Talk:Hang (instrument)/Archive

This is an archive of older discussions. These discussions shouldn't be modified.

External Links

After a lot of external links changing in the last days, I thought about what internet recources should be linked in the Wikipedia Hang article. I made a new choice and these are the reasons for the choice of the external links:

1) Research Papers - Steeldrums by Felix Rohner and Sabina Schärer: Important resource of the hangmakers

2) Oddmusic article: A more detailed outline for readers who want to know more but don't want to search in many websites

3) Hang-Music Forum: Is the most visited Hang Internet forum

4) The Hang Internet Index: Is the most comprehensive listing of Hang resources avaiable online

Why I deleted single Hang Videos: 4) includes links to hundreds of Hang videos. There isn't a need to link just one single video. Wikepedia external link guidelines recommend to use only a few links. To give an adequate overview about existing Hang videos, you would have to link a lot of videos. This is undesired in Wikipedia articles.

Here you find the Wikipedia guidelines about External Links: Wikipedia:External links

If you want to change the external links, please discuss it here. We should'nt begin a link changing war.

Ixkeys October, 17th 2007

Obtaining a Hang

There seems to be some dispute over whether the difficulty of obtaining a Hang is a subject worthy of mention here, due to the idea that it "can change within months". I suggest we discuss this concept here before eliminating this information, since I think most people who come to this page do so in hopes of finding out how to obtain one.

First off, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia has so many up-to-the-second pages on current events that I often read it to keep up with world news. Have you seen the Main Page? Secondly, there is in fact no general rule that information is only encyclopedic if it is permanent and unchangeable (you should see some of the articles in an old book encyclopedia I have). Thirdly, the situation I've described has been true for more than two years and the hangmakers have expressed no intent to change the situation as far as I know. I'm sure it will remain true for many years to come, long after a large percentage of Wikipedia's other current factoids have become outdated. And fourthly, the unique availability situation is one of the Hang's most noteworthy and remarked-upon traits. Leaving it out would be like writing an article on Iran and leaving out its nuclear controversy because it "can change within months". Feel free to offer a rebuttal. Xezlec (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my reason for the deleting was to short. Let's discuss this topic. The problem of the chapter ist besides the fact, that information are included that can change within months, that main parts of the chapter are more personal essay and journalism (look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#PUBLISHER ) than Wikipedia suitable information. Their is also a problem with references and sources.

In the Hang article recently the Articles-lacking-sources Tag was added. Being the author of the German Wikipedia Hang article and a contributor to the English version, I'm thinking about, how to solve this problem. Therefor I want do avoid to add a whole chapter increasing this problem. To publish information about the Hang purchasing situation you have to research in internet sources, read unpublished sources from PANArt, talk with people including the hangmakers, observe the Hang scene over a long period and put this puzzle together to a picture. This is typical journalistic work. I for myself did so and published the article "How do I acquire a Hang" at http://www.hangblog.org. But also this article is a problematic source for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia don't want newspaper articles or weblog articles as main sources.

My comments in detail:

"they are more interested in refining their art than producing mass quantities of hangs for those who want them" is personal essay not information. -- "For some time, hangs were produced in large numbers, but the exhausted builders have since changed their policy, and they now sell only a limited number of hangs in a year" is personal essay and doesn't describe the situation correctly. The result from my own research is, that from 2001 to 2005 about 850 instruments were built in a year and from 2006 to 2007 about 400. This is not correctly described with "large numbers" versus "limited number". -- "and hope to be invited to the "hanghaus" in Bern, Switzerland" is personal essay. -- "The price is at least 1200 Euro, but is not known definitely at any given time due to the secrecy in which the hangmakers conduct business." is personal essay. -- "Used instruments generally sell for thousands of dollars. There are reports of hangs being sold for as much as $9000 on eBay." "There are reports" is not a reliable source. The situation is diferentiated, there is a big difference between Europe and USA. Only a few ebay auctions took place in the last half year (under 20). Prices were between about 1.500 and 6.000 Euro. It is a dynamic situation.

My suggestion:

Instead of the current chapter let's add a short paragraph to the article:

"The hang is built only by its inventors Felix Rohner and Sabina Schärer in a little workshop in Berne. The hangmakers don't ship instruments nor sell them via music shops. To obtain a hang prospective custumers have to send a letter to achieve an invitation to the workshop in Berne. Offers for used hanghang are rare, and prices in internet auctions are very high."

I would appreciate if you could improve the phrasing of this paragraph because I'm not an English native speaker.

Ixkeys 8. December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 14:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody wrote a comment to my entry by now, so I think it's time to make the change in the article. I will include an improved version of the suggested paragraph. Ixkeys (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner. Anyway, thanks for clarifying your points. But I'm curious what you mean by "personal essay". Also, do you really feel there is no acceptable way to convey information such as eBay pricing in a Wikipedia article? I feel that the amazing prices reached by some hanghang is noteworthy. Is eBay itself not an acceptable source? I'm often frustrated by the lack of information about certain kinds of things on Wikipedia. Even when something is well-known and generally agreed, people are reluctant to provide readers with that information unless it has been written about in a scholarly publication. This effectively rules out a lot of discussion of some topics. I'm glad paper encyclopedias are not as rigid in their policies! Xezlec (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"Personal essay" relates to what is written about in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#PUBLISHER . An Ebay auction isn't an acceptable source. What does it mean, when an Ebay auction reachs 6000 or 8000 Dollars? How to assess Ebay hang prices isn't generally agreed but strongly discussed. What does it mean, when less than ten auctions (and all with US buyers - Europeans never bid such prices) ended with such high prices? To mention these prices without explaining the whole backgrounds and discussion would be a wrong information. I think, to mention "high prices" in auctions is the right way. Everyone who is interested in details can follow the external links and will find all avaiable information and discussions about this topic (especially in the Hang-Music Forum). Ixkeys (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think the problem is that I didn't realize that websites were not valid sources (they were considered valid sources for papers when I was in school, and I made the errant assumption that Wikipedia would not be more strict). Having discovered that rule, it seems like the majority of Wikipedia should be regarded as uncited. Xezlec (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify what I think Ixkeys was referring to in regards to 'personal essay' are sections that are not strictly factual but reflect an element of personal opinion and perceived motive on the part of the writer. A statement like "they are more interested in refining their art than producing mass quantities of hangs for those who want them" is a statement speaking to motive and has an essay quality to it whereas something like "PANArt experienced a reduction in supply in 2007 due to more complex manufacturing methods and a change to the distribution of Hanghang" is less of an opinion than a recording of facts, which serves the article more clearly and cleanly.

GotHang (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it also be mentioned that the makers will not sell the Hang to anyone who is not a White european? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.53.150 (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There are verifiable Hang owners who are no "White europeans". Your statement is - excuse me - bullshit. --Ixkeys (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

On pronunciation

The name of the instruments is said to derive from the Bernese word for 'hands', which is 'Häng' in German spelling, 'Hang' in English. Accordingly, it should be pronounced like the English verb 'to hang' and not like 'hong' or 'hung'. The makers of the instrument pronounced it that way in a television interview some years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.28.155 (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Being a German native speaker and knowing the makers personally I can confirm that the German spelling of 'Hang' is 'Hang' and not 'Häng'. 'Häng' doesn't exist neither in standard German nor in Bernese German. The standard German word for the English 'hand' is 'Hand' (spoken 'hund' in the same way as 'hund' is spoken in 'hundred'). The Bernese German word for the English 'hand' is 'Hang' and the makers speak it like 'hung' in the same way as 'hung' is spoken in 'hungry'. Standard German speakers also say 'hung' like in 'hungry' when they mean the musical instrument Hang. 'Hang' like English 'to hang' is wrongly used by English native speakers who don't know the correct pronunciation. Ixkeys (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Today I had the oportunity to ask someone living in Berne and speaking Bernese German. And this is the result: 'Hang' means hand singular. The plural form is "Häng" and is pronounced like 'to hang' in English. The name of the musical instrument Hang is singular so it is spelled 'Hang' and pronounced 'hung' like 'hungry'. The plural form 'Häng' is not used for the musical instrument Hang. For the plural form of Hang (musical instrument) the Hang Makers invented the word Hanghang. The pronunciation 'hong' is completely wrong and never used neither by Bernese German speakers nor by standard German speakers. Therefore I will delete 'hong' in the article. Ixkeys (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

hey ixkeys. being from bern myself i can absolutely agree on everything you said. therefore i also think that the part in the article where it is saying that "hanghang" is the plural form of "hang" one might have to add that this only applies to the name of the instrument and not the actual word as used in the common bernese-german language. Copykill (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

External Links

"You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked."

Hmmm...now what do we do here. Hangfan has been put up a few times and duly erased despite the validity and correctness of its content. Currently, hangblog (great as it is) has 3 links out of the toal 5 (now 6 as I've added the e-hang).

We're in a tricky place here - the hangfan site has HTML version of the research PDF files- should it be quoted as a mirror for those who dont want to/can't donwload PDF files?

We could all be accused of nepotistic behaviour here, however if internet website owners are going to put links to their own site ahead of others, then the only fair strategy is to include mirror sites.

I think that is then fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torbz (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Torbz, in October 2007 I decided to make a complete relaunch of the external links in the English Wikipedia article about the Hang. The reasons I pointed out in my post on this discussion page from October 17th. It was my interest, that other contributors would answer to that post, but nobody didn't. So by now everybody seemed to agree with my decisions. So it's nice to read you on this page to discuss the external link topic.

It's right, there is a problem with the Hang links and somebody could think we act nepotistic. So let me explain my opinion to this topic. For a long time I only observed the English Wikipedia article about the Hang and didn't want to contribute, because I'm not a native Engish speaker. But I noticed, that there was nobody who undertook the task of developing the article. Therefor I decided to join and made contributions to the article: Updates about the second generation and about how to obtain a Hang and looking after the external links. There was a lot of changing with the links and many of them didn't meet the Wikipedia requirements. So I decided to accept external links only it they provide very important content and are not only one among many similar resources. My arguments for the external links I accepted or added since the relaunch in October 2007 are the following:

Hang article in the Oddmusic Musical Instrument Gallery: This is a short continuative article providing the Hang sound models of the first generation Hang.

Hang-Music Forum: This is the most visited internet forum about Hang topics.

The Hang Internet Index: This is the most comprehensive directory of internet recources about the Hang.

The two articles "History, Developement and Tuning of the HANG" and "Acoustics of the HANG" I put in the References section. These are no links to the hangblog. The links adresses the PDF files of the articles directly and he who follows these links don't land on the hangblog. I think, it is important to provide the Original of the articles to avoid any nepotistic suspicion. If you would decide to host the PDF files under your domain too, we also can link to this adress instead of mine. No problem - because Felix requested you like me to publish the articles.

Let me know if you have any other ideas about the external links.Ixkeys (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hank Drum?????

has anyone else heard of the cheap alternative?? they are made from propane gas bottles and sound suprisingly well (how comparable they are i cant say as ive hear neither in real life) there are a fair few youtube videos and such so it might be worth a mention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.235.1 (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss about musical instruments as regards content. This discussion page is only about the Wikipedia article. About the "Hank drum" you can find a lot of dicussions in http://www.hang-music.com Ixkeys (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Added Sections

I did not really add or delete any information here but tried to divide the information given into sections.

It could be better, the article did not lend itself to sections and these are pretty broad. It may be nice to see a section dedicated to the sound of the hang, the subject of the sound is touched upon throughout the article and it would be better to focus in on it.

Autumm393 (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

External Links - Resources

In response to request from 78.94.163.12 the following discussion is submitted.

DrumVibe LLC is working on creating the only current, as well as developing a comprehensive, re-sale history of Hang drums. Along with providing important content, links and resources to the Hang Drum, this is a valuable and informative link. The site is updated weekly and will continue to grow. There is not a resource like this anywhere else in the world, where actual prices, dates, pictures and model numbers were applicable are recorded.

This link has been deleted for "advertising", however there is no advertising on this page. This page is hosted on the Vibe Drum site, but does not include any advertising for the Vibe Drum and therefore does not violate the conflict of interest or the advertising policy. The link to the ODDMUSIC gallery on the hang drum page does violate both of these policies, as the owner of the ODDMUSIC gallery, is the owner of the HAPItones and there is a blatant and discrete advertisement for the product on the front page of the site. In addition, continual deletion of the link posted - Sale/Re-sale history of Hang drums - constitutes abuse and discrimination as defined by the Wikipedia guidelines.

Under legal advise, all of the rules of Wikipedia have been followed by DrumVibe LLC . Please refrain from removing this link again.

With all that being said... Can't we all just get along? We're all after the same thing here, and want to provide good information about the Hang. if there are anymore questions, please email directly to: contactATthevibedrum.com

Vibedrumvibe (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)vibedrumvibe

Thank you for joining the discussion page. I will reason why the link http://www.drumvibe.com/hang.html is not an appropriate link for the Hang article.

The External Links section in Wikipedia articles is not a place to post own links if someone thinks his own link includes content relating to the article. The external links are chosen by the authors of the article. The Wikipedia guidelines says that there shall be only a few and the most important links in this section. Therefor not all websites relating to the topic can be listed. So the question is: Is there most important content at your site that provides information not included in the existing external links?

Tuning: This is an uncommented list of 1st generation sound models. The same list is in the Oddmusic article and at two sites that can be easily found in the Hang Internet Index. At the Hangblog is an informative article with detailed tables for 1st generation, 2nd generation and IH.

Purchasing: This is a list of Ebay Hang auctions. The best information on Ebay hang auctions you can get at the Hang Music Forum. Regularly Ebay auctions are not only posted but discussed. A detailed list of Ebay auctions since 2007 is regulary posted there by a forum member. Another critique on this page is, that the title Purchasing isn't met by the content. There is no content about how to purchase a Hang, and in the Hang community it is consensus that Ebay ist the worst way to purchase a Hang.

Research: This page contains only four uncommented links all also provided in the Hang Internet Index.

Links: This is an uncommented list of URLs. These links either are included in the Hang Internet Index or doesn't contain valuable content.

As a conclusion I don't see any reason why this link should be included in the external links because there is no important content that is better provided than in web sites already listed in the external links. --Ixkeys (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I'm in agreement that adding a list of E-Bay sales is not helpful for readers of the Wikipedia article. As there has been references of statements from PANArt that they will not tune a Hang that is purchased from e-bay, and as Ixkeys indicates the general consensus on several forums of Hang owners is that E-bay is the worst place to purchase a Hang due to scams, inability to judge the quality of the instrument, and inability to have it tuned by PANArt.

In regards to advertising: While the link is not direct advertising, it is general advertising for the Vibe drum as the logos for the Vibe Drum are all over the linked page. It is also being added by the owner of the site, which is an attempt to direct traffic to the VibeDrum site. In reference to the violation of the Oddmusic gallery, the OddMusic site is one that is a general listing of unusual instruments. It also was one of the first pages that hosted and listed the scales of the 1st Generation Hang instruments. But you are correct that it references a product that is offered by the site owner, and that is worth considering the possible removal of the site. Perhaps a link to the French Hang site that has all the scales (that the Vibedrum is improperly linking to) should be included instead of the OddMusic site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GotHang (talk • contribs) 19:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree to substitute the Oddmusic page for http://www.hangmania.fr/modele_hang.html or http://www.hangfan.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?id=8 --Ixkeys (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Hang Lovers, I must say... I agree with all that you are all saying. I originally posted the information on my site after a Vibe customer commented that I should put all of the information that I had sent them on the Hang on my site and spread it around. I was also unaware hat there was a list of EBay auctions (and i have looked, but I must have missed it) Although, I do not feel that this is advertising (and would gladly remove the Vibe Drum labels from the site) It seems that the content is all truly in duplicate of information that is already out there. While the removal reasons originally all stated Advertising, I was not advertising my product, and this is another reason I re-posted it. Curious though, who is the original author of this article? If they are the ones choosing the links, they should also be the ones deleting them, correct? If in the future I feel that my information has developed to the point that it is worthy of a link, I'd like to inform them first. Vibedrumvibe (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)vibedrumvibe

You can look at the history of the page to see who the original author was (Aaaidan) but Wikipedia is more about the 'authors' that the original author (who in this case created something a bit more than a basic stub). Ixkeys has contributed a great deal of time, effort, and insight to the current informative article, and I've assisted where I can to clarify and refine for the English portion. The majority of the current article is the result of our collaborations, but that may change with time as can happen with Wikipedia. Our efforts have been (in my mind) to keep it informative and unbiased as possible and to keep advertising away from the article to allow each reader to find their own path and alternatives.

GotHang (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

if vs. when

It's right that the English letter had an "if" at this place of the text. But the German original shows, that this was a false translation and that "when" was meant. Knowing that the "if" was one responsible cause for the rumor, PANArt would possibly stop making Hanghang (that was clearly contradicted by Felix Rohner in recent mailing to me), I felt free to change "if" to "when" to provide the really meant message and avoid the rumor in future. I also substituted the complicated "(or other)" and "PANArt creation" for a simple "Hang", because this is, what PANArt will stick to also in future. --Ixkeys (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hang Artist Directory

The link to the Hang Artist Online Resources Directory has been re-instated. The assertions made by IXKEYS regarding copyright infringement are entirely baseless. It is not possible to copyright specific URLs pertaining to internet users websites, as these are publicly declared and advertised throughout the World Wide Web.

The directory has been compiled through years of personal and community research online regarding all Hang Artists who present hang-related material on the web or who actively use the hang in creative performance. It is an on-going creation and currently presents information in the most tangible format.

It is profoundly different from all other linked indices on the Wiki page which handle specific aspects of Hang artists online resources. The Hang Artist Directory encompasses the information presented via the Hang CD Index link and as such, supersedes this index in terms of its usefulness to those research Hang Artist resources. It is also more contemporary information and is regularly validated.

Please do not remove this link without further discussion or the general consensus perceives that such a directory is not needed or is out-of-date.

I propose that the Hang CD Index link may also be removed if the general consensus perceives that the Artist Directory does indeed supersede its usefulness to those researching such information on the internet.

I am of the opinion that it should not be removed without further discussion.

Torbz (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As everyone can see in the history of this discussion page I started a discussion on an external link. User Torbz deleted my entry from this page. This is an unusual and nearly aggressive act. Let us think it happened because Torbz is new to Wikepedia and don't know how to behave here. Here is my inital entry that started the discussion:

I deleted the external link "hangfan.co.uk/hang-players-artists-pages.php Hang Artist Directory (Index of Hang Artists)". Reason: This directory was copied from http://www.hangblog.org/2006/11/27/the-hang-internet-index/#hangplayers without permission of its author and published on the hangfan.co.uk site as a copy. If their is a consensus that we need such a link to an artist directory, the original should be linked not the copy. I think we needn't such a link. The list that was linked is a work that doesn't claim to be a directory of most relevant players or something like this. It is only a collection of internet resources the Hangblog author had found. Therefor it is not a source for an artist directory as it is included in wikipedia articles about other musical instruments. -- Ixkeys (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

When a discussion is started it is usual to discuss the issue first on this page before the article is changed. Therefor I deleted the discussed external link from the article. It is my urgent advice not to restore it before this discussion is ended!

So let's see if Torbz arguments can change the estimation of the external link he added:

Torbz argued that it isn't possible to copyright hyperlinks. This is correct. But the construction Torbz copied from http://www.hangblog.org/2006/11/27/the-hang-internet-index/#hangplayers is not only a hyperlink. It is the presentation of the result of a research of several years. The work that is copyrighted ist not a link but this presentation of my research.

Ok. Let't think Torbz was right and the directory isn't copyrighted. So what shall we think of someone, who copied such a directory (not illegal but very unfriendly) with the aim to be able to link his website at Wikipedia? This is not how external links are chosen for an Wikipedia article and disqualifies the URL from being linked in the article.

Torbz stated that "the directory has been compiled through years of personal and community research". Excuse me I cannot express the following more politely: That's bullshit and falsehood.

The discussed directory was copied from the Hangblog some months ago and then put in some little icons and modified the links to the CDs using the Hangblog's Hang CD index to find the links to the CDs. There is no own research of Torbz exept of adding his own website and another website that doesn't show any Hang related information.

Torbz stated: "It is an on-going creation and currently presents information in the most tangible format." But in the moment it is only a slightly modified copy of an artist directory that is already linked via the Hang Internet Index. I cannot see any advantage of the copy. The statement that the copy would be an on-going creation in the future has to be proven. The Hangblog's directory has already proven, that it is an on-going creation. If Torbz has a better directory in the future and not only a copy, we can discuss the issue again.

My conclusion is as follows: Torbz created a web page using a research presentation published in the Hangblog and violated my copyright on this research presentation. Then he added a link to this web page in Wikipedia's Hang article. I think this is not the way how external links are chosen for an Wikipedia article. --Ixkeys (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the comments (some of which appear to be personally targeted at me as an individual to defame my legitimacy as a valid contributor to this Wiki subject) and attempt to undermine my contributions by casting accusations, quite contrary to the nature of Wikipedia as I understand it.

I do not wish to waste time responding to personal accusations but obviously must state my case and be heard in the forum of open, respectful discussion.

IXKEYS states that I removed a discussion (previously titled 'Artist Directory' which sat two discussions above this one). I have never removed this discussion and I'm sure this can be verified by an administrator who has the requisite knowledge to inspect the activity on this page. I simply started another discussion with the heading under which I currently write. This is and always was a separate discussion about this issue.

Visible below the quote of the 'removed' article is a statement concerning the process of discussion supposedly entered into, before IXKEYS removed the link to a valid external resource. However, simply stating your reason for removing a link does not constitute a discussion and received no feedback from any other member of the Wiki community - therefore IXKEY'S edit constituted a 'judge, jury and executioner' style of editing - whilst preaching the necessity of discussion - removing the opportunity for it before making an edit.

I did not know any better than to start a new discussion with the appropriate title of Hang Artist Directory which related exactly to the name of the external resource link. Apologies if this was the incorrect method of addressing the reversal of IXKEYS autonomous link removal. Perhaps a link to the relevant guide could be provided by someone with more experience.

The assertion that the presentation of the series of links is in any way subject to copyright in this instance are categorically unsubstantiated. It's impossible to compare the two externally linked directories, as they are constructed both differently and appear entirely differently. There is a high degree of cross-over and much of the artist directory has been sourced from many external sources, the Hang Blog (IXKEYS own website) being one of them as it exists as a resource within the public realm that aids further research of the subject matter.

The content and presentation of the directory is substantially unique, enough to warrant that it does indeed supersede the usefulness of the previous link to the Hang Blog's directory. It therefore becomes a more valuable resource in terms of further research.

I sadly must state my opinion - that the community at large is unlikely to wish to engage in your opinions about the work I have put into the online Hang resources and research since 2005 calling it "bullshit"

The artist directory I have put together includes many, many links that differ from those at Hang Blog and are current and up-to-date. This is not the case with the Hang Blog directory. It has expired to be concurrent. I asserted this in my first discussion above, and suggested the directory link to Hang Blog could be removed (pending further discussion and not immediately as IXKEYS already did).

Statement of fact: We are both website creators regarding the Hang instrument. We both have an interest in accurate information regarding the Hang. IXKEYS has smothered both German, English and other language entries for the Hang drum almost exclusively with links pertaining to the research and resources he offers on his websites. I too have done so on the English wiki (and made contributions long before IXKEYS).

Please refrain from further opinions and personal attacks and attempts to defame my personality. This is totally against the spirit of open, respectful discussion.

Also, if you preach discussion, please wait for a discussion before editing the entry. Hypocrisy is not specifically stated as a taboo on Wikipedia - so maybe you can continue to act with impunity.

I shall seek to reinstate the link by agreement. If agreement cannot be resolved, I shall seek dispute resolution.

Please check both the HTML and the links contained in both directories and you will see that the HangFan directory does indeed contain complete up-to-date information, presented in a much more tangible format and covers a broader range of items per artist.

Torbz (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, IXKEYS stated the link was removed on the history page due to an 'edit war'. This is a construct and label created as a matter of his opinion, no such war exists in my attempts to contribute fairly and respectfully to the Wiki page. Torbz (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have two arguments and you wasn't able to disprove them:

1) It is fact that you copied my whole directory an put it on your site. Everybody can see it when he compares boths versions. You never asked whether you was permitted to do this. You made slight changings: You sorted the items by forename, you exchanged the word links with little icons. You changed the CD links which pointed to my Hang CD Index to the CD websites you found on my Hang CD Index. Then you added THREE new items: a)Yourself, b)Alchemists, c) Celtech. b) and c) doesn't contain any information about the Hang (try the "Find in page" search, You will not find the word hang). b) is an advertising site that sells stones and esoteric services. c) is a site of a band using "Drums, Bass, Guitar, Seqencing SONNY DAVIDSON: Guitar, Mandolin, Bass, Accordion, Drums, Sequencin" Hang isn't mentioned. That's said to the quality of the "additional" research work Thorbz did. Conclusion: Your directory doesn't "present in a much more tangible format and covers a broader range of items per artist." Therefor there isn't any advantage in comparison to the Hang Internet Index which is already linked in the article and provides much more links than the hang player links.

2) You come here to promote your own website. This is not the way external links are chosen for a wikipedia article. The external links that point on my websites were NOT chosen by me. When the first discussion on external links came up, I asked Gothang to look after the external links and chose the links that are adequate because I didn't want to be in conflict to decide on my own website. So it is not you who has to decide about your site being linked or not.

I challenge other Contributors to this article and especial Gothang to join the discussion and make a decision, because I don't want being seen as someone who fights for own interests. I presented my arguments. In a very short form they sounds like this: The "new" directory is a copy. The original is already linked. The copy isn't better than the original.

To the topic "edit war" (which is a technical term in Wikipedia) and deleting of my introducing Discussion on Thorbz' link I will not write more. Everybody can notice in the history how my introducing entry vanished. --Ixkeys (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting immensely bored with your incessant ramblings about a list of URL's on the Hangfan site. You cannot copyright URL's. You present them as research matter. That research matter was, among many other sources, also used to compile the list. Your linked indicies contain OUT-OF-DATE information. You wil of course now go and check and update it all - but the list presented at HangFan is UP-TO-DATE research based on multiple sources and therefore has more value as a list. You are making the accusations - you must prove them.

If you continue to maintain that the HTML presentation of a list of URL's using the ul and li tags is affected by copyright, I may be tempted to suggest some local psychiatric services to you. You can only copyright original work - a URL or HTML tags do not constitute your original work - nor is the presentation in any way based on any original work you have created - so STOP accusing me of copyright infringement and seek professional help for clarification.

The groups you mention all use the Hang instrument - whether they choose to currently publish music or details to that effect on their website is besides the point and entirely their choice. Celtech happens to be a band I belong to (and you may have noticed I play hang) and their info will soon be updated on the website front - so panic ye not.

Looking through the history of the discussion page, it looks like I did delete the original discussion by accident. Apologies to you for doing so, it was not intentional. There would not be ANY point in me doing this anyway!

Accusations of promoting my website are ridiculous, certainly when one inspects the German wiki and that around 75% of the links there point to your website. Claiming impartiality really doesn't wipe with me - knowing you created a third forum online for the very small hang community because you didn't like working with Gidda's forum and failing to approach me with some flimsy excuse of 'it wasn't busy enough' - just demonstrates your desire to not work WITH the community but to DICTATE what goes on within it with selfish motivation. This includes the Wiki pages in English and German - where you attempt to justify the high volume of links to your content and sites by claiming to be the authority on Hang-related information.

Admittedly, you do provide lots of good information on your sites and many of the Wiki links to your sites are VERY valid and welcome - but the power has gone to your head. You WANT to be TOP of Google search rankings (proven by your declarations in your email to me which I shall publish on the forum at hangfan) and has squeezed out other members of the Hang community whilst doing so under the pretext of upholding the Wikipedia rules of content selection.

Well, my list is more up to date than yours - FACT. You should update your list to retain the champion status you so desire. Have fun doing it. Meanwhile, my link will remain unpublished until a third party comes and helps adjudicate this utterly pointless banter.

Sorry forgot to sign in - Torbz.

Addendum: It is also to be noted that many, many months ago, the list was primarily (98%) a derivative work and credited to you at Hangblog. Now that it has changed profoundly, updated and improved and I post a link to Wikipedia, you suddenly take great offense and become highly defensive. Why? Because you are very bad at hiding your motives. It deserves a link on the Wiki because it is more informative and accurate than your list. It is improved based on my work and research not yours. FACT. Get over it.

81.131.190.123 (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Torbz, you wrote:

"That research matter was, among many other sources, also used to compile the list. Your linked indicies contain OUT-OF-DATE information. You wil of course now go and check and update it all - but the list presented at HangFan is UP-TO-DATE research based on multiple sources and therefore has more value as a list. You are making the accusations - you must prove them.

Ok, I must prove and I can prove.

a) At the date of 2009-09-8 the hangplayers list at hangblog.org includes 7 outdated links. If you look at the artist directory at hangfan.co.uk, there are the same 7 outdated links. No of them is corrected. Conclusion: You only have copied my list without controlling weather my data are correct.

b) If I look at the Hang CD Index at hangblog.org that contains all the links to CD sources you link directly in the artist directory at hangfan.co.uk, I find at the date of 2009-09-08 12 outdated links. Comparing these links with those in your artist directory, there are only 2 corrected and 2 deleted links. 1 outdated link is exchanged with a link to a source that doesn't contain information on Hang CDs of the artist. The remaining 7 outdated links are also uncorrected in your directory. Conclusion: You used the links from the Hang CD Index to add them to your artist directory. You only found 5 of 12 outdated links. And only for 2 of these 5 links you found correct new links by own research.

I will not change the outdated links at hangblog.org in the next days, as you assumed, so you and everybody else can control my statements.

Your artist directory is not more up to date than the list at hangblog.org. And your artist directory is a copy of the list at hangblog.org that is only slightly modified. It is not "based on multiple sources". Quod erat demonstrandum.

I stored a copy of your page at 2009-09-08 and can prove my conclusions.

My two arguments 1) and 2) (see my last post) are still standing and could not be disproved by you.

To your personal attacks against me (containing a lot of falsehood and rumours) I don't reply. It is not the way how contradicting opinions regarding a Wikipedia article should be discussed.

-- Ixkeys (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I could waste your time making you look at your out-of-date links and noticing that more of them on the HangFan list actually point to valid links whereas yours do not. So, you've admitted yourself that the hangfan list is more up to date, so you've inadvertantly proved my argument for me. Thanks.

You won't respond to what you call 'falsehoods' about you because you know there is no defense to the truth. Your actions speak a hundred times louder than your words, and even your words drive members of the small community away from your hang forum, because they see through you IX and are fed up of your over-bearing, bigoted, slef-assured attitude. Again, you hide conveniently behind the pretext of good Wiki behaviour to avoid confronting the issues that so many people have with your actions online, both here and on your own forums. Anyone who gives a monkeys (and I don't think many people really do) can go and look at the german wikis and the english one and see just what decisions and arguments you have given to allow you to form a perceived position of 'authority' in the Hang world.

No amount of justification using Wiki rules or anything else will cloak your actions - so many people can see it is true that you are a self-appointed Hang aficianado and push other around at will. Well, no more buddy and not me. Hangfan's directory is made up of multiple sources, whether you wish to see that or not. You cannot copyright a URL - understand that and you might give up this non-sensical crusade.

At this point, I'll be calling in a third party at Wiki to adjudicate this ridiculous state of play.

Another example of your high self-opinion - NOBODY else I know of wants to CONTROL your statements! They are not interested in your pointless assertions. Somebody please prove me wrong (who isn't a co-partner of one of your sites). By the way, quoting in Latin doesn't make you look clever - nos es non amused - and you should have said 'Quod is eram probo' Torbz (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Among these floods of words I was able to notice one argument that relates to my last posting:

"I'm glad I could waste your time making you look at your out-of-date links and noticing that more of them on the HangFan list actually point to valid links whereas yours do not. So, you've admitted yourself that the hangfan list is more up to date, so you've inadvertantly proved my argument for me. Thanks."

You're right, your directory is itsy bitsy more up to date: There are two links you have corrected that are not corrected at the Hangblog. Under almost 200 Links you corrected 2 Links. I think others shall estimate whether this advantage is a valid argument.

But concentrating on this very little advantage of your list, you didn't got my main argument: I did this research of outdate links in the list at Hangfan.co.uk and the list at Hangblog.org in order to prove that your statement that your list is "made up of multiple sources" is not true. Showing that you copied not only all the valid links but also the big majority of the outdated links, proves that your "work" is not an own research but an only slightly modified copy.

Noticing that you are not willing ore able to answer to my main arguments I will formulate them in the following again in a comprimated form, so everybody can understand what my opinion is:

1) There is a directory of Hang players with links to websites, myspace, youtube and CDs already linked in the article's external links section. This directory is part of a larger web directory called "The Hang Internet Index": http://www.hangblog.org/2006/11/27/the-hang-internet-index/

2) Torbz copied this directory from the Hangblog and added it slightly modified to his own website under the title "Hang Artist Directory".

3) Now Torbz whishes that his "Hang Artist Directory" should be added to the external links section of the article.

4) My Opinion is: No. And these are the reasons:

a) The "Hang Artist directory" is a copy of the Hang players list in the Hang Internet Index. If two similar internet recourses exist, the original should be linked and not the copy.

b) Adding the "Hang Artist Directory" link wouldn't bring any benefit to the readers but only double the already linked Hang players directory. And the Wikipedia guidelines says that the external links section should be as short as possible.

-- Ixkeys (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for sharing your opinion with the world. In response to your condensed arguement, I shall refute them individually as you fail to hear and understand how wrong you are.

1. Yes, we all know about your Internet Index, which is a good page and offers lots of links, you don't need to promote yourself and your work anymore to the Community or Wiki readers.

2. This is untrue and represents defamation. As I have consistently maintained, the artists directory is a result of research including your site and many others - most of which were found and verified using Google and other hang-related forums and websites.

3. Correct, as it is more up-to-date and contains several more links of relevant information than yours (not just what you have stated - you haven't looked closely enough my dear) - as I said, it is a work in progress.

4. No is not a very useful or valid opinion. Please try to be clearer about what your NO relates to. (I assume point number 3).

a. NO it isn't as already asserted in point 2. Stop repeating yourself - its tiresome. 'Similar' does not mean 'same'.

b. It would bring great benefit as your 'Internet Index' is a long, sprawling mass of occasionally incoherent links. The Artist Directory deals exactly with Artists and does so in a more cohesive and, frankly, prettier and more accessible fashion. Again, in case you were not listening, it is more up-to-date, contains more links to more artists than any other online.

We've now all heard your arguments and seen my response to them all - we must agree to disagree and let someone else decide. If no-one else decides for us within one month, then I shall make the appropriate edit, unless in your ultimate wisdom of Wiki you can point me to guidelines that suggest otherwise.

Again, you attempt to dominate the Hang wiki entries with a plethora of links to sites you run (as I mentioned you saturate the entries in German and English with around 75% of ALL links in the articles resources and links sections). This overly-heavy weighting links designed to 'promote' your sites and yourself as an authority in the Hang Community (as you admitted by e-mail) also go against the grain of a Community-spirited effort both here at Wiki and in the Hang playing Community and the plain, obvious evidence of your consistent behaviour of systematically removing links to other resources you regard as 'competition' in your self-proclaimed Google rankings war, can be seen by all.

Please, for the sake of all that is good and true in this small Community, stop "acting like a dictator" (quote taken from an opinion of you on YOUR own forum). Torbz (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think everything is said about what I outlined in my Points 1) to 4). Because the dicussed links regards to websites run by you and me, I suggest that nobody of us two makes any decision on the external links as from now. This is a good Wikipedia usage.

There is one issue left, because you continue to spread falsehood about my person:

"you attempt to dominate the Hang wiki entries with a plethora of links to sites you run"

This is not true. In the English Wikipedia article there are 2 links to my website in the external links section, both chosen by contributor gothang and not by myself. As a result of a discusson on the links issue you and I had in the beginning of 2008 (see in the /Archive) I didn't make any decision on a link regarding my own website from then on.

I think you also reference the "Reference" section. In this section there is NO link to my website. Links like the link to the "PANArt Hang booklet 2008" don't link to my website but to PANArt PDF sources directly. And it was also gothang who choose the sources for the "Reference" section and not I.

"This overly-heavy weighting links designed to 'promote' your sites and yourself as an authority in the Hang Community (as you admitted by e-mail)"

Perhaps you confuse me with someone else ore it is a walloping lie. I never sent an e-mail to you regarding such issues. Please stop to spread such falsehood.

"obvious evidence of your consistent behaviour of systematically removing links to other resources you regard as 'competition'"

Such a "consitent behaviour" doesn't exist. It is a single link (you regard as 'competition', not I) that I deleted: Your Artist Directory that I deleted because I started a discussion on it and you included the link again without discussing it before. --

Ixkeys (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Consistent Behaviour - You overlooked the German wiki. Lots and lots of links to your site there. Of the 35 external links 16 are to your site. On the english - 7 of 13 lead to your website. That's just under 50% of all WIKI links in english and German. If that is not a result of a concerted effort on your part, I don't know what is.

There's nothing wrong with links to good material but it is in YOUR interests (and you'd be lying if you denied it) to promote your websites and you've used your Wiki editing dominance (especially on the German Wiki) to make sure you work your way to removal of links that were on there for some time - proven SIMPLY by the sheer volume shown above.

Classic example - the eHang link on the English wiki remains - yet you delete it happily from the German Wiki as you meet no resistance there in your native tongue. Why? No consistency there in your process - exposing you.

BTW, a link constitutes a link to anything - image, page or document on your website - not just its base URL. PANArt don't have a website - so the "PDF sources" are "sourced" from you - that means a link to your site and this is also perceived by Google.

On reflection and inspection of my mails and communications, I believe it was your partner in some of the websites you run, Frank, who made this assertion of Google link importance - so apologies for the confusion.

You are correct about link decisions - you don't need anymore to your website. I, as a standing member of the community both on and offline, am the only person to have suffered this passive-aggressive approach to information control on the Wikis and you will always hide behind good practise and use the WIki rules to your benefit in protecting your weighted decisions and ability to influence. It's just obvious to me because I know your game too well IX, and have watched you from a distance for over 3 years and seen the flow of people turned away by your actions and attitudes, the further fragmentation of a small community by your desire to control one of the 3 main forums online - that is simply fact not opinion.

That which is just my opinion also marks the end of this discussion. I will not entertain anymore discussion about this matter of opinion. We obviously must agree to disagree about your motivations and actions. You can defend, I will expose until the cows come home. Good luck to you and your chosen life work - you have worked hard and done some great things, but I don't feel the need to further engage with this discussion on this matter.

FACT REAMINS: My artist directory still trumps yours in its value. It has a greater number of links, that are up to date and represent more artists - GET OVER IT and leave the link alone (should it ACTUALLY ever get put back in). Copyright is refuted and proven wrong - your only reason for link removal - Roll on GotHang or someone to help out.

The end, I hope.

Torbz (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In the following I restore an unsigned discussion entry that was put in here instead of the Chapter "Promotional tone banner, citations needed, and general issues with verifiability" that was deleted:

i have read this/these arguments thoroughly and as a hang player and enthusiast i think that the external link to the most uptodate and easy to use page is most advantageous to my needs; therefore i would like to see the link proposed by torbz used. i like the icons and even though there are only a few amendments that is enough to make it more informative and useful for everyone.

maybe the arguments can stop and the content can improve?

peace

mike

I think that wasn't peace, that was vandalism. And this anonymus who never contributed anything to the Hang article didn't state any new argument besides that he like the icons. -- Ixkeys (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Quote: "as a hang player and enthusiast i think that the external link to the most uptodate and easy to use page"

2. Quote: "is enough to make it more informative and useful for everyone"

Mike is far from anonymous. In fact, he's one of the moderators on your hang forum! So unless you're accusing your own community members of being vandals, your comment is (as usual) completely without foundation.

The fact he hasn't posted before on the Wiki does not make his opinion any less valuable. You are surely not a Wiki snob now too?

You wouldn't discount the opinions of the Pope if he commented in discussion on the validity of the Sacraments of the Catholic Church because he hadn't 'been on WikiP' before!

No surprise again that you read what you want to read.

You are the vandal - a valid third party has made a decision. Respect it and end your crusade here please IX.

Link will be re-instated due to the obvious inability of IX to make balanced, fair and useful judgements about the matter at hand.

Torbz (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am also an Hangplayer and I read all Forums. This Mike is not a moderator from Ixkeys forum. He is only a moderator from Torbz forum and a friend from Torbz. I dont think that this is the right person to make a decision. I think if this link is needfull for Wikipedia there should be a link to the original work from Ix and not to the copy from Torbz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.96.176.230 (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, very insightful Mr anonymous from Germany. A friend of mine's forum eh? Who's that then? Gidda at Hangmusic....nope. I don't even know who set up the handpan forum - so obviously you're talking rubbish.

Your point about 'the right person' is just opinion, the fact remains, they made a decision.

Your only reason is again that of 'copying' and this issue has been fully addressed before IX invited you to contribute to this discussion to support his case. Sorry, but this is a transparent and loaded attempt at undermining the Wiki discussion process and the directory at Hangfan remains the most thorough and complete list to date - now considerably larger than the one it replaces.

Torbz (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Torbz, your list doesn't replace anything else. You published a slightly modified copy of the list at Hangblog.org in order to promote your website at Wikipedia. This is not how Wikipedia external links work. The External Links are not a link list where anywhere can add his website if he like it. Read the Wikipedia guidelines on the external links. You can also see that the Hang article got the "promotional tone" and "references needed" banners. This means that the article is under higher monitoring and has to be improved. If you continue to use this article for promotion you risk that the whole article will be deleted. And by the way: I asked nobody to join the discussion by now. -- Ixkeys (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry IX. You are either blind or stupid. You obviously have not looked at the list at hangfan. All my above statements about it are true and correct - including the most important one that the directory at hangfan far exceeds the content and usefulness of your list. I've read the external links guide and the facts about the hangfan directory still stand true.

Your are correct in one point - The Hangfan directory replaces nothing else - it stands as its own piece of research work that far excels all else available as a resource on the web.

And, in addition, you have about 48% of ALL LINKS contained in the enlgish and german Hang wiki articles pointing to YOUR WEBSITE. Stop being a hypocrite - you obviously abuse the links to your own ends.

If you remove the link again against the wishes of third parties on this discussion and not just among your friends from Meppen, I shall report you for consistent vandalism against the spirit, practise and purpose of WikiP. I've asked you several times to stop now and you have refused.

Torbz (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

@Torbz. Stop the edit war! I am not a friend from Meppen as you wrote. I am also only a Hangplayer. I read your website complete very carefully. I think you want this LINK to your website for your commercial marketing. This is not how Wikipedia work. I see on your website commercial content. For example: You want to make money with second hand Hang dealings! I think Wikipedia is not a place for commercial promotion. So, please respect this @Torbz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.96.231.248 (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

IF you wish to contribute - have the decency to tell us who you are Mr anonymous, we obviously know you hence why you won't tell us. You can accuse me of whatever you wish regarding HangFan and commercial dealings. There are no such deals, look up the word DONATION in a dictionary. You see commercial content? HA HA!! And you want to try and associate my effort to present the best directory on the web as a commercial opportunity?? Maybe for every Hang player on the directory by proxy - they may see some convoluted financial benefit...

STOP throwing mud at me. It will not stick and you look desperate. Trying to make this association is a last ditch attempt to discredit my efforts at providing one quality link to a great resource for the Hang article.

USE YOUR EYES - compare the two - you will see I am right.

You have removed the link all the time, against the wishes of others on this discussion IX and now you have a German friend to support you, now that someone else has edited in favour of a better resource link on the article. It's pathetic.

If nobody else wishes to help decide this, I am reporting it to the dispute noticeboard.

Torbz (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a hang player too and have found the article about the hang very useful. I have read some of this discussion about the link that ixkeys and torbz are talking about and have looked at both pages on their sites. You can see a lot of the same links in both places but torbz has obviously spent a lot of time making a long list which does have a lot more links to hang players not on ixkeys list. It seems both people want to have links to their sites about the same subject of players online. I have to say that torbz's list has more information in one place than ixkeys. I would support the link to both sites as they are different in form, content and nature.

I think you guys should chill out a bit and let everyone have their links included. Wernerkrieg (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wernerkrieg, you are right that in the present there are more items in Torbz's list than in the list in the Hang Internet Index at the Hangblog. It is important to understand the discussion above, that the vast majority of these additional items were added by torbz in the last few days. You have to know that all my discussion entries refer on Torbz's list before he made this additions. Before this happened Torbz's list was only a slightly modified copy of the Hangblog list. And when Torbz added his link the first time, it was an exact copy of the Hangblog list and Torbz explicitly wrote on his site that he had taken the list from the Hangblog. Therefor I argued very strongly that copying content from another web page (that already is linked at the external link section of the Hang article) doesn't qualify a web page to be linked at the article.

Torbz, obviously you was very busy in the last days. ;) I'm not stupid. You know, why I don't look at your site every single day. If you delete my provider's IPs from your server's bann list, I will be happy to visit your site twice a day and appreciate any single improvement just in time :)

Because there are now own research activities noticeable at your directory I will not delete it but monitor it whether it is really a working project or only a promotion tool. But I will change the title of the link in "Hang players directory" because the current title is in "overly promotional tone" (see the banner on the top of the article). --Ixkeys (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I made a general update of the titles in the external links section in order to make them all "NPOV". I hope this can become consense. --Ixkeys (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can believe it - have we reached an agreement? Wow!! Well, thank you wernerkrieg, you obviously have actually bothered to look at the two lists.

Truce is called IX, I am happy for all. I have been busy for YEARS not days - people contact me and ask for inclusion in the list and I do too actively seek players online contstantly. AS I said, it was a constant evolution - there's many things you are not aware of about this directory but you will find out in good time. :)

The list was and still is only a collection of links - feel free to replicate it. IF you wish to be 'the best' at gathering info on Hang players, this is good, becasue you will strive to always improve upon it. This is only a good thing for Hang players and they are my interest and concern above everything else.

Consider yourself removed from the server's IP list... Torbz (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about 'Obtaining a Hang' section

It appears an anonymous user has repeatedly removed this section. I recently updated it to indicate that it is an informative area, as in my experience people interested in the PANArt Hang also have questions about how one is obtained. It is a historical section that does not indicate directly how one can be purchased and does not appear (to me) to be commercial spam. If there is a concern about that section, please help illuminate the editors as to why it should be removed. GotHang (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

External Links - Hang player's Websites

Today I deleted three Websites of Hang players. These are the reasons: There are many Hang players with websites. It isn't possible to find reasonable causes to choose only a few of them for the link list of this article. On the other hand Hang player's websites can be easily found with two other pages linked in the list: The Hang CD Index and The Hang Internet Index. Therefor it is the best to add no Hang player's website to the list.

If someone thinks Hang player's websites should be added to the external links, please discuss the topic here before you add a link to the article. Ixkeys (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed an additional specific Hang Player's reference from the page as well. Ideally this article should not be used to promote any specific artist or recording.

--GotHang (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The WiiHang

Infrared Music and the Integral Hang

The Wiihang is a particular type of prepared Hang firstly introduced by luthier Roberto Regazzi in the summer 2009, which uses the Wii remote controller to pair a PanArt Integral Hang with one or more midi sound modules running from a computer connected to an external audio.

The WiiHang - Discussion

Do we need a chapter about the WiiHang in the article? I think not. It is a very specialised topic and we have to concentrate on the main aspects of the topic in the article. There is no chapter about "Guitar hero" in the guitar article and also no text about prepared piano in the piano article. If we leave the WiiHang we have also to mention the use of contact microphones to produce electronicly modified Hang sounds or the use of T-shirts to dampen the Hang ;-) Perhaps the WiiHang could be added to the Wii article if the authors there think it is important enough, but it is misplaced in the Hang article. There is also a source problem: Only one source exist and we cannot cannot estimate its reliability.

I will wait for a week. If then no arguments for the WiiHang chapter are added here I will delete it. -- Ixkeys (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Good to see you are now stating a time frame to invite discussion into changing the article and not making autonomous editing decisions. I think you are right to assert its removal and agree with the reasoning you state. Torbz (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Do we need a chapter about the WiiHang in the article? I think yes because:

• This topic has nothing to do with "contact microphones" or "Guitar Heros".
• We are not talking about different ampli systems (relevant in any case for the Hang, after having experimented its particularities) and we are not filing another Wii game.
• We are talking about a union which gives life to a new instrument in its whole, and to a completely different way of playing it, ceinly worthy to be mentioned inside the article, among the other things, more than a whole chapter on "Obtaining a hang".
• You did not find text about prepared piano in the piano article because "prepared piano", being such an huge subject, is an article by itself now. Of course people should know what is a "prepared piano" when there are composers writing for "prepared piano", exactly as people should know what is a Wiihang - even considering it as a method - and even if it is so new and unusual. To be more precise probably the latter should have a dedicated article as the former has  :-) .
• As professional musicologist I saw personally a WiiHang demonstration and I find it much more than a "prepared" instrument. It's a re-invention of the instrument.
• The WiiHang project is a new born, but, being freely documented, could have success. It would be sad to rescue this chapter only then...

--Gardanus (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hallo, I am a musicologist too. I agree with collegue Gardanus: this is not t-shirt dampeninig of the instrument. The system is really interesting. I think it deserves to be kept. Thank you.

--Claudiorita (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep it/ --Cascott (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There are several points that have to be discussed on the WiiHang. I never heard a demonstration. I only know the information given in the link. One main question is whether the WiiHang isn't a hang but only a interface to play OTHER electronic instruments. A second serious question is whether WiiHang is allowed to be called WiiHang. It needs permission of the makers of the Hang because Hang is a registered trademark!. I think it is too early to put the WiiHang on the article. Too many questions have to be researched and discussed before. You can see A few lines down that the Hang article "seriously lacks third-party citations". Therefor it received the citation needed banner and many citation needed hints in the text.

My suggestion is: Let us store the WiiHang chapter here in the discussion and wait until the extensive changings on the text that will be required, are done. After this we can better see whether the WiiHang is adequate to be added to the text. In the meanwhile those who are interested in the WiiHang can search for more resources. I also invite you to visit the Hang Forum http://www.hangforum.com and introduce and discuss the WiiHang there. So we can better understand what it is and how it will be estimated in relation to the Hang. -- Ixkeys (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with Ixkeys: it is better to wait more info on this system, or method which leads to think at a new instrument in its hybrid. I moved here the article I posted a few days ago, but I agree with Gardanus and others on the need for a dedicated article and a chapter on the Hang page about this curiosity. It is true that the system can be applied to other musical instruments as well, but for many reasons it seems that the Hang suites quite well infrared relating technologies :) --Florenus (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit curious, Florenus, that you agree with me, annouce that you have moved the WiiHang Chapter to the discussion page, but don't mention with any word that you added a new paragraph to the article. I found this paragraph today accidently and decided to move it to the discussion page too and add some comments:

"A number of variations in the method of playing it were proposed. They are in the process of being documented, but it is possible to cite some in brief:"

Who proposed this variations? Who documents them? Such statements are not qualified for a Wikipedia article.

"the use of gloves or different pads applied to the fingers (with the effect of changing the harmonics content of their percussive impact),"

Who does use gloves? Why? Is it really a good method to play the Hang? There are different opinions on using gloves and there are only a few players who use them. And there are different motivations. Some use it because they have problems with the fingers, some because they fear the sweat can cause rust on the Hang, and others because they hit the Hang too hard with the thumbs and need the gloves to make the sound softer. I don't know anybody who uses gloves as a method to change the timbre at certain pieces. You see the topic gloves contains much more than you thought. Therefor gloves cannot only be listet as a method of playing.

"the use of magnets applied inside or outside the body (to change the frequency and timbre of main notes),"

Source? I never heard of this. I assume you confused the Hang with a special tank drum that uses magnets to change pitch.

"the application of contact microphones and sound amplification with delay effects, etc."

I know only one documented case that this was done by John Pascuzzi. Worth to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article? We had to be very busy to mention all variations of Hang playing that were ever done. ;-)

"All these experimental methods bring to the concept of Prepared Hang,"

A "concept of Prepared Hang" doesn't exist. I think you invented it. It is not the function of a Wikipedia article to develop new terms or concepts. Wikipedia is only to document existing terms and concepts.

"which seems to suite well this type of versatile instrument."

The makers of the Hang, Felix Rohner and Sabina Schärer would vehemently contradict, that a concept of Prepared Hang suits well to the Hang. Especially the newer versions of the "new generation" (2006-2007) and the Integral Hang (since 2008) doesn't suit well with the mentioned methods. The Hang is optimized for the hands, so using gloves will diminuish the sound possibilities not increase them. Try to play on a Integral Hang with gloves! It will not please you. Contact microphones or magnets disturb the the complex play of tensions and waves in the Hang shells. Just the contact of the Gu side with a hard body at a single point can damp the tone fields above this point.

The recent so-called Wiihang is not only an attempt to apply midi to the Hang with an infrared technique, but introduces enhanced sound contents with a rather different method of playing it .

I think we both agree to wait after the article is revised an meet the Wikipedia standards before the decision whether the WiiHang should be mentioned in it.

My main conclusion is that this paragraph has too little content, that meets the Wikipedia standards, in order to remain in the article. I again propose to wait until the revision that is needed to meet the standards of the both banners, before we think of adding such topics, because we will see more clearly whether those new topics have enough qualified sources and whether they are really necessary in the article -- Ixkeys (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand.

The Hang is a fantastic instrument even without any additional gadget, I am sure!! :)

Anyway we certainly assist to some uncommon uses of it which I think should be mentioned.

When I added my few notes to 'Playing the Hang' I gave no judgement to the sound output obtained with the different methods used. I simply took a picture of the situation. A player can have different reasons why wearing gloves, not necessarily to make the Hang sounding 'better', as it is the case -just to mention an example- of the violin mute, but as a consequence its timbre is affected, as magnets here affects pitch.

This is even more true for the Hang due to its peculiarity to be extremely sensitive to touch.

Special effects has always been used during the centuries with many musical instruments: a Wikipedia article should document all what is possible in my opinion, in the user's practice.

Probably I agree with you that natural sound with a great performer has no equal, but we are not expressing judgements here on what is better or what is worst. The Prepared Hang exists as a matter of fact. I think this name is consistent with other cases but we can find another name, if you want. And when there is too little information we can wait for it.

At the end I only intended to give a little contribution to this article because I am expecting that Wikipedia will list all the possibilities for a musical instrument (as done with other articles): if it is not appropriate here just delete it -when there is a general agreement- :)

--Florenus (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on "Instruments influenced by the Hang"

I put the following chapter from the article to the discussion page to discuss whether and (if yes) how other instruments should be included in the article.

"In 2007, American musical instrument inventor Dennis Havlina was inspired by the Hang to create a more accessible folk instrument called the Hank drum out of a twenty lb propane tank. Like the Hang, the Hank drum is an idiophone but unlike the Hang, the notes are cut out in the form of tongues. The sound of the Hank drum is similar to the Hang and to the steelpan." Ixkeys (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I do think it might be worthwhile discussing the influence of the Hang on other instruments. If the Hank is to be referenced Jim Doble (http://www.tidewater.net/~xylojim/childrensmuseum.html) should be credited with the Whale Drum as being an early expression of the Hank, the influence of the Tambiro (http://youtube.com/watch?v=pv1FQCeCTIA), and the general concept of the tongue drum. This might be the place to reference the Caisa, Hank, HAPI, 1Tone, VibeDrum, TurtlePan, Halo, Blackbell, Bells Drum, etc.

GotHang (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea CharlesJustice (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is worthy to inform about all the instruments influenced by the Hang. But I think this is currently not a task for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and one of its principles is to provide information that is reliably published otherwise and not to create new information that the Wikipedia authors researched themselves. The history of instruments inspired by the Hang is too new. There aren't any reliable publibations that can be used as sources for Wikipedia articles. There are also some important questions open. For example: How can the relationship between these instrument systematically be described? I think these questions must be answered in the future. As Wikipedia authors we have to wait until we can write something reliable in our article. --Ixkeys (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the internet? There is a lot of youtube videos demonstrating these types of instruments out there.It appears that all the steel slit drum instruments were inspired by the original Hank Drum. As for the whale drum, would someone please give me a link. I cannot find anything on it CharlesJustice (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Wikipedia guideline on No original research. --Ixkeys (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a difficult decision, as there are many factors that could be considered 'opinion' and 'original research'. To my mind it feels correct to cite YouTube videos demonstrating instruments (Hank, Tambiro, Caisa, etc.) that also reference the influence of the Hang. This would not be entered in as opinion on the part of the editor here at Wikipedia.

As has been pointed out earlier in another section of the discussion Wikipedia is not only a hallowed ground where solidified ideas are recorded, it is a vibrant and changing community research location. To deny newcomers to the Hang the information regarding the offshoots feels like the wrong way to approach the article. If there is a separate section titled "Hang Influenced/Related Instruments" it feels like it would be separate from the PANArt creation and the other information in the article. Steelpan Related instruments and Tongue Drum Related instruments as sub categories.

On the other hand it can indeed get to be a bit of a noisy section with everyone who's making their own version of a Hank trying to reference their instrument.

Please let me know your thoughts. GotHang (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I need some more time for my answer. Ixkeys (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sales agreement phrase

I want to discuss the last phrase of the article: "as well the new sales agreement based on principles of Droit de suite". This phrase is highly mistakable. I think the idea behind this phrase is that the sales agreement since 2008 causes that no instruments built since 2008 can be sold via second hand market, and that this decreases the number of Hanghang that can be sold on the second hand market. But the reader who follows the link to Droit de suite learns that the priniciple of Droit de suite is that artists "perceive a fee on the resale of their works of art". Therefor he understand the discussed phrase in this way: The second hand market prices of Hanghang are so extraordinary high because PANArt perceive a fee when a Hang is sold second hand. And this is completely wrong.

I propose to delete the whole phrase, because

• (1) the phrase is highly mistakable as explained above.
• (2) an effect of the sales agreement on the second hand market prices cannot be shown. They went up in 2007 before the agreement existed and didn't heighten in 2008 and 2009 in evidence above the prices of 2007.
• (3) the sales agreement is not a cause of the high second hand market prices but a reaction of PANArt to the high second hand market prices that aimes at lowering the second hand Hang prices for all Integral Hanghang. So the agreement is completely misunderstood if mentioned only as a cause for high second hand market prices (which is speculative as explained under (2) ).

-- Ixkeys (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I was the person who added the reference to the Droit de Suite, and it was added based on a conversation with the makers in 2008 when they referenced the Droit de Suite as a tool that inspired a friend of theirs to suggest a contract to protect the rights of the Artist in the complex marketplace (as the Droit de Suite does). It was not added to indicate that there is a relationship between rising prices and the contract. Perhaps the section can be restructured so as to properly indicate the intention behind the contract, but it seems that there is value in indicating that the precedent of the Droite de Suite is what sparked PANArt to create the contract.

--GotHang (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested to read the restructured section. But we have to consider that Wikipedia is not a place to publish information for the first time. Any information has to be able to be referenced by other sources. There are no external sources for the Droit de Suite (your conversation isn't one independent from the question whether you as a person are credible). In published texts PANArt never mentioned it. But this is not the main issue. I think The Droit de Suite is a very bad mean to explain PANArt's agreement to the readers of the article, because the Droit de Suite is used in order to increase the profit of the artist while PANArt's agreement doesn't aim at this. It is a mean to keep the price far under the market price (so it decreases the artist's profit). I wonder if anyone is able to put all this understandable in one short paragraph. So my main argument is, that mentioning the Droit de Suite is dispensable. In an encyclopedia article we have to search for the briefest way to explain the item.

I suggest to replace the text "This has been due to several factors including an increased demand since 2006 (high YouTube exposure), a reduction in supply due to changes in the manufacture and distribution of Hanghang, as well the new sales agreement based on principles of Droit de suite." with a new text that explains the agreement. I think it is also reasonable because the current text is a bit of personal point of view. Someone could also have the opinion, that the only reason for price explosion is greed combined with the knowledge that there are some people (200 worldwide would be enough) able and willing to pay such prices.

This is an outline of the new text I suggest: "In order to keep the prices for new Hanghang on a payable level and avoid speculation with Integral Hanghang in future PANArt introduces a legal agreement, that... (here follows a short explanation how the agreement works)" I do not try to formulate a whole draft because as a native English speaker you are the better one to formulate it. ;-) As reference for this information the Hang Booklet can be used. --Ixkeys (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Updated the section, removed reference to Droit de Suite, added link to the booklet and referenced the pages that outline the agreement.

--GotHang (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Promotional tone banner, citations needed, and general issues with verifiability

Hey all, I've added two banners and several citation needed tags. I think with some work we can make this a great, well-cited, neutral POV article.

First, this article thus far is overly promotional. The sentence about it being a "sound sculpture", for example, reads like a press release. Many instruments could be argued as being a) handmade and b) having "architectural" elements (what does that mean exactly?) but we don't call them "sound sculptures". Is there a citation to show this is an accepted characterization of the instrument, and not just a vanity? Likewise about "many years of research", "much metallurgical research...by the makers", "They have a little workshop in Berne where every Hang in existence was created", etc. Not to mention the editorial transition from "the makers" to the oddly capitalized "Hang Makers" (does anyone know what's up with that?). I think with some tweaking we can purge this article of the occasionally promotional tone.

Second, this article seriously lacks third-party citations - hence the second banner. There are five references, all either written by or affiliated with the two creators of this instrument. Does anyone know of some third-party source material? This strikes me as a pretty dire issue, neutrality and verifiability-wise. A good example is the "Obtaining of a Hang" section - I think it's a section that's relevant to the instrument, no argument there - but it sounds like a summary of an online message-board thread or something. Lots of vague, unverified "it was indicated" and "there were reports" claims. It also, I think, could be trimmed down to a single paragraph. I'll give it three weeks to see if anyone might be able to contribute some citations, otherwise I'll start paring it down.

Anyway, hopefully we'll be able to strengthen this article! --Undobutton (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right with the two banners, and I also think we can work on the article and improve it. I'm the main author of the German Wikipedia article http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hang_(Musikinstrument). A few months ago I started a review of the article in order to get feed back and help for the improvement. Another wikipedian and I worked very carefully on the article and I think we solved the neutral POV issue as well as the third-party citations issue. So feel free to take the German article as a source to help to improve the English one. I can help with references, citations, structures and rough translations from German to English. For the finished text I'm not the right person, because my English isn't good enough. -- Ixkeys (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try to be clear on my take on the sections that are being objected to based on 'tone' and 'verifiability'. The issue is that the Hang is a relatively new creation with a limited exposure. There are not many third party references that can be obtained. Also, as the Hang is hand made by two people who choose not to publish much in the way of news and updates and do not maintain a web presence, or any kind of 'storefront', it is difficult to get clear verifiable information. Much has been gleaned from web boards and conversations with visitors to the HangBauHaus in Bern to populate this article.

Also, as I can't find a wikipedia page assocated with Undobutton, I'm not sure how or why this user has chosen to make themselves the arbiter of 'cleaning this page up'. Does that user have some authority or information that is lacking?

--GotHang (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there GotHang! I'd like to reassure you that I have no intention of hijacking or controlling the editing process of this article, and I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I'd love to work with you, and all the other contributors of this article, to improve the tone and verifiability of this article. Although I have no particular authority or expertise regarding the Hang, I'm familiar with Wikipedia's standards and I think I may be able to make useful contributions. As you and Ixkeys have addressed, I understand the problem we face regarding the novelty of this instrument, and I hope we can tackle it together. --Undobutton (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Undobutton, but what he writes meets what I have learned when I worked intensively on the German article over several years. Therefor I knew that it was only a question of time that an experienced "Wikipedian" finds the Hang article and asks for a higher quality that meets the Wikipedia standards. I think, if you read the linked pages provided by the banners you will understand better what Undobutton is challenging us. It is not meant as an "arbiter" but to declare that there are quality problems in the article. That is nothing bad. Many Wikipedia articles begin with lacking of quality and become better over the time. Many Wikipedia authors (like me too) began with no or very little experiencs what Wikipedia is and how it works. For many of them is working on a Wikipedia article like training on the job.

A problem only arise if lackings of quality remain and the authors are not willing to work on them. Then it can occure that the article will be proposed to be deleted (worst case). Therefor it is reasonable to care for the quality of an Wikipedia article when it is challenged. I have learned that challenging a higher quality is a help to get a better result not a critique that wants to push you down.

Undobutton provides us to learn about the "neutral point of view" and "reliable sources" concepts of Wikipedia. And we can cope with it on the Hang article!

Now some general thoughts about the two concepts in relation to the Hang article:

I think it isn't very difficult to meet the "neutral point of view" standard. It only needs a sum of work. My personal problem is that I cannot help with own proposals for new formulations, because my English is not good enough. I can only put my comment to proposals of others.

The "reliable sources" concept is a more difficult issue. You (Gothang) are right that the Hang is a new creation with a limited exposure. This is a problematic fact regarding "reliable sources". It isn't a problem, that the creators of the Hang don't have a website because all what we need from them is well documented in their publications that already are in the reference section of the article. We only have to cite them in the notes section (if necessary!!!). I propose to use a three step method: 1) If we have a third party reference we should use it. 2) If there is only a PANArt reverence we should use it. 3) If there isn't neither a third party nor a PANArt reference we will have to discuss whether this statement can remain in the article.

I hope Undobutton will help with comments and proposals from the neutral reader's point of view and as someone who seem to have some experience with the Wikipedia standards. I think if we explain some special Hang issues to him, he will probably not hyper draconic on some third party reference lackings ;-) -- Ixkeys (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the article doesn't sound like an advertisement and I agree that there isn't much that we can do to show a more neutral point of view since the instrument is so new and I don't know if opinions opposing the drum even exist yet. I would think that the first banner can be taken down, but that the one requiring references still needs to be fixed. Ixkeys, if you want to give any suggestions for how to fix things, I would be happy to help on the English and grammar. Even if you write it in German I have some friends that could help me translate. Nathan Wonnacott (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of Domination with links

Some days ago I was serious accused "to dominate the Hang wiki entries with a plethora of links to sites you run" /Archive#Hang_Artist_Directory. Unfortunately nobody execpt me answered to this accusaton. Therefor I have to act in an explicit way to make clear that I do not dominate the Wikipedia article: I will delete all links from the article that point to my domain. If others think, that one or some or all or other links to my domain are useful or necessary, they have to take responsibility themselves and add it or them newly. I will not influence or comment it. It is not longer my decision (and I think it would be wise if other domain owners do the same following the rule not to add links to own websites). --Ixkeys (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the German wiki entry too. Consistency of demonstration might be important. Torbz (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You are not in the postion to critcise anything regarding external links as long you add your own website yourself to the article. Beside this the German article is a completely other issue and not to be discussed here but in its own discussion page. -- Ixkeys (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No criticism was inferred or stated in that statement IX. Consistency might be important. That is the end of this now. Torbz (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Great advice, Torbz! If you are serious about this, we will probably see you soon deleting your two links in the article? -- Ixkeys (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but your prerogative is not mine. Your attempt at false modesty is lost on me. 'Your' consistency might be important. You can let go now Michael. The discussion has ended. Torbz (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Due to this, many questions remain unanswered. @Torbz please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution On the "Artist Directory discussion" you offend a lot of times against the Wiki rules. It seems to me, that you also not should add links to your own website. By the way. The E-Hang is only a funny toy. Samples cant say something about the sound quality of the Hang. An encyclopedia is not a Link list to promote websites. + Quote: Links normally to be avoided. Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See rich media for more details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links see Links normally to be avoided 8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahagu (talk • contribs) 12:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the fray Pahagu. You are re-treading old ground on the discussion front regarding this whole debacle.

If you wish to dig up the detail once again to bore the nuts off me, please do. It's not enough to simply accuse. You need to back it up with some detail. If you wish to instigate yet another discussion, please list all of the points you have raised referring to the discussion concerning another topic.

Whether you think the eHang is a funny toy or not, is neither here nor there- its nothing but your opinion and useless in this realm of discussion. I shall look into your link regarding rich media and make an assessment based on what I learn.

HangFan - people go there because they find it interesting and it runs under its own steam - no promotion is necessary. I assume you too will examine the German wiki to notice the vast array of 'promotional' (your term not mine) links to hangblog. Torbz (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Having inspected the rich media guidelines, your assertion is misguided. Read the article exactly and understand what it says - it appears you extrapolate what you wish to read to defend a point not necessarily worth making. The page is not exclusively presented in flash and over 99% of all internet-enabled desktop computers use it, so I really wouldn't panic too much about accessibility - nice of you though it is, to consider that < 1% of people browsing the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torbz (talk • contribs) 23:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

OH and in addition, you broke the rules by removing a link without discussion first. By the way, the quote you took from the article about links has an addenudm - SEE RICH MEDIA - which then goes on to explain, in detail, the criteria. "Where a link to rich media is deemed appropriate, either as a direct link or embedded within an HTML page, an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the relevant content must be given".

Link will be reinstated to fit these criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torbz (talk • contribs) 00:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

@Torbz. Please read the Wiki rules. All what you do on Wiki is Link to your own website. Here is the argument, why the E-Hang is not useful for the Hang article. 1. You dont read the article about Links to be avoided. I qoute again: "Links normally to be avoided. Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See rich media for more details." Your website is not about Flash or Java. It is a Fansite about Hang. Only this criteria is enough to delete the E-Hang link. It is not my opinion it is a Wiki rule!

Please dont break the Wiki rules again. Wiki is an project where people work together. If you dont see this point, think about your work on Wiki and if Wiki is also your project. Pahagu (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

@Pahagu - German Wiki discussion removed because it belongs in the german discussion.

@Torbz: Don't delete the entries of other users!!!! It was you who argued with the German article and the text you deleted included the answers to your argument. What do you think who you are, that you are allowed to delete other user's discussion entries???

Here I have restored the text deleted by Torbz: -- Ixkeys (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

@Torbz "the German wiki to notice the vast array of 'promotional' (your term not mine) links to hangblog": Keep the German Wikipedia article out of this discussion. It has a much higher quality standard than the English article. Almost each sentence was discussed and improved when the article went through an intensive review. You haven't understood the difference between 'external link' and 'reference'. Each reference in the German article you are critizing is necessary as a source for citation to be a reference for statements in the article. So if you think you have to criticize something do it in the right place an not here. -- Ixkeys (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with IX. This discussion page is only about the english Wikipedia Hang article. If you have questions or critic about the german Wikipedia project go to the german discussion page @Torbz. Pahagu (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read the rules and understand what they specify exactly - do not attempt to interpret them as you wish. I'll help you understand the english. The important words are capitalised to stress their relevance.

Guideline states: "SEE RICH MEDIA FOR DETAILS" - this is effectively an expansion of the overlying rule to qualify what WikiP requires in detail. This is proven by the fact that where such link ARE given that they must conform to a standard explained in greater detail. Let me help you understand that qualifying detail.

States: "as some pages may instead be rendered SOLELY by platform-dependent plugins" - the page is an XHTML document with a small embedded flash object and is not SOLELY reliant on a flash plug-in.

States: "Try to avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software" - the link provided is to a page rendered in HTML not directly to an SWF-based website.

States: "It is always PREFERRED to link to a page rendered in normal HTML that contains EMBEDDED LINKS to the rich media." - clarification that the above assertion is valid.

States: "Where a link to rich media is deemed appropriate, either as a direct link or embedded within an HTML page, an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the relevant content must be given" - the link was correctly edited to adhere to this requirement."

So sadly Pahagu, it is you who hypocritically removes links without the necessary discussion first required by WikiP. YOU are guilty of breaking the rules my dear friend not I. You correctly assert the need to work together, but in fact, you made a unilateral decision based on your false interpretation of the rules written in a language not native to you, which is forgivable.

Therefore, I shall undo your mistake having explained to you the nature of your misunderstanding and adhered to the necessary form of discourse required by WikiP before action is taken. We can continue to discuss until consensus is reached.

By the way, HangFan is a community resource, not a FAN site per se. You cannot download pin-ups on the Hang or its makers, nor are they revered as typical subjects of fan sites are. The word FAN is used in the context of FANNING out the knowledge and beauty of the instrument and its players into the world.

God bless you. Torbz (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

@Torbz. You dont understand the point. Your article is about the Hang and not about Flash. Please stop to link again to your own website. This is one more rule on Wiki! By the way. I see, that you found self the article in the rules that Fansite links be avoided on Wikipedia. The title from your website "Hangfan" say clear what your website is. A Fansite. So, before link again to your own website, go to an wikipedia admin and ask him what to do. The next question after that is, that samples dont help in any way to understand more about the Hang. Your link is not needfull! Pahagu (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

@Pahagu

You are being extremely aggressive in your discussion and editing. You are not absorbing the points raised in the discussion AT ALL and still making aggressive edits. You have not addressed any of the legitimate points and explanations I have raised and it is YOU who should consult an admin about what to do - especialy where you change content that has been there for a long time.

The second point is YOUR opinion about the usefulness of seeing the notes, triggering them by hand and seeing how they relate positionally and tonally to each other and indeed, is indicative of who a Hang can be played with its placing of notes in a scale, and as such remains a personal judgement with which consensus must be reached before being decided upon. Likewise, the hundreds of visitors to that page everyday would appear to disagree with you. There is no other possibilities to explore these features of a Hang anywhere on the web - hence the uniqueness of this interactive way of informing.

You conveniently ignore (yet again) the exact point about 'FAN' sites - it is a formal informative source and a community resource. You cannot distinguish this from any other site offering background or historical information about the Hang. It is a title, a word, I decide what it means not you. All you can do is represent what the title evokes for you personally, not actually express its creator's intention - and I have explained that clearly but you ignore it.

CONSENSUS IS NOT REACHED: DO NOT EDIT until you address the points raised systematically and rationally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.82.149 (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

@Torbz. You ignore all the time this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links see Links normally to be avoided

After this, we can speak about if samples are needfull or not. But your link is only about the E-Hang and you need plugins. What do you mean with "last warning" on your comments? Is this a threat? Please, please Torbz. Come back with an Wiki admin and let him make a decision. Anoter rule is not to link own websites. So stop to link to your own page again. Pahagu (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

@PaHAGu - I don't know if it's because english is not your native language or you just simply want to cause trouble - I REPEAT:

>>>>>> Please re-read the rules and understand what they specify exactly - do not attempt to interpret them as you wish. I'll help you understand the english. The important words are capitalised to stress their relevance.

Guideline states: "SEE RICH MEDIA FOR DETAILS" - this is effectively an expansion of the overlying rule to qualify what WikiP requires in detail. This is proven by the fact that where such link ARE given that they must conform to a standard explained in greater detail. Let me help you understand that qualifying detail.

States: "as some pages may instead be rendered SOLELY by platform-dependent plugins" - the page is an XHTML document with a small embedded flash object and is not SOLELY reliant on a flash plug-in.

States: "Try to avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software" - the link provided is to a page rendered in HTML not directly to an SWF-based website.

States: "It is always PREFERRED to link to a page rendered in normal HTML that contains EMBEDDED LINKS to the rich media." - clarification that the above assertion is valid.

States: "Where a link to rich media is deemed appropriate, either as a direct link or embedded within an HTML page, an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the relevant content must be given" - the link was correctly edited to adhere to this requirement." <<<<<<<<<

It is not usual that a cogent and coherent examination of the discussed points are so blatantly ignored - but you choose to remain defiant against discussion. Last warning was a POINT I was making that you obviously do not address the points of the discussion but blindly continue along your path of vandalism and you are getting yourself into a hole very quickly - and all for what??

You will cause an edit war and anyone reviewing the arguments should bother to respond to the points raised by myself regarding the EXPLICIT FINE CLARIFICATION of the external links explanation - "SEE RICH MEDIA FOR DETAILS". The word "DIRECT" is the first one you read in section 8 followed by "LINKS"- hello??? - put the two together - "DIRECT LINKS" - these words actually indicate something, they have a meaning - they are expanded by the "Rich Media" section.

You must call an admin to get clarification more than I, it would seem. You obviously are not acting in good faith.

QUOTE you: "Anoter rule is not to link own websites." - qualify this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.82.149 (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Torbz. I am not stupid and the other Wiki members could easy see what you want.

1. I know the article "See rich media files" and yes, your link is not a direct link to the E-Hang. But the important content on your link is the E-Hang and for that you need a plugin. You failed on the first criteria and the "rich media file" article is only important for articles about Java, Flash... and something like that. I speak with an native englisch speaking person about that.

2. You ask that I should qualify that another rule is not to make links to own websites. Ok, here you find this rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links See article: "Advertising and conflicts of interest". I quote: "It is true that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own." Please dont think that you can ask a person who has nothing to do with Wikipedia to link your websites again. You said to member Ixkeys a few weeks ago, that he want to dominate Wiki with links. The result was, that Ixkeys delete all his links and ask fair that another Wiki member should decide. So, this rule is about all your links on this Wiki. So, I will delete your Website links and ask a third party to decide.

3. Another Rule in this context on the same page i linked above is not to link to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites You run a Fansite. Hangfan is part of the Url. It is easy to see.

Please, Torbz. Dont ignore all these points again. Pahagu (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Pahagu. I have watched this discussion and can see that you are not playing by the rules you are talking about all the time. The rules you always state about rich media are open to interpretation because the language is not infallible and can be taken a number of ways.

I looked through the article too and can see both your point and Torbz point about how to interpret what is said there. Technically, Torbz's interpretation does follow the language in its most literal sense. Only an admin should really be able to help at this point because you don't read the rules in the same way.

Instead, Torbz discussion refers several times to all the points you raise and he addresses all the points about fan sites and the purpose of the website. You ignored this and still push the only point you have on this time and time again. Ignoring the course of the discussion and taking action against the flow of discussion is breaking Wiki rules. The name hangfan is just a name, the same way if my name was Adolf Hitler, it would not make me an evil dictator because the association and usage of that name has been dominated by that one overwhelming instance of it. Anyway, Torbz explained his use of the word and actually its a clever play on words that you might not understand as a non-native english speaker. A manufacturer of fans could say it is a device to keep your Hang cool in the summer, an admirer of the Hang could say they are a fan of it, or you could fan the Hang vibes through the air when you play in the street - it is a visionary and artistic statement I believe - not the clinical, hyper-logical sense that you like to look at it as.

If you can find other links to pages with flash content in them then your interpretation of the rule is rubbish. I don't have time to look but I'm sure they are out there.

I am a 3rd party and have been in these discussions much longer than you so my interest is in how I came to discover this Wiki and the helpful things I found in it, including the links both IXKeys and Torbz have put in the article.

I think they are all good in their own way and should all be put back. I will do this if you don't want to.

Werner Wernerkrieg (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wernerkrieg. I qoute the full context for you: "It is true that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines."

The only thing you have done for Wikipedia in the foretime was to register a new account to help Torbz a few weeks ago. You dont say anything to the realy important fact that Ixkeys delete all his links, because Torbz accused Ixkeys to dominate the Hang Wiki entries with a plethora of links to sites he run. Ixkeys links are realy important for this article. What have you done? Nothing!!! Your only job is to help Torbz. You are unacceptable to decide what to do with Torbz links. Only an Wiki Admin can do this, or an editor who worked on this article in the foretime. Sorry. Pahagu (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OMG! I can't believe what you have just written. So for the record, you are telling another Wiki user that they are not entitled to contribute to a discussion or editing content??

I think what you've said Hag is dangerous for WikiPedia. You COMPLETELY undermine the WHOLE point of its operation. Just because someone does not agree with your opinion and they are relatively new to editing and commenting, YOU CANNOT say those things, it's rude, dis-ingenuous and plain WRONG!

If that logic were indeed logical, I should tell you the same thing because you are EXACTLY what you accuse other to be.

Wernerkrieg, I appreciate your support in the discussion and the time you've taken to involve yourself and actually attempt to make editorial decisions where no-one else can.

Time for an admin I think.Torbz (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

@Torbz. Yes, come back with an Admin please. And let him check the IP from "Wernerkrieg" and from you Torbz. I think this could be very interesting. I am not stupid.Pahagu (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

@Hag: No, you do the leg work and come back with an admin. You came into this discussion as an 'editor' long after everyone else - so you can do the work. As regards your stupidity, I never made that assertion directly. I know who Wernerkreig is and where he lives and can verify he has both a Hang (2nd gen) and enjoys my website among the many, and I can assure you we don't live together. Next... Torbz (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

@Torbz. Stop to link your own page. You know Wernerkrieg? And he enjoy your website? So he is your friend? Sorry, he is not a neutral person who can decide. I hope that at the end an Admin will check the IP from you and this Wernerkrieg. Pahagu (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

@PAHAGU - If you wish to edit content on the article - please conform to WikiP standards of discussion and consensus. All the other stuff you wrote is your assumption and used as a very weak excuse to undermine people who disagree with you. You are not reading the words written so there's little point in writing anymore. Apologies, as you are working against the grain - you do the leg work - go get that admin to help clear up your interruption.

Don't turn this into a pointless game of who looks at their PC the most everyday - I already know who that is. It's easier to throw mud than clean it up. Keep it coming Pahagu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torbz (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

@Torbz. This is my last answer to your comments. Wernerkrieg and You are friends or most likely the same person. Come back with

an Admin and I will stop to delete the links. Only a neutral third person could make the decission. Pahagu (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You have denigrated this to a game. Blah blah blah... Keeping throwing mud. You are new to this article. You are doing the damage against the discussion. Torbz (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No surprise that you do not practise what you preach, having instigated one of the funniest edit wars I've ever seen! Let it be an example for the edit war page of WikiP. At least you can finally contribute something of value to WikiP. Torbz (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the "edit war" is over. It could not be, that User Torbz could only look after his own interests to promote his website on Wikipedia. After a disput with Torbz the User Ixkeys delete all his links. Ixkeys has done a lot of for the Hang and this article in the foretime. The only what Torbz has done is to link his website.

I hope we could find a consensus in the future for a good Hang article. I think we must find a neutral person, who want to help. Please Admins. Dont open this article, before we find a consensus. Pahagu (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You are lucky the admin stepped in when they did and I'm glad they have. I was one of the first to put content on the article 2 and half years ago so stop talking rubbish. The links I included in the edit war were not just links to my site. I was undoing the damage you created against another third editor - who you then accused of all sorts of things. You made the original edit against the rules buddy - pure and simple - that was always my problem with your editing style - it was against the guidelines in the first instance. Consensus cannot be reached with you because I've addressed all the points you raised and you have ignored them all. Torbz (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes Torbz. What you have done 2 and half year ago, was to copy parts of your website on Wiki and link to your website. I know.

The damage against another editor, you speak about was YOUR work, @Torbz. Ixkeys has delete links to his website and ask another neutral person to decide. This was after a disput with you. You or your friend Wernerkrieg ( I dont beliefe, that he is a real person) put the links to Ixkeys work back on Wikipedia. But Ixkeys ask for a neutral decission and not for your strategy to bring YOUR own links back. Think about that. I hope we find a consensus, but for that we need neutral people who dont want to promote own websites in the first motivation. It is good, that everything is in the archive and not lost. So, people could see what is going on. Pahagu (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me correct you, put my own work on the article 2 and a half years ago - it's all the same.

You had NO involvement in this article ever until you came along OUT OF THE BLUE and removed some links without discussion.

This was the first instance of interaction you had and YOU BROKE THE RULES and then did nothing but sling accusations and mud at the discussion - that has always been my problem with you.

I DON'T CARE what you believe about Werner or his motivations. You invent what you wish. You had over-ridden his editorial because it didn't conform to your view of the value of links to the work I have produced elsewhere.

In truth, I believe, he attempted to bring a balance to the disagreement because (and he states clearly above) that those links are all of value to the Wiki in his opinion. Plain and simple. You didn't agree and without discussion you deleted them.

Again, YOU BROKE THE CONSENSUS GUIDELINES before anyone else. Torbz (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes Torbz you are right. You are the "fair player" in this discussion. My problem with you is, that you have no problem to tell half-truth. For example your players directory. I remember that a short time ago you say "thank you" on your website to the Hangblog, where you copyed the work. A short time later you want a link on Wiki and told that it was your work. After a disput you start to work on

the list and make small changes. I think in the future we need help from neutral people who want to help to make this Hang Wiki better and they could decide what kinds of links are needfull. I will be part of this discussion and I have a lot of experience with the Hang to help with ideas. Pahagu (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong again in how you understand the story. The list used to be 98% Hangblog as stated when it was the case. I then did some extra research on both those links and many others and vastly improved upon it. You didn't like that, but it was tough luck because the truth was the list was and still is better in scope, quality and accuracy.

Funny too, that you constantly change the point of your argument - the truth there is that you have no point. You will choose anything at random to undermine any work I do on the Wiki because your ego won't stand for it.

Werner is a third party and he stood by both you and I in the interest of balance and relevance. You lambasted him too (asserting in your wonderful fashion that he was not valid because you believe him to be my friend, or me, or a new editor, or anything you could think of to undermine the process once more.

You pretended to be that 3rd party, and came in and made changes without any consensus. So, again, hypocritically you move forward in your inexorable way to online Hang-world domination. How very sad you must be. Night night. Torbz (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion @Torbz. I dont understand your argument about Hang-world domination. I dont had a link to any website on Wiki. We can continue on this level if you want. But i fear, that this dont help this Hang article back. If we find no consensus, the aricle will be closed for a long time. That is not my interest. Pahagu (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I know your interest Hag - to start an edit war to help IX (or yourself as you could be one and the same and probably are given you make exactly the same grammatical mistakes as each other, suggesting you are IX), whilst accusing others of that what you do yourself - before anyone else did it. You started the process. Torbz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.19.249 (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not part of your discussion with PaHaGu and PaHaGu is not a sockpuppet of Ixkeys. To accuse someboddy to use a sockpuppet in order to do harm is a very severe issue. Therefor: Ask for a sockpuppet investigation (SPI) or stop to spread the statement Ixkeys would use the account PaHaGu in order to avoid Wikipedia guidelines. -- Ixkeys (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

NO, IX, using a sockpuppet is a very 'severe issue'. Suspecting people of using one seems to be Pahagu's favourite smear campaign and is not a severe issue, it's an understandable reaction to when two editors behave a certain way. Pahagu came to your rescue in the discussion, at which point you became very quiet. For someone supposedly so interested in the process, you kept your distance except the few times you 'pooped by' to support Pahagu's every argument (which you've done again - come by in a semi-authoritarian fashion to 'quote' Wiki rules and put everyone straight, whilst adding nothing to the contentious points of the argument. and progressing the whole affair no further at all. Torbz (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

@Torbz. Ixkeys has nothing to do with all my actions and with nothing what I wrote on Wiki. Maybe it helps if I wrote a comment without a login. So you can see, that I wrote from a total different provider and country as Ixkeys. Stop to tell such a bullsh... @Torbz.

The next comment only for you without a login. See my IP. Pahagu (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Torbz. Only for you. So far as I know Ixkeys is in germany. Greets from Spain. Pahagu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.43.96.216 (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

@Torbz: I can only repeat: If you have a concrete suspicion that I use a sockpuppet, Wikipedia provides a policy to deal with that issue: Ask for a sockpuppet investigation (SPI). -- Ixkeys (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Wow, I come back from vacation and all hell has broken loose! Everybody, can we try to stick together? What matters here is that we work together on making this an excellent, neutral, and informative Hang article. Let's try to stay on topic, and avoid making personal accusations about each other. I know it's easy to get sidetracked, but what really matters here is having a top-notch article in Wikipedia. I'm going to review this article tomorrow and the areas for improvement, and since I don't know a Hang from a guitar I'd really love everyone's help in improving this article. Happy Holidays everyone! --Undobutton (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back to the article, Undobutton. I think we have a good chance to work constructively on the article. The heated discussion two months ago is over and was only on external links and not between users who had worked on the text of the article in the past. -- Ixkeys (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically IX that's not true, but Undobutton has got the right idea. The past has shown good faith is hard to come by among the German contributors to this article. However, now that you are the officially elected voice of PanArt online IX, I think the responsibility for the quality and information in this article remains with you. I've always maintained that some of the resources you offer should be linked in the external links section - in fact, I've added them alongside the link to the players directory on Hangfan.

They were all removed again by your advocate.

Let's get back to basics - add those useful links to the external sites - my interest lies with the community of hang players and owners - your interests represent the official line of PanArt - because if it didn't, they would have excommunicated you, like they did me.

I propose to have links to the players directory, and some links to the hangblog of your choosing, IX.

None of these links have a detrimental effect on the article - they only serve to increase the resources and information linked and hence the value of information available and we empower the readers to found out considerably more if they so choose. If we can agree on this, then there's no need for future conflict and good faith can be rebuilt from a history of pointless bickering and edit wars.

What say you? Torbz (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What's inside of a hang? How it's tuned? General questions

Is it empty? Does anyone has a picture? How it's geometry determines the frequencies emitted?

Also, why the artifical scarcity by PANArt? Why not mass produce it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PAStheLoD (talk • contribs) 19:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought the Wiki article explained it, but I'll re-look at the wording to make it clearer. The instrument is hollow, nothing inside but air. There are photos in the Wiki article.

The geometry is complex and saddle shaped (see the research papers by PANArt linked in the article). The tones are created based on Tone Field size and a balance of the complex stresses hammered into the steel. These include the fundamental and the two easily discernible overtones.

The scarcity is not artificial, but due to the fact that there are only two makers who produce about 400 Hanghang a year. There there are thousands who have written letters requesting one. An often asked question is why not 'franchise' or mass-produce. The simple answer is that when PANArt started making Hanghang in 2000 there wasn't interest for years by any Steel Pan makers to follow their path. That's changed since the Hang has gotten popular and expensive. At this point PANArt appears to be less open to the idea of working with other makers and have withdrawn significantly from the community they created. In spite of that there are several attempts by others at creating 'hang like' instruments to varying degrees of success. Also there isn't an easy way to create a hammered steel sheet instrument by machine. There were attempts at mass producing Steel Pans that weren't successful in the past.--GotHang (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)