User talk:GFHandel

Archives: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010

Handel on Calendar of Saints (Lutheran)

It is not so much than Handel is a "saint" but that he is commemorated as an important musician in the Lutheran tradition. Lutherans don't pray to St. Handel, nor are there any churches names for him (e.g., St. Handel Lutheran Church). In most articles that mention that an individual is commemorated by a Church but who are not though of as "saints" in the popular sense, it is typically noted with "X is commemorated in Y Church on Z." -- jackturner3 (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The above is in response to this question.  GFHandel.   23:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reminder on including edit summaries... I thought there was a place to do that, but for some reason, I just couldn't see it this time. I have no idea if I'm contacting you the correct way. When I read on the BBC this week, that many users find Wikipedia too complicated, I scoffed. Now, I'm not so sure! - LadyIslay — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyIslay (talk • contribs) 02:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not too bad, and a few basic rules and guidelines are all you need to start. For example, when responding on a talk page (as you did above), you should sign your posts by putting the following four characters as the very last part of your post: ~~~~. If you don't sign your posts, a bot is likely to come along and do it for you (as you can see happened above). Have a read of the links in the "Welcome" message that was first posted on your talk page. If you need any help, let me know and I'll do what I can. Good luck.  GFHandel.   02:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, here is a question for you. I added that little table of movements for HWV 251b, but I seem to have left out the "Sonata" or Sinfonia. Should I add that as the first movement or just leave the table for the vocal movements? LadyislayLadyIslay (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(The above is a question about these edits). The underlying principle here is that you must add sourced material that is of value to WP's readers. In this case, to leave out (without mention) part of a work could mislead readers, so I would definitely add the information. Let me know if what you describe is also the case for HWV 251d as that should be updated if it is. (My recording of HWV 251d doesn't have a non-vocal movement). Thanks.  GFHandel.   02:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The table of volumes I added at Händel-Gesellschaft#Volumes allows the manuscript of works to be found (by searching for the HWV number on that page).  GFHandel.   03:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The source volume appears to include 251b, 251e (alleluja in the final movement) and 251a (continuo only) in that order.LadyIslay (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought that volume 34 contained 251b, 251c, and 251a (in that order)? Let me know if I've got that wrong, because I'll have to try and fix it. I used Grove as the reference as I marched through every one of the 105 volumes, but unfortunately Grove is terrible when it comes to accuracy (I have a long list of mistakes that I found they made, and was thinking of sending them the list for their next edition).  GFHandel.   04:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I only have this score to go by, plus the descriptions given in the wiki article. The wiki article describes 251e as having an "alleluja" section in the final chorus. It also says "Also, "Now, when I think thereupon", originally a solo movement in C major, was changed into D minor and split into a solo recitative followed by a unison tenor and bass chorus on the text "For I went with the multitude"." This describes the movement that appears in Volume 34, so either the description in our wiki article is incorrect or the second version in volume 34 is in fact 251e. I do not have access to the book Handel and the English Chapel Royal, so I can't verify. Look, I'm getting better at adding my name. Now if only I could remember to just use one space after a period instead of two!LadyIslay (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You're a natural (and you've mastered indenting).

Perhaps 251e is similar to 251c? That quote is a little strange (no attribution), so I guess it will all have to be rewritten one of these days.

Don't be scared to rip things out of articles (it's better to have small amounts of text that are accurate). The information you rip could either be commented in the article text (so it is still there but doesn't display for the reader), or you can move the text to the talk page so that it might come to the attention of other editors who can address the reason you have removed it. Simply deleting text is considered poor form (unless it's defamatory or clearly wrong), and you should first mark suspect text with any one of a multitude of templates that hopefully will draw problems to the attention of other editors. For example, if you find a sentence that makes a claim that isn't supported by a reference you could put the {{fact}} text after the sentence. If you find an article that is lacking references all over the place, you could put the {{refimprove}} template at the start of the article. You can always try a few of those on a test page (e.g. your own talk page, or a page under your user page). Most articles on the works of Handel are low-traffic, so you'll probably not meet too much resistance in your edits.

 GFHandel.   05:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Letters and writings of George Frideric Handel

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Letters and writings of George Frideric Handel, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://business.ezineseeker.com/the-letters-and-writings-of-george-frideric-handel-reprogramming-car-keys-laser-key-cutting-31eeb3282c.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted as it is the other way around: the detected article copied its text from the WP article.  GFHandel.   19:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Classic 100 articles nominated for deletion

I have nominated these articles, which I believe you created, for deletion. I raised the issue at the Classical Music project and there were a number of comments supporting deletion. The subject is not notable, and there is a possible copyright violation in including them in Wikipedia.

You are welcome to discuss their deletion, by going to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 2, and selecting the article you want to discuss.

Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the OTRS permission has arrived for these lists. Just as with their last communication, they are limited in what they are permitting. Per their permission, we can use the full contents of the lists currently published at Classic 100 Countdowns (ABC) (under CC-By-SA and GFDL), but we will need separate permission to publish in full any future lists. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey GF, this sounds like good news. Did you arrange for the OTRS? Tony (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

FSC

Please actually research the subject before attacking me next time. Tony constantly makes it very clear that he thinks that people whoi disagree with him are idiots, AGF does not apply in the face of a consistent, unchanging pattern. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The above nonsense response was due to debate here (where the above editor responded to another editor's well-reasoned comments with "It must be an awful world you live in as well..."). There was no attack by myself; only a request that the above editor assume good faith in each and every discussion.  GFHandel.   22:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Good Faith

Please do not change anyone's postings as you did in this edit of mine. I guess you were making a good faith attempt to defuse the situation in the HDD article but your ad hominem edit note belies this. I get it, and I don't appreciate your suggesting I don't. 216.103.87.80 (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)