User talk:GFHandel/Archive 2010

Year Links Exception for "Oldest Person" from that Year

While noting that nearly all the persons commenting about year linking have been rude and crude (some even vandalizing my talk page...how is that productive?), you at least seemed more willing to consider "process."

From that, I'm going to say this: the year linking "guideline" is just that, a guideline. It seems completely rational to me that some exceptions should be made, and even the guideline notes that. Take the article on the year 1886. It has a list of famous persons. If you click on the name of the person and there's no year link, it becomes more difficult to "get back" to the page you were on.

Aside from functionality, however, is relevance. It makes perfect sense that since the world's oldest persons are held out in the media, time and again, as the "last living links" to the past, a YEAR link in that case is appropriate. Take Rebecca Hewison of the UK: an article on her death in 1994 (written before Wikipedia existed, I might add) said "last living link with 1881 is lost." Many of these articles also feature comments such as "born before the Titanic sank in 1912," a "survivor of the San Francisco earthquake in 1906" or even "born the year Queen Victoria died in 1901". Clearly, in such stories, the person's significance is not some personal achievement other than longevity and being a living "link" to the past...a symbol of history that is quickly moving from the realm of living memory.

It is generally Wiki policy for articles to follow the sources, not engage in original research. Even if year links are not considered useful to link to a person's birth, there could still be a compromise such as:

"Marie Bremont was noted as the last person alive verified as born in the calendar year 1886"

...a year article that, by the way, includes Marie Bremont (check the edit history...how long has that been there?) and is just justified in two ways, firstly as historical context and secondly as a link to another listing of the article subject elsewhere on Wikipedia.

Sincerely Robert Young Ryoung122 13:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not worth presenting the arguments again here. The debate can be followed here.

 HWV258.  22:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Jiroemon Kimura. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you may have erroneously credited RYoung with a statement authored by another account. It might be prudent to withdraw this lest he suggest you were accusing him of sockpuppetry. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the post by another account is evidence that RYoung122 canvassed.  HWV258.  03:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A Pet Dislike + Ryoung122

Hello! After a quick read of your pet dislikes I must say I almost completely agree. "Editors who want to turn WP into The Encyclopaedia Britannica. WP can be so much more, however with more and more pseudo-rules being imposed, I fear WP will be forever held back from what it could be" was absolutely spot on. I would say, however, that the encyclopedic nature of the articles is unassociated with the editing of talk pages. I think it's ironic how you criticize pseudo-rules, but you request Ryoung122 modify his talk page editing. Just some thoughts. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, where to start? Based on the posts on your talk page (and the obviously incorrect information on your user page—such as edit counts), there are serious issues you need to address. On a positive, have you ever thought about contributing to WP in a meaningful way? It's true that WP needs more editors; but only editors who are willing to constructively help are ultimately useful to the project. As a suggestion, take something that you are personally interested in, have a read through the articles on that topic, do some research, and edit, edit, edit (and take a backward step when you stuff-up—which all of us do from time-to-time).

(Note the consistent indenting.) In regards to the issue that prompted you to post on my talk page, please note that following accepted conventions (in terms of posting on talk pages) only serves to help the construction of an encyclopaedia. Good luck at WP.

 HWV258.  09:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your editing, editing, editing addressed precisely zero points accurately. I see that you've taken the "if they're wrong, you're right" approach. This doesn't work.

As soon as I hit "save page" I knew there would be some confusion on your part. I knew you wouldn't understand. Let me break it down as best as I can....(1) I would venture to say that the phrase "pseudo-rules" can refer to the severe overregulation of how and what editors write. I'm positive that such a wonderful editor, editor, editor such as yourself would certainly put it differently, but I'm on the right track (2) The already apparent existence of so much overregulation, I'm sure, can apply to the way people write on talk pages (3) That's annoying (4) For someone who hates "pseudo-rules" and limiting and all such evils, I'm sure most on Earth would agree that it is odd that you would ask someone to change the way they edit on talk pages.

You know, most Wikipedia editors I've come into contact with have been the same. Feisty, cannot take a little advice, cannot take criticism, attacks the editor not look into the issue, et cetera. The contact has always been like arguing with a Trekkie about episode 1395. You've proved no different. I attempted to bring up something a little touchy, however, I positioned the paragraph in such a way that gives a little, and takes a little. I can only imagine what it's like to be someone who's always skinny in those jeans because one only allows friends who say one's skinny. Instead of handling criticism or if not called that, then discussion, you made like a politician running a campaign and tried to find skeletons in my closet. Well, my edit count as well as the healthy number of points brought up on my talk page have about 100% of nothing to do with the point I brought up to you (Plus you didn't even read through it thoroughly).

Anyway, the problem with the "if they're wrong, you're right" tactic is at the end of the day, you were never really right. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Double wow! One illogical extension after another. Take a chill-pill and realise that following consistent indenting during a debate is not expanding "all such evils". The vast majority of editors on WP follow the indenting convention without a problem, and consider it worthwhile in allowing lines of reasoning to be followed easily. I merely suggested RYoung122 do likewise. It's not that big of a deal; if he doesn't want to, he doesn't have to. It's not that complicated.

There is only one point at issue, and I addressed it. I also took the liberty of pointing out that you will enjoy your WP experience much more if you move away from talk space, and start to work in article space. The best of luck with that.

 HWV258.  21:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sydney meetup

It's been a while since the wiki folk of Sydney had the chance to meetup - and there's quite a lot going on. If you've never been to a meetup before, you're especially welcome, and if you're an old hand, then please do make an effort to touch base :-) You can sign up here, or drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions or anything - hope to see you there! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, HWV258. You have new email from The Earwig.
You can remove this notice at any time.

— The Earwig ^(talk) 22:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:RogerHandelSonatas1730Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:RogerHandelSonatas1730Cover.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Restraint in bolded part of comments

I've asked four editors here to consider changing the bolded parts of their comments in that RfC. As you are one of those editors, I'm notifying you here so you are aware of the request. If you are prepared to change the bolded comment to just "support" or "oppose", could you please refactor completely, rather than using strike-through. Any emphasis can be moved to the non-bolded part of the comment. To make clear what has happened, you can also re-sign your comment to include the date it was updated, I tend to use the following code: <small>Updated: ~~~~~</small>. The aim here is to reduce the rhetoric and inappropriate emphasis, and to refocus discussion on what needs doing here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh.  HWV258.  21:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, maybe I should have tried to read through the entire page to get the context, but my point stands. When people turn up later (like I did) and read through a discussion like that, and see comments like Support of the strongest possible sort in Wikihistory and Support immeasurably greater than the strongest possible sort in any Wiki anywhere in any point in history, my first thought is "goodness me, don't they know how to have a civil discussion in a calm and reasonable manner, without petty point-scoring?". Essentially, it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia when discussions descend to the level where you feel the need to exaggerate and mirror the behaviour of others in order to get your point across. Do you get what I am saying here? Instead of escalating (responding to strongest oppose with an exaggerated support) why not de-escalate by politely asking people to change 'strongest oppose' to 'oppose'? It achieves the same end without appearing silly and without escalating matters. Carcharoth (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the Muppets who somehow believe they are entitled to a more forceful point-of-view by writing something like "Strongly Oppose" (as opposed to the rest of us who only get to write "Oppose") are too arrogant to learn by observation (or other subtle means). The only way to get the point through to them is to make it comic, and to exaggerate. You have my full permission to remove my !vote and all subsequent comments arising from it. Sorry to cause such trouble.  HWV258.  01:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Carcharoth, actually. RfCs are better if formatted minimally. Given that you have great latitude to give your opinion in unhighlighted text, it's reasonable to bold just "Support" or "Oppose"—makes a bidding war less likely. Tony (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Geez—but that's exactly what I'm saying! I'm now regretting taking the cynical approach to try and demonstrate the ridiculousness of qualified !voting comments.  HWV258.  02:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The guys here are being a little heavy handed (uncivil?) in accusing you of uncivility (or whatever), but seriously, you really are missing the point. Yeah, "I" can certainly tell that your response was sarcastic, but I had to read it closely a few times to pick-up on the sarcasm. You may think it's clever to make people do a double-take, but the need for that second take means you're just not writing clearly enough. There's (yet-another-damn) style guide article out there that makes the point that you shouldn't break wikipedia to make a point, and here you're getting pretty close to doing that: casting a stupid vote to show people how stupid it is. No, please don't. Resist the impulse. Take it easy on us, pretend we're a bunch of morons without a sense of humor. -- Doom (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Civility complaint posted at ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CalendarWatcher Tony (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment I've mentioned this to you guys before, but if you feel your concerns over CW's status are valid, you should really ask for an independent assessment of the matter. Simply put, you guys are repeatedly accusing CW (and Arthur) of sockpuppetry without any formal proof of the matter. This course of action will only serve to increase tensions all around, as seen in recent events. On the other hand, if you turn the matter over for a review by neutral parties, you get an answer without appearing to be continually badgering the accounts in question. (Please note that this is an advisory message; it is not intended to condone CW's post, or to pass any judgement whatsoever as to the validity of the accusations of sockpuppetry.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Advice noted. I hope you will note that I have put evidence and a question to User_talk:CalendarWatcher, and all he need do is give a clear and simple response, and all will be well. I do think that "continually badgering" is too strong. I was polite and careful in my posts, and kept this issue above the waist, however it was CalendarWatcher who descended to the gutter. Why?  HWV258.  20:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Queen/delinking

I thought we were trying to end that thread, so I'll respond to you here. And it's not about being unable to back away from a stand. I'm just very sceptical about the value of some aspects what appears to be a campaign being propelled by a very small number of editors, and whether many of the removals are even justified, given what wp:overlink currently says. I'm not going around adding links, or reverting en masse, I'm just asking questions, mainly about the removal of links to common but relevant terms, none of which are being answered. For example, where does overlink talk about "adding value" or "dilution", or other phrases that are used by yourself and others? And where is the evidence that delinking - or at least the aspects of it being queried here - has been "overwhelmingly well received"? In contrast, I've never said that it's been "overwhelmingly rejected", but on the occasions when I've seen reactions from other editors, it's tended to be sceptical or negative, going to talk pages and asking "why did you remove links A & B from that page?" In fact I'm sure most people - as do I - welcome the removal of repetitive or redundant links, or links to common terms that have no real relevance to the main topic, which were probably included for the sake of it. But that's not the point being disputed.

Anyway, I have said all I think I can say about hierarchy of links, on multiple occasions. And as of course for the one question you asked recently, which I did not respond to on the Queen talk page, and which you have now repeated - here is the link to the page where it was judged that several delinking editors came unstuck "at the point when there was no clear consensus" on "mass date delinking". Now, I'm sure you're aware of the case, so are just suggesting that I've stretched the meaning of the decision with my interpretation of it. I can't see that I am. See the excerpts of the ArbCom findings of fact below, with some phrases highlighted by me -

3.2) Two RFCs held in December 2008 reaffirmed that the current date autoformatting functionality is undesirable, and that overlinking of dates is not desirable; however, consensus has not been found on when dates should be delinked.

Passed 12 to 1 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

3.3.1) All three of the RfCs regarding date links have been plagued by disputes regarding wording, presentation, claims of bias, and related issues. These disputes continued through the drafting and comment phases, as well as persisting after RfC closures. Additionally, there are varied and sharply conflicting interpretations of the discussion results. The contentious development and results of the December RfCs are reflective of this environment.

Passed 7 to 0 at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

Conflation of issues

5) Deprecation of autoformatting and date-delinking have been problematically conflated in this dispute. While both sides of the date debate have conflated the issues, consensus for the deprecation of autoformatting has been abused as consensus for mass date delinking.

Passed 7 to 2 (with 3 abstentions) at 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

There is of course now the thread on link. Perhaps I and others will get some clear answers to our questions there? N-HH talk/edits 12:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"And where is the evidence that delinking - or at least the aspects of it being queried here - has been "overwhelmingly well received""—this has been made clear to you, but I'll remind you: the evidence is that "silence implies consent" (especially given large numbers of articles/edits). There have been precious few editors complain about the delinking currently taking place (on a very large number of articles), and most that do have problems see the light after little debate.

Regarding the date-delinking, yes it was a rough-and-tumble process, and you can quote any bits you like, but you will never prove a point given that the simple fact: the good guys won. Consensus became overwhelmingly supportive. Your resistance is negligible and tame (on the current topic) compared to the handful of editors that appeared in that sorry mess. Note that, to a man, those editors are now either defunct, banned outright, or resting somewhere with their tail between their legs. The results of the date-delinking case came down overwhelmingly on the side of the editors who were brave enough to take a stance in favour of date-delinking (mostly the same editors with which you are currently at odds). For example, one outcome of the case was the approval of a bot that delinked dates in millions of articles. That has led to no troubles, and the culture of WP has changed (for the better) because of it. Be very careful how you cherry-pick in that case.  HWV258.  21:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've hinted at the "silence implies consent" argument before, and I've always pointed out that it's as likely to mean people don't care much one way or the other. Or, in some cases, that they think it is some quasi-official clean-up. On those occasions when people have spoken up, it tends to be in opposition, or at the least to raise questions. Either way, silence is certainly not evidence of something being "overwhelmingly well received".

Wow, all this talk of the "good guys winning", and your rivals being left with "their tails between their legs", while my resistance is by contrast weak and feeble, smacks a little of a macho battle attitude, which is where we have a problem here as well. And please, I did not cherry pick anything. ArbCom explicitly ruled that there was, as of June 2009, no clear consensus in favour of mass date de-linking, and no consensus to undertake it. It imposed blocks and editing restrictions on several editors for doing it, including, precisely several of those whose current actions I am questioning in some respects; just as it did on several editors who were undoing the delinking. It called for editors to work towards a consensus on the issue. The fact that subsequently a consensus was established, and a bot approved to implement that consensus, does not retroactively make those rulings untrue, or overturn them, or mean that I quoted them out of context. In fact, the lesson you might have thought it would have taught OhConfucius, Tony, Colonies Chris, John and DaBomb87 was that they should get consensus first for sweeping, mass changes, rather than just going ahead anyway and hoping to get consensus later. It would make life easier for them if nothing else. Instead, the opposite seems to have happened, and they've battled on this front as well, relying on the "we'll be proved right in the end, it's what happened last time" defence. Maybe they and you will be, who knows, but it's clear who needs to "be very careful". You know what they say about pride and falls (adds customary - and genuine - "this is not a threat, merely an observation" disclaimer). And if you're all so confident that you're right on this one as well, and that the heretics will all have some kind of religious epiphany, why not look for consensus now, rather than just dismissing any and every concern that people raise? N-HH talk/edits 22:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You write one thing, but your language betrays the confidence you have in your stance. "It's as likely", "Or, in some cases", "quasi", "it tends to be", "or at the least", "seems to have", "Maybe they and you will be, who knows", etc.

It is clear that you know little about the way Arbcom operates. They don't decide on issues (e.g. the merits of date delinking); instead, they decide on behavioural issues (e.g. 3RR, name-calling, etc.). Behavioural problems were displayed on both sides, but that's human nature, and in no way representative of the underlying date-delinking issues.

"...rather than just dismissing any and every concern that people raise"—on the contrary, all objections have been address: by a number of editors in a number of forums.

"..that they should get consensus first for sweeping, mass changes.."—no. Being WP:BOLD is a fundamental principle at WP. It is necessary to test the waters, stir things, and "have a go" in order to get change done. The fact that the initial stance turned out to be 100% vindicated is illuminating.

 HWV258.  23:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"The good guys won"?!? "...brave enough to take a stance..."?!? Sorry, but on what planet would that be considered collaborative, consensus-building dialogue? You use terms such as the above, and yet you question why others would see the approach to delinking as heavy-handed and condescending? (I'd also note that you are misleading us with your claim that "to a man, those editors are now either defunct, banned outright, or resting somewhere with their tail between their legs" and you are also conveniently avoiding mention of the sanctions Arbcomm imposed on key proponents of the delinking campaign during that date matter. Why? --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"...on what planet would that be considered collaborative, consensus-building dialogue?..."—the planet where RfC after RfC demonstrated the stance to be justified. The planet where the end result was the sanctioning of a bot to do the requested delinking.  HWV258.  23:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, why would you even think to position this as good versus bad? Sorry for being blunt, but that is utterly ludicrous, confrontational behaviour - especially in light of how Arbcom was quite emphatic in stating that bad behaviour was prevalent on both sides of the debate. It also fails to answer why you would post such a misleading statement about who was censured and who was not; again, you completely ignored the directives against Tony, Lightmouse and others in that debate. At its core, the autoformatting matter was a difference of opinion over stylistic principles. Arbcom did not decide that one opinion was right and one was wrong; they ruled that the community supported one particular style and endorsed bot action to implement that style. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, "good guys" in terms of the desire to improve WP by removing date-linking and formatting. Those guys turned out to be entirely vindicated. Okay now?  HWV258.  01:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It takes time... In this day and age, there are still people who do not believe the Holocaust took place. For decades, some have denied that smoking kills. Scientific evidence is now mounting on global warming, a hole in the ozone layer, the harmful effects of emissions from mobile phones and the principle of dilution by saturation. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, and to even question aspects of this issue is to be on the same level as a holocaust denier? This is actually getting close to being out of order now. And of course, in any event - and this is another difference with the date delinking debate - to make the point for the the 45th time, I and others are not opposed to the removal of links to common terms in articles where the terms only come up in passing, or where they are needlessly repeated. What we are questioning is whether every single instance of such links needs to be removed, including from articles where they are relevant, per the examples I have constantly raised. wp:overlink even allows for such links as currently worded. And yes HWV, my language does betray uncertainty, not about my own views, but about what everyone else might think about this issue. Oddly perhaps, I don't presume to know.

Oh, and you may care to know that I understand exactly how ArbCom operates, because I have been sanctioned in an ArbCom case. Unfairly and ridiculously, I would argue, not least because the clear-cut content position I had been arguing for, but which was being blocked by a small number of nationalist accounts (several of whom turned out later to be the same editor), was vindicated subsequent to the case being closed, when consensus on a formal naming convention was agreed. Sound familiar? You wouldn't find me now therefore claiming that when I made five edits on the topic originally over a period of four months, which was oddly put down as "edit warring", I was acting per consensus. There should have been consensus, to any impartial editor, but there wasn't, because a nationalist sock farm was unreasonably blocking it. That's exactly why we ended up at ArbCom. N-HH talk/edits 08:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, I was just beginning to think we had nothing in common! ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to unsubscribe from one's own talk page?  HWV258.  11:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yep, hit the blue star at the top. But I hope N-HH might come around to acknowledge the balance-sheet that needs to be brought into play when choosing whether or not to link an item. Tony (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 18:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Wow, imagine what I'd get if I asked?  HWV258. 

Removing small

I had this logged as an AWB bug, but it looks as if the text in galleries, in Monobook, is already small. Using small tags would result in even smaller text which is not good for accessibility. I have added this example to my bug report however. Rich Farmbrough, 05:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC).

Love them dashes

And do you have GregU's great dash script installed? Tony (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson

I've started a draft RFC in my userspace User:OpenFuture/Request_For_Comment/Pmanderson if you are interested in joining that. If we can show that at least two users have tried to resolve the issue (so we need one more except me) we can file it. I did unfortunately file a Mediation request just earlier today, as per Chasers request, so we might have to wait for a response on that one first. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue

That was an honest mistake and I apologise. I notice you were replying to a comment from December 2006, which was about changing the then-current image. Your comment was not directly related as you were asking about adapting or enhancing the current image. I think you could have started it as a new discussion. The answer to your question though, is that you are free to enhance the image if you wish to take the emphasis away from the background. That's one of the main things that sets free images apart from unfree images - they can be adapted. I'll put your comment back on the talk page. Rossrs (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Altan Tours

I won't give up... I promise ! I'm too persistent ! Thanx for your support. Lurulu (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sydney Meetup :-)

See the meetup page for further information - short version is that we're hoping to meet in a fortnight in the city for a beer and a chat. Minors and Miners are welcome, with a responsible adult and a minimum of coal dust ;-) - do try and get out if you can, it's been a little while since wiki folk met in Sydney :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GFHandel. You have new messages at Timbouctou's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Timbouctou 01:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Music Barnstar
		Specifically for your work on Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC)‎, but for classical music content generally. Witty Lama 02:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sir, my humblest greetings, and my surprised delight that such an august figure has turned up in the WP community. Tony (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Max Seiffert

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Max Seiffert, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Lib/Seiffert-Max.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Susanna (Handel)

Nice work, your reformatting with a table, thank you. But shouldn't it be role, or character, part, persona (or nothing at all) instead of roll? --Vsop.de (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Done.  GFHandel.   01:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)