User talk:BDW82

Welcome!

Hi BDW82! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 02:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Waltzing Matilda, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doniago,

Thank you for doing your job and ensuring that the policy of Wikipedia is maintained. I will revisit the edit only if I find a quality published source to back the claim. There is very little discussion of 'Waltzing Matilda' these days: interest peaked in the 1980's and 1990's. If I can't find a good source, the article will not suffer if the topic is simply omitted.

BDW82 2406:3400:41F:FB80:FD32:3436:49DE:5E95 (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hello, I'm Doniago. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Waltzing Matilda. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Waltzing Matilda. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please see my previous note about adding external links to the body of articles. DonIago (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doniago, I am having a lot of trouble finding out how to list the external link that I added to the article to the "External links" section at the end of the of the article. Can you recommend a site or sites where I can learn how to edit the "External links" section at the end of the article? I am not trying to be "disruptive", and I am not in a "content dispute" with another editor. I am merely having a lot of trouble finding out how to meet the Wikipedia requirements. I would appreciate any guidance that you can give me. 2406:3400:41F:FB80:F83B:A1E0:78E4:CA06 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL? DonIago (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waltzing Matilda

Hi. I'm sorry if my small attempt at curtailing the bloating of the article with WP:FANCRUFT has caused you distress. If I can suggest one small improvement for the lead: "Waltzing Matilda" (per MOS:MINORWORK), not 'Waltzing Matilda'. - HappyWaldo (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courteous and helpful reply. I was aware of the concept of FANCRUFT but not the term. I will take it on board although I am not sure if my edit offended. Most Australians are fascinated to realize that "Waltzing Matilda", which they sing so enthusiastically but hopelessly out of tune, is actually an advertising jingle for Billy Tea. This is still printed on packets of Billy Tea sold today. Few, if any, are interested in the copyright but it is not mentioned in the paragraph. The paragraph is written in such a way that musicians will understand the implications for copyright.

I will change the inverted commas as you suggest. 2406:3400:41F:FB80:B1F8:9:217D:EFEF (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Hello, I'm TheAstorPastor. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Waltzing Matilda seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TheAstorPastor (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Waltzing Matilda. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doniago, I have taken on board your criticism of my recent edit to "Waltzing Matilda". I will try again with a much simpler edit that does not contain my personal analysis of Hately's process and with a more formal tone. I hope that you find it acceptable.

Yours sincerely, BDW82. BDW82 (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your simpler edit is an improvement, but I'm concerned that it still contains original research, but more importantly, per WP:SONGCOVER you'll need to provide a secondary source as a means of establishing that this version of the song is considered significant. Thanks for your understanding! DonIago (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Doniago, thanks for replying. I have added the nla's archived website, "Who'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me" as a reference for the material in the edit. It was a bad oversight on my part to omit it at the time I made the edit. It has all there is to say about the time values of the notes but little on the pitch. I have removed the sentences in my edit dealing with the pitch. I am not well at the present time and will follow up this reply as soon as I can. Regards, BDW82. 2406:3400:41F:FB80:655F:FED6:9A30:F907 (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI that you left the above comment while logged out. Otherwise, sounds good to me. I can't speak as to whether nla is a reliable source, but I think you've otherwise addressed my concerns. Thank you for understanding my reservations regarding your original changes! DonIago (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First responding to

“but more importantly, per WP:SONGCOVER you'll need to provide a secondary source as a means of establishing that this version of the song is considered significant “

Doniago, your reply, above, tells me that you are not understanding the context of my edit. The edit that I am making is about the interpretation of the manuscripts of the song that Christina Macpherson and Banjo Paterson collaborated on in 1895. Christina supplied the music and Banjo composed the original lyrics. WP:SONGCOVER cannot have anything to do with this version of the song. It is the original. WP:SONGCOVER does apply perfectly to the Marie Cowan arrangement of “Waltzing Matilda”. Harry Nathan published a variation of Christina’s tune in late December 1902. It does not appear to have become at all popular. In early 1903, Marie Cowan published a cover of Nathan’s melody with a very attractive accompaniment. This cover is now sung and played all over the world. Doniago I would like you to familiarize yourself a bit better with the history of the Macpherson, Nathan and Cowan arrangements of the song.

I will be very disappointed if my edit on the interpretation of Christina’s manuscripts is not allowed in Wikipedia. It is the link between Thomas Bulch’s “Craigilee” and the melody adopted by Nathan and Cowan that we sing today. It is also a precious, but little-known gem of Australian folklore.

There is an archived exhibition at the National Library of Australia in Trove, called, “Who’ll come a Waltzing Matilda with me?”

https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20110606173517/http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/34755/20110606-1326/www.nla.gov.au/epubs/waltzingmatilda/1-Orig-Creation.html

Despite its age and as we might hope for, it remains very high-quality source of material on “Waltzing Matilda”, especially the music. Doniago, please read the sections, ORIGINS and VERSIONS.

I will send this now and later add another edit to Wikipedia, on the interpretation of Christina's mistake filled manuscripts. I hope that it can meet with your approval.

Yours sincerely, BDW82. BDW82 (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure why you're responding in this manner. As I said, I think you've addressed my concerns. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello, I'm Doniago. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Waltzing Matilda. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Doniago, with respect, I do want to dispute your removal of the external link to an upload of “Thou Bonnie Wood O’craigielea” from YouTube.

I am sure that you are familiar with the following statement. External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.

I notice that the Wikipedia guidelines are a bit flexible. While they say that external links should not normally be in the placed in the body of the article, they also say that there are exceptions. The song, “Thou Bonnie Wood of Craigielea” is the source of the music of “Waltzing Matilda”. As such it is an intrinsic part of the history of the song. I have wanted to link the song to the article for a few years but could not find a performance of the song that was both high quality and authentic. I found the performance that I linked to the article a short time ago. The only way that I can link it neatly to the article is as an external link in the body of the body of the article. I hope that this is acceptable as an exception due to its intrinsic value. The link is also listed in the External links section at the end of the article.

I will add the external link to the body of the article again and trust that you can accept my explanation for doing so.

Yours sincerely, BDW82. BDW82 (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why it can't be added to the External links section of the article, or perhaps added as a proper citation instead? DonIago (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Doniago,

There is no reason why a link cannot be added to the External links section at the end of the article. In my reply above, I have already stated that I have done this. Most readers, however, are are highly unlikely to look up the external links at that stage of their reading of the article.

It could be given its own reference/citation but that does not necessarily identify it as a performance. It could, for example, be the source of the song or the sheet music.

Doniago, the only way that I can think of to make a performance of this important song readily available to the average reader is an external link in the body of the article.

Yours sincerely, BDW82. BDW82 (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel strongly that the only way to reasonably present this performance of the song is as an EL in the body of the article, I would ask that you get a consensus favoring that approach at the article's Talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Doniago,

Thank you for offering that I could open a discussion on the topic on the article’s talk page. Sadly, my health is becoming seriously problematical and editing Wikipedia is becoming more and more of a struggle. I would like to get this issue resolved as simply as possible. I do not wish to instigate a discussion on the talk page. I will simply accept the change that made to the article on 17/10/24.

Yours sincerely, BDW82. BDW82 (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that you're dealing with health challenges! I'd offer to initiate the discussion your behalf, but you'd likely still be expected to participate at that point, and I don't trust myself to effectively articulate your position. I'd still encourage you to reframe the mention of the performance either as a citation or an EL at the bottom of the page, and would be willing to talk through how we might best achieve one of those options, but I don't want to impose further stress upon you. Wishing you all the best! DonIago (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer of assistance. I appreciate it.

Before I go any further, I will explain where I am coming from. Before I received your email on 17 October, I was unaware that EL’s should not be placed in the body of the text and I had added a number of them in the body of the article as well adding them to the external links section. The removal of most of them did not detract much from the quality of the article. (There are still some external links in the article which I have not yet removed but will remove them one or two at a time in the coming days.) There are two El’s that I would really like to have in the body of the text, a good quality, authentic performance of “Thou Bonny Wood of Craigielea” and Thomas Bulch’s quick march, “Craigielee”. Both have very significant merit in the history of the song. I also had a link to the autoharp with 3 chord bars which I have deleted. I would like to know of a way to feature this item in a way that would encourage Jill and Joe Average to investigate it further. It is a little known but interesting part of the WM story.

You have kindly offered to initiate a discussion on my behalf on the WM talk page but you may not be prepared to do so if I am asking for two external links, not just one. I think that I could manage to articulate my own position. If you are still prepared to initiate a discussion on the talk page, I will accept your offer. I have nothing to lose.

If the talk page discussion does not go ahead or does not favour the outcome that I want, I will certainly be open to any other ideas that you have.

Thanks again. Yours sincerely, BDW82. BDW82 (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BDW, I think the best outcome here would be to have a discussion at the article's Talk page, as my ideal state would be no ELs in the body of the article, but I'm also not a subject matter expert...and perhaps more importantly, I'm about to be on vacation for several days. I think it looks best if you initiate that discussion; from what you said above, I have no doubt that you can clearly communicate your reasoning. Perhaps most importantly, it might benefit both of us to see what other editors invested in the article have to say on the subject; this is why I generally prefer content discussions to occur at article Talk pages rather than user Talk pages. Please let me know if this leaves you with any outstanding concerns, and thanks for understanding where I'm coming from even if we may not quite agree! If you do start a discussion there, I may defer to other editors, as I have my opinions but I don't feel incredibly strongly about them. DonIago (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doniago, as soon as I can, I will initiate a discussion on the article’s Talk page re the inclusion of “Craigielee” as an El in the body of the text. It might take me a little while to draft a concise statement of my reasoning for it to be included as an exceptional case. I will let you state your position in the debate. BDW82 (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]