User talk:GFHandel/Archive 2012

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced means no references, not poorly referenced or in the wrong section
Hi there, in regards to edits like this, the general consensus is that the unreferenced tag (and in this case it actually should have been BLP unreferenced) should only be used when there are no refs at all. Where there are some refs that do directly confirm some of the info in the article (such as results databases etc as opposed to generic links to organisations associated with the subject), then a No footnotes and a BLP sources or refimprove tag is much more informative to other editors. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't add unreferenced template for a living, but I'm really dubious (when it comes to references) when an article has an "External links" sections but no "References" section. It's one thing to see the presence of "External links" (which tend to be added by any old fan), but quite another to see similar links used properly as citations. I'm trying to encourage proper use. GFHandel &#9836;
 * And so am I. If an editor is not experienced on wikipedia and it's policies (yes, I know that they are linked everywhere, but who really takes the time to read them), they might be aware that you need references/sources/verification/citations, but may think that any old link is good enough (or they've seen it/copied it from another page).  Sticking an "unreferenced" tag on it may not make sense to them if they don't pick up on that critical "a proper reference is inline, independent, formated, in tags, uses the cite template etc, not just a bare url chucked on the end of an article" point of difference.  So by all means template the hell out of them, but point them in the proper direction by using the citation style, primary sources, no footnotes or other more specialised tags that make it absolutely clear what is wrong with the article. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Social networking sites
See External links/Perennial websites, which specifies that social networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Myspace, and Twitter should not be added unless the subject has no other web presence. Also see WP:ELDUP, which states that sites used as references should not be duplicated in the external links section. Yworo (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See Talk:George Dvorsky. I'm including this link purely to set context, but please note that I have no interest in the outcome at that page, and have unwatched it. I'll now get on with adding functionality to the encyclopaedia. GFHandel &#9836; 04:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * if you are indeed adding multiple social networking sites to multiple articles, you are on a misguided campaign and should stop now and seek clarification. I will follow up later and revert all these misguided edits. Yworo (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh please, there's nothing misguided about it. There are already lots of Google+ links in "External links" sections (not to mention thousands and thousands of Twitter and Facebook templates there), so what I've mainly done is convert existing hard-coded URLs into the Google+ template (which I created). I'm really sorry that you find the few extra additions of that template-usage that slip through so horrifying that you need to remove them immediately (based on a very strict reading of the "rules"). Could you please drop the pejorative "misguided" talk and realise that we are all volunteers trying to help. Your discouraging words make it seem like the act of creating templates (to standardise, and facilitate things like "what links here" searches) and then trying to help the readership by bringing out links relevant to the subject (in the "External links" section) is right along side things like WP:OR, etc. Do what you have to do, but please don't post your negativity on my talk page again. Bye. GFHandel &#9836; 04:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See those 's and the words "never". Don't make unnecessary work for other editors who understand the reasons for the prohibitions. Yworo (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So I see that you are now starting to remove things that I didn't even add (which I think I can guarantee you is going to cause you a huge headache with local editors in a large number of articles). As I write this, there are currently 4,044 instances of the Twitter template—almost all of which are in the "External links" sections of articles. Are you going to remove all of them? What criteria did you use to remove the Twitter template in the above diff? I guess we can say goodbye to these templates then—and I'm not certain that that's a good outcome for our readership. Could you please stop and get some advice before removing more work that I've done? Honestly, if you step back from the trees, you will realise that no damage has been done, and there's nothing that can't wait a day before acting in this matter. GFHandel &#9836; 04:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is an official website listed, Twitter should not be listed. This should cause no headaches because they are not allowed. By the way, your attitude sucks and is the main reason that I am doing it now rather than later. There are reasons for the prohibitions. Have your verified that the accounts actually belong to the subject and aren't imposters or misidentified? Are you sure that no libel or copyright violations will ever be posted at the linked sites? Did you even for a moment consider that I might be right? No you didn't consider any of these things. Yworo (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought you understood what I was doing—but it's clear to me now that you don't. I have not been making things up or in some ways guessing at the information in the templates I have been adding. I have only taken existing information (information entered by thousands of other editors) and formatted it into the templates provided by WP. As I said, there are thousands and thousands of Twitter and Facebook template-usage (and a significant number more of plain Twitter and Facebook URLs) in "External links" sections in articles, so please continue on your crusade to rid WP of all that pesky information so that it becomes harder and harder for our readership to find out information via WP. I'd say pretty universally I have not seen a Twitter or Facebook URL used without an "Offical website" listed nearby, so ... let me know when you have deleted them all from WP, and I'll help you turn off the lights on the templates. GFHandel &#9836; 05:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If the subject has an official website, we don't also link their Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, etc. That's pretty easy to understand. Wikipedia is not a directory. There are some people who don't have an official website. Then we can list their social networking sites. Most people list their social networking sites on their official site, if they don't, maybe they don't want to announce them to the world but intend to use them only with actual friends! Yworo (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So your argument now is "...maybe they don't want to announce them to the world but intend to use them only with actual friends"? Really? No seriously, really? I can't begin to tell you how out-of-touch you (and the "rules") are with the real WP out there (and thanks for ignoring the other points I raised).
 * If it's such a terrible idea, why have thousands and thousands of Twitter and Facebook template/URL entries been made within a point or two of Official website information in the "External links" sections of countless WP articles? Well, I think I can pretty much guarantee that you will have your hands full for the rest of your editing future at WP because if the templates are provided, I can assure you that editors will continue to add them—as thousands and thousands have done (and are doing). To help you out on your crusade, why don't you start here (and I'm certain that a very large number of those links have "Official website" information because I clicked a few at random and every single one had "Official website" details)? I know you'll never admit it (well, at least not to me) but you are severely out of touch regarding how countless editors wish to format and present information to WP's readership. Did you come to grips with the point that I didn't add anything that wasn't already in the articles?
 * GFHandel &#9836; 05:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a heads-up that there is a particularly shocking case for you to address at Britney Spears. You've probably done enough for today, but when you get a chance could you please go there and remove all the "social networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Myspace, and Twitter" (etc.) because the subject certainly does have another "web presence" (her official website is also listed in the "External links" section). It would be comforting for all who read this to have some confidence that you are not just picking the soft targets for your social networking usage clean-up. Good luck! GFHandel &#9836; 06:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, just for you, I'll dust off my programming skills and write a bot. That template gives me just the right handle I need to find all the articles needing attention. Yworo (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But the Spears article was one of the ones I applied templates to today (and you reverted just about all of my other work). So you are just going after the soft targets then. Well, well, well—what a (disappointing) shock. GFHandel &#9836;  07:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Yworo's "last comment" comment removed as it is pointless to the debate and again fails to address points raised. Please check history if interested).
 * To Yworo: based on your stalking-type antagonistic edit following today's events, I'm now worried about your ability to edit and act fairly, and therefore I want to exercise my rights to have nothing more to do with you. In that light, please stay off my talk page. Thank you. GFHandel &#9836; 09:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * An update...
 * Yworo's unilateral mass deletion of information has started to be undone. User Memphisto has pointed out to Yworo that the link (External_links/Perennial_websites) he has been using to justify the removal of information "is merely a project page (not a guideline)" and that as a sub-page it is not conferred with guideline status.
 * GFHandel &#9836; 18:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Admin assistance please regarding unwanted edits to my talk page
I've requested many times that user:Yworo not edit my talk page, however he continues to make changes here. Could someone please assist me in this matter? Thank you in advance. GFHandel &#9836; 09:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I've missed it, but other than within the edit summaries I don't see where you've notified him of your request. Per WP:NOBAN you can make the request but it is not necessarily binding.  If he has valid points to raise to you he should be able to, but if you feel it rises to the level of stalking or harassment you should make sure he is aware before next steps such as filing a civility case.  I will send him a friendly note to clearly state the request.   7  00:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Google+
Template:Google+ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Moxy (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that the result of the above process was that there was no consensus to delete the template. GFHandel &#9836; 00:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

MOS discussion that may be of interest
Because of your previous input on various iterations of the debate about the lower-casing vs. capitalization of the common names of animals (domestic cat, blue whale vs. Domestic Cat, Blue Whale), you may be interested in this thread proposing key points that should be addressed by the guidelines: WT:Manual of Style. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

EL
I don't exactly share your concerns but I started a discussion on WP:EL talk page that you may have some interest in: Wikipedia_talk:External_links. It's relevant to what you said about what links editors actually consider to be useful, as opposed to what the policy says is useful. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I do want to comment there, and I started to write something; but I will sleep on it and think about it some more tomorrow (before posting). Cheers. GFHandel &#9836; 09:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Yooperkawi
I thought you would be interested in Sockpuppet investigations/Srobak. memphisto 07:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Un-be-eff-ing-lievable. GFHandel &#9836; 08:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Request
Hey there, do you allow c/e request on your talk page? Best, Jona yo!  Selena 4 ever  00:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess so, but note that the time I'm willing to spend at an article tends to be proportional to my interest in the subject. :-) GFHandel &#9836; 00:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So music-related articles? (your siggy lolz) Jona yo!  Selena 4 ever  00:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

7 - seven
I was under the impression Wikipedia was an Encyclopedia! (Or at least pretending to be one!)  Hello GFHandel, UnQuébécois has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. --UnQuébécois (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is in relation to this. GFHandel &#9836; 20:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/F&aelig;
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:F&aelig;. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Short notice: Sydney meetup
Sorry for the late notice, but Ben Smith, who is a French Wikipedian m:User:benjism89, is visiting Australia with two friends and wants to meet up for dinner in Sydney on Wednesday [tomorrow!]. Feel free to join us :-)

He's staying near Sydney Uni, so: Meet at 7pm at the upstairs bar of the Marlborough Hotel (also known as the "Marley bar") which is about halfway between Sydney Uni and Newtown Train station: http://maps.google.com.au/?q=Marlborough+Hotel&cid=4363433616880529583 From there we'll have a drink and then chose a restaurant.

Please forward this to anyone who you think would be interested. Sincerely, Wittylama 02:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Heyerdhal
You might want to see my comments on the talk page. There has been long standing criticism of Heyerdahl's attitude towards race in various academic journals and books, which for some reason isn't in the article, so the problem isn't so much Kvam & Nazism but the wider issue of racism. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding 2over0’s curious block that was quickly reversed
Regarding this heads-up from you, and 2over0’s charming thoughts expressed at the bottom here on his talk page, all I can say is he has his own unique perspective. After two weeks of wikibreak, 2over0 became active long enough to block me and then just as quickly fell silent again. The community reaction here at WP:ANI was well summarized by Reyk, who wrote “I agree. 2/0 needs to explain his block to the community. It looks like a terrible block to me. I see nothing blockworthy in anything Greg said at Talk:Yoghurt. It looked like an animated but ultimately productive discussion to me.” My block was undone within a half hour by Horologium, who wrote seven words: “Block does not appear to be justified.” The resultant call for Temporary desysoping 2over0 for that block failed decisively but does point to the need for the English-language version of Wikipedia to catch up with the practices observed by the other Wikipedias insofar as the community’s ability to desysop admins. Greg L (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Supoj Saenla
Congratulations for your revision that erased the informations I took the pain to looked for. You made it very well, I'm sad to have just two hands to applause: suppression of the www.prosnookerblog.com link that gave the DoB. As it is written that he won the under 21 asian championships in 1980, it is obvious that the 1980 DoB given is the correct one. 2001 - 1977 = 24, a lil' too old to participate in the 2001 under 21 championships, don't you think ? In exchange you put back the worldsnooker.com and the snookermanager.com that you checked very well to be sure they brought interesting datas. Interesting that you wrote "Could you please take the time and care to make sure the article isn't left inconsistent for our readers?" and you erase a page that gives the informations to put back error 404 pages. After this, you finished by erasing a correct interwiki I added. Very well done. BIRDIE  ✉ 11:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Listen, please drop your condescending and cynical attitude. Your edit left the article in an inconsistent state (according to you the subject was born in both 1977 and 1980), so I reverted to make sure we present consistent information to our readers. Instead of the above diatribe, all you had to do was repeat your edit, but this time taking a little more care. Not too much to ask was it? GFHandel &#9836; 22:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Sure In 900,000 edits over eight years, I've used summaries for 99.99%+, but sometimes I just don't bother. It's a fair request, but I just don't feel like it sometimes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is in my response to this request of mine. Oh well, I gave it a shot. GFHandel &#9836; 05:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think edit-summaries are always necessary. Tony   (talk)  06:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Javier Bardem as Silva
Hi,

I've reverted your edits to Javier Bardem's page where you listed him as playing "Silva" in Skyfall. In response to your question: yes, it does matter what it reported. I have been following production of Skyfall for some time, and Bardem's character name remains unconfirmed. There is not a single reliable source reporting it. Since we have no evidence that Bardem is playing a character called Silva, we cannot include that in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

About Yildiz Tilbe
Hi, GFHandel! I've just written a comment on your  question. Lets do the rest on talk page of Yildiz Tilbe. (I'm going to write there in 2-3 hours, after dinner.) By the way, congrulations for your close attention and ability to read Turkish even if with some Web translation help! Neophyrigian (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Wikidata
Thought you might be interested in the worthy and about-time WMF project, the preparation led by the German chapter. I've raised just one issue, concerning the coordination of numerical style.

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. When you recently edited Pamela Austin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Perils of Pauline (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Precious
Thank you. I'm desperate to find more time to edit and create Handelian articles. GFHandel &#9836; 22:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Link
Why did you remove the link to "ethnic Germans"?--IIIraute (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (This is in response to my edit.) I supported the removal of the link to German because it does little (if anything) to deepen the understanding of the article in question. It is a clear case of the sort of over-linking that we are trying very hard to discourage on WP. Please have a careful read of WP:MOSLINK for more details. Please don't edit war at the article, and please don't continue the discussion here. If you disagree with the removal of the link, take it up on the article's talk page, and if you disagree with the policy of linking, please take it up on the relevant policy page. GFHandel &#9836; 22:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Justin Bieber on Twitter
Thanks for the edit. If you have a few minutes, can you give a few paragraphs a copy edit for clarity and flow? (And there is an excessive citation problem. Aware of that.  In there to help with the merge discussion regarding WP:GNG of the topic.) --LauraHale (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sydney meetup
Hello, you expressed interest in future meetups, a meetup will be held on Saturday May 5th at the Alexandria Hotel, further information can be found on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing you there!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of M.O.X (talk) at 08:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

Redirected here from User talk:HWV258.

Rinaldo (opera)
Hi, GFHandel, could you take a look at this editing? Thanks. --Jeanambr (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Change to the format of reference dates
Just dropping a note here that based on this discussion, I'm more than happy to be involved with any future discussion about policy change that recommends not using the "YYYY-MM-DD" format for dates in references. Without going into too much detail here and now, it now seems archaic to use something like "04" instead of "April", and the template Cite web defaults in the full month name when editors copy-and-paste a blank version for use in an article. The rationale is that things like "April 29, 2012", "30 June 2012", and "January 9, 2012" are better for our readers than "2012-04-29", "2012-06-30", and "2012-01-09". A little more controversially, I am willing to consider an abbreviated month format for references (e.g. something like: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, June, July, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec), so the above examples would become "Apr 29, 2012", "30 June 2012", and "Jan 9, 2012". GFHandel &#9836; 01:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No guideline recommends the use of citation templates over other citation styles. It is an error to equate whatever the citation template documentation says to an encyclopedia-wide recommendation. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * True, however that's not what I was trying to say. The fact that the major citation templates all have the default date inserted in a format such as "24 May 2012" (or "May 24, 2012") means that the bulk of copy-and-paste operations will use that default format. (In other words: the horse is bolting, and it looks like a horse that the community wishes to ride.) GFHandel &#9836; 03:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Cite templates
Installing cite templates on an article that does not have them is contrary to guideline. You have previously been notified of this. You are also changing the reference format. As such you are knowingly editing in violation of guidelines. You will not be warned again. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded to this threat at the appropriate venue. GFHandel &#9836; 01:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Contrary to which guideline? I am interested and don't know much about guidelines. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:CITEVAR which states in part "...Wikipedia does not have a single house style. Editors may choose any option they want...Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change."
 * Sounds a bit like ownership of an article to me. What would consensus mean in such a case? I asked elsewhere (don't remember where) "If the guidelines lead to this, they should be questioned, they are not holy scriptures." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's really just like British vs. American spelling, indicating ancient dates with BC vs. BCE, etc. If every editor who comes along revises an article to suit his/her individual editing preferences, the result is chaos. The people who decide are the editors who watch the talk page. Of course, if an article has no consistent citation style, and never did, then it's up for grabs. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Back to my question please, not considering "every editor coming along" changing an article, but an editor suggesting a change on the talk, seeking consensus: what would be considered consensus? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt it is possible to precisely define consensus, either on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Back to my point that probably the guideline needs to be changed if it mentions consensus and we dont know what that is, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Collaborative writing is not a process of applying rigid rules, the way election officials count votes. Collaborative writing obviously works in Wikipedia, otherwise Wikipedia would have failed. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Start over: collaborative writing is what I would like to see. Someone offers to improve refs, seeks consensus, finds supporters - you expect an easy consensus? Wrong. Unfortunately. Now who asks for applying rigid rules? Not me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Who says changing the citation style is an improvement? Very often it isn't. It's very simple: the established style should be maintained unless there is consensus on the talk page to use a different one. Some template-happy people go around changing them on a drive-by basis just for the fun of it, and are a complete menace. I don't say that is what happened here. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, I would like to ask you to heed WP:CITEVAR. Please stop adding citation templates to articles which have been established without them. In particular, you have been advised already that Sean Combs was established without citation templates, and that others object to the conversion. Therefore, it is inappropriate for you to continue to convert references in that article to use templates, as with. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not "others" who object, it's "other" (see the talk page discussion). From the same discussion, please note that others do support the use of the templates. The proposed action of adding the templates was made on the talk page and the work began yesterday. It is a large job, and I will have to do it in stages. It is now inconceivable to leave the article in a state where it has a mixture of referencing styles. In adding the templates, consistent formatting is being established, and issues are being detected and corrected (e.g. unnecessary use of archives, missing dates, etc.). Consensus has been established at the talk page, and at least one other admin has contributed to the work. For the record, could you please explain to the entire community exactly what it is about the templates that you feel are not helping to improve the article for its readers? GFHandel &#9836; 21:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see consensus on the talk page, and there has been a lot of discussion in the section "Date format change proposal" as well. In general there is not a consensus on Wikipedia that citation templates are an improvement; some people like me favor them, other people dislike them. The general rule is to keep the established style in each article, as Jc3s5h says above.


 * I agree there should not be a mixture of styles in the article, although in the short term it is not the end of the world. In the interest of having a consistent style, it would be gracious of you to undo your changes to leave the style that was established in the article before you began to edit it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it's not a "rule" (and the assumption that it is is the reason this has all become a protracted drama). I've posted the above to the relevant talk page for a wider appraisal. If you would care to have input, please post there from now on. GFHandel &#9836; 21:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am interacting here only as an administrator, so it wouldn't be proper for me to also participate in the discussion on the talk page. There is indeed a well-established rule against changing from one optional style to another. For the record, I was not contacted privately by anyone, I saw both this edit and a note at WT:CITE on my watchlist and looked into the situation on my own. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I agree with Gerda Arendt; GFHandel has sought consensus on the article's talk page for the changes. I only see one editor opposing these changes (which are minor formatting ones designed to make the article easier to read and update) and now he is enacting the changes we agreed. What's the problem? --John (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The MOS says, "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.", and WP:CITE says, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change." and "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged: an article should not be switched between templated and non-templated citations without good reason and consensus – see Variation in citation methods above.".


 * In general the bar is very high to make this sort of stylistic change, because the community dislikes it when people go around changing these stlyes to suit their own preferences. In this case, it is possible that a consensus could develop to change to templates, or to change the format of access dates, but I do not believe either option has a strong enough consensus at the moment to overcome the strong predjudice against changing from one optional style to another. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You are studiously ignoring the fact that the article had half a dozen or so cite templates before any of this work to make the citation formatting correct and consistent began. Why is that? Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are two old versions, separated by 20 days, without any citation templates that I see . Of course someone might add one, but the overall style is clear, and if a cite template was inadvertently added the usual solution per WP:CITEVAR is to regularize the new citation into the established style, not to change the established style to match one new citation. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you go even further back you'll see that there was no consistent citation style until Gimmetoo arbitrarily decide on one that the majority of those commenting on the issue don't like. Gimmetoo does not get the right to override the emerging consensus just because you say so. Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No matter how many times you use the word "rule", it simply isn't. From Citing sources:
 * This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
 * And in fact, the word "rule" does not appear on the page. A number of editors now believe that the article in question is an exception and would benefit from the use of the cite web template. If these facts are not enough to convince you that the work should continue, then I'm happy to fire up a quick RfC on the article's talk page. Do you feel that to be necessary?
 * GFHandel &#9836; 22:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

List of CAD applications
Hi GFHandel. What a busy week I'm having! About your change to the Cobalt entry. OS X is a Posix compliant operating system, see Os_x so I disagree with your recent edit. If you've now changed your mind I'd ask that you revert the change as I'm on a break from editing articles. And it still says in the introduction to the article that it is for AEC CAD. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope it is the start of many productive weeks at WP. I saw another Mac OS entry in the column, so I tried to standardize. Feel free to change. Perhaps someone can make it easier on our readers by making it more obvious, e.g. Windows, Macintosh, Unix/Linux? Anyhow, feel free to revert/fix. GFHandel &#9836; 08:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (Looks like those next two used the wrong heading?) A few things... I'm constantly having trouble searching for content about Wikipedia styles and guidelines. Can you point me in the right direction so I can find things myself in the future? Like guidelines for lists of software... Thanks for keeping a cool head recently even though we obviously disagree on what constitutes useful content. I need to do some homework on that point.
 * Good places to start are Policies and guidelines and the Manual of Style. There are also the philosophies of Ignore all Rules and being Bold. Be careful how you interpret and apply those because if you get medieval on well-established articles, you are probably in for a world of pain. Retiring to quite corners of Wikipedia to perform non-controversial article building is a good idea sometimes (and I try to do that when it all appears overwhelming). Cheers. GFHandel &#9836; 00:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN
Hi, GFHandel. This is a courtesy notification that I have mentioned your name in a discussion at WP:AN. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235. It's related to the work you are doing at Sean Combs. Regards, -- Dianna 21:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninja Diannaa (talk • contribs)

List-defined references
Hi, GFHandel.

There's a pretty good documentation page as to how to use the script at User:PleaseStand/References segregator, but I will give some brief instructions here. You will need to use a good browser; the script does not work in Internet Explorer. Install the script in your vector.js or common.js.

You will then see two buttons below your edit window - one labelled "segregate refs for editing" and the other labelled "Migrate article to LDR". One thing you want to do before you start is to make sure all the citations are named. If you don't do this, the script will name them for you, but it will use names that are not very useful or descriptive (autogenerated-1, for example). Then create a references section; like this for example:

The ABC Classic FM starting date
is referenced on page 11 (on the 6th page of the referenced PDF). New World Man (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for adding the information and reference. GFHandel &#9836; 00:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

courtesy note
Dear GFH, I know you have expertise in the relationship between programmers and users, so I thought you'd be interested in this. Tony  (talk)  05:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's at the bottom of the heap, but I didn't want you to miss . While I think you should take into account what Ryan said about the horrible mess that was FlaggedRevs and LiquidThreads, as well as the fact that we work in an Agile way, I don't want the fact that many of these specs already exist to go missing. I don't personally have an answer for how to solve all the systemic communication issues, but if you're motivated, the content is there waiting for you. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   18:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Inclusionism
GF, you're an inclusionist (unlike me), so this might interest you. Tony  (talk)  03:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Baroque composers redux
Hi: Please take a look at the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FeanorStar7/sandbox I have done a couple of sample ideas. Please let me know what you think. Thanks.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done with the table option (my favourite) and with Hs. I would add the Country column (even if it isn't all filled in to start), and the composer column needs to be sorted by surname. If you want to divide the work of getting the information into tables, I'm more than happy to help. GFHandel &#9836; 07:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I do have a question; shouldn't we get a consensus from other interested editors before we make such a large change? I would be more comfortable getting that before we start... otherwise it might just get reverted... I've been burned in the past with this kind of thing... let me know what you think...--FeanorStar7 (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Have a long read of IAR :-) . We are here to increase functionality to our readers, and being reverted is an occupational hazard. If your wiki-intentions are good, you can get away with an awful lot. Your wiki-intentions are good, aren't they? It's getting close to my (depressingly early) bed time, so don't be depressed if I can't help/support until tomorrow. Do you think there should be one large table, or should the (artificial) era sections be preserved? GFHandel &#9836; 11:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I may not be able to help immediately; family medical issues right now. I think we should try to follow the pattern that the Renaissance listing has and maintain the sections (early; middle; late Baroque); I think the table is the way to go also. Please feel free to start and I will help when I am able; hopefully soon... A straight alpha listing is the best?--FeanorStar7 (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Mylène Farmer article
Wow against me for putting her vocal range, even in official uses, they use videos to determine their range, don't believe me? Ask music intelligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenar328 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

it's because of me I helped you edit her page by putting her signature & famous songs, hahaha! Gotta thank me for that!


 * The above is in response to this edit of mine. What Lenar328 fails to accept is that it is not up to Wikipedia's editors to interpret primary sources (such as YouTube video clips) to post information about a subject's vocal range. I'm more than happy for Farmer's vocal abilities to be included in the article—as long as the details are supported by a reference to a reliable source (something Lenar328 is unable to provide). By the way, the referencing and underlying sources in the article are in a dreadful state, however it is difficult for me to progress further than I have as I don't speak French. GFHandel &#9836; 21:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's clearly her in the YouTube vid, the issue may be whether it's a copyvio. Unsure. Tony   (talk)  10:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Bob Hope
Why change all the citations to a template style? Was this ever discussed? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC).
 * Just trying to improve the quality of the citations. I notice that another editor was keen to continue with their use today. Do they particularly bother you? GFHandel &#9836; 19:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The templates are still malformed as they do not have the proper, main title, subsidiary title identified, and since the original citations were properly outputted, why change? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC).
 * I don't accept that they are malformed—however if they are, that's not a reason to remove just one of the 43 cite templates now on the page. Could you please reformat (to the standard you require) the one you have just removed, and I will work hard (if it turns out that it is required) to adapt the others? You have not addressed my point that at least one other editor has continued the use of the templates, and you should also consider that no one else at the article has complained about their use. I'm curious why they bother you (since they render more consistently and accurately to the reader, and also provide a mechanism whereby automated processes can be used to check and improve the reference information in the future)? GFHandel &#9836;  20:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks at an article talk page
There are numerous personal attacks against me at the Sgt Pepper talk page. Other editors have tried to "hat" them but one or two users keep restoring them. It is my understanding that personal attacks can and should be removed from the talk page. Can you offer any advice in this regard, Thanks. ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been following that shambles with some interest, but not being an admin, I can't do any more directly. is an excellent admin, and will either be able to help, or (since I think he has !voted) be able to direct you to someone who can help. The other choice is to place the Admin help template on your talk page and wait to see what happens. The only thing I will advise is to not play a reactionary game because that helps the closers of such matters in apportioning blame everywhere. It is the strength of the argument that will win the day—not who reverts the most, or who drags a discussion down with personal attacks. If you feel yourself getting worked up by the actions of others, walk away for 24 hours and see if you still want to post the same way tomorrow. You probably won't, and there's a fair chance that someone else will have addressed your concerns during the day. Cheers. GFHandel &#9836;  01:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great advice, I will follow it. ~ GabeMc  (talk 02:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Tim Young
Sorry. I made the change for a couple of reasons: 1) The date range wasn't formatted correctly (it looked like "1999-2000-present"). 2) He does not seem to be playing anymore, but I'm not entirely certain of his career end date. Looking at interwikis, he seems to have spent some time playing overseas or in minor leagues. I think it's best to leave those start/end fields blank when the career dates are not certain. Zagal e jo^^^ 03:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, this might not have been clear, but the infobox was supposed to have a "career_end" field, and it apparently didn't. Zagal e jo^^^ 03:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (This is in response to this edit of mine.) No worries—my only point was that an edit summary would help other editors to understand your intentions. Cheers. GFHandel &#9836; 03:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Victoria Beckham
Decreased effectiveness, sentence just doesn't sound as good when you only put the year. Also since she was still very young this should be an exception. Spelling Style (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (This is in relation to this edit of mine.) This is not about "effectiveness", this is about accuracy. The source says she was "seven", and you want to say she was "six". If the source isn't reliable enough to get her age correct, you have to wonder how accurate the rest of its information is? I don't mind either way, and was only trying to reword the text to avoid conflict with the source. GFHandel &#9836; 20:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the problem is with the source then. I would actually be correct because she was born in 1974. She would be six years old, not seven years old, in 1980. Still, could the sentence be rewritten without the source? It's common sense that she was six in 1980, not seven. Spelling Style (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, good: you've understood the problem—which is all I wanted to achieve (and thank you for being willing to discuss it). She was born in April 1974, so let's take the worst case scenario and assume that she had her "Fame" Eureka moment in December 1974—which would have been when she was six years and nine months old. Perhaps the source rounded 6.75 years up to 7? I have no idea, and can't see the problem with going with the source text. As to "could the sentence be rewritten without the source?", I'm going to pretend I didn't read that; however I will note that I did attempt to rewrite the sentence so that it wasn't in conflict with the source. I hope the issue doesn't get known as "bend Verifiability like Beckham". Cheers. GFHandel &#9836; 04:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts that it was rounded up. As late as a couple of days before a subject's birthday, news articles still cite their current age. Most likely, it was just a typo. I figured either the year or the age must be off, but anyway. I'm glad we got that cleared up. I agree that since it is a biographical article these citations are necessary, and I guess we'll just have to leave it at that because I can't find any other sources that note the musical bit. Spelling Style (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "news articles"? You do realise that the source is people.com (and that I had to fight my way past headlines like "Victoria Beckham Smiles with a Dolphin", "Victoria Beckham's Peekaboo Maternity Style", and "Five Fun Facts" to find the supporting text for the WP article)? GFHandel &#9836; 05:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Technically, People is considered a news site... in a very loose, upscale sense. People is popular celebrity news, not world news. It would not rate on the same scale as Los Angeles Times or New York Daily News, which is more of what I meant by "news articles". Such a note (musical) would probably not be found on either of these websites. Spelling Style (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Neil Peart
Thank you for fixing whatever it was that I managed to do to that article. My otherwise-reliable PC has seemed possessed for the past two days. And each time I think I've resolved the issue(s), it mocks me anew, as if it truly had a mind of its own. In any case, I believe I have now completed the original BRD edit I intended to make, in case you have an opinion on it. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk page edits
This is not the first time you have modified my talk page comments such that context was changed. Let it be the last. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is in relation to this edit of mine. Gimmetoo, I did not modify the context, I restored the traditional talk page convention of maintaining the chronological ordering of editor's comments. The context of you replying to Diannaa's comment is still clear to all, however your comment clearly comes after Br'er Rabbit's comment. I hope this clear up the confusion you are having. GFHandel &#9836; 05:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Gimmetoo isn't confused, simply continuing on the path that ought to have led to his desysoping some time ago. Malleus Fatuorum 06:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that Gimmetoo should not be an admin, and as I believe his behaviour demonstrates that he is no longer capable of editing in a collaborative environment, the project would be better off without him in general. The main problem with his behaviour is that he ruins things for other editors (editors who believe that this should be fun, and that the real focus of our efforts is that we are trying to help each other to build an encyclopaedia—for millions of readers). Is there any way an independent admin can have a look at Gimmetoo's current editing behaviour (and incidents like his tendentious editing at the Talk:Sean Combs page)? P.S. Malleus, please don't let this trivial incident today lead to an unnecessary escalation. It seems much more likely to me now that this is all part of a bigger baiting plan. GFHandel &#9836; 06:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Some uninvolved admin should simply block him for disruption. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * His behavior is so far out of line that I don't even think WP:INVOLVED should apply. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Beatles poll
Thanks for all your help at the poll. It is much improved due to your efforts. ~ GabeMc  (talk 01:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you've not been discouraged from participating at the mediation page, your insights were quite helpful and your edits have greatly improved the clarity and format of the poll (draft). Thanks for your efforts, and I hope you continue to contribute to the discussion and drafting process. ~ GabeMc  (talk 01:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion would be much appreciated
Hi GF, since it's an area of your expertise, I wonder whether you might consider commenting on the talk page to this rather uncritical op-ed by the foundation's head tech.

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-06/Op-ed

Tony  (talk)  03:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked, but don't appreciate the issues sufficiently to comment. I'll keep an eye on it though. GFHandel &#9836; 00:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, GF. The foundation is massively increasing the number of employees in its tech department, although apparently faces a shortage of good people (the "Silicon Valley drought", I believe they call it). Up to 30 engineering jobs will boost numbers by nearly 50%, in an overall staffing increase of 55 for the foundation, bringing numbers to 174. You might be interested in two short pages from the WMF's recently published annual plan: pp. 38 and 62. Tony   (talk)  02:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Beatles mediation
Hi GFHandel, and thanks for your comments in the mediation. Do you feel strongly enough about the issues involved that you want to officially be named as a party? If you want to be involved in this dispute seriously then you should add your name to the list of participants and send a statement by email to either Feezo or myself. There are some instructions at the top of the mediation talk page, but let me know if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 11:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My comments there were made with only one goal: to help with the construction of a poll that will hopefully end this issue once and for all. Could I ask that the mediators at that page be very tough in striking comments that are not made with that aim in mind (of which there are now starting to appear quite a few)? I only have a recent participation in the issue, so I do not feel I should be named as a party. I am happy to help format the poll text in a neutral and easy-to-read manner (when required). Good luck with it all. GFHandel &#9836; 20:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"used as a noun"
Question: If !voters pick "Neither", are they allowing for a sentence like this: "Sigma 6 went through a number of other transitory names, including The Meggadeaths, The Abdabs and The Screaming Abdabs, Leonard's Lodgers, and The Spectrum Five before settling on The Tea Set"? Wouldn't this be prohibited under "Neither"? But how else would you list a band's names in one sentence? That's why I think its a good case, especially if this does spread to other band articles. The "neither" option would seem to suggest that there is no way to list band names without breaking this. What am I missing here? ~ GabeMc  (talk 02:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

For a specific example from the Beatles:

"They used the name through May, when they became the Silver Beetles, before undertaking a brief tour of Scotland as the backing group for pop singer and fellow Liverpudlian Johnny Gentle. By early July they changed their name to the Silver Beatles, and by the middle of August to The Beatles.[11]"

How would "Neither" apply to the above paragraph and how would we re-word it to avoid breaking "nether", should the consensus fall there? ~ GabeMc  (talk 02:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand your point and have updated the poll text with a more obvious example that demonstrates the problem.
 * Incidentally, I don't agree with your addition of "Universally acceptable" to the Lower-case poll text. Not only does it seem to break the strength of the arguments (by starting with a weak non-sentence, that is hanging by an out-of-context bullet point), but the same argument can (and I'm sure will) apply to the Upper-case poll text. So why bother? I believe that it's enough to prove the point by saying that the Neither case isn't "Universally acceptable".
 * (I think it might be better to have these discussions on the poll talk page so that everyone can see and participate.)
 * GFHandel &#9836; 02:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, it's no biggie, so please let's not worry about it here. My main role at the poll is to assist with formatting (and perhaps a few ideas from time-to-time), so I'll leave you guys to sort out the substantive points in the poll text. Cheers. GFHandel &#9836; 03:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I added "Universally applicable", which "the" and "The" are in running-prose, its "Neither" that is not Universally applicable in running prose. I will add the "in running-prose" qualifier, thanks for all the great suggestions, keep them coming. ~ GabeMc  (talk 04:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

collapsed list
I hear you on TLDR, but I spent three hours compiling a list that may be completely overlooked now. Surely there must be some other solution. Did you collapse the list for "The"? ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (This is regarding this edit of mine.)
 * The collapse is only a suggestion. Perhaps a different collapse mechanism will be more obvious? Perhaps change the collapse header text to "The following 73 secondary sources use a lower-case definite article throughout:" Perhaps bring out a handful of the most important sources, and leave the rest in the collapse list? Perhaps revert?
 * GFHandel &#9836; 01:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted pending further discussion. ~ GabeMc  (talk 01:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I took your advice and collapsed the list. Thanks again for your input at the poll draft. ~ GabeMc  (talk 05:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Midnight Beast
I took a look. Whats left now is fairly uncontroversial and has relevance (if it can be sourced) to their career. Removed all the puffery and references to non-notable family members (in highly negative way in some cases). Saying that, that info could be re-added if suitable sources can be found. More than a few musicians/artists have used their family/home life as inspiration, and talked publicly about it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers for updating, the only reason I set a week limit wasnt because I wanted to give people time, more that I dont have time until weekend to do a decent enough re-write. No objection to anything thats been taken out though. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

SP article ... your feedback before publication?
Hi GF—you might be interesting in providing feedback on the talk page before publication (in which case there might be scope to respond in the article text), or after. Thx. Tony  (talk)  00:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * More. The response is causing a lot of what one might call "buzz". Tony   (talk)  03:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ping
GF, I've emailed you. Tony  (talk)  00:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Joekiddlouischama
I'm contemplating whether or not to report him to the noticeboard regarding his edits to Clint Eastwood. I left a message on his talk page a month ago asking him to stop, which he has ignored. I would appreciate your feedback on this. Malley10 (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember reverting similar pejorative and unsourced statements as "increasingly strained relationship", "inadvertently fathering" and "engaged in a somewhat surreptitious affair" (that were reintroduced today at the Eastwood article). The problem with that editor is that he embeds that sort of nonsense amongst seemingly plausible text; so you will have to be very careful to go by the book in any action taken. It seems obvious that he is trying to weaken the article, and if that is his motive, his timing would fit nicely with certain recent events involving Eastwood. I appreciate being asked about this, however I'm not an admin, so my ability to do anything is limited. I can suggest that you post your request on John's talk page (who is an admin), because he's very knowledgeable and very patient when it comes to these matters. I'll watch the relevant pages, and will contribute support if it comes to discussion about whether such edits should be denied. Cheers. GFHandel &#9836; 04:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

PepsiCo
Dear GFHandel, I disagree with you. Thank you anyway, I believe you deleted "Criticism" in a good faith. I'm a newbie and still learning. At the same time I'm able to recognize disproportion of the facts written in favor of PepsiCo and the facts which are distorting a perfect PR picture of PepsiCo. As I saw in the suggested guidelines (thank you) there is no problem to use lifenews.com as a source, especially on the page written in style of corporate PR announcement. If you are really think about lifenews.com as unreliable source, please Google: "lifenews.com site:wikipedia.org" --User:Efapostle —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking about this. I looked at your Google search, and I'm still not convinced that lifenews.com is a reliable source. I'm hoping that you realise that it's fairly easy to set up a corporate-looking website and make PR-type announcements—however Wikipedia cannot automatically and blindly reproduce such information. There's also the question about whether you have fairly represented Pepsi's response to issue (which I don't believe you have). Wikipedia must present balanced and reliably-sourced information for all of our readers. In terms of a reliable source, I have asked the relevant policy page about this, so you might care to read (and of course comment on) what transpires there (at Is lifenews.com considered a reliable source?). If the issue you raise is really worthy of inclusion in the PepsiCo article, are you sure that you can't find coverage in news sources that are considered reliable at Wikipedia? GFHandel &#9836; 09:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Jiroemon Kimura
Hi, can you please link me to the discussion/agreement that you based this edit on? I'm curious to know why it was decided that the policy WP:CRYSTAL could be violated in such poor taste. Also, isn't writing about "a fact that would happen if something else happens" the definition of speculation? Canadian  Paul  20:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "in such poor taste" to indicate to our readers an approaching major milestone. The text is stating a simple fact: Kimura will break the record for male longevity if he lives to 28 December 2012. The text isn't my first choice, however it was arrived at through the combined edits of a number of editors (several months ago). It is a service to the article's readers and is exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia is in a position to provide (over the dry account the Britannica would be expected to provide). From WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". The event is certainly notable, and with only about twelve weeks to go now, there's a pretty good chance it will occur. Thanks for taking an interest in the article and for your edit today. If you have further issues with the article, please post on the article's talk page so that a wider audience can be involved in the relevant discussion. Cheers. GFHandel &#9836; 20:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Paul, Not sure what you are squabbling about. There is no predictions about anything made, but a statement that is a person lives past a certain point they will become something. They are facts. Anything could happen between now and then, so is it pertinent? I dunno? But it's no more crystal ball than saying talking about QEII's "future accomplishments".--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  20:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that we call discussing something these days, "squabbling"? I made an edit, I was reverted, and came to the user page to discuss it without making any further edits. I didn't see what the problem was with that. Also, I'm having a discussion with a user who reverted me, nothing more. If and when I feel that the change is still worth making, that is when I will bring it to the article's talk page. Anyways, I'll mull over it, but I still don't buy it 100%. After all, where does it end? "Kimura will become the first man to turn 116 if he lives to April 19, 2013." "Kimura will outlive Jeanne Calment..." etc. etc. It's not really the biggest deal in the world, but it might be something where an outside opinion or two would be helpful. Also, speaking of poor taste, statistically speaking, at the age of 115, the fact that someone will live to see tomorrow, much less several months from now is far from "almost certain". Canadian   Paul  21:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that this isn't the appropriate venue to discuss this. I've simply found in my time here that usually a simple, user-to-user talk page discussion is the best way to solve things, or at least feel out the best way to proceed. Often times I find that such a discussion leads to me changing my mind, or at least some sort of compromise. I apologize if I said something to offend or annoyed you and I won't bother you with the issue anymore regardless of which direction I take in the future. Canadian  Paul  02:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Musical notation
I noticed your interest in music and I was wondering if you could help me out. I am interested in adding some musical notation to Imagine (song) along the lines of the one at Day Tripper. Or even just a chord progression chart. I am a musician of over 25 years, but I am self-taught and I can't read a lick. Any advice? ~ GabeMc  (talk 03:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You will need a musical notation program to enter the notes, and then an image editing program to crop and save the image that you want to upload to Wikipedia. The notation program should save the score as an image file, otherwise you can get the image on the clipboard by doing a screen grab—which you should then be able to save using a program like Gimp, Paint, or Photoshop). Perhaps start with the musescore.org notation program to enter the notes, and see how you go? The saved image file may be too large (in height and width), or may contain bits that you don't want to show on Wikipedia, so you will probably have to crop the image before uploading. I would recommend using picasa.google.com to do your cropping and final saving. Of course, the copyright issues on Wikipdedia could be a minefield, so best be careful with how much you decide to depict. If you are completely at a dead end, send me a URL to a site that shows the notes, let me know how many bars of melody you want, and I'll give it a go. Cheers. GFHandel &#9836; 03:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for the speedy response. I hate to put you on a task, but that looks a bit difficult for my skill level. Would you consider having a go at the first 8 bars when you have time? This looks like a good arrangement. Thanks and cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 03:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I will give something a go, however ... the Day Tripper example you gave has an image showing two bars, so I'm not sure what you are going to do with eight bars because I'm pretty sure that will fall outside of any fair-use principle. Would it be sufficient if the introduction were skipped, and just the treble clef melody line taken from bar five for either two or four bars? GFHandel &#9836; 04:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks much and yes, that sounds great. Whatever you think should be done for fair-use, I defer. ~ GabeMc  (talk 04:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Although, its really that little three note flurry in bar eight that speaks to the theme overall. Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc  (talk 04:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Try: File:Imagine_Theme_Lennon.png

The image above is shown in its original size of 785px, but you will want to adjust that to fit in the article. It's a bit of a rush job with the MuseScore software, and I just realised that I forgot to slur the last three notes (but I'm not sure that matters too much for the thematic purpose the image is supposed to serve). I also just realised that the melody line doesn't show the three-note-flurry that you sought. I think that MuseScore has trouble un-beaming notes that are involved in ties (well at least I couldn't achieve it). Oh well; if you need improvements, give me a yell. GFHandel &#9836; 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work! Thanks much, this will really improve the encyclopedic value of the article. Cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 05:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the article if you could. Tell me if I messed up on the chord progression. I approached it as a guitarist I suppose and I may have made some mistakes. Thanks again, it looks great! ~ GabeMc  (talk 05:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can only see the first page of the score, but your chords seem correct (although I'm not sure "implies" is correct since the score says it, and the B on beat four of bar one states Cmaj7 explicitly). I guess the problem with dissection is that someone is going to stamp "OR" after your text sooner or later. Is there a reliable source that confirms the chord progressions? GFHandel &#9836; 05:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points. I'll dig up a good source to confirm the chords, and remove implied. Thanks for your time and help! ~ GabeMc  (talk 05:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for improving the referencing on Flat Bastion Road‎. Doing source dumps for notability tends to mean my reference formatting ends up as less than ideal. Your work is much appreciated.

LauraHale (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC) 
 * No worries, and let me know about other articles with which I can help. For what it's worth (and it's worth nothing): if it were up to me, I would make articles which have all of their text sourced from reliable secondary sources exempt from notability (with the possible exception of BLP and some commercial enterprises and products). Only then would we get back to the original concept and goal of Wikipedia. GFHandel &#9836; 07:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent email requests
Thanks for the recent email requests. Unfortunately, the very limited time I currently have to devote to Wikipedia must go towards building content. Good luck and best wishes. GFHandel &#9836; 07:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Classic 100 Music of France project
Hi, you've been a keen follower of the ABC's "100" series in the past. I wonder whether you're able to participate in this collaborative project related to those series. Tony  (talk)  14:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just checking - will you be able to participate in this event (online or at the library)? I'm not sure if you're in Sydney, but even if not, it'd be good if you could tell those of us who'll be on-site what you think we should research first and build on since the countdown lists are basically your baby. Sincerely, Wittylama 04:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I won't be able to attend due to commitments to the both the countdown list and other real-life matters. A couple of things I can think of:
 * Most works in the countdown lists link to specific articles, however I don't believe that most of those articles have a "See also" return link to the "List of compositions of ..." article for the associated composer. Note that sometimes it would be nice to target a return link to a section (e.g. "Cantatas" on the "List of compositions of..." article for a musical work that is a cantata). You can see such a return "See also" link here.
 * (A biggie ...) It seems that every "List of compositions of..." article has a different format, and it would be nice to present lists of musical works in a consistent manner to our readers. It will not be possible to simply roll up sleeves and start editing as there are too many list editors with ownership issues (such as myself), however it might be possible to study a number of "List of compositions of ..." articles and formulate a plan for suggesting one or more standard formats for such pages (e.g. to take to an RfC that will sign-off formats that can be used—should an editor wish to put in the work to apply the format). I like such lists in sortable tables, however I realise that composers of different eras will have different requirements. Does anyone think it might be possible to specify list requirements that could lead to that assist with formatting? Perhaps at this stage some requirements-gathering (by documenting the information and formats of lots of such list articles) might be useful? I have no idea if any musical projects are working on such things; but if they are, nothing seems to be coming of it. (PS. The Schubert list is spread over two articles: this and this.)
 * Best wishes. GFHandel &#9836; 07:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting suggestions. I hope you don't mind, I've copied across those two points to the talkpage of the event so people can find/debate them more easily than on your talkpage. I suspect that we can manage point 1 as part of the event but point 2 is not really applicable to an edit-a-thon and is more a long-term matter. On a related note, I don't suppose you could sign-up to be an "online participant" to the event here Meetup/Sydney/October_2012? I completely understand that you're not able to come, and I'm not trying to force more work on you, but I think it would be nice to have the lead editor of the list articles appear as a supporter of the event :-) Wittylama 01:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review of AfD that you participated in
As you participated a few days ago in Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road, I thought you might wish to know that the result of that discussion (to keep the article) is being challenged in a deletion review. If you have any views on this (i.e. whether to endorse the result, overturn it or something else) then please feel free to comment at Deletion review/Log/2012 October 2. Prioryman (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Classic French Countdown

 * No worries, and thanks. I try to keep at it, but please keep an eye out for necessary updates if I can't. Cheers. GFHandel &#9836; 07:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I heard the Ravel G major. Did you? Was that not on their list? Confusing. I'm not so good at tables as you are - can't fix it quickly. 60 and 61 are straightened now but check footnote (n) - it refers to the previous version. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I heard the Ravel G major. Did you? Was that not on their list? Confusing. I'm not so good at tables as you are - can't fix it quickly. 60 and 61 are straightened now but check footnote (n) - it refers to the previous version. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The article on Chaminade's Concertino for flute and orchestra has been moved from "Concertino for flute and orchestra" to "Flute Concertino" on the grounds of consistency. Do you agree with this? It seems to me that other concertinos (for example, those listed in Concertino (composition)), as well as the way the ABC refers to it in the Countdown lists, mean that the original title is more consistent and used. What do you think? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would lean towards the original title as that is the name of the work mentioned in the lede (Concertino for flute and orchestra). The use of italics in the new article title should also be evaluated, e.g. there are no italics used in "Piano Trio (Ravel)", so do we need them in "Flute Concertino (Chaminade)"? I will note two things:
 * The original title still works (as a redirect).
 * As well as I can remember, I have never been involved in an article-title squabble where my opinion has mattered in the least to the other involved editors (and I see no reason for that to change in this case).
 * GFHandel &#9836; 00:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See what I mean? GFHandel &#9836; 20:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added my two cents worth about this on the Concertino's talk page. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Well done! You didn't miss a beat! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

An AFD you participated in has been relisted
After a deletion review, a recently closed AFD has been relisted. I am contacting everyone who participated the first time who hasn't found their way there already. Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road (2nd nomination)  D r e a m Focus  08:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sir Alexander Fleming
Hello GFHandel, thank you for your message. My source for the location of Fleming's tomb is having stood there myself, and that ashes were buried is mentioned in the St Paul's Cathedral guidebook. Now, having been there is of course not a source that I can cite, however when you look at http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=6161 (the first site that sprang to my mind, there are many others that show the spot) you can see the site for yourself. Fleming's ashes are interred in the floor unter a brick with this initials. The plaque with his epitaph hangs over this spot, and the plaque was - again according to the guidebook - donated by the Greek government and made from the same stone from which the Parthenon temple was built in Athens. The way Fleming was buried in St Paul's Cathedral seems to be the standard procedure that was followed there for several other interments in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Hope this helps. Best wishes Cyan22 (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion location for this is at Talk:Alexander Fleming. The point about my raising this on your talk page is not regarding the content; it's regarding the sourcing. Cheers. GFHandel &#9836; 23:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Imagine"
Is there any chance you could have another run at File:Imagine Theme Lennon.png? The first two bars of the piano intro are really the theme I need for FAC. Thanks. ~ GabeMc  (talk 06:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ideally, we could have both the vocal theme which you've already made and the first two bars of the piano intro, with that melody triplet at the end. Sorry to bother you with this, I'll learn it soon. It would be a big help to the article if you could find the time. Cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 08:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I added an image to the article that shows the first two bars (File:Introduction to the song "Imagine" by John Lennon.png). Cheers.GFHandel &#9836; 21:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's perfect! It looks fantastic! Thank you so much for being willing to take the time to help. If ever I can return the favour, please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose
Thank you for your look at this with an open mind and voicing oppose to the main stream! People like you make me stay, to be continued, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't know what is going on at the moment, but things seem to be destructing all around. Those that don't contribute significantly to article space appear to be revolting. :-( GFHandel &#9836; 07:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

'tis the season
 * treats for you, constructive on a lighter note, to reduce the darker shade of grey, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Another Sydney workshop
Hi, as you're listed at Meetup/Sydney/Invite I would like to invite you to another workshop on 20 November. This workshop will focus on disability and accessibility. If this topic interests you, or you merely wish to meet and chat with other Sydney Wikipedians, please sign up. It was a pleasure working with you on the last workshop. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gabriela Banová, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FMD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"Imagine" introduction file
Hello - I've spotted an error with File:Introduction to the song "Imagine" by John Lennon.png, which you uploaded. The treble clef should be bass clef - check the source. Otherwise it would sound completely wrong... BencherliteTalk 20:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your speedy response. Regards, BencherliteTalk 20:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the catch Bencherlite and thanks for the fix GFHandel. The reduced resolution was a compromise made with Crisco 1492 during the article's recent FAC image review. Cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello
I really see the importance of your work. I understand the policy of verifiability, and if for a hundred times I didn't get that the reason behind my frustration in inserting factual information just for it be removed later wasn't an essential part of this Wiki, I'd have already left the project. BUT when people from a different culture insert a reference in their native language about a person that comes from their country, it is understandable that model portfolios that can even commit gross generalization due to lack of attention from some culture where people with green eyes can be said to have blue ones are not better sources just because of former consensus, being written in English or whatever. Oh, and also, please stop undoing the corrections I've made to the IPA transcription that I have inserted myself if you revert me again. Lguipontes (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello. If you understood the Wikipedia policy of Verifiability then you wouldn't claim that you are "inserting factual information". I have reverted your latest attempt to introduce text – an attempt that can only be classed as original research in the absence of reliable sources.
 * Please note:
 * The following (that you inserted as a reference) is not considered appropriate for Wikipedia:
 * There is no way that WP can accept http://www.reocities.com/povo666/giselevip2.html as a reliable source.
 * Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.
 * If you continue to add information in the way you have been, I will have no choice except to request that action be taken against you. Please don't let it come to that because it is obvious that you care about content, and I would like to encourage you to continue with the project.
 * I would be more than happy to help you improve the article, however you will have to stop introducing text that can't be verified by reliable sources, and start trying to build an encyclopaedia in accordance with its policies. Best wishes.
 * GFHandel &#9836; 21:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * GFHandel &#9836; 21:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would surely stop [on the eye color dispute only] and take it to dispute resolution because I don't want a block because of 3RR again. The other time, some [single purpose account] dude that had a too bureaucratic and too little practical mentality, but in fact put NON-FACTUAL INFORMATION there, so I reverted him as just a new user doing inapproprite behavior until asking for help and "getting my piece of the cake" too. But I'm still here, and I'm not going to sit down and go away just because someone of greater influence tries everytime to lecture me on WP:V.


 * Perhaps the article is more sensitive to it because it is biography, but you take the policy on original research to a far wide extreme where no one can inform you what is going on, and you discredit entirely on what someone is telling you (so that you removed the information I inserted despite Caras being a reliable source, and also my correction to my own IPA transcription). Yes, that specific source you mentioned is not close to secondary/academic, but when we think of such hardly encyclopaedic information, it is really hard to find out. If you just tried to Google, you would discover that in Brazil we separate eye colors the way they are supposed to be called, claro (light), misto (mixed) and escuro (dark), instead of English blue, hazel and brown that in fact, if the names of these colors are translated to Portuguese, apply to just SOME of the actual phenotypes here, and blue (for obvious reasons) wouldn't encompass people of green, gray and mixed gray/blue, gray/green and gray/green/blue eyes.


 * As a matter of fact, she's obviously not a brunette of blue eyes, that would be Elizabeth Taylor, but certainly not Gisele Bündchen. I have another, more reliable source describing her hair as blonde, and her eyes as incorrectly green (I've found no other source giving her eyes as gray; it is green anyway for more than 80% or 90% of the time, I'm Portuguese/Swiss/Polish Brazilian so not surprisingly I have cousins with this phenotype – and the eyes are only sky blue in beach). I will revert you more a single time again, and don't expect I will be afraid of a simple content dispute, because that is what it is. Lguipontes (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Needless to say I'm disappointed that you have decided to revert without addressing the substantive issues I raised – especially since you have yet again failed to provide anything resembling a reliable source. It is clearly not a content dispute when you refuse to follow policies required in a WP:BLP. As promised, I have sought admin assistance regarding this issue. Based on a quick review of the issues others are raising on your talk page, coupled with your unwillingness to respond appropriately to this issue, it is clear to me that you are unwilling to work in the collaborative (and policy-based) environment that Wikipedia requires. Accordingly, please don't post on my talk page again regarding this issue; instead, please restrict your responses to the locations that will shortly be made obvious to you. GFHandel &#9836; 03:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did you arbitrarily undoing links without reason??
You pretend my Links with new Bachrecordings do contradict to Wikirules. Correct is. They dont, and links like those are used in many other Wikiarticles before aswell in other Sites contributing open knowledge, like the IMSLP, LexM, MUGI, Haydn-Institute Cologne etc. (The IMSLP even created a special Template to link recordings from my site! What ever did you believe do they "promote" with this template???? You pretend mys links would "promote" anything Correct is: There is absolutly nothing to "promote" at all since my site is absolutly uncommercial CCC-License. In the last comment you pretend, my links would be undone by "more than one" editor. Correct is: more than one what means all links are undone by yourselve. "More than one" could be in maximum "two". So please give any valuable reason why you disturb with you "Linkvandalism" the Wikiproject or give peace for this contributions and accept that Wikipedia is a project based of the contributions of many and not on simply reasonless and destructive behavior like yours. --Fahl5 (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is in relation to a large number of similar Bach-related edits that this user has been making today (e.g. this one). It's hard to know where to start with this, but there are a heap of problems in the above:
 * Please understand that WP simply cannot indulge everyone who can organise web hosting and then tries to collate information (no matter how good their intentions are). Alarm bells have to ring when the above link includes text such as "Bach knew the Harpsichord and the organ well".
 * You have been reverted by more than one editor, e.g. here and here; and whether you choose to accept it or not, reasons were provided in the edit comments. Accordingly, and please have a read of WP:BRD, you now need to take a breather and be willing to discuss the issue (and not simply revert).
 * You are promoting via the links – both the domain name of klassik-resampled.de and the person Steffen Fahl (including a link to that person's Facebook page prominently displayed on every page you link).
 * If you have material that you consider worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article, why don't you consider uploading it to somewhere like Wikimedia Commons? If you need help doing that, please let me know and I will assist.
 * Please note that this page is not the correct place to continue discussion, so please confine your comments to the appropriate place: External links/Noticeboard.
 * GFHandel &#9836; 00:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I endorse everything GFHandel says here. Please be aware of the pressure WP is under not to allow promotions via external links. It's a matter of balance, and yours are going a little far. Tony   (talk)  10:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * — Dianna (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like your advice regarding WP and openclassical
Hi GFHandel. Yesterday I added a few external links from Wikipedia to our project at https://www.openclassical.com, specifically for Alkan, Chopin and Medtner. I also added it as a suggested link on the Beethoven Talk page. Since then, the links were reverted, and I am now beginning discussions with various editors. I note that you have actively worked on the Beethoven page, so I would really value your opinion.

openclassical is a new project, and we believe it brings a resource to the Internet that can't be found elsewhere. Our mission is to organize the 1,000 years of classical music into a simple interface that allows both the musician and non-musician to discover great works. A problem I see on the internet is that composers works tend to be presented as huge lists (for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Ludwig_van_Beethoven), which are not very interactive, and also happen to be inconsistent with each other. I would argue that our Beethoven page (https://www.openclassical.com/composer/Ludwig_van_Beethoven) is superior, since we group works by genre / sub-genre, we provide tools to sort and filter, and each work also has its own page which dynamically queries YouTube and provides links to IMSLP scores where available. In the near future we will be providing movement listings and full instrumentation for all works. We have also worked very hard to make the interface user friendly. Our goal is for the first time visitor to very quickly get an overview of what Beethoven (or other composers) wrote, and then actually listen to their music.

I would like to ask if you could give me your thoughts on Wikipedia integration. My view is that as openclassical continues to get built out each composer on Wikipedia should have an external link to their openclassical page, as I believe nothing is more important about a composer than their compositions. I should also add that openclassical is intended to be an educational resource, and will always be free to visitors.

Thanks. D clef (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * User talk:D clef's edit on my talk page indicats that there is a COI. I have left a message to that effect on D Clef's talk page. I recommended using a edit request. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * From the little I've just seen, I think the openClassical project is a reasonable idea; however there are some issues before inclusion of links to it are appropriate for WP:
 * The site is clearly in development, for example: composers without any information, messages such as "New Account Registration is currently closed", JS Bach only having 39 works (and no cantatas!), limited number of composers (e.g. you include less than 40 of the more than 550 composers listed on WP from the Classical era), mistakes (why is a YouTube clip for "Für Elise" listed at Beethoven's Allegretto WoO 61?), mouse cursor staying as an I-beam on fourth-level entries in your gridview control (okay that's minor), etc.
 * I can find no reliable secondary sources reporting and supporting the openClassical site, and therefore it is unwise for WP to direct readers there.
 * Wikipedia has many knowledgeable music-related editors, and the information in the articles is constantly improving. It seems likely that you have scraped information from WP's databases and/or articles (which is your right), but are you committed to re-scraping as the information changes (dates corrected, works added, etc.)?
 * You have to appreciate that WP editors are keen to keep readers on the WP site (and certainly for information which we can reasonably be expected to provide to our readers). There are problems with the current lists of compositions at WP, however WP is not finished and we are working towards improvement. The lists today are not how they will end up – given X years. Apart from the thousands of YouTube clip URLs which you have scraped (6,970 for the Moonlight Sonata!) there is very little information you provide that can't be located on Wikipedia at the moment (even if it is a little more effort to find here). Regarding the YouTube clips, I can see no point in providing so many. Your visitors are not going to move beyond the first page or two of such listings, so how are you value-adding to provide quality? If WP was to provide such/similar links, the knowledgeable editors here can add them with a discernment which ensures its readers are receiving representative and quality samples (as we do for notable recordings).
 * There is a commercial flavour to your site, e.g. the prominent "Amazon Offers". That is your right, but WP must be cautious in directing thousands of readers to such sites.
 * The most important reason (and the one you should have thought of before posting here) is that there is nothing at your https://www.openclassical.com/composer/George_Handel page (and incidentally, tradition dictates that it's either "Handel" or "George Frideric Handel"). :-(
 * Sites like yours don't happen overnight and they require hard work, good planning, and perseverance to succeed. Please keep up the good work, and come back to us when your site is approaching a state that could reasonably be considered complete, and when it has received reasonable support and coverage from reliable secondary sources. Best of luck with your project. Cheers.
 * GFHandel &#9836; 21:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * GFHandel, thank you so much for taking the time to check out our site, and for posting your thoughts. This is really appreciated.  Let me provide a couple of thoughts in return, as you touched on some really important points.
 * Yes, the data aspect of the site is still being built out, but our pages for Beethoven, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, Medtner, Alkan and Verdi currently list complete works (more or less, and as far as current sources indicate). Since we have built our generic infrastructure and tools to support all composers (from Medieval to current times) we thought it might be a good time to bring these pages to people's attention, in order to get feedback good and bad.  But you are perfectly correct to point out that a visitor will then browse to other composers, for whom at this point in time we do not list complete works, leaving a mixed impression.  Your point is very well taken.  And yes the site still has a few glitches to iron out.
 * reliable secondary sources is another great point that has been raised by other editors. We are thinking over the right way to address this on the site, which may be an 'about us' page (we are doctoral level classical musicians), and a testimonials page.  On our todo list.
 * We are not scraping WP for our data, it's largely done by hand, in some cases cross-referencing several sources.
 * We are employing a strict data-modelling approach to our website, so we believe that over time the value of what we are building will become more apparent. For example, taking the https://www.openclassical.com/composer/Ludwig_van_Beethoven page as an example, the Piano Trios are a sub-genre of Chamber.  The catalog (of which there may be several depending on the composer) is a sortable column.  We track the number of views by openclassical visitors, and also the number of YouTube videos of each work, as heuristics.  We believe this is useful information to visitors, since it is one way to evaluate the importance of certain compositions relative to each other (for example comparing the number of YouTube movies of the Symphonies tells the visitor which one is most 'popular', or most recorded / performed).  We include movements and instrumentation for works, for example https://www.openclassical.com/composer/Ludwig_van_Beethoven/work/Piano_Trio_Opus_97.  This data is not populated yet for most works, but is being worked on.  On the point of recordings, we actually do not want to suggest 'best' recordings, but would rather track the recordings that people choose to listen to instead, and reflect that.
 * openclassical needs to be sustainable, but we strive to implement any commercial aspects in a way that does not interfere with the general visitor, or bias our presentation of composers and works.
 * You got us there! I should have seen that one coming!  Handel is one of the many composers to come.  I have gone ahead and corrected his name (you being absolutely correct - Frideric was in our database, but the display logic tends to show only first & last name unless we tweak it for the individual composer), and added the Messiah to get started.  His updated page is here https://www.openclassical.com/composer/George_Frideric_Handel in case you'd like to check in on it from time to time.
 * Thank you again. We'll definitely be back in touch when we're a bit further along the road.  D clef (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop edit-war on Leica M (camera)
Try to read sources. Tagremover (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be less torturous if you cited sources properly when you add information (which is your responsibility, not mine). It was a long road, but I'm pleased that my actions have finally convinced you to a source (for the first time you referenced the "Leica M datasheet" source in your recent edits) that supports the text you have been trying to add. Thank you for doing that, and I hope you have a better understanding now about the level of rigour required. GFHandel &#9836;  06:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)