User talk:Francis Schonken

Communications in Dutch: please see User talk:Francis Schonken/Dutch

Overleg in het nederlands: op User talk:Francis Schonken/Dutch a.u.b.

Victionarium → User talk:Francis Schonken/Latinus

Archives: Archive 01 - Archive 02 - Archive 03 - Archive 04

---

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for all your help and patience with Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Eponymous categories - Reconsidering the guideline WP:OC#Eponymous. You've really helped me think about, not only the guideline, but also categorization in a way I hadn't before. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:AT... initials

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)

July 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days for resumption of edit warring at Wikipedia:Categorization of people. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Cut to the chase

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:

• Warlock (Smith novel) Wilbur Smith
• Rage (Wilbur Smith novel) Wilbur Smith
• The Chosen (Smith novel) L. J. Smith
• The Farm (Smith novel) Tom Rob Smith
• Joy in the Morning (Smith novel) Betty Smith
• Birds of Prey (Wilbur Smith novel) Wilbur Smith

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

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)

Reformatting of titles (Schubert piano sonatas)

Hi, Francis. My only concern, now that you've moved all the Schubert piano sonatas to the new format (lower case "sonata"), is that they're all now out of step with ALL the sonatas and similar works by other composers (e.g. Piano Sonata No. 16 (Beethoven), Piano Sonata No. 3 (Brahms), Piano Sonata No. 2 (Rachmaninoff), Violin Concerto No. 2 (Prokofiev), Piano Concerto No. 1 (Chopin) ................

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.

I would also point out the difference between referring to, for example, "the piano sonatas of Beethoven" generically (NOT "the Piano Sonatas of Beethoven"), and Piano Sonata No. 16 (Beethoven) (NOT Piano sonata No. 16 (Beethoven)). Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

These moves ought to have been discussed first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. There is now unsurprisingly a strong view to revert them. Please join that discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

AN/I

I hereby inform you that there is a discussion at AN/I that might interest you: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Enough_is_enough. The Banner talk 20:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please mediate

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. ISBN 90-686-8590-2 - 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.

Please advise, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

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)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner)

Dear Francis,

Thank you formatting Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner).

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.

As I put on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Please mediate, there are probably not so many Wikipedia-specialists with a with a music background of Anton Bruckner. There is one for sure: User:Artiumbremen alias Benjamin-Gunnar Cohrs - one of the editors of the Bruckner Gesamtaugabe.[1]

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.

Another independent user, who is participant of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music and could mediate, is User:Kleinzach. He asked me to participate as Bruckner-expert in creating the new List of compositions by Anton Bruckner and to ensure its follow-up in the framework of the WikiProject Classical music.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

See also a recent related discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 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)

As you can see User:Nikkimaria does not want to participate to the mediation. Which next step would you suggest? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:26, 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)

Apparently Nikkimaria has understood that I am not a beginner. She has no more removed the infobox on Rondo in C minor (Bruckner). I have approved one of her changes and answered her question on Talk:Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner). The infobox of Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner) is well not yet restored. Let us do it step by step and see... --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 19:14, 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)

FYI: Nikkimaria has again removed substantiated data that I had put in the Intermezzo because they would be "out of date". See Talk:Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner)#Discography. Please give advice, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

See the last content of the Talk:Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and the Talk:Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner). I think it is no more manageable without a mediation of a third party. What do you mind? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:44, 17 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)

Precious

vexations
Thank you for quality contributions to articles, starting with Vexations, for articles on music, such as Sonatine bureaucratique and compositions by W.A. Mozart, and its people, such as Robert Orledge, for precision and making sense in naming conventions for classical music, for mediating, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 12 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...

See my last reply concerning the selected discography on Talk:Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner), subsection "How does a work / performance get notability?" and the comments I have put about the Discography on Talk:Vexilla regis (Bruckner), Talk:Virga Jesse (Bruckner), Talk:Locus iste and Talk:Ecce sacerdos magnus (Bruckner).

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)

Rejection of the Mediation

Dear Francis,

The Mediation Committee has proposed to reject the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner), because "Primary opponent has declined mediation" and they recommend "Probably ought to go to lower-level dispute resolution first, after additional discussion on the article talk pages".

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)

List of professional architecture organizations

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)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your support!

Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

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.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Mozart's Twelfth Mass, K. Anh. 232

Hi,

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.

Graham1973 (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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.

Pajot, Dennis. "The Cosi fan tutte "Coronation" Mass, K. Deest". MozartForum.com. Archived from the original on 8 August 2007.

Graham1973 (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Magnificat

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)