Misplaced Pages

Talk:Ihr werdet weinen und heulen, BWV 103: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:34, 27 May 2013 editGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers381,629 edits Infobox: better move discussion to more general place← Previous edit Revision as of 05:39, 27 May 2013 edit undoMontanabw (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers105,490 edits Aw shucks, I remember black and white TV... reply to NikkiNext edit →
Line 12: Line 12:


Surprised. What has this discussion to do with the article? Please see ], I don't want to copy that to every Bach composition, we better discuss it on the template talk. My talk says: "I would actually recommend any list with more than 2 or 3 entries ought to be a collapsed list." This tells me that this is a personal recommendation, not a rule or guideline. I would actually recommend to openly list Bach's scoring the best we can because that is where his music sounds, and I don't find even the longest one really "long", --] (]) 05:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Surprised. What has this discussion to do with the article? Please see ], I don't want to copy that to every Bach composition, we better discuss it on the template talk. My talk says: "I would actually recommend any list with more than 2 or 3 entries ought to be a collapsed list." This tells me that this is a personal recommendation, not a rule or guideline. I would actually recommend to openly list Bach's scoring the best we can because that is where his music sounds, and I don't find even the longest one really "long", --] (]) 05:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

:::Nikki, re-read ]. YOU are NOT engaging in "reasonable and civil discussion" You are edit-warring, leaving deceptive edit summaries, and then baiting. You know you are twisting other people's words, skirting the edge of 3RR on a daily basis by following the letter but not the spirit of the rules, being a tendentious brat, and it's high time you learned to respect people who know - and contribute the most sound content to - articles. Gerda is an expert on Bach, one of the most good faith editors I know, and her wishes should prevail on this set of articles. She is trying to float possible compromises and you appear to be bent on stalking her all over wiki and twisting her words and her intent. I used to think you were a fairly decent good faith editor, but any more I suspect that you simply want to just prove that you are right and I have lost a lot of respect for you due to your prissy behavior. It is absolutely stupid to collapse three lines of small text in an infobox (if you were talking a couple inches, I might agree with you) and even more ridiculous to go stalking an editor just to revert her. For now, I'm just very frustrated that you raise false allegations against a very nice person like Gerda and show her no respect. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:39, 27 May 2013

Ihr werdet weinen und heulen, BWV 103 is currently a Music good article nominee. Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 06:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.


WikiProject iconClassical music: Compositions
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Template:Germany

A fact from Ihr werdet weinen und heulen, BWV 103 appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 April 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2013/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ihr werdet weinen und heulen, BWV 103.
Misplaced Pages

Infobox

Several editors have reverted my attempts to format the infobox in accordance with recommendations for long lists. I attempted to compromise by substituting an alternative template for one that one editor objected to, although I disagree with her objections to the initial template. Another editor has also restored obvious errors to the article, including a claim that a recording was made in the "11960s", with no valid rationale for doing so. I invite that editor to present her reasoning for that rather strange action. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Knock off this obsession with stalking articles Gerda is improving and making this pissant reversions of helpful information. You are showing immense disrespect to an editor who is of good faith and an expert in the field with your constant WP:CHEESE behavior. The lists you are collapsing are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "long." This isn't infobox mineral or infobox Presidents. The information you keep wasting bandwidth to collapse is in small text and takes up less than a half-inch of space on my laptop screeen. Because you use complex syntax that is difficult for me to remove manually and because you also game the system by inserting intermediate edits to make reversion difficult (and to duck a technical 3RR violation) it is simpler to revert your edit-warring. Sometimes I have gone to the extra work to fix the typos and other small tweaks, but the rest of the time it's enough work just fixing your incessant attempts to harass an expert who is trying to create article that educate the little children like you, who is acting like a brat in a bubble and holding her breath until she turns blue because she can't get her own way. Now would you please GROW UP. Are you 10 years old or something? Sometimes the real grownups actually do know best, and I for one am willing to listen and grant considerable deference to an expert in the field. Unlike other editors who appear to think that because they stalk the internet and revert improvements, their attempt becomes the "stable" one Montanabw 03:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Montana, most grownups are capable of reasonable and civil discussion. Your post is not indicative of that. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is, as I'm sure you're aware, a poor argument. I've also already pointed out to you that your reference to WP:CHEESE is incorrect. Now, I'm quite willing to listen to experts, which is why I paid attention to the recommendation on Gerda's talk that "any list with more than 2 or 3 entries ought to be a collapsed list. In other words, if it can't be displayed succinctly, then don't display it unless the reader wants to". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Surprised. What has this discussion to do with the article? Please see my talk, I don't want to copy that to every Bach composition, we better discuss it on the template talk. My talk says: "I would actually recommend any list with more than 2 or 3 entries ought to be a collapsed list." This tells me that this is a personal recommendation, not a rule or guideline. I would actually recommend to openly list Bach's scoring the best we can because that is where his music sounds, and I don't find even the longest one really "long", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nikki, re-read WP:BAIT. YOU are NOT engaging in "reasonable and civil discussion" You are edit-warring, leaving deceptive edit summaries, and then baiting. You know you are twisting other people's words, skirting the edge of 3RR on a daily basis by following the letter but not the spirit of the rules, being a tendentious brat, and it's high time you learned to respect people who know - and contribute the most sound content to - articles. Gerda is an expert on Bach, one of the most good faith editors I know, and her wishes should prevail on this set of articles. She is trying to float possible compromises and you appear to be bent on stalking her all over wiki and twisting her words and her intent. I used to think you were a fairly decent good faith editor, but any more I suspect that you simply want to just prove that you are right and I have lost a lot of respect for you due to your prissy behavior. It is absolutely stupid to collapse three lines of small text in an infobox (if you were talking a couple inches, I might agree with you) and even more ridiculous to go stalking an editor just to revert her. For now, I'm just very frustrated that you raise false allegations against a very nice person like Gerda and show her no respect. Montanabw 05:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Categories: