User talk:Kleinzach/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23

WikiProject Interview

Greetings, Kleinzach! Lately, I've being conducting WikiProject Reports for the Signpost. After much deliberation, I have settled upon WP:MUSIC for my next report, and I feel you would be the most appropriate member to interview. Are you interested? If so, just leave a message either here or on my talk page. If not, would you mind recommending another member of the project whom you believe to be qualified? Thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would be happy to do this. (I assume you mean WP:WP MUSIC rather than WP:MUSIC which is a redirect, rather eccentrically!, to a notability page). Anyway, as you will know, the Music Project is an umbrella for some 50-odd individual music-related projects. My own involvement has been in four or five of the classical music groups (as well as Music itself). Perhaps you might also like to interview someone with a broad interest in Jazz and popular music? If so I will have a look and come back with some possible names. Best. --Kleinzach 01:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that WP Music is an umbrella project, and that's part of the reason I chose it. Everything else that I've interviewed so far has been fairly specialized. I hadn't considered multiplicity of music interests; I chose you because you seem to be the most actively involved in discussions at the WP Music talk page. I leave it up to you: If you think someone with more diverse interests would be more appropriate, suggestions would be appreciated. If not, the offer stll stands. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I misread your original message thinking you wanted two of us - must have been too early in the morning! - anyway I'd be very happy to do the interview. --Kleinzach 03:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! I'll be posting questions (usually 2–3 at a time) for you here. Obviously, you respond by posting answers directly beneath the corresponding question. Don't worry about formatting, I'll clean it up before it gets published. I strongly recommend that you add the page to your watchlist, as that makes it much easier than if I were to have to add messages here every time. Also, it'll be several weeks before it's my turn to publish again (Garden is doing the next interview), so take as much time as you need. Thanks again! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 08:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. I've added the page to my watchlist. --Kleinzach 23:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Are we finished now? I see you haven't added any new questions for a few days now. Best. --Kleinzach 07:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I've posted the last question, after that one we'll be done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Assessment on article

I have posted La Transfiguration de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ on the "requesting assessment" list for more than a month and there is still no any result. And I see that those bots keep on assessing "no class" articles. Are these show efficiency or otherwise I have something to be mistaken? Addaick (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message. I've given the article a nominal assessment. Is that OK? The Composers Project is doing full assessments at B-class level but Contemporary music isn't even doing that. BTW I think the capitalization should be 'La transfiguration de notre seigneur Jésus-Christ'. Are you working on other articles? Are you interested in translating into Chinese? If so I may have some ideas. Best. --Kleinzach 23:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your rating, that's fine. Well, if you look for my contributions, they are mainly minor edits and "Jesus Transfiguration" is my first ever major contribution. Yes, I have thinked for translating into Chinese because the Chinese version at present is really awful and very lack of information:just a few lines about Mahler symphonies and even red links in some Beethoven works. I haven't taken my mind because it is reaaly a long-term committment and very hard job.And few months later I have to take my CE exam(An important exam in Hong Kong which judges whether you can enter form 6,ie. class 12, by your standard, classes),so I didn't have much time to get working.
What ideas do you have that you mentioned? Addaick (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
At the moment the Composers Project is more active than Classical Music - and basically working to a higher standard - so I was going to suggest translating one or two composers' biographies - but maybe you should take care of your exams first! Best wishes. P.S. I used to live in HK. --Kleinzach 01:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Aye. I notice you have some relationships with Asia after my reply yesterday. Are you a native of what? Addaick (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Britain, but I've lived more than half my life in Asia. --Kleinzach 05:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

opera lists

Hi, wondering why the operas of a large number of composers are sequestered into separate articles from the lists of their other works. Tony (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a whole series of reasons. Normal WP splitting practice for one. Most of these pages would be enormous if they were combined with the lists of compositions - they are very large anyway. They are also very different in form from the other lists, However, having said that, there are of course many cases where the lists of operas remain with lists of compositions (see Joseph-Nicolas-Pancrace_Royer#Operas as an example of a yet-to-be-split page). Also having the (developed) lists as a series helps standardization etc. --Kleinzach 23:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Red links

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Red links "Legitimate red links should not be resolved by simply removing the bracket. If a red link is within the context of the article, and it is a topic with the potential to eventually be a neutral, verifiable and encyclopedic article, then the link should be kept. Such links do not have an expiration date, beyond which they must be "fixed". Red links should be removed only if they point to articles that are unlikely ever to be created" Robert.Allen (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Red links should be removed if they point to articles that are unlikely ever to be created. On the other hand if you are creating articles in the near future please feel free to put in red links. Good day. --Kleinzach 12:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I know this is probably a minor issue for you and you are really busy and do a ton of stuff for the Wikipedia, but I guess I was wondering when you removed the red links for Antony Beaumont, on the same day I created them and was creating the article, why you did not explain the reason for removing them. I went back and re-added the links after I finished creating the article and discovered you had removed them. It didn't seem like it was a link for which an article would never be created. Perhaps there was already a link higher up on that page. I did not check, but you didn't give that as a reason for removing it.
No problem - I saw afterwards you started an article. In general we don't usually link authors of references, that's why I originally removed it. --Kleinzach 04:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This leads me to a related issue: having more than one link to a particular page in one article. Links are great because they indicate at that spot that more information is available on that particular topic. I don't believe it is policy, but I favor leaving in extra links when these occur in different sections. It may not be helpful to remove extra links, because a reader (or editor) may not be aware that such a link exists, and might not think to look for one, in particular if he/she arrived at that spot by a jump (either through an external link with #subheading format or by clicking an item in the TOC) . Because many articles are getting longer, the first link is harder to find or even see, and when changes in articles are made, sometimes links may be lost when text is deleted, or they may be moved up or down. It is time-consuming to go through and check the link, especially if the item is mentioned many times, and often moving the link is not done. Another example: the Antony Beaumont books are used as references more than once, and in more than one article. So one might copy the reference containing the link from one Wikipedia article to another and the link comes along with the reference. It saves time in editing not to have to figure out whether to add it or remove it. One can just leave it in. (Something just occurred to me: is there a bot that goes through articles and removes extra links? Obviously I would not be in favor of such a bot.) Thanks for your time and thoughts. Robert.Allen (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I basically agree. WP:MOSLINKS would be the best place to discuss this. --Kleinzach 04:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
For the issue of number of wikilinks in an article, check out WP:OVERLINK. Basically, don't do it every time, but doing it a second time well down into the article is fine. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I found this, which is relevant, a bit higher up at WP:Manual of Style (links)#General principles
  • Link only the first occurrence of an item. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own.)

So repeating a link in a new section is OK. Good. Note that repeated linking of the same item in a table is actually preferred, if it's in a different row. I would add to this: repeated linking in citations is also desirable, since citations should also stand on their own (and be easily moved to new pages with links intact). Something like this:

  • Link only the first occurrence of an item. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section. (Table entries and citations are an exception to this; each row of a table and each citation should be able to stand on its own.)

I'm thinking here of a link to, for example, a page about an author for the reference or a link to a publisher. Another example would be a link to a record company in a recording citation, which again might be copied to another page which cites the same recording. Can someone like me make such a change to this section? Or should I first put it as a suggestion on the Talk page for WP:Manual of Style (links)#General principles? Robert.Allen (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (links). The guidelines there could do with some refinement and it would mean that you have the MoS behind you if someone thinks your edits are controversial. Good luck! --Kleinzach 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I'll try to write something up for the talk page. (I've copied what I need from this discussion, if you would like to delete it.) Robert.Allen (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for that info re Female Classical Musicians. Having managed to avoid categories for most of my time on WP (5+ years), I've recently been getting into them in a big way, and learning as I go. One issue I'm encountering is the general lack of information about who goes where, and what consensuses have been reached about this. If, for example, I think "Hmm, Category X looks like it might be appropriate for this person", what tells me that my feeling is right, or wrong? The category pages themselves give no guidance about who should be included and who shouldn't be. I hope you understand my concern. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly do share your concern. Categories are one of the main problems on WP - ultimately due to the software. Some projects do keep lists of categories that are used for bot runs etc. The Classical music one is here. All these cats were bannered last year. The Opera Project also has a list at here as well as guidelines on their project page here. Let me know if you have any questions. Best. --Kleinzach 07:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. Not sure if we're completely on the same wavelength. Could you have a look at the question I posed here. I'd welcome any input you might care to make. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
IMO the only way you will get a satisfactory response on this is to put it up for renaming on Cfd. (I take it you think 'sporting knights' is a bad category name, right?) If you're not sure of the best name now you can make a tentative suggestion, then change it later during the Cfd. How about that?--Kleinzach 04:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Camelia Voin

Greetings This is an answer to your comment on Camelia Voin article. I understand how the average riders may misinterpret the word “student” as diminishing someone’s accomplishments/notability. Therefore, I deleted the article mentioning it. However, I strongly disagree that an artist is less notable if pursuing a doctoral degree. There are many notable opera singers who do not have a formal education. Should they become less notable should they now pursue an academic degree? Contrary, an artist who is also a scholar should receive more recognition. I have to draw you attention to the fact that Camelia Voin is a doctoral student, not a High School or College student. As described by Wikipedia, there are two distinct types of doctorate: a professional doctoral where professionals can not practice they trade until they finish they studies (medicine, law), and academic doctorate (which is the case of Ms. Voin) where already accomplished professionals (artists, educators, theologians) are reaching the highest level of formal studies and are engaged in research. Thank you for your input. Best regardsProfessorgheorghe (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. The problem with this article is whether or not it meets WP standards for notability. If you can show notability, demonstrated by engagements with leading companies and reviews in bona fide national media, that will be fine, otherwise having an article on WP may be regarded as premature in the case of this young artist. Regards. --Kleinzach 06:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs" 
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Coin controversy

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Commemorative_Coin_Controversy Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Commemorative_Coins_Controversy. FWIW -- maybe not much -- I personally like the coin images; it's just that they are non-free and don't belong in most of the places they've been used. (I think you could make a case for them if there are no other easily-available images; but by their very nature -- they commemorate very famous people -- that is unlikely.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Maria Callas

Hi, I just wanted to clarify my edit on Maria Callas and say that I was not vandalizing but trying to make the tone more neutral. You will notice that in featured articles of even the greatest musicians they never talk about their great talent but instead quote music authorities or say something like "opera historians generally consider _____ to be a leading soprano of the 1940s". I noticed that no article on an opera singer has ever been featured and I can't help but wonder if it is because opera fans love our favorite singers so much that we can't help but be biased. Unsigned/

Mr/Ms I suggest signing on and getting an account. That will establish you as a bona fide editor here. Regarding your edit, I think it rather dumbed down a reasonable sentence: "Her remarkable musical and dramatic talents led to her being hailed as La Divina.". Looks OK to me. What was the problem? --Kleinzach 00:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, mainly I changed it because remarkable is not a measurable word. It's opinion and I was under the impression that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to include opinion. Obviously, I don't know a great deal about Wikipedia and I am aware that there is a multitude of rules that I am unfamiliar with, but that was just the impression I had from some of the rules that I have read. I personally am an ardent fan of Callas, but obviously Wikipedia is not my personal blog so I wouldn't insert similarly toned statements into an article. I'm disappointed that you think that I dumbed down the article. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just telling you my opinion based on what I've read.
If MC was not remarkable she wouldn't have an article in WP. Seriously if you going to take the word 'remarkable' out of every article, you've got a lot of work ahead of you. Please sign, indent and join WP!--Kleinzach 00:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

List of operas by Richard Strauss/Squeezability

Here, using IE7, the R. Strauss table squeezes down to 982 pixels (centimetres are not a good measure due to different resolutions (pixels/cm)), the Hasse table to 696 pixels.

I suspect this is because the Strauss table contains so much text in various columns that at that point it can't be squeezed any further: Title: op. 60 "gentilhomme"; Genre: op. 72 "Zwischenspielen"; Libretto: "Hofmannsthal"; Place: op. 25 "Grossherzogliches". It seems that an unfortunate combination of long words prevents further squeezing. On the other hand, I think it is almost impossible to cater for a screen resolution of less than 1024 pixels across. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you are right. I was thinking it might be solved by removing breaks etc. Perhaps we should leave it and hope no-one complains the page is too wide? It's all useful information. . . . --Kleinzach 14:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

About copyright

We are sole copyright owner of the material, so their is no conflict about ownership.We will change some phases in the next couple of days, so it differenciate from the Niels Eje´s main biography at, but the List of work and Discography is only factual information which can not be formulated differently.Bird4 (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. If you can rewrite it so it is substantially different that should be OK. Lists are not copyrightable so they shouldn't be a problem. Best. --Kleinzach 12:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Self references

I've reverted the changes you made to Catarina Ligendza and Robert Hale (bass-baritone), as Wikipedia cannot use itself (including sister projects) as references (see Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid). Presumably the articles have sources published on the German Wikipedia (Quellen?) - you should cite these directly instead. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. Please refer this conversation to the talk page. I don't wish to have it here. --Kleinzach 05:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Kathleen Battle

I think my edits are pretty will explained in the edit summaries. I removed unsourced content/opinions, puffery, and a credit in a caption. If you have a specific question, please provide specifics.-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Historic Swedish singers/Your questions

Hello Kleinzach. I have noticed the questions you had on the pages of Jeanette Wässelius, Caroline Frederikke Müller and Inga Åberg. I do not have much knowledge in the subject of opera itself, but I have translated the titles in question from Swedish to English. Perhaps this will help someone with knowledge about operas to identify them. The opera performed in Stockholm at this period was really mostly the same ones as was performed in Paris and Germany, so perhaps a translation of the titles could help. I have also read the book cited for these articles, and was able to answer some of the other questions you had. I hope I have been of some help! -- (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have also done this for Henriette Widerberg, Marie Louise Marcadet, Christina Rahm and Elisabeth Forsselius.-- (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry not to have replied before now. Information given in Wikipedia needs to be verified. In these cases we need a positive identification of the works cited, this means knowing the names of the composers as well as the works and the names of the roles. This is why I suggest we ask an expert on the subject to check the details. We need someone who can definitely identify the works and give the correct titles and names, otherwise the articles are of limited use in the English Wikipedia and the unverified information should be deleted. --Kleinzach 23:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I Understand your point. I fully agree with you that the composers should be added to this article. However. The parts she made, and the operas listed, are not unverified. Her parts are verified, and the productions she participated in are verified. It is verifed, that she played the part of X in the production XX. This information is fully and completely verified by the cited book by Nordensvan, which is cited as a reference for the article. What is not verified, is the composer for the production. This should of course be added, and it is important that it is. I think it would be a misstake to delete the parts she made, because the composers of them are unknown. By doing so, we remove (referenced) information which will I am sure be developed eventually. The parts and the operas are verified, after all; she is verifed to have played a part named X in a production named X. This information is not unverified, but rather uncomplete. The articles of wikipedia will always be updated eventually. After all, articles are being expanded all the time, and more and more information are always added to them, and the information in them are developed. It is all to be found in the book by Nordensvan.-- (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Information has to be correct. That is the most important thing. There is a simple point here. If the composer is not identified then we don't know what the work is. If we don't know what work is being referred to then the information does not belong in an encyclopedia which is concerned with correct facts.
The second point is that this is the English Wikipedia not the Swedish Wikipedia, so we can't have names that are Swedish translations of foreign language works. These simply are incomprehensible to English language readers, they are unable to decode these names so they are meaningful.
If you are concerned about these articles and want them to be published in the English Wikipedia, I think the way forward would be to contact an expert on opera in Sweden to edit them and make corrections so the articles are up to the standard of other ones here. (If you are living in Sweden then you might contact your national opera about this.) --Kleinzach 23:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understand wath your are saying completely. I realise that anyone interested in the productions would find it very unsatisfying not knowing the composers to these works. But, the fact reamins, that even if the composers are unknown, thereby making the parts unplacable, it does not change the fact that these people did "the part x in the opera named X", as I have said. This are correct and verified facts, even if they are uncomplete. The information is correct, even if it is uncomplete. As to the Swedish titles, I have know translated them to English, so that problem is no solwed, as you have yourself now seen. And, (this goes without saying of course!), that even if it is decided to delete the correct and referenced information about the parts they made (albeit uncomplete), naturally the rest of the articles, and the articles themselwes, is in no danger of being deleted entirely (!). As I said, I understand your point, and I am sure the information you reqcuire will be added to the articles eventually, as this is how wikipedia work - there is no time limit. And of course, the articles have a great value aside from those intrested in the operatic aspects of them. My best of luck to your editing! -- (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This problem doesn't exist with our coverage of opera in Italy, France, Germany, England etc. Records exist which make it easy to identify the operas. What is the problem with these Swedish references? Why is it impossible to make proper identifications? I don't understand. Have you talked to someone who knows about the history of opera in Sweden? Would this be the best thing to do? --Kleinzach 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't hink there is any problem with the references at all. There really is no other problem then that the person who put the parts in these articles, obviously forgot to make the information complete. As I have said, I have read the book by Nordensvan cited for these articles, and it answers all the questions you have. Unfortunately, I was more interested in the history, not in the works, so I did no pay attention to those things, and i have now returned the book to the library. All your questions can be answered very simply, if a Swedish person looked them up in this book (which, I am sorry to say, does not seem to have been translated to English, otherwise, you could have done so yourself). But perhaps it will take some time before anyone does this. And, of course, I can add something which may contribute; in 1825, the royal theatre in Stockholm burned down; I believe the building contained the papers of both the theatre and the opera, and a lot of papermaterial about the period before 1825 was destroyed. Therefore, a lot of information from before 1825 is uncomplete. -- (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. My understanding is that you are not able to do any more work on these pages. Is that correct? If so I will try to solve the problems by myself with other Wikipedia editors. --Kleinzach 00:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I may borrow this book again and fill in the missing information, though I can not say if, and when, I have the time to do so. But, as I said above, the archives of the opera and the theatre was both housed in the building of the royal theatre, which burnt down in 1825, so it is very possible that not all of your questions can be answered even by that book, (which is otherwise an excellent reference for Swedish opera history). I hope you understand. I wish you good luck with this, as I do consider these articles important.-- (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I have now added several missing composers and writers to the articles above. All from the book by Nordensvan. I hope this was of some help!-- (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a note; many of these works are listed only under their Swedish titles in the programs, and therefore, I can only write them here. Their titles may (such as in the case of Tulipano) have been completely different in the original work. Therefore, the translations may sometimes seem to be of works which never existed. Be assured that they did, but can be hard to identify because of these reasons. As I have said before; the archives of the opera and the theatre burnt in 1825, and therefore, one is forced to rely upon less thorough sources then those may have been. The fire of the archives in 1825, is an important fact to consider when it comes to Swedish opera- and theatre history before 1825. As these articles is about people active before 1825, this is a problem worth being aware of. Just to keep you informed. -- (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
If any of the operas can't be identified then they can't be included in the articles. We don't want gibberish there. The bottom line is this: no Swedish titles for non-Swedish works. --Kleinzach 10:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Surely there is no reason to be rude? I do respect the rules, but this is hardly "gibberish". Please do not be rude. The fire of 1825 is respected in the history books as a reason to why information before 1825 can not be as detailed. This is not nonsense. The roles, the works, the names and the parts are still verified, although sometimes uncomplete. I have no reason to lie about anything, and it is insulting to call me a liar. Again; we will get nowhere with rudeness. -- (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Please re-read what I wrote. There is no rudeness. This is the English Wikipedia. Please respect that. We use Swedish for Swedish references. Swedish names for non-Swedish references are meaningless, absolutely meaningless, to our readers. Nor has anyone accused you of lying.
On the other hand you have made many mistakes. It would be better if you put content on your user page, cleaned it up and put in wikilinks and only after that put it on article pages. It's extremely time consuming doing this all for you, especially when the same corrections have to be repeated on multiple pages. It would be quite easy for you to correct the spellings, links and original titles if you would take the trouble. The information is all available here on Wikipedia pages. Just follow the links to Gluck, Dalayrac, Paer, Sacchini, Cherubini, Gluck, Boieldieu etc. and you can find the correct titles of the operas etc. Make the effort, have some pride in the quality of your work and its proper presentation. --Kleinzach 14:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I had no intention to answer this, but to your own benefit; you should perhaps be more careful as to how you phrase yourself. You once commented one of my edits with (quote): "AFAIK there is no such work"; to call my edit "a fake", (in this case, simply because you could not confirm this from wikipedia, which has no more information than what is added to it and may lack complete coverage of many things) is of course to call me a liar. To call my edits "Ghibberish", as you did above, is of course rude. Wether my edits are uncomplete or not, I will give myself credit for having maked them better than what they were before - wikipedia is, after all, depending on continuous editing, and articles can be edited for years. Please be more careful in your wording. Perhaps you should "assume good faith" more. Good luck in your work here. Thank you. -- (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
First, I am using published/printed sources as well as Wikipedia - the main ones including Oxford and Grove. Second, I did not call you a liar on any occasion. (I don't know whether you know this, but AFAIK is an abbreviation for 'As far as I know'.) I also used the word 'gibberish' advisedly for things that would be unintelligible to a reader of this, English-language, wikipedia. That's what 'gibberish' means - words that can't be understood.
Moreover I've spent quite a lot of time correcting misinformation, misspellings, bad English etc. in these articles and I'd be grateful if you'd do me the courtesy of giving me some recognition for the rather onerous work I've done on them. I can assure you I would have preferred to have spent the time elsewhere. --Kleinzach 09:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for your explanations. Of course your edits are also valuble (I find it is vain to ask for recognition; I do not recieve this myself nor do I expect it), but if you wish to spend this time doign something else, then of course you are free to do so - wikipedia has many stubs and articles which needs attention, spelling, corrections, wording, and which will continue to be edited and have more information added to them for many years before they can be considered complete. I have taken the time to look things up and add them, and although my edits may lack links etc, they can be easily linked by those interested - even by myself, when I have better time. There really is no hurry, and this can be corrected by any one who reads them and noticed this. Thanks. -- (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)