This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
FYI... I have opened a talk page discussion on the recent edits re formatting initials at WP:AT... would like your input. Blueboar (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Stop edit warring
Francis, you still don't seem to understand that you cannot make changes to guidelines without consensus. If your changes are reverted the proper is discussion. I've attempted to modify rather than revert your changes as a way of compromise, but if you just blanket undo my changes then you're enforcing your particular version without discussion. If you do not accept me tweaking wording of your changes, then the path is simple - we revert all of your undiscussed changes to the pre dispute version and wait for others to join in. You cannot simply impose your will on policy pages through forced additions. On the LGBT category we should seek dispute resolution as you seem unwilling to compromise.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I found your "cut to the chase" comments rude and suggesting bad faith, but that's by the by. You may not be aware but you can use Special:Search/intitle:Smith novel to search what titles we have:
But I deliberately didn't fill in that example because "Smith" is a John Doe, and I'm not asking about Smith it could have been any common surname. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Piano sonata in E major (D. 157)/Scores
Is it your intention to move ALL of these to your new format? I must say that I have seen no discussion of this change. If you could please show me where it's been debated, I'd be very pleased.
Dear Francis,
I am afraid you do not see the problem(s) yet. I will be more explicit. I do not want an arbitration, but a kind of mediation.
The sources which the other user systematically removed were not self-published, but highly reliable as e.g., Cornelis van Zwol, Anton Bruckner – Leven en Werken, Thot, Bussum (Netherlands), 2012. ISBN90-686-8590-2 - a recent anthology of 782 pages, which supersedes earlier, less detailed works on Bruckner's life and compositions. Van Zwol devoted 20 years of his life to it, having access to Bruckner's original manuscripts and letters, and was during these years regularly in touch with Leopold Nowak and other scholars (editors of Bruckner's works on the Bruckner Gesamtausgabe).
I do not understand why data coming from that reference concerning e.g., the retrieval of the original manuscripts and their editions were removed. Moreover, Nikkimaria removed repeatedly infoboxes and text I had substantiated by reliable references, replacing it by texts she found on AllMusic and leaflets of CDs she found on Internet - the reliability of which I consider less reliable.
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 September 2014.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure that the section "Editors involved in this dispute" is complete, because two other editors have been already involved in the dispute: User:Gerda Arendt and User:Montanabw. In addition, Gerda has also had in the past disputes with User:Nikkimaria for similar concerns.
Nikkimaria is clearly not a Bruckner-specialist. She has in the meantime added to Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner) references from the public press, as "The Arizona Daily Star" and "The Sunday Times" to substantiate her changes. I do not think that such references are trustworthy for an article, which is part of the WikiProject Classical music.
I am interested in the mediation and will watch, and help if possible, but I don't think I am involved. I have an agreement with Nikkimaria. - It will be interesting to find out how mediation works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think our agreement is a good model, as based on ownership, - my articles, your articles, our articles. The reader is left with inconsistency going from one article to another (example String Quintet to Intermezzo, or look at BWV 120 to BWV 120a), - that's the prize paid for a cease-fire which is better than fighting. I wonder if there are better solutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
As Gerda writes, I wonder whether there are better solutions. I think that the mediation can only succeed if a third independent party, which is a "Bruckner-expert", can also participate, provided Nikkimaria accepts to participate in the mediation. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
My position
Of course, none of the Bruckner-related pages is my ownership, even when I was the initiator or the only author of them. I have no problem when someone is removing my input (or input from others) with well-substantiated justification, or replacing it with higher-quality data. On the contrary, I do not accept that well-substantiated data from high-quality sources, which were put by myself or by others, are removed without good justification, or replaced by data coming from less-quality sources as blog-like websites or daily papers. In the past I have as, e.g., User:Montanabw and User:Gerda Arendt also did, restored some of such removed data, but I have never removed contents from other users, well sometimes added a well-substantiated precision to them (example: "23 January 1904" instead of only "1904") - having always in mind to provide Wikipedia with high-quality information.
As Hans Roelofs e-mailed to me, "Jouw perikelen met Wikipedia m.b.t. die Canadese user vind ik ambetant – dat is wetenschap op democratische basis, straks wordt er nog over gestemd! De er achter liggende filosofie begrijp ik wel, men wil wildgroei en manipulatie en trash vermijden maar de hele constructie heeft gaten. ... Wat bij een “ouderwetse” encyclopedie niet lukte, lukt hier vrees ik wel: lieden onder de aandacht brengen die anders niet over de “relevantiegrens” heen zouden komen. Aan de andere kant natuurlijk: ten onrechte vergeten personen, werken, etc. kunnen nu onder aandacht van het publiek worden gebracht – althans in één taal. ... Ik vind het idee achter Wikipedia erg sympathiek, ik heb er al veel gevonden, maar ik weet wel dat ik altijd moet controleren of het artikel klopt, veel kritischer dan bij een encyclopedie of een handboek." NB: Given Dutch is your native language, I think I have not to translate it for you...
To avoid further worsening of the current situation, I have decided to stop my contribution to the concerned Bruckner-pages till the ongoing mediation (or any other required intervention) has solved the ongoing issue. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
PS: If this text is OK for you, I will use it for the ongoing mediation. If you think that putting Hans' e-mail is useful, I will translate it beforehand. Please let me know. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Join in on the talk pages. There are detailed explanations at the Intermezzo talk pages of what has been excluded from the previous article and why. For the Rondo, the only thing excluded from the article text is the exact page number, which didn't belong there in the first place. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
FYI: Nikkimaria has in the meantime removed again the infobox of Rondo in C minor (Bruckner). I have not reacted to it. I do not want to fight on and on for it... I have restored some other data, she has left unchanged. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Francis, for your mediation. In her last reply, Nikkimaria writes that my choice of recordings for the Discography is subjective and not based on "notability". See my reply. Are all her changes objective ? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
See the last replies of Nikkimaria. She is really stubborn and replies as a procedural barrister in her answer concerning the Discography of the Intermezzo.
Originally, she removed purely and simply the subsections "Rondo" and "Intermezzo" from the pages on the Quartet and the Quintet, respectively, and created fully-new pages in which she did not transfer the initial content. Moreover, she put no link in the original pages to these new pages. Is this the correct way to make a split? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I am watching with some sadness how many comments are wasted on the simple question if a recording should be included or not. I see no reason why not, Wikipedia is not short on space. Splitting articles has occurred for Bach's cantatas a lot, same fashion: establishing a different style of referencing, different listing of recordings, absence of an infobox, relying on web sources more than printed ones. BWV 120a and BWV 120b are examples of many more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Another advice
See Aymatth2's advice on Gerda page: User talk:Gerda Arendt#Rondo. As Gerda replied (see User talk:Aymatth2#Bruckner's Rondo), "The history of both articles is nothing that should be shown more, IMO". I think indeed that it is now time to stop the ongoing sterile, procedural dispute and to achieve a consensus.
Ten days ago, Nikkimaria did not want to take part in the mediation because (sic) "the dispute does not currently meet the prerequisites for mediation ... and discussion is ongoing on the talk pages, where Meneerke or other parties are welcome to participate". What do you propose? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria is obviously following preconceived assumptions, from which she blinkered does not want to deviate. She can so not accept that advices of other people, which do not fit her stiff-necked, preconceived assumptions, may be worthy to be taken into account. See the recent dialog of the deaf about "notability" concerning the discography in Talk:Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner). NB: I guess that I am not the first contributor, whom she is "thwarting" because of a similar conflicting situation. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Schubert's sonatas and fantasies for piano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Urtext. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
BWV number
Please compare a recent talk on BWV 22 for the following: the BWV number needs to be bolded as a redirect, but no link should be in such a bolded redirect, therefore the link has to appear somewhere else such as (automatically) in {{infobox Bach composition}}. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Selection of a discography
Nikkimaria remains stiff-necked and does not accept my argumentation about the selection of a discography. A real dialogue of the deaf...
Till a consensus is achieved I will not amend the discography, but put my comments on the talk pages, so that other users can react. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Mass
I admire you efforts around Mozart's masses! Minor question: I think Mass (Roman Rite) has nothing to do with Mozart, being centuries after he lived. I don't think we need to go into that detail at all in the template. A link to Mass (music) should do, - those interested in the specific liturgy will hopefully find it from there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I made small changes to the Mozart template. - I also changed the Bach template to update for the move of the keyboard concertos. Please, do such a thing right after the move. It's only one edit, and helps tremendously to update any further links, because all other articles on the template show as linked to the redirect - while possibly very actually are, other than by the template - unless it's changed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Italics or not
I understand that individual songs are not italic, but I thought foreign language is? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I looked at other articles, and found Magnificat italic. It looks strange to me to have the text italic but the compositions not. (I prefer not, personally.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Virga Jesse floruit
It's a Latin text. As long as there is no more information than that two composers set it, no link please. The text Bach set is not even the same as Bruckner's, only the incipit. The complete text Bruckner used, with translations, is in the choral wiki link, perhaps highlight that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
It is what I am doing, with long-lasting, strenuous, time-consuming discussions and eventually a not very positive outcome, because of Nikki's stiff-necked attitude.
Nikki has in the meantime drafted a few pages on Bruckner's motets, with again the same kind of discussions and again a not very positive outcome.
Please let me know what you would propose to come out of this situation unto a kind of gentlemen's agreement. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Dag User:Francis Schonken , ik had de lijst aangepast, wil U even nazien of het correct is zo? Alvast bedankt. Lotje (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
I've read your article and made some steps to find additional sources, since I did note that the content relies largely on one source/point of view and thought some additional material might be worth finding. I've linked to some old newspaper articles on the newly created talk page. You may wish to peruse them.
Thanks re: the comments you left. I have followed up something that I'd spotted in one of the news articles I'd found mentioning a "Coronation Mass" in C major that had been made by reworking music from Cosi Fan Tutte and which the seller of the Mass in G major had tried (and failed) to pass off as a Mozart original. Thankfully the page about it on the MozartForum was one of those which survived that sites demise. I am going to be tied up with researching the D minor and E-flat major Kyries for the near future, so I thought I'd post the link to Perot's article here for your perusal, just in case you think it a worthy target for an article.
Too much for the article talk page: I think we some have misunderstandings. Please correct inaccuracies, if you can, this is Wikipedia, and my language is limited. - I dream of one article Magnificat (Bach), but first the other, C. P. E., not yet born. For the next few days, I will have practically no time here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't own my contributions, but would like a little hint in the D major that I wrote the section on the movements. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
When I return from a trip, I can work on the refs, more refs for 243a, and consistent refs for 243. I can't give the D major an infobox. - Some strike by not contributing on Monday, I "strike" by not adding to articles without infobox ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Recorder. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Love Story
The theme of Love Story was written by Francis Lai. It was played ad nauseum on the radio for years, and won an Academy Award. You would instantly recognize it - and probably despise it - if you heard it. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Leader
A "leader" who speaks of "toxic personalities", meaning people, any people, is no leader for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of compositions by Franz Schubert (D 1–D 500), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posthumous. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Must all "fringe articles" now be weighted so as to implicitly "oppose" the fringe topic?
Francis, I've noticed that you have quite the "block-log" for edit warring activities. You know, I will get someone with Admin status on this if you edit war with me on this one. Yes no consensus currently, but no consensus 'ever'. Unless you might be able to honestly show me a talk page discussion where there was actually a consensus on this, as most of us would define "consensus". Isn't "consensus" something akin to "Balance of the majority view"? Just to let you know. Scott P. (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I see by your edits that you're well familiar with one Prem Rawat. So am I. Small world. Scott P. (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Your next reversion of the policy would count as your third reversion, counting your first reversion on July 30th. Scott P. (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I will not respond to your little "present" in kind. Got to go to work now. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Francis Schonken. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
October 2014
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilNtalk to me 05:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
You have been warned, yet you have opted to proceed with your third revert. I am creating an incident report now and should be done with it in an hour or so. Just how I love to spend my nights! Scott P. (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Requiem
Discussion currently suspended, can be reopened whenever wished. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bach's church music in Latin, your creation, - I learned today that another friend died, I have sorrows enough. Just for clarification: details of BWV 232a were not part of Missa (Bach), therefore I don't take your edit summary well. We need at least a link from your redirect title to the Mass in B minor structure, where the single movements are described. I am not in the mood to deal with the topic today, but it needs discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess you get support for this by arbcom, the way they looked at things so far. I added an infobox to my own article which was not split off but a new creation, as permitted, you revert it boldly and tell me that I can't restore and request discussion per WP:BRD? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I must have a language problem. I said I don't want to discuss anything until tomorrow, didn't I? I am too sad now, for personal reasons, nothing for any article talk. My first observation has to do with you misreading the article history which I also think is too personal. The second observation has also nothing to do with the article, but with your interpretation of my restrictions. I never asked for clarification or amendment for myself (which has correctly been described as dignity) but if you don't find a better way I will ask the arbitrators if that is what they had in mind. Please verify that BWV 232a was not split from Missa (Bach) and try the normal procedure for a merge/redirect: first establish consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
New morning
Francis, you know much about Bach's and his music, you know that when he the wrote the Missa which came to be called 1733 and catalogued BWV 232a, it was the greatest piece he had composed so far, in length, complexity, scoring, depth of symmetry and symbolism, intended for his ruler. The work deserves its own article. Please restore the version before the redirect and add your improvements. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Another new morning: should I say thank you for making something a draft after redirecting it four times? Are you going to make every article a draft with which you have a few problems? So far I saw tags, this is new. I will work on your requests, just not now. This is a voluntary project. We sing other music on 16 November, I want to work on that first, then the cantatas of Reformation day and next Sunday, there's also RL. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I should have thought about such possibility earlier. Fact is I didn't. You didn't. Nobody else did. Let's not make reproaches out of something nobody seems to have thought of before.
Whether this might work in other contexts too, I don't know. Not planning anything. But you might keep it in mind as something you can apply again yourself in other contexts, when this works towards a better understanding.
Take all the time you want, the draft will not run away, neither the issues that still need some attendance at Bach's church music in Latin.
Just this note still: I've done accomodating your special needs. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Infoboxes I proposed something that might make things a lot easier. For me. For the quality of Wikipedia. For you it would not make your situation worse (at worst) or would remove at least some of the red tape (at best). Your attitude there was uncollaborative from start ("...waste of time..." — reproaching me I am wasting my time, are you?) to end ("...I reverted...", breaching the very remedy I wanted to make more comfortable for you there).
So, no reproaches, you're a good content contributor, just saying: I'm done accomodating "special needs". You're a Wikipedia contributor like any other for me now. When you get in a pickle, or when your self-inflicted inhibitions trouble you, sort it out yourself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
just to let you know that I am off for most of the day, - no reply is no lack of attention. On the German Wikipedia , there was a discussion about the Missa = Kyrie and Gloria, that Lutherische Messe as they used to call it is not a good name, - is there a better one?
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bach's church music in Latin, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Transposition and Visitation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Recommended reading
RFC (reflections I found by chance when I looked up the links to Encouragement, - the song made headlines today, oops, yesterday), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Breaking links
Francis, it looks like you were not aware that your move of QAI project pages broke several links in the arbcase infoboxes, where the list of reverted infoboxes was part of the evidence. Please restore, for history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
ps: The case is closed. Only clerks post archived discussions. If you want to reach the arbitrators you need to go somewhere else. The project page which you moved was created before the case (check the dates), and the talk was evidence for it, referred to several times. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Francis, I strongly suggest you revert those moves. I find it rather discourteous. But more importantly, if you are determined eventually to have an RFC on the infobox subject, the appropriate place is somewhere neutral and highly visible like Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes—not the sub-page of a very obscure WikiProject in which you have never participated. Moreover, if an RFC is to have any chance of not becoming a complete train wreck, it will require considerable time and effort to create a detailed and thoughtful draft. RFCs are not free-for all discussions. I'm not sure what sort of page would be suitable for the planning/drafting process, but it certainly isn't that WikiProject page. Perhaps ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes for some suggestions. Voceditenore (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Francis, I will second the comments that your moves of QAI project pages to Gerda's userspace was rude and discourteous. QAI is not her space, it is a space she actively maintains, but it exists for all of us in the project. You have neatly screwed up a lot of my own internal watchlist and such by your actions. I suggest also that you restore the material you removed. Montanabw(talk) 21:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Francis, I give you time to reflect what Voceditenore said, the precious voice of reason, who advised me well (talk of the ironing lady). I initiated (!) a project statement, in response to an open discussion (Talk:Sparrow Mass). Only project members should add, others can use the talk page. Please restore, not only the content but the history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Our celebrations are over. I hoped you would have used the time for listening to Voceditenore: restore a project page (of a project of which you are not even a member) and its talk, and revert the start of a discussions which should take place on more independent ground. - If you still don't feel like doing it, perhaps ask Bishonen for advice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Court chapel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Ad hominem
Sorry for getting carried away, Francis. I'll delete the personal remark. Take it as a sign of skill-deficit in WP-matters, as I have no experience yet in how to complain about an editor. I do not even know whether to respond on my page or on yours. I hope we can overcome the present unsatisfactory situation.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, maybe it doesn't always feel like guidance. But I understand, you are are passionate about high quality in articles, and I am passionate about fostering an undistorted description of Rawat. We both meet naturally in our effort to make this article as immaculate as possible, and it has gained a lot of stability as a result. I remember you said something like, you don't think the lede section is unbiased, and it looked like we were getting to an agreeable compromise, but in reality it still stands out as a monument of POV, and even Rawat's opponents can see that, as Sylviecyn's proposal shows. I feel a little helpless with that, after all the discussion.
And, Francis, I would gladly retreat from editing in WP, but presently it seems that somebody should take care of that article and not leave it to unknowing editors or to detractors, who are consequently trying to make it look like an embarrassing thing of the past. Actually Rawat's mission seems to be developing with unbroken speed and strength of purpose, and my impression is, if I don't keep up with updating, nobody does. I have not pushed myself into this position, it came to happen as a post-nuclear scenarion after BOTNL's topic-ban of the main editors, that left the article kind of unguarded. You made a couple of debatable edits then, e.g., which I have not found the time to broach yet, as current issues seem to be more pressing. And being a WP-editor is not really considered a rewarding hobby among Rawat's students, obviously...
So, thank you for your advice! Really, I find it a bit consuming to work on one article already, as I am an old man and I have other ambitions actually. That article was a battleground, when I came in, and I just wanted to help. Meanwhile I feel like the last man standing, and it took me years to achieve the little WP-skills I have gathered - I wonder, how much of your life-time you have invested in it. When I use WP as a reader, and I find flaws now and then, I correct them, if I happen to know better. But I am sure I could never devote the same amount of dedication to another subject or matter. In fact I have a family and a profession claiming most of my time and energy. I just hope we can treat each other like human beings, with a minimum of bureaucracy when necessary. I feel, in the spirit we can walk together alright.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to refer to external links in another article. Articles are meant to be self-contained as far as possible. For someone who made such a fuss about an image being printed or included in a pdf, you certainly seem to have quickly forgotten those who take a printout or pdf of our articles and therefore can't follow links like "Further information: Magnificat (Bach) § External links". Please don't make this sort of mistake again. --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Please don't fragment conversations. If you want to discuss forking in relation to your editing mistakes at Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, then I suggest you first need to understand summary style and how to refer to other related content. It is not acceptable to remove content from an article simply because some of it is contained within a related article.
If you feel that the two articles should be merged, then discuss your reasons on one of the talk pages (and put a link to the discussion on the other talk page). It is not acceptable to sabotage an article just because you're miffed about its existence. --RexxS (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
As I commented at the talk for the D major version, Francis, you fail to understand the difference between a useful "spinoff" from a main article versus a WP:POVFORK, which is discouraged. Here, there clearly is an adequate amount of material to WP:SPLIT the article into sub-articles. Appropriate links back to the parent article are fine, but there needs to be summaries and not just a redirect. See, e.g., an article I worked on a while back, totally unrelated to music: Equine anatomy. We have separate articles on the circulatory system, skeletal system, etc.; but still keep the main article. It's not a fork to expand on critical sub-components of a system, biological or musical. Montanabw(talk) 20:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Which bit of "Don't fragment conversations" didn't you understand?
The verbiage on that talk page couldn't be graced by the epithet "discussion". When you discuss an issue, you are expected to state your reasons for your position and then others do likewise. If you can't even evince a single good reason to merge, then please don't make a mess of articles by adding drive-by tags that point to non-existent discussions. --RexxS (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You still don't understand "don't fragment conversations", do you? It means that when a conversation is started, you keep it in one place. The place to discuss your appalling behaviour is right here. You have not put forward a single reason for merging the articles on either of their talk pages. When you want to make a possibly contentious merger, there is an accepted procedure outlined at WP:MERGE. There are three steps and you've failed miserably on all three of them. Please pay particular attention to the third step:
Nobody reading your efforts to date could discern why you want the merge, and that's the opposite of "clear". Do us all a favour and please read up on how you are expected to proceed before causing any more problems with the articles. --RexxS (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
No. In order that a conversation may be followed, it is normal to reply on the same page as the conversation began. That's how it works on Wikipedia. If you can't even understand that you're fragmenting, then there seems little point in trying to engage with you.
There are at present two articles, one dealing with the 1723 Magnificat in E-flat major and the other dealing with the 1733 Magnificat in D major. If you want to alter that, then the onus is on you to provide reasons why there should be a change. It is impertinant to insist that others provide reasons why there shouldn't be a merge when you haven't even had the decency to explain why you think the status quo should be changed. That's how it works on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I see you have learned nothing. Your clueless contributions are no longer welcome on my talk page. Stay off it. --RexxS (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Redundant?
Did you notice that you have to update BWV 243, if you insist on your version of BWV 243a, because source and text have been added? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. RexxS (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have three reversions in the past 15 hours on the above article, and on November 18 you actually broke the three-revert rule on Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, the other one involved in the merge you've been attempting. At this point, I strongly advise you to leave the articles where they are now, at the point before you merged them, and let a full merge discussion take place. (And also to have someone other than you close the discussion, preferably an admin, as you're clearly involved.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Francis, Gerda has pointed me at the noticeboard to another conversation, in which you do not look collegial. Rather than rewriting your close and pinging me, you should probably turn up there and explain yourself. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, Francis. This regards your edits (26 November 2014) to an article I created on Erik Satie's song La Diva de l'Empire. I have added citations to a statement you tagged as unsourced. Thank you for the heads up.
Curiously, you then added an unsourced statement of your own that I have not seen in any reliable sources on the subject (Orledge, Whiting, Myers, Gillmor, Volta, etc.), namely that Satie reused the melody from Diva in La belle excentrique. It would be great if you could provide a citation for that, please. I've tagged it in the meantime and removed the dead link you no doubt inadvertently added, as there is currently no Wiki article for La belle excentrique. Cheers. TheBawbb (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Latin
How would you say "tempore quadragesimae" (as in this title) in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sehnsucht, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theodor Körner. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
BWV 243a: we solved a dispute on the talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Francis, if Yngvadottir hadn't come here first I would have blocked for edit warring/editing against consensus. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Francis, re your ping of me and request at Gerda's talk: perhaps it would be better if you did not edit those articles for a while. I've now restored the title you and Gerda agreed upon for the article on the better known version. You could post suggestions to the talk page there, but despite your arguments and demonstrations, your viewpoint did not achieve consensus and you need to recognize that. Please note that Drmies says he would have blocked you for these latest undiscussed changes. So - propose on the talk page or walk away from the article, is my advice to you. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Magnificat (Bach), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tonus peregrinus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for your additions, - less work for me, - I still deal with Mit Fried und Freud, both mentioned in a list under construction. Layout: For small screens, to have an image next to the text with translation, results in many line breaks. For an example of poetry please look at Es ist ein Ros entsprungen where it was improved yesterday. I would prefer the lead image in the infobox, as is normal, but will not argue about that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
ps: an image of the annunciation would suit the beginning better than the adoration of the shepherds, imho, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
A navbox should go to the linked articles, as far as I understand only to the linked articles. If to a short article like Wo Gott der Herr nicht bei uns hält, BWV 1128 (which I doubt), it should be collapsed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Again: it's general, has nothing to do with a specific article, I would like to spare you work that may be reverted. I never saw a navbox in an article that is not linked. Delete this comment when understood, like a helpful bot message, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Added cat
Dear Francis, I took the liberty to add a category to your user page. I am member of the board of WM Belgium [2] and I would like, if it is ok, to have curated list of active wikipedians in Belgium who may be interested in our future activities. Feel free to revert of course. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RexxS (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Magnificat composers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alan Wilson and Albert Frey. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Chambers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
BLP discretionary sanctions notice
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Hi Francis. Yes, given names are often used as middle names, but surnames are as well. There are cases where it may be tempting to add a (first) given name to someone best known by their middle name for disambiguation purposes, but surely the other way around is more common. That's certainly been my experience at WP:RM. And NCP had "middle names" there for a long time. It was such during this discussion you initiated: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive 13#Modify recommendation regarding middle names for disambiguation? It doesn't look like this was changed as a result of that discussion. Do you know if it was changed in another discussion? My most recent edit provides clarity and restores this longstanding language. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Category:Compositions with natural trumpets in D major
I realize that my post at the deletion discussion might seem contradictory to you. But I thought that, in this case, you are really going off the deep end. Having a category like this is almost oxymoronic - kind of like "red haired people with freckles".
Anyway, you might consider taking these discussions a little less personally. Smerus is just doing what he does honestly and diligently, and is not using any underhanded trickery to promote his position. Accusations of forum-shopping and such are inappropriate, do nothing to promote your arguments, and generally make you look bad in the eyes of other editors. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Much appreciated
Thank you for your involvement in that affair. I think having a third voice there, even on just a couple of the particulars, spared that situation from spiraling into orbit. I know you were just calling the content matters as you saw them, without intent to take sides, but even so, it was helpful. Snowtalk 11:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
It appears that part of the problem is regarding WP:LEADIMAGE; remember that WP:MOS is a guideline, but Wikipedia:Edit warring is a policy. Please be more careful. — Ched : ? 23:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page STAB. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Lost in translation?
I see you have muddled Royal chapels and Chapels Royal. Did you not understand the difference? One lot is a bunch of living people, the other is a building or part of a building. See? If not please tell me. Thanks and Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me this amendment around the same time is another confusion: [3]Eddaido (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corpus Christi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Contested material in BLPs
If there is material that his challenged in BLPs, the material needs to be removed and consensus needs to be achieved before restoring it,[4] per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. In a recent discussion at Jimmy Wales talk page, there were several editors that questioned the reliability of the sources, including AndyTheGrump and Fred Bauder. So, as the editor with the burden to prove there is consensus, the process calls for the material to be removed while a discussion is entertained on the matter. You can do this with an RFC, or at BLP/N. You can also research and find reliable sources to replace the ones that have been challenged as part of the discussion.
You are already aware of the discretionary sanctions on BLPs [5] (see also: WP:NEWBLPBAN), so it is necessary for you to abide by these restrictions while the material is evaluated. Re-inserting the material carries the risk of an enforceable sanction against you.- Cwobeel(talk) 18:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus emerging at [6], on the contrary. Note that any consensus achieved 6 years ago, before the tightening of WP:BLP and the DS at WP:NEWBLPBAN, is meaningless as it has been challenged. Leave the material out of the article and start an RFC to gauge consensus. - Cwobeel(talk) 21:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
AE request result
As a result of this AE thread[7] User:Francis Schonken you are warned fromally for filing a vexatious request at WP:AE. You are also cautioned that further abuse of process or attempts to harass other editors will incur sanctions--Caililtalk 17:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Template:Piano sonata in E major (D. 157)/Scores has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. NSH002 (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Must all "fringe articles" now be weighted so as to implicitly "oppose" the fringe topic?. Thanks. NeilN talk to me 05:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. RexxS (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
