User talk:Zwart

Welcome!
Hello , and Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some good places to get you started: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes ( ~   ) to produce your name only. If you have any questions, or are worried/confused about anything at all, please either visit the help desk, or leave a new message on my talk page at any time. Happy editing, good luck, and remember: Be Bold! — FireFox • T • 12:39, 5 March 2006
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * Template messages
 * Sandbox

Hi
What does an "independent" account mean? Define contemporary?Roy Brumback (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed this for some time. "Independent" means non-evangelical. "Contemporary" means during the subject's lifetime, but we can stretch it for a century or two, because you never know whether independent sources are not just repeating back what they heard from early christians. So I guess the contemporary can be dropped: there are simply no independent sources period. Zwart (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

2011 baseball world cup
In the second round I determined that (for now) any country who could not reach the championship final was coloured as eliminated. You have done most of the work on this page so I hope that was a helpful and logical thing to do.18abruce (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about this, too. Looks fine to me.Zwart (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
 Afaber012  (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

rubinstein
Hi! - the reference to good faith was exactly that - it's a standard response indicating that your edit was made in good faith and that the editor is not accusing you implicitly of vandalism. However if you read the bio of Rubinstein in the article (and in his autobiographical writings and other biographies) you will note that his Jewishness was indeed relevant to his career and the way in which his contemporaries reacted to him. The reference to ethnicity in the header is therefore justified. Best, --Smerus (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Of course I had checked the article before making the edit. And now I checked it again and I fail to see your point. The way I read WP:OPENPARA is that the ethnicity must be relevant to the person's notability ("relevant to the subject's notability"), meaning he is notable (in part) because of his ethnicity. I hope you agree that that is not the case, and will allow me to undo. Zwart (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * actually I strongly disagree with you but I am away from my works of reference at present so will not adjust this again until I have supporting reference(s). --Smerus (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's appreciated. Do you also disagree with my interpretation of WP:OPENPARA, that the ethnicity should be part of what the person is famous for, for it to be included in the opening sentence? Zwart (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Anton Rubinstein
Saw your comments on this article's talk page suggesting a rewrite and mentioning the article's heavy dependence on Schonberg and Sachs as source material. Those two sources were all that were available to me at the time I worked on Rubinstein; the Philip Taylor bio (reportedly the first in English in quite some time) became available to me only after the majority of my work had been done. As a consequence of reworking Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, I am slowly going through articles related to it. This will eventually include Rubinstein. I already have MagicPiano's comments available from his Composers Project review but would appreciate any suggestions you might have, as well. (In one way, Rubinstein is more complex than Tchaikovsky as R's life, compositions and performances all have to be addressed and balanced accordingly. Should be interesting.) Thanks in advance for your help. Jonyungk (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
This kind of edit is unhelpful. Your assumption that I have some religious point of view is unfounded. Please look at Peter Williams' book to see the way Bach organ music is written about by modern Bach scholars. Please try not to make your arguments personalized, as you are doing at the moment. Read the sources and use that information for discussing edits. Please also keep your comments on the article talk page, not my user talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate the message, I don't really wish to get involved as I know nothing about the merits of your discussion. It's a different article and seemingly a different dispute. I did indeed raise an issue to do with an article primarily authored by Mathsci, specifically in relation to its length not its religious content. The question continued to be dealt with on the Classical music talk pages and in the end there was no consensus to break the article into smaller articles. Whatever I may have thought of Mathsci's approach, the views of others weren't in my favour and that was the key point. It is better to seek views of others in these situations rather than attempt to continue a 1-on-1 disagreement. Orfeocookie (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think both of those articles, as well as several of Math's other articles point to a problem of him adding excessive images and other unnecessary material. There's only like a dozen decent-sized paragraphs of original prose in the Orgelbüchlein article despite it being 90 kilobytes in size and even there the sourcing is not always particularly clear, so I think that article does need a lot of work. He should avoid the temptation to clutter an article with images or lyrics, especially since in the most severe cases it could arguably be a case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Orfeocookie, I understand. Zwart (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, The Devil's Advocate. But what was very painful in this exchange was the way I was made to feel unwelcome contributing to the article. Wikipedia should not be about fighting for your turf. I'm backing out of this one until I see signs of things opening up. Zwart (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of elements, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Swedish and America. 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) 09:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Palazzo da Mula, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Canal. 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) 09:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)