User talk:GFHandel/Archive 2011

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 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 text after the sentence. If you find an article that is lacking references all over the place, you could put the  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 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 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)
 * Yep. GFHandel &#9836; 22:23, 12 July 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. Tom94022 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if you had "got it", you wouldn't have posted the comments I put a line through. In this case, an apology from you would have been simpler. GFHandel . 22:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrol
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Dabomb87 (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured Sounds needs you
Featured sounds was booming with activity in the March/April period, ideally that should be all the time. FS has been a battleground at times, however, it is my hope that that is in the past. I ask you all to reconsider your positions and set aside the differences you may have had with other participants for the good of the project and encyclopedia. Don't let FS become like VP, it is a path that a featured process should traverse. You were sent this message because you are listed at Featured sound candidates/Contributors or have been a past contributor.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Featured sound candidates at 09:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

Page moving
No prob! There's lots and lots of information at Moving a page. In most cases, you should be able to move a page yourself (Moving a page); there's no process needed. In some cases, you might need admin assistance, and Requested moves should help with that. Cheers, Melchoir (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Kyle-cassidy-leica-digilux-crop-logo.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kyle-cassidy-leica-digilux-crop-logo.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it has to go, it has to go. See User talk:Ahunt for more information about this. GFHandel &#9836; 04:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE template
The answer is that AWB moved the GOCE template to the head of the talk page, and my script renamed it to WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, its full name. Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC).


 * This is in response to the discussion taking place here. Could I please request that all future discussion on this topic happen at that location? Thanks. GFHandel &#9836; 22:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Messiah
Hi Handel, both your name and your comments make me feel that you might be able to improve the four subarticles for Messiah, Part II to be featured as DYK on the Main page soon, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am impressed by your work on the summary. Only it looks funny on my old fashioned screen, the most important fact, beginning of text, in up to 5 lines. Therefore, can you please drop the scene numbers altogether, they are Jennens', you don't feel them in a performance. And get the movement numbers as short as possible? There is a discussion about them talk pages of Tony1, Michael Bednarek and my own. Now, unfortunately, I will have to leave for probably all of today. Good luck, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not sure how much things should be altered to adapt to "old-fashioned screens", but feel free to hit the revert button on my final edit—where I introduced the Scene column to the table. I am confused about your concern about the Scene number (e.g. "they are Jennens'") because the Scene number is emphasised in the movements section following the table. Is it not appropriate to see at a glance which movements are in which scene?
 * I'm happy to work on adjusting the table (although it looks okay on my screen), but could we first work on getting the information correct? I'm especially concerned about the "Bärenreiter" column, because that doesn't make much sense to me. Is there a site that explains the Bärenreiter numbering so that I can figure it out?
 * GFHandel &#9836; 06:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a few minutes in between, for mixed remarks. First: I saw it now on a bigger screen, looks fine! - I suggest you first look at Messiah structure, that table has the scenes. Perhaps we should just find a way to tell readers that they better be familiar with that background before looking at the other? Please note, that intentionally the lines are not filled to the end, when consecutive movements are on consecutive bible verses, such as mvmts 2-4. - The table Part I (II, III) originated from the Bärenreiter edition, only later did I find out that Wikisource has a different numbering, which is explained (and was linked to), now right under summary. The score has no scene numbers. - I think the liturgical structure came first and should precede the musical organization, for which "structure" seems not quite the right term, more an explanation of basic baroque music terms for the following, not to repeat it every movement. - "Summary" I would call something in the end. - The abbreviations for instruments, "ob" for oboe, are standard, plus explained. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable if you remove the Scene column, but I'm not comfortable to remove the abbreviations (e.g. "ob" for "oboe"). WP has to relate information quickly and easily for the average reader, and I'd prefer readers not to have to hunt around for the meaning of abbreviations when we can easily display the expanded meaning. GFHandel &#9836; 13:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Taken, done, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Separate articles for "Zadok the Priest"
I don't well write in english, but I interested of "Zadok the Priest". I think that anthem "Zadok the Priest" should take place in separate article - because this anthem is great symbol Great Britain and it is the best work of Handel. In other Wikipedia's are separate articles for "Zadok the Priest", for example big articles in Polish Wikipedia. --46.134.51.209 (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. See the discussion on the talk page. GFHandel &#9836; 22:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Watchlists, and "haranguing"
Hi GFHandel. I've had AN/I on my watchlist since 2005. If there is any technical way to verify this, I'm happy enough to be shown right. I have no reason to lie to you.

I don't tend to use my watchlist as a base of operations here, because I have many thousands of pages on it. I auto-watch pages that I edit, and I sort stubs. Lots of people have huge watchlists here, and Locke Cole has been around "for...ever". He probably mostly gets around via the "my contributions" page and a few project-page jumping-off points. It's what I do.

Sometimes, I pull up my watchlist out of curiosity, and notice something on AN/I, which I normally stay the hell away from, because it's a terrible place. Sometimes, I'll see an edit there with an interesting summary, though, and I'll go there out of curiosity and comment.

You wrote a 120+ word paragraph to Locke Cole, repetitiously questioning, as well as ridiculing, his assertion that he's had AN/I on his watchlist forever. I'm sitting there, knowing full well that AN/I has been on my watchlist since I lived in Portland 5 years ago. Apparently, his making an completely ordinary claim beggars your ability to assume good faith? I find it very easy to assume good faith in you, despite your apparent ignorance of how a great many of us use - or seldom use - watchlists.

I actually find it very easy to assume good faith on the part of every single person in that discussion. More importantly, I have never seen any good result from anyone saying that their ability to assume good faith is wearing thin. Never once, in hundreds of instances. I assume the purpose of your each post is to engender good results, right?

Now I don't know whether you were addressing Carcharoth and myself, or just Carcharoth. I certainly introduced the word "haranguing", anyway, so I took it to be myself from whom you requested a justification, and I think I've justified its use pretty well. If not, I can provide a more detailed justification, vis-a-vis the dictionary definition of your choice. Whaddya think? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My response today was indented under Carcharoth's and was only a reply to his post (and to be honest, I didn't notice your use of the word "haranguing"). As I said in the post to which you allude, I always start discussions from a point-of-view of good faith, however you have to go back to the events of two years ago to understand why Locke Cole's resurfacing in this particular debate is deeply suspicious. I realise that's something you are not keen to do (and I wouldn't recommend it). In this instance I felt the due process at AN/I was being circumvented and duly brought that possibility to the attention of the community (with one post). I admire your dedication, honesty, and fairness; and I do agree with your observations above—and will encompass them in my future actions on WP. Thank you for taking the time to post here. GFHandel &#9836; 22:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No one really shows up in an AN/I thread by accident. Once there are two names involved that you recognize, it's like Twin Peaks. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Locke Cole
I don't quite understand what you were trying to achieve with this. It's already plainly evident that nobody else is taking any notice of him. Why waste electrons on him? Green is the way to go! ;-) -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I give him more credit than that, and believe that people will take notice of his posts. I posted in the hope that he'll see why the arguments he's putting forward are based on only part of the actual events and truth of the case. I am happy for both my and Locke Cole's comments there to be removed. Thanks for taking the time to write here and I'll certainly consider your point-of-view. Cheers. GFHandel &#9836; 07:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As you only seem to be regurgitating the evidence against PMA that you had already provided amply above, I really don't see the point. The horse is no more; it has ceased to be. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The AN/I thread is long and new editors won't always be bothered to read the earlier stuff. This current AN/I action will pass and there will undoubtedly be another, so part of the current process must be to address misconceptions. By posting, I'm hoping that editors will realise that there are other points of view, and perhaps take those views into consideration when this next rolls around. GFHandel &#9836; 22:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Help please
Hi. I am Jivesh. I edit strictly Beyonce-related articles on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could do a copy-edit of Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song) for me? Please reply on my talk-page. Waiting in anticipation. Jivesh   &bull;  Talk2Me  10:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry, but work and other commitments mean that I currently have very little time for WP. I also try to devote copy-editing efforts to articles listed under the the Guild of Copy Editors. My first observation of the article is that the lede is far too long. I'm also surprised that the first sentence in the second paragraph in the lede could exist in a FA ("...with most of them telling..."?). If I get some time next weekend, perhaps I could make some suggestions; otherwise, best of luck with the article. GFHandel &#9836; 22:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. Do have a look when you have time. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  06:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Handel - Good article nomination
I am just about to start a review of the Handel article, which has been nominated for GAN by an editor who has made only one edit to the article. I see that you are the most active of current contributors to the article. Are you aware of the nomination, and are you happy to back it? Tim riley (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Kim_Kardashian
Hi, You recently reverted an edit made to the above article. You noted in the edit summary that no reference was provided and that the information was "unnecessary". Do you have an objection to me putting the information back in if a reliable source is cited, or do you see some other policy consideration here (relating to the information being unnecessary)? Thanks, Handschuh-talk to me 05:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I do object, and I have no idea why you'd want to add such information. You should take it up on the article's talk page because I'm certain that there will be strong resistance to such nebulous (and graphic) information being added to the article. GFHandel &#9836; 05:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a section to the discussion page. Handschuh-talk to me 05:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sydney meetup
You are listed here as interested in Sydney meetups, so I thought I'd let you know about one on this Saturday at 5pm at the Alexandria Hotel. Details here: Meetup/Sydney/November_2011. It would be great to see you. --99of9 (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Queen Rania
The article indeed does not mention the word "unsympathetic." This is what it says...

But the queen who came from a family of Palestinian origin, recently came under fire for leaving the country at a time when Israel is stepping up military operations in the West Bank and Gaza. The royal couple have three children. She was travelling abroad in May when her own family's home town, Tulkarm, was bombed to avenge a suicide attack on Israel. "Her absence inflamed feelings in the [refugee] camps," a businessman from Amman told the UK newspaper the Sunday Telegraph.

So she inflamed feelings. I don't think it is unreasonable to say people see her as unsympathetic. Look up her 40th birthday party and you will see a variety of feelings. But please, you read the source. Don't just delete it, replace the word you don't like. 132.160.54.156 (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous. So you really tried to introduce the word "unsympathetic" due to the reported opinion of one "businessman from Amman"? Please take some time to learn why WP has to remain WP:Neutral. GFHandel &#9836; 19:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It also said she "came under fire." It didn't specify from whom, but that implys that a segment of the population was complaining. It only quotes one businessman, but he isn't speaking on his behalf. He says that the Palestinian refugee camps are "inflamed."

You can find other quotes. I thought the BBC article was enough source. Do you really think there needs to be more verifiability to say that Queen Rania is seen as a bit of a blue blood? 132.160.54.148 (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please take up such issues on the relevant talk page. GFHandel &#9836; 03:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make a similar edit to what I had before. I won't say "unsympathetic." My reasoning will be in the edit summary. Thanks for being so understanding. Habeebee 132.160.54.140 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you make an edit instead of just deleting things you don't like? 132.160.54.162 (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you tell the community why you are trying to make a personal and political statements (clearly in violation of NPOV and BLP)? Don't you wonder why you have zero support for the views you are pushing? Please take it up on the relevant talk page—and stay off my talk page from now on (I have far more important things to do at WP than waste more time with someone who couldn't be bothered to learn what Wikipedia is for, and how it operates). Plonk. GFHandel &#9836; 19:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Basketball player infoboxes
Hello- I noticed you are doing a lot of work on NBA player articles. Please take a moment and read this discussion. There has been an effort to consolidate infoboxes for ALL professional basketball players, not just NBA players. In editing articles, please do not remove the infoboxes and all of the information that they contain, instead please convert them to the unified infobox (and be sure to check that the code works). Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I've finished going though all the articles matching the "NBA player" template, and sorry, but I did remove a dozen or more infoboxes (in the last few days only). Are you saying I can reinstate every infobox and replace "Infobox NBA biography" with "Infobox basketball biography"? GFHandel &#9836; 23:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Supposedly - but I am still getting the NBA.com link - which I thought was supposed to be suppressed. Might be worth a question to one of the creators of the template.  I'll ask on the discussion.  Thanks for the response.  Rikster2 (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it - just replace NBA biography with Basketball Biography and enter something in the league field. If the player played in just one league or predominantly on league use tat, otherwise the generic "various" will work.  Rikster2 (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I noticed you removed a number of guys drafted in the 2011 draft (such as Chris Singleton). Because of the lockout, these guys aren't showing on NBA.com yet, but NBA is probably the most appropriate template anyway. Rikster2 (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm sorry about the edits. The only problem is that I'm not sure how to fix the league information. Here are the 18 pages from which I removed the infoboxes:
 * Manuel_Bl%C3%A1zquez
 * Larry_Turner_(basketball)
 * Miguel_Miranda_(basketball)
 * Paulo_Sim%C3%A3o
 * Brian_Jones_(basketball_player)
 * Billy_Williams_(basketball)
 * Keith_Hughes_(basketball)
 * Ed_Turner_(basketball)
 * Brandon_Heath_(basketball)
 * Tibor_Plei%C3%9F
 * Donald_Sloan_(basketball)
 * Paul%C3%A3o_Prestes
 * Jason_Bennett_(basketball)
 * Chris_Singleton_(basketball)
 * Reggie_Jackson_(basketball)
 * LeRoy_Gardner_Jr.
 * Ron_Charles_(basketball)
 * Greg_Carter_(American_football)
 * Should I just revert my edits?
 * 23:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed as many as I could (as well as I could). I notice you have done the rest. Sorry to cause you the work. Cheers GFHandel &#9836; 00:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No big deal, I know you meant well. Cheers! Rikster2 (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian
Kind of late, but thank you for correcting my error on the mentioned article. I wrote two months because I thought that was 72 days, but it is 62 days. Silly mistake! Till I Go Home (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Amadigi di Gaula
Please see this post to my talk page and my reply so what I am about to write is taken in in context.

I have no idea if the two of you have a history. I looked through the most recent edits that user:Taksen has made (the last couple of months or so) and looked at those pages where (s)he has made more than one edit and could see no evidence that the two of you have ever edited the same pages before. Consider if her/his first edit to an edit you had made said in the history: "Removed picture that has no relevance to the work (e.g. not even from the right country). Added a picture that should have greater relevance to the location and time". I would have thought that "Altered picture to one with more relevance to the location and time" would have conveyed the same information, and have be less likely to encourage a negative reply from the other party.

Likewise the initial comment on the talk page: "Recently user:Taksen added a picture to the article that I replaced with a picture that holds more relevance to the article. Taksen then reverted my improvement with an edit comment of The Handelian police is busy again."

would have been better phrase with an assumption of good faith and ignoring his assertion of bad faith: "Recently user:Taksen added a picture to the article that I replaced with a picture that I think holds more relevance to the article. Taksen then reverted my change. I think the picture I selected is more suitable because:"

I hope you have read my posting to her/his page, you will see that I agree with your position, but I think your presentation could have been better. Please consider what you would think if someone was to approach an edit that you made in good faith with the comments that you used. If on consideration you do not think you would do anything differently, then than please disregard my observations, as it is a matter of opinion about the most effective way of approaching what you consider some problematic edits, and IMHO you have not even come close to breaching a guideline. -- PBS (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm stunned and demoralised that this has now been raised as an issue. Please see my response on your talk page. For Taksen to raise this issue on Jimbo Wales' talk page only furthers the observation that I (and many others) have made—that Taksen is simply unwilling to learn the policies, guidelines, and procedures that other editors seem to be able to follow.
 * You do understand that "The Handelian police" comment was Taksen's? Why is it that he is allowed to: call me names, exaggerate, personalise debates, continually flout policy and guidelines, and yet I'm the one encouraged to adopt higher standards? I will of course take on board your advice, but I promise you that I am extremely proud of the polite, thoughtful, and measured way that I interact with every other editor at WP.
 * You know those great days at WP (e.g. after researching and adding to an article, or adding a new article, or writing software to find mistakes in templates, etc.)? Well, this is no longer one of those days.
 * GFHandel &#9836; 09:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * GFHandel &#9836; 09:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup -- PBS (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you
Barnstar of Diligence

GF Handel, congratulations on receive these barnstars! Tony  (talk)  07:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Haydn: re "(aka Op. 101)"
There's a long discussion about this on that talk page, between me and DavidRF, which you might want to look at. Personally I don't care one way or the other about the "aka", but the "Op. 101" is important to keep. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops, wrong talkpage - it's at Talk:List of concertos by Joseph Haydn. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And basically the same issue is discussed at length at Talk:List of string quartets by Joseph Haydn, if you're really interested. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that this is to do with this edit of mine. The use of "aka" is unencyclopaedic, and I've not seen anything like it in any other WP article.

The main problem with the Haydn works is the lack of linkage between the Joseph Haydn article and individual work articles (such as the one in question here: Cello Concerto No. 2 (Haydn)). Here are a few things that I feel need to happen (to conform to the structure of other composer articles): The Handel page itself is not great, but the above concept can be seen via the following links: I do understand that there will be individual challenges with the Haydn pages (perhaps see how List of operas by Handel is worked into the above structure to meet one those challenges), but the above suggestion is a nice way of providing linkages (up and down) for a composer and the composer's works.
 * The List of compositions by Joseph Haydn article should be created (initially as a stub that acts as a switchboard page).
 * A link to that page should be placed immediately under the heading Joseph Haydn (using the template).
 * The individual genre works pages (List of concertos by Joseph Haydn, List of masses by Joseph Haydn, etc.) should be removed from the "See also" section in the Haydn article and worked into the new compositions page (along with most of the text from Joseph_Haydn (which could then be trimmed from the main article).
 * Individual work pages should contain an up-link to the new composition list page.
 * George Frideric Handel. Note the fairly short section with a main article link at the start.
 * List of compositions by George Frideric Handel, and (for example) List of compositions by George Frideric Handel.
 * Oboe sonata in C minor (HWV 366)—which is an individual work page (similar to the one that started this discussion). Note the way the reader can quickly up-link back to the list of compositions page, and even to a section that lands the reader closer to works in the same genre?

I have no idea about the discussion history of the Haydn article, so I won't presume to suggest all this there. If the idea is considered worthy, feel free...

GFHandel &#9836; 19:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughtful response. Essentially I agree with everything you're saying here. The issue under discussion had to do with DavidRF's strong feeling that with the exception of Haydn's string quartets, the use of his opus numbers is now obsolete. As I understand his argument, Wikipedia should be forward-looking, and not dragging old obsolete and no-longer-used identifications into articles or lists posted here. I, on the other hand, feel pretty strongly that since these opus numbers still appear on older recordings (and not even that old, such as from the 1970s and '80s), not to mention old sheet music that people have had for many years, we need to acknowledge their use. This came up because I have an EMI CD of Jacqueline de Pré playing that Haydn D concerto, and the disc identifies the composition only as "Op. 101". Adding the "aka" was just my attempt to indicate that "Op. 101" is no longer considered to be a useful (or perhaps even valid?) identifier for that concerto, without having to add a long explanation. Originally, the "Op. 101" identifier had not been on either of those two pages at all, and I added it to both. It was not until later when questioned by David that I went back and added the "aka".


 * Otherwise I have had nothing at all to do with the various Haydn articles other than trying to find stuff in them. I was surprised to find all those separate lists of works down under a "See also" at the bottom of the article. But on the other hand, not too surprised, because in looking for composition lists for a number of other composers, where the lists are too extensive to keep on the composer's main article, I've noticed that these links are all over the place for different composers - sometimes under "Music", sometimes under "Works", or in a "See also" stuck at the bottom of the page, and only very rarely in a hatnote where they would seem to be most useful. (I'm not a musician - I'm just trying to catalog a collection of CDs and LPs.) But like your reaction to the "See also" at Haydn, I've also never seen anything like all those separate lists, and I certainly agree that some reorganization and better presentation would be helpful. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that the Haydn opus numbers must be placed in the articles. The only question is where?
 * You'll notice that I like to add obsolete numbering to pages about individual works by Handel (e.g. "Other catalogues of Handel's music have referred to the work as HG xxvii,29; and HHA iv/18,32" in Oboe sonata in C minor (HWV 366)). Of course no one goes to those pages so I can get away with pretty much anything that appears reasonable. The tricks to adding information to an article are: to find a source (and you'll notice that I've added a citation to a Grove reference after the above HG and HHA information), and to place the information in an appropriate location.
 * There are articles about Handel's works where I wouldn't attempt to add that type of minor detail to the lede. The one time that I tried, the information quickly got moved to the Messiah (Handel) section (see Reference number 1 there). That may be a solution to your problem; and after all, the main point is that your information is located somewhere in the article (as then it belongs to the ages). :-)
 * GFHandel &#9836; 21:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't paid close enough attention to my watchlist - it got cluttered up with other stuff - and I hadn't noticed this post from you until just now. Entirely by coincidence, I have now picked up a Biddulph disc of Aaron Rosand and Hugh Sung playing "6 Violin Sonatas" of Handel for cataloging, and have made my way to Violin sonata in A major (HWV 361), where to my delight I found your full and thorough explanation in the lede of the various cataloging schemes that have been applied to this piece. Perfect solution. I want to bring this to DavidRF's attention, regarding our discussion of Haydn opus numbers. I very much appreciate your help. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Handel question: "Solo" sonatas
When I first looked for what would be these violin sonatas that I'm cataloging (see above), I was puzzled by finding at List of compositions by George Frideric Handel a section on "Solo sonatas", and below that, a section on "Trio sonatas" - so I wondered, where are accompanied sonatas? "Solo" sounded more promising than "trio", and indeed that's where I found what I was looking for. True "solo" sonatas are relatively rare for anything other than keyboard instruments. I have no idea whether Handel intended any of his sonatas to be played unaccompanied (I'm not a musician); but I wonder if in that list of compositions it might be helpful to change that section head to read something like "Solo and accompanied sonatas". Milkunderwood (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In the "Classical" sense, the keyboard is assumed in a sonata. Therefore, if you play the "solo" Violin sonata in A major (HWV 361) you will hear a keyboard accompanying the violin. I don't think there would be a single piece under List of compositions by George Frideric Handel where there wouldn't be a keyboard playing. The word "solo" is justified because the keyboard tends to provide a harmonic accompaniment, and does not feature (e.g. as a melodic part of the work). For most of the sonatas, Handel didn't bother to write out more than the lowest part (a single line) the keyboardist was expected to play, however by providing numerical markings (figured bass), the expectation was that a competent keyboardist would add the other parts (in real time) to make the accompaniment fuller.
 * For some reason, when two instruments are featured in a sonata (e.g. a sonata for two violins), the keyboard gets added to the count—hence "trio".
 * If a sonata is for only a keyboard, then it is mentioned in the title, e.g. Piano Sonata No. 1 (Mozart).
 * If there is no keyboard accompanying a solo instrument, then a big deal is usually made in the title, e.g. Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (Bach).
 * You have to remember that for every rule, there will be exceptions; so lists of works are arranged into groups that provide the compilers least distress.
 * GFHandel &#9836; 02:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was pretty much vaguely (but not fully) familiar with what you're explaining here. But let's come back to the concept of Wikipedia providing helpful information for the clueless. Take me - I come looking for accompanied violin sonatas, and instead find only two categories - "solo", and "trio". So I hunt around looking for a third category, and not finding one, decide to give "solo" a try. And it worked. Now as I say, I was not entirely clueless about the concept of accompaniment, but some other users might well be. So my question really is, might there be any term other than "solo" that would not itself be misleading, but at the same time wouldn't require a big long explanation in the section title? One of the problems is that you could get away with saying "Violin sonatas" or "Flute sonatas", etc, but Handel's are all mixed up, or not even specified. I think if it were me, I might give consideration to something like "Sonatas for various instruments". That way you're not confusing the issue with the word "solo". I haven't even looked to see if there any solo keyboard sonatas there, but my suggested wording ought to cover both accompanied and unaccompanied. And I think the simple term "trio sonatas" is clear enough for a separate category, even though the actual roles of the instruments may not be understood - it's really just that confusing word "solo", that assumes the reader will understand what is meant. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm happy for the topic to be discussed on the relevant talk page, however I think that "solo sonata" is a fairly standard way of referring to such works (Google returns about half a million matches to the phrase "solo sonata"). I've added a sentence to the start of the section to indicate that the works are for solo instrument with keyboard accompaniment (which will help until something else is decided). GFHandel &#9836; 05:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Very well done - this would certainly do the trick for me in clarifying it. Thank you. I don't know about Google, but I do wonder what other similar situations there might be here at Wikipedia, and whether I may have stirred up a hornet's nest. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This really comes down to being the same issue I had been discussing with DavidRF. When you say "solo sonata" is a fairly standard way of referring to such [accompanied] works, a musician immediately knows exactly what is meant. But what about people who are not musicians, but who for whatever reason have their interest or curiosity piqued by something, and when they get here they have to struggle to find what they're looking for? So far, I think you're the only editor in classical music I've run across who sees the problem the same way I do. Why make it hard for people? I once ran across this delicious bit of irony: Remember, the reader is the enemy. Something for us all to think about. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

MiB and other Klingon talk
BTW, I made the change myself. Keep an eye out for me. I suspect one or our banned editors is coming back as an I.P. to do this sort of stuff. Greg L (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks (I got an edit conflict while trying to save the changes on top of your update). I did convert "KB" to "kB". GFHandel &#9836; 21:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to revert my revert, I won’t re-revert you. But note that this particular industry, (that’s just one of the citations in that article)—like most of the rest of this industry—uses uppercase K for “KB”. Greg L (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries (although I feel the Kilobyte article should elaborate on the differing usage of "kB" and "KB"). The main thing is that the silly KiB and MiB are banished. GFHandel &#9836; 21:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The lowercase and uppercase K is inconsistent in the industry; ergo, the ambiguity (and in some cases: mis-advise) on our style pages. Furthermore, you can never put too much credence on our computer-related articles because they get far more than their fair share of POV-pushing. Some wikipedians seem to prefer lowercase k because it is somehow SI-compliant. But “kB” can never be SI-compliant when denoting a powers-of-two value anyway because it would have to be “kiB”. Pulling the rug from under even that rug is that the IEC and the BIPM (the people behind the SI-version of the metric system) specified that the non-SI-complant uppercase K be used for “KiB”. What a mess. But that tacit acknowledgement of the IEC and the BIPM strongly signals that they recognize the majority usage of uppercase K. Indeed, if we are talking about Intel and their Pentium products, it seems the majority does indeed use uppercase K. Are you watchlisting that article? Greg L (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm watching the page. If you want to get scared, have a look through http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Kibibyte. There are about 1,780 pages using a link to kibibyte (e.g. for indicating the size of the document in the PDFlink template). :-( GFHandel &#9836; 22:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And what about a page like 2M (DOS)? GFHandel &#9836; 22:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The power of banned editors slinking around as I.P.s. The editor who used to have his hair on fire and did great good to oppose this POV-pushing of “Spreading the virtues of IEC prefixes,” married and moved East Asia. Now that he has a life and children, the POV-pushing spreads. Greg L (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Opus Dei
I've semi-protected the page for a week. :) -Philippe (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

New articles from the Classic 100 List
Hi GFHandel,

I created two articles Kakadu (Sculthorpe) and Antarctica Suite (although the latter is only a stub). So now these works have blue links on the Classic 100 Twentieth Century (ABC) list and there are also links from them to the list. I thought it was sad that these articles did not exist. Cheers, Whiteghost.ink 01:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)