors is not being bold—it is being confrontational and boring.  HWV 258  06:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy visit

Hi H. I am interested in your contributions at WT:MOSNUM. Please don't overestimate any difference of opinion we appear to have. WP is riddled with problems: political and technical, technopolitical, and politicotechnical. We all hope for grand solutions that will sweep away lesser concerns; I too am an optimist by temperament, but experience with Wikipedia's blinkered technocracy has hardened me.

I am also interested in music articles, as you are. I am a serious music theorist, and passionate about rigour: so I am especially passionate about rigour in the music theory articles. Alas, as things stand these are an Augean mess. I initiated one article, Diatonic and chromatic, to shine a fifty-footnoted searchlight on one grey area in which confusion reigns, throughout the literature and throughout the web. So difficult! The prejudices and evasions were a marvel to behold.

Anyway, we try. When we can muster the energy and determination. Just one small thing on your page: the original and most accepted expression is to home in, not (as many think) to hone in. Best wishes to you!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No problems at all. I too am starting to experience some of the difficulties involved.  HWV 258  21:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

card

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

Extra! Extra! Read all bout it!

Extraordinary specimen, bred as a pet: looks unlikely, I must say.

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

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)

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)

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 [2] 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)

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 ([3], [4], [5], and [6]) 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)

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

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)

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)

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,[7] 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Hiero

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

Whoops

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Variety

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Who are you?

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

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

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)

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—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

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

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:

1. RfC Conduct
2. RfC Guide
3. RfC Guide 2
4. RfC Rules

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

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

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

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)

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)

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.[8] The article is about the book of essays dedicated to Baselt. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Fences&Windows 20:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

????

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)

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

Year Links Exception for "Oldest Person" from that Year

While noting that nearly all the persons commenting about year linking have been rude and crude (some even vandalizing my talk page...how is that productive?), you at least seemed more willing to consider "process."

From that, I'm going to say this: the year linking "guideline" is just that, a guideline. It seems completely rational to me that some exceptions should be made, and even the guideline notes that. Take the article on the year 1886. It has a list of famous persons. If you click on the name of the person and there's no year link, it becomes more difficult to "get back" to the page you were on.

Aside from functionality, however, is relevance. It makes perfect sense that since the world's oldest persons are held out in the media, time and again, as the "last living links" to the past, a YEAR link in that case is appropriate. Take Rebecca Hewison of the UK: an article on her death in 1994 (written before Wikipedia existed, I might add) said "last living link with 1881 is lost." Many of these articles also feature comments such as "born before the Titanic sank in 1912," a "survivor of the San Francisco earthquake in 1906" or even "born the year Queen Victoria died in 1901". Clearly, in such stories, the person's significance is not some personal achievement other than longevity and being a living "link" to the past...a symbol of history that is quickly moving from the realm of living memory.

It is generally Wiki policy for articles to follow the sources, not engage in original research. Even if year links are not considered useful to link to a person's birth, there could still be a compromise such as:

"Marie Bremont was noted as the last person alive verified as born in the calendar year 1886"

...a year article that, by the way, includes Marie Bremont (check the edit history...how long has that been there?) and is just justified in two ways, firstly as historical context and secondly as a link to another listing of the article subject elsewhere on Wikipedia.

Sincerely Robert Young Ryoung122 13:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not worth presenting the arguments again here. The debate can be followed here.

 HWV258.  22:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Jiroemon Kimura. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you may have erroneously credited RYoung with a statement authored by another account. It might be prudent to withdraw this lest he suggest you were accusing him of sockpuppetry. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the post by another account is evidence that RYoung122 canvassed.  HWV258.  03:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A Pet Dislike + Ryoung122

Hello! After a quick read of your pet dislikes I must say I almost completely agree. "Editors who want to turn WP into The Encyclopaedia Britannica. WP can be so much more, however with more and more pseudo-rules being imposed, I fear WP will be forever held back from what it could be" was absolutely spot on. I would say, however, that the encyclopedic nature of the articles is unassociated with the editing of talk pages. I think it's ironic how you criticize pseudo-rules, but you request Ryoung122 modify his talk page editing. Just some thoughts. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, where to start? Based on the posts on your talk page (and the obviously incorrect information on your user page—such as edit counts), there are serious issues you need to address. On a positive, have you ever thought about contributing to WP in a meaningful way? It's true that WP needs more editors; but only editors who are willing to constructively help are ultimately useful to the project. As a suggestion, take something that you are personally interested in, have a read through the articles on that topic, do some research, and edit, edit, edit (and take a backward step when you stuff-up—which all of us do from time-to-time).

(Note the consistent indenting.) In regards to the issue that prompted you to post on my talk page, please note that following accepted conventions (in terms of posting on talk pages) only serves to help the construction of an encyclopaedia. Good luck at WP.

 HWV258.  09:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your editing, editing, editing addressed precisely zero points accurately. I see that you've taken the "if they're wrong, you're right" approach. This doesn't work.

As soon as I hit "save page" I knew there would be some confusion on your part. I knew you wouldn't understand. Let me break it down as best as I can....(1) I would venture to say that the phrase "pseudo-rules" can refer to the severe overregulation of how and what editors write. I'm positive that such a wonderful editor, editor, editor such as yourself would certainly put it differently, but I'm on the right track (2) The already apparent existence of so much overregulation, I'm sure, can apply to the way people write on talk pages (3) That's annoying (4) For someone who hates "pseudo-rules" and limiting and all such evils, I'm sure most on Earth would agree that it is odd that you would ask someone to change the way they edit on talk pages.

You know, most Wikipedia editors I've come into contact with have been the same. Feisty, cannot take a little advice, cannot take criticism, attacks the editor not look into the issue, et cetera. The contact has always been like arguing with a Trekkie about episode 1395. You've proved no different. I attempted to bring up something a little touchy, however, I positioned the paragraph in such a way that gives a little, and takes a little. I can only imagine what it's like to be someone who's always skinny in those jeans because one only allows friends who say one's skinny. Instead of handling criticism or if not called that, then discussion, you made like a politician running a campaign and tried to find skeletons in my closet. Well, my edit count as well as the healthy number of points brought up on my talk page have about 100% of nothing to do with the point I brought up to you (Plus you didn't even read through it thoroughly).

Anyway, the problem with the "if they're wrong, you're right" tactic is at the end of the day, you were never really right. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Double wow! One illogical extension after another. Take a chill-pill and realise that following consistent indenting during a debate is not expanding "all such evils". The vast majority of editors on WP follow the indenting convention without a problem, and consider it worthwhile in allowing lines of reasoning to be followed easily. I merely suggested RYoung122 do likewise. It's not that big of a deal; if he doesn't want to, he doesn't have to. It's not that complicated.

There is only one point at issue, and I addressed it. I also took the liberty of pointing out that you will enjoy your WP experience much more if you move away from talk space, and start to work in article space. The best of luck with that.

 HWV258.  21:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sydney meetup

It's been a while since the wiki folk of Sydney had the chance to meetup - and there's quite a lot going on. If you've never been to a meetup before, you're especially welcome, and if you're an old hand, then please do make an effort to touch base :-) You can sign up here, or drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions or anything - hope to see you there! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, HWV258. You have new email from The Earwig.
You can remove this notice at any time.

— The Earwig ^(talk) 22:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:RogerHandelSonatas1730Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:RogerHandelSonatas1730Cover.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Restraint in bolded part of comments

I've asked four editors here to consider changing the bolded parts of their comments in that RfC. As you are one of those editors, I'm notifying you here so you are aware of the request. If you are prepared to change the bolded comment to just "support" or "oppose", could you please refactor completely, rather than using strike-through. Any emphasis can be moved to the non-bolded part of the comment. To make clear what has happened, you can also re-sign your comment to include the date it was updated, I tend to use the following code: <small>Updated: ~~~~~</small>. The aim here is to reduce the rhetoric and inappropriate emphasis, and to refocus discussion on what needs doing here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh.  HWV258.  21:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, maybe I should have tried to read through the entire page to get the context, but my point stands. When people turn up later (like I did) and read through a discussion like that, and see comments like Support of the strongest possible sort in Wikihistory and Support immeasurably greater than the strongest possible sort in any Wiki anywhere in any point in history, my first thought is "goodness me, don't they know how to have a civil discussion in a calm and reasonable manner, without petty point-scoring?". Essentially, it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia when discussions descend to the level where you feel the need to exaggerate and mirror the behaviour of others in order to get your point across. Do you get what I am saying here? Instead of escalating (responding to strongest oppose with an exaggerated support) why not de-escalate by politely asking people to change 'strongest oppose' to 'oppose'? It achieves the same end without appearing silly and without escalating matters. Carcharoth (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the Muppets who somehow believe they are entitled to a more forceful point-of-view by writing something like "Strongly Oppose" (as opposed to the rest of us who only get to write "Oppose") are too arrogant to learn by observation (or other subtle means). The only way to get the point through to them is to make it comic, and to exaggerate. You have my full permission to remove my !vote and all subsequent comments arising from it. Sorry to cause such trouble.  HWV258.  01:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Carcharoth, actually. RfCs are better if formatted minimally. Given that you have great latitude to give your opinion in unhighlighted text, it's reasonable to bold just "Support" or "Oppose"—makes a bidding war less likely. Tony (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Geez—but that's exactly what I'm saying! I'm now regretting taking the cynical approach to try and demonstrate the ridiculousness of qualified !voting comments.  HWV258.  02:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The guys here are being a little heavy handed (uncivil?) in accusing you of uncivility (or whatever), but seriously, you really are missing the point. Yeah, "I" can certainly tell that your response was sarcastic, but I had to read it closely a few times to pick-up on the sarcasm. You may think it's clever to make people do a double-take, but the need for that second take means you're just not writing clearly enough. There's (yet-another-damn) style guide article out there that makes the point that you shouldn't break wikipedia to make a point, and here you're getting pretty close to doing that: casting a stupid vote to show people how stupid it is. No, please don't. Resist the impulse. Take it easy on us, pretend we're a bunch of morons without a sense of humor. -- Doom (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Civility complaint posted at ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CalendarWatcher Tony (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment I've mentioned this to you guys before, but if you feel your concerns over CW's status are valid, you should really ask for an independent assessment of the matter. Simply put, you guys are repeatedly accusing CW (and Arthur) of sockpuppetry without any formal proof of the matter. This course of action will only serve to increase tensions all around, as seen in recent events. On the other hand, if you turn the matter over for a review by neutral parties, you get an answer without appearing to be continually badgering the accounts in question. (Please note that this is an advisory message; it is not intended to condone CW's post, or to pass any judgement whatsoever as to the validity of the accusations of sockpuppetry.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Advice noted. I hope you will note that I have put evidence and a question to User_talk:CalendarWatcher, and all he need do is give a clear and simple response, and all will be well. I do think that "continually badgering" is too strong. I was polite and careful in my posts, and kept this issue above the waist, however it was CalendarWatcher who descended to the gutter. Why?  HWV258.  20:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Queen/delinking

I thought we were trying to end that thread, so I'll respond to you here. And it's not about being unable to back away from a stand. I'm just very sceptical about the value of some aspects what appears to be a campaign being propelled by a very small number of editors, and whether many of the removals are even justified, given what wp:overlink currently says. I'm not going around adding links, or reverting en masse, I'm just asking questions, mainly about the removal of links to common but relevant terms, none of which are being answered. For example, where does overlink talk about "adding value" or "dilution", or other phrases that are used by yourself and others? And where is the evidence that delinking - or at least the aspects of it being queried here - has been "overwhelmingly well received"? In contrast, I've never said that it's been "overwhelmingly rejected", but on the occasions when I've seen reactions from other editors, it's tended to be sceptical or negative, going to talk pages and asking "why did you remove links A & B from that page?" In fact I'm sure most people - as do I - welcome the removal of repetitive or redundant links, or links to common terms that have no real relevance to the main topic, which were probably included for the sake of it. But that's not the point being disputed.

Anyway, I have said all I think I can say about hierarchy of links, on multiple occasions. And as of course for the one question you asked recently, which I did not respond to on the Queen talk page, and which you have now repeated - here is the link to the page where it was judged that several delinking editors came unstuck "at the point when there was no clear consensus" on "mass date delinking". Now, I'm sure you're aware of the case, so are just suggesting that I've stretched the meaning of the decision with my interpretation of it. I can't see that I am. See the excerpts of the ArbCom findings of fact below, with some phrases highlighted by me -

3.2) Two RFCs held in December 2008 reaffirmed that the current date autoformatting functionality is undesirable, and that overlinking of dates is not desirable; however, consensus has not been found on when dates should be delinked.

Passed 12 to 1 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

3.3.1) All three of the RfCs regarding date links have been plagued by disputes regarding wording, presentation, claims of bias, and related issues. These disputes continued through the drafting and comment phases, as well as persisting after RfC closures. Additionally, there are varied and sharply conflicting interpretations of the discussion results. The contentious development and results of the December RfCs are reflective of this environment.

Passed 7 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

Conflation of issues

5) Deprecation of autoformatting and date-delinking have been problematically conflated in this dispute. While both sides of the date debate have conflated the issues, consensus for the deprecation of autoformatting has been abused as consensus for mass date delinking.

Passed 7 to 2 (with 3 abstentions) at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

There is of course now the thread on link. Perhaps I and others will get some clear answers to our questions there? N-HH talk/edits 12:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"And where is the evidence that delinking - or at least the aspects of it being queried here - has been "overwhelmingly well received""—this has been made clear to you, but I'll remind you: the evidence is that "silence implies consent" (especially given large numbers of articles/edits). There have been precious few editors complain about the delinking currently taking place (on a very large number of articles), and most that do have problems see the light after little debate.

Regarding the date-delinking, yes it was a rough-and-tumble process, and you can quote any bits you like, but you will never prove a point given that the simple fact: the good guys won. Consensus became overwhelmingly supportive. Your resistance is negligible and tame (on the current topic) compared to the handful of editors that appeared in that sorry mess. Note that, to a man, those editors are now either defunct, banned outright, or resting somewhere with their tail between their legs. The results of the date-delinking case came down overwhelmingly on the side of the editors who were brave enough to take a stance in favour of date-delinking (mostly the same editors with which you are currently at odds). For example, one outcome of the case was the approval of a bot that delinked dates in millions of articles. That has led to no troubles, and the culture of WP has changed (for the better) because of it. Be very careful how you cherry-pick in that case.  HWV258.  21:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)