User talk:Virtual wurlitzer

Please do not keep adding your comment to the lead of the Elgar article. It has been through a rigorous peer review and a further review by multiple editors for Featured Article Status. The point you and your alter ego Keith owens make is covered and referenced in the main body of the article, which you may perhaps like to read. Tim riley (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Tim Riley,

I'm sorry that my edit upset you, but in reply to the above message I would make three points:

1. Wikipedia is a public forum and sells itself on public participation. If you wish to ring-fence your work you should either publish elsewhere or, alternatively, persuade Wikipedia to prohibit the editing of self-proclaimed masterpieces. 2.I have no quarrel with the statement about 'germanic influences' - indeed it has been made so often I should think it almost writes itself by now. However, the way it is phrased makes it sound as if Elgar's music is of purely germanic derivation, which few would think is a sustainable argument. Hence my edit. It seems from your message that your statement may be qualified later in the piece but that is beside the point and, with respect, I will forego your invitation to read it. A golden rule of academic writing is that the introduction should tell the complete story in outline. This is not too difficult and the perennial excuse (most common among undergraduates) when challenged over a half-truth in an introduction, 'well, I deal with that later', is not adequate. Among other objections it gets the work off on the wrong foot and impels people like me to stop reading. 3 I appreciate that you wish your work to be treated as a serious academic piece. However, the 'many people think' formula is purely journalistic and a more academic alternative should be found, e.g. 'Despite having been born in England and brought up in an English environment...etc.'

I am quite happy to accede to your request not to edit further. As the poet wrote, "'tis folly to be wise.' Virtual wurlitzer (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I fear you have not grasped the basic principles of Wikipedia. It is not a place for academic studies, or for personal opinion, or for "ownership" of an article: it is an encyclopaedia. Your edit mentioning "the author of this article" is wholly contrary to Wikipedia's modus operandi: no such phrase could be entertained in Wikipedia, which operates by consensus. Quite a lot of the Elgar article was written by me (the majority, I think) but I am not its "author". In addition to contributions from numerous others, the article has been peer reviewed and then subject to further review by a large number of editors before being judged to be of Wikipedia's highest standards.
 * When the wording of your alteration was first inserted (by an editor using a different name), another Wikipedian sent me a message commenting on it: "I was somewhat amazed by the drive-by edit to Elgar which you undid. This has been this user's only edit so far. The user could not even begin to imagine how much effort has gone into writing and reviewing an article like Elgar's. He must think that someone just casually wrote that article.  He obviously has only read the Lead." Verbum sap.
 * You plainly have some knowledge of Elgar, and doubtless of other subjects, and I am sure your contributions will be most welcome if they are contributed with respect for Wikipedia's principles and practices. Tim riley (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)