This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nikkimaria (talk | contribs) at 03:41, 27 May 2013 (→Infobox: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:41, 27 May 2013 by Nikkimaria (talk | contribs) (→Infobox: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) |
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.
|
 | Classical music: Compositions | ||||||
| |||||||
 | 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:
|  |
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)