:::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. [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]]</sup> 21:37, 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. [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]]</sup> 21:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
::: Francis, I give you time to reflect what Voceditenore said, the [[User talk:Voceditenore/Archive 17#Precious|precious voice of reason]], who advised me well ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt/Archive 2013#Infobox|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. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 07:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Requiem
Discussion currently suspended, can be reopened whenever wished. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)Template:Z48
