Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 294: | Line 294: | ||
::::::::::You can talk to me, {{u|Alex Shih|Alex}}, on my talk page. It appears that Gerda is losing interest, despite the fact she keeps starting new threads about the same discussion, on her talk page. Gerda, if you don't want people talking about this (and you do) then please don't keep starting new threads and baiting people into discussion. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Cassianto</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cassianto#top|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Talk</span>]]</sup></span>''' 19:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC) |
::::::::::You can talk to me, {{u|Alex Shih|Alex}}, on my talk page. It appears that Gerda is losing interest, despite the fact she keeps starting new threads about the same discussion, on her talk page. Gerda, if you don't want people talking about this (and you do) then please don't keep starting new threads and baiting people into discussion. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Cassianto</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cassianto#top|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Talk</span>]]</sup></span>''' 19:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::: You can talk ''to me'', Cassianto, but - forgive me - it looked to me like you two wanted to talk to each other, about things such as the 2013 ruling which was flawed but who cares, and the history of two articles that I know too well, and about me in the third person. Talk constructively about the future, and I am ready. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt#top|talk]]) 19:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC) |
::::::::::: You can talk ''to me'', Cassianto, but - forgive me - it looked to me like you two wanted to talk to each other, about things such as the 2013 ruling which was flawed but who cares, and the history of two articles that I know too well, and about me in the third person. Talk constructively about the future, and I am ready. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt#top|talk]]) 19:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::I'd like to, Gerda, but it appears to {{u|SMcCandlish|some}}, that I've been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=822060443&oldid=822059593 "hounding" you]. It's a shame, as there's nothing look a good discussion to sort out differs of opinion, and I was rather enjoying having a debate with you. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Cassianto</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cassianto#top|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Talk</span>]]</sup></span>''' 09:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Precious to the one deserves it most == |
== Precious to the one deserves it most == |
Revision as of 09:15, 24 January 2018
Did you know ...
... that the German Christmas carol "Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt" is based on a Czech song derived around 1500 from a Latin model?
... that while the Three Kings bring gold, incense and myrrh to the manger, the singer of "Ich steh an deiner Krippen hier" offers spirit and mind, heart, soul and courage as gifts? (6 January)
rejoice, serve, serve with joy, reflect, come together to dance and give thanks | |
---|---|
in loving memory of my mother who was born on 9 January, and my father who died on 15 January listen, 2017 |
mein hertze sol dir grünen my heart shall green for you (Paul Gerhardt, 1653) |
---|
Archive of 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014 · 2015 · 2016 · 2017 · 2018 · blushing
Thank you
Thank you for the positive comments at the AI thread. Hard spot for anyone to speak up when a gang of editors are attacking someone....thanks. All my fault I took the bait. I really don't see a point in commenting anymore as they don't seem to care about accessibility dispite studies and reader after reader saying something. I will still have fun watching these guys scrabble all the time this comes up. It's to bad and funny because most of them are great editors. I spoke up about every 3 months or so...but think things are personal between me and Cass now..thus think it's best to let others deal with his odd inflamitory attitude. --Moxy (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Agree, - I just stopped commenting, it's a waste of time. I add infoboxes, and when they are reverted, I add a new one, - for the readers. 2017 is the year of reformation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- 2018 is the year of serving with joy, - the same still applies. I'd advise everybody to stay as far away from the infoboxes topic as they can. There are so many other good things you can do here with the limited time we are given in life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Cantata query
Hi Gerda, are you up for a Cantata Query please? It has ****-all to do with Wikipedia really so I would email you if it's OK. Bribery terms highly negotiable! Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- go ahead --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! Emailed you just now. Sorry in advance ... Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Gottes Zeit ist die allerbeste Zeit, BWV 106? Can't be said too often. Happy 2018! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oh good grief, how beautiful and how deliciously weird too! The boss is out walking doggies right now but I have downloaded the Suziki Vol. 2 (I love the Cantata article structures!) and I'm going to play it to her as soon as she is back. Just from her description, I think you have nailed it - you amazing knowledge repository you! Thank you so much and Happy New Year to you too. I'll get back to you when she's heard it (watch this space) but I think I know the outcome ... with all good wishes DBaK (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Gottes Zeit ist die allerbeste Zeit, BWV 106? Can't be said too often. Happy 2018! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! Emailed you just now. Sorry in advance ... Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Magnificat and Nunc dimittis (Gloucester)
On 1 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Magnificat and Nunc dimittis (Gloucester), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Herbert Howells composed the Magnificat and Nunc dimittis for Gloucester Cathedral after having organ lessons there with Herbert Brewer as a boy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Magnificat and Nunc dimittis (Gloucester). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Magnificat and Nunc dimittis (Gloucester)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Ich steh an deiner Krippen hier
On 6 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ich steh an deiner Krippen hier, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that while the Three Kings bring gold, incense and myrrh to the manger, the singer of "Ich steh an deiner Krippen hier" offers spirit and mind, heart, soul and courage as gifts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ich steh an deiner Krippen hier. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ich steh an deiner Krippen hier), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Music
Hello Gerda. I’ve just read today’s featured article, Der Psalm 100, and saw you had something to do with it. For that effort I thank you. I would also like to ask if you are a musician. My mother taught me to play piano when I was a child - she played piano for the small Southern Baptist chapel she grew up in in a small town in the Southern US. I hadn’t touched a (musical) keyboard for nearly 25 years (except upon visits to my mother) until this Christmas when my wife surprised me with an electronic piano as a gift. I have greatly enjoyed relearning the true wonder of music these past few days. I was so incredibly surprised that I still remembered the notes to Minuet WoO 10, No. 2 (Beethoven)! Today I am thankful to be able to appreciate music and have a desire to learn more about it. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, Mr Ernie! I almost cried when you mentioned your mother because today is the birthday of my mother, and the day was chosen because this is so, DYK? In loving memory I recall that she had sung all the time I can remember, and I got a piano - something she would have loved to learn but her family couldn't afford it - when I was ten. Professionally, I did something else, but the love of music stayed (I have an infobox on my user page), and yes, this past Christmas was especially musical, - happy 2018! The psalm by Reger (celebrated in 2016) is a giant work, and carries what I stand for: rejoice, serve, serve with joy, reflect, come together to dance and give thanks. There's a YouTube link if you want to listen to us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
DYK for St. Nicolai, Lüneburg
On 10 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article St. Nicolai, Lüneburg, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that St. Nicolai, Lüneburg, a brick Gothic church with a "star" rib vault (pictured), was the location of the first Lutheran sermon in Lüneburg? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/St. Nicolai, Lüneburg. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, St. Nicolai, Lüneburg), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Heinz Wunderlich
On 11 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Heinz Wunderlich, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the organ virtuoso and teacher Heinz Wunderlich held a Hamburg post that Bach had once wanted? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Heinz Wunderlich. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Heinz Wunderlich), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Singers
Well, to be fair, I've also known a few singers who weren't musicians, so... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Cristina Pasaroiu
On 13 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cristina Pasaroiu, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that soprano Cristina Pasaroiu played Manon in boots, even in bed with her lover? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cristina Pasaroiu. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cristina Pasaroiu), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Diethard Zils
Servus Gerda, ich habe in der deutschen Wikipedia die Werkangaben bei Diethard Zils ergänzt, für den Fall, dass du sie hier auch ergänzen möchtest. LG und Gutes für 2018 --Ἀστερίσκος (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Danke, später vielleicht, bin im Urlaub. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- ...gute Recreation! LG--Ἀστερίσκος (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Propsteikirche, Dortmund
On 15 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Propsteikirche, Dortmund, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the high altar in the Propsteikirche, created by Derick Baegert, includes the oldest depiction of Dortmund on its left panel (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Propsteikirche, Dortmund. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Propsteikirche, Dortmund), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Gerda
Just a message that on 30 December–11 January I was in Addenbrookes Hospital with a stroke. I was lucky that I mostly recovered my vocabulary; and I was also fortunate that on 12 January I was able to play BWV 653, "By the waters of Babylon I sat and wept", on manuals and pedal (our 1708 baroque organ). Perhaps I might play one of the Reger 52 "easy" chorale preludes on that organ as a tribute. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Shocked and relieved! Makes us remember what's important. I pay tribute to my parents, above, did you see? I wanted the image on 1 January, but today is even better. I grew up in Dortmund, Aplerbeck, to be precise. Article will grow, I'm on vacation. - All the best for your health. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Mass, Op. 130
On 15 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mass, Op. 130, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, although Joseph Jongen conducted the first performance of Mass, Op. 130 at Liège Cathedral in 1946, it was not published until 1990? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mass, Op. 130. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mass, Op. 130), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Diego Fasolis
On 16 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Diego Fasolis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Diego Fasolis conducted L'incoronazione di Poppea at the reopened Staatsoper Unter den Linden, adding music by other composers of Monteverdi's time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Diego Fasolis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Diego Fasolis), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Mark Milhofer
On 18 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mark Milhofer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the English tenor Mark Milhofer appeared as Mozart's Ferrando in Beijing and Moscow, and as Poppea's nurse in Berlin, dressed as a parody of Riff Raff? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Milhofer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mark Milhofer), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Christmas Lullaby
On 18 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Christmas Lullaby, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Rutter wrote the lyrics for his choral composition Christmas Lullaby, with each verse including the refrain "Ave Maria"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas Lullaby. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Christmas Lullaby), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Mifter (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Lorenzo Viotti
On 19 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lorenzo Viotti, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lorenzo Viotti conducted Massenet's Werther in three productions in opera houses of three countries in 2017, silently singing with the soloists? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lorenzo Viotti. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lorenzo Viotti), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125 scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125 has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 February 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, will check! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- "In the third movement, Bach set the librettist's text differently than the interspersed hymn quotations, but unites both all with a continuous "motif of joy" in the accompaniment." Could you rephrase? I don't know what that means. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's your job ;) - Long version: Bach sets the elements recitative and chorale differently, rendering the librettist's text in "rhythmically free diction of recitative",[24] and the chorale as arioso. He unifies the movement by a continuous motif in the strings, called "Freudenmotiv" by Dürr, which "always indicates an underlying mood of happiness". - Explanation: the text combines the librettist's words and quotations from Luther's hymn, not one after the other, but switching several times. See here, librettist's normal, hymn bold. Bach set the librettist's words as recitative, but Luther's as arioso, with the accompaniment the same throughout for both: a motif that stands for joy (Freude). Please try, - this is an outstanding movement (both text and music are unusual), so should be mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- I like your version, but ... the motif is repeated over and over, and Freudenmotiv is a symbol of joy rather than plain and obvious "joyful". But I guess it works for a casual reader. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
"We are not amused"
Your comment turned out to be far more prescient than I think either of us could have imagined! I hope you're keeping up with events. I know you said you're on holiday but if you take a sideways look at all the drama it's hilarious in a Kafkaesque sort of way. (Sorry, I know that word is grossly overused but you get the idea.) nagualdesign 02:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- For me, amusement is a kind of joy, see just above, call it a deliberate joy perhaps. I translate the title as "in peace and joy I let go" and try to live by it, could also say "without [the time waste of] discussion, but amused I go away". Sing a new song! Rejoice, serve! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I've woken up rather less amused than when I went to bed. Even when the bad guy ends up in the clink I can't help wondering if he's going to be alright in there. I feel responsible. That's a positive thing though, right? Better than not giving a f**k, that's for sure. Ah well. nagualdesign 13:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- You came past my edit notice "Every editor is a human being." - no? I tell it myself, again, again, again, again ... - A friend died 2 years ago, - all the rest is of minor importance, kafkaesque at best. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- As the day went on I began feeling better. I remembered The Place of No Pity. nagualdesign 21:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Good, no self-pity ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- As the day went on I began feeling better. I remembered The Place of No Pity. nagualdesign 21:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- You came past my edit notice "Every editor is a human being." - no? I tell it myself, again, again, again, again ... - A friend died 2 years ago, - all the rest is of minor importance, kafkaesque at best. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I've woken up rather less amused than when I went to bed. Even when the bad guy ends up in the clink I can't help wondering if he's going to be alright in there. I feel responsible. That's a positive thing though, right? Better than not giving a f**k, that's for sure. Ah well. nagualdesign 13:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Ilona Durigo
I have done a quick translation, but I was not sure of the meaning of Kopfregister and had to guess at repertoire, you may need to correct that. I have left the original in the footnote for reference. Moonraker (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Not repertoire, but a vocal technique thing, resonance in the head (Kopfstimme = head voice), rather than chest/breast (Bruststimme = chest voice). Thanks for undertaking that! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought it was something I didn't understand. I'll leave it for you to correct. Moonraker (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, let's look at it:
- Frau Durigo sang these and all other songs (with those added there were nineteen) ... with the deepest perception.(?1) Her own experience of the songs(?2) expressed itself (?3) not only in the musical differences of enunciation (the tones of her repertoire, so wonderfully fine, so poetry-transfigured, were never heard before from any singer),(?4) but also in the sparkle of her eyes, the true mirror of the soul,(?5) as it came and went. And that her interpretation throughout captured the perceptions of the composer, showed the perfect harmony between her splendid singing and the exceptionally(?6) beautiful piano playing of Schoeck.(?7)
- Yes, I thought it was something I didn't understand. I'll leave it for you to correct. Moonraker (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Frau Durigo sang diese und alle anderen Lieder (mit der Zugabe waren es 19) ... mit tiefster Empfindung. Ihr eigenes Erleben dieser Lieder äusserte sich nicht allein in den musikalischen Vortragsdifferenzierungen (so wunderzart, poesieverklärte Töne, wie die ihres Kopfregisters, hörte man vorher von keiner Sängerin), sondern auch im zu- und abnehmenden Glanz ihrer Augen, dieses wahren Seelenspiegels. Und dass ihre Interpretation durchwegs das vom Komponisten Empfundene zutreffend erfasste, bewies die vollkommene Harmonie ihres herrlichen Gesanges mit Schoecks eigenartig schönem Klavierspiel."
- Is "perception" (Wahrnehmung) really "Empfindung"? as in Empfindsamkeit? I'd roughly think "feeling", "sensitivity", "open for the sentiment". In other words: you can perceive without a soul, but not "empfinden" without one.
- "Erleben" should be experience of what is going on in the song, rather then repertoire. She lives what she sings.
- "äusserte sich" means simply "showed", - now put that in idiomatic, - I don't think you can personalize "experience" (or whatever better word you find) as some "it" that has an expression.
- the whole phrase in brackets needs rewording, after adding "head voice", - "so wunderzart" is explained/illustrated by all the details that follow, therefore should be at the beginning.
- "... of her soul", no?
- "eigenartig" means "one of a kind" or "unique", - today almost always used in a negative way, but not then.
- The whole sentence should be the other way round: the harmony between her and the pianist/composer showed that she had the right sensitivity for his songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Gerda, I'd say most of these German words for abstract ideas don't have an exact equivalent in English, you can't nail them down precisely. It was only a quick translation, and some of your choices are better.
- Yes, sensitivity is better here than perception and feeling.
- You seem to be agreeing with the word experience. I did say repertoire was a complete guess, as I had never come across that word Kopfregister.
- äussern is cognate with utter, the root meaning of it is something like giving voice to. If here the writer means showed or displayed, then we could bring in one of those, or perhaps an English writer would say shone through in.
- I turned it around because it sounded a little awkward, but we can of course keep the German word order if you think there's a particular reason for it.
- The German doesn't specify anyone's soul, and that term mirror of the soul is a standard English idiom. So if we said mirror of her soul, we should be adding an emphasis that isn't there.
- On eigenartig, I'd say individual is nearer the meaning than unique? I don't sense that the writer is saying Schoecks Klavierspiel was uniquely beautiful, and I think exceptionally gets to about the right level of praise. If we said "individually beautiful" that sounds weird, believe me.
- I left it as it was because I could make it sound okay in English, but the perfect harmony is the active noun in the sentence, so it does come out better if turned around, as you suggest. I once heard Giscard d'Estaing give a speech in French that was being simultaneously translated for an international conference in Sweden, and after a few small jokes he commented rather drily that the Germans mostly laughed last, because the verb finds its way to the end of the sentence.
- So perhaps we get to this -
Frau Durigo sang these and all other songs (with those added there were nineteen) ... with the deepest sensitivity. Her own experience of the songs shone through, not only in the musical differences of enunciation (such wonderfully fine, such poetry-transfigured tones of the head−voice were never heard before from any singer), but also in the sparkle of her eyes, the true mirror of the soul, as it came and went. And the perfect harmony between her splendid singing and the exceptionally beautiful piano playing of Schoeck showed that her interpretation throughout captured the perceptions of the composer.
- Moonraker (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Gerda, I'd say most of these German words for abstract ideas don't have an exact equivalent in English, you can't nail them down precisely. It was only a quick translation, and some of your choices are better.
- Splendid. Please add that. Minor: how about "intentions" of the composer, rather than "perceptions", - concept? ideas? feelings? - every single one not good enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I have updated the page. Moonraker (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, I enjoyed it. You can get ready for the translation of the title page of Schemellis Gesangbuch ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Flowery language
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | ||
For your excellent suggestion to use flowers for arbitration case names [1] Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC) |
Thank you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Zu Bethlehem geboren
On 21 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zu Bethlehem geboren, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Friedrich Spee wrote the lyrics of the Christmas carol "Zu Bethlehem geboren" to a popular French tune with a frivolous text? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zu Bethlehem geboren. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Zu Bethlehem geboren), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear...
In response to your comment: "Alex, do you really not see the irony? - See thread just above. Amused." -- Clearly, Gerda, you are suffering from a touch of selective reading. Gnome points out in his post that comments can be removed if they are "...harmful posts, including personal attacks, [and] trolling...". His comment on the Shelley talk page has nothing to do with the subject in hand and is a response to a now 8-day old comment. It is designed to belittle and patronise the people on the other side of the argument and that does not make for constructive editing. I would consider that to be "trolling" and "harmful" to the project as it is taking other editors away from improving the project to comment on this. No response required and your welcome to revert. CassiantoTalk 10:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm simply warning the neophyte of the dangers inherent in the toxic environment created by the childish and amateurish anti-infobox fanaticism. (Sample case in point, here. Lots more around but I can't be bothered.) I happen to find your comments in almost every thread and your general behavior extremely antagonistic, the opposite of constructive, and uncivil. In all my years in Wikipedia (about ten, so far), yours amounts to the worst violation of the code of civility by established editors I've come across. If you perchance find this "insulting," I'm sorry but that is not the intention. And you know what's sad? I checked up on some of your contributions and, if I may say so, in all humility, you still can be an otherwise quite valuable contributor to the project. Alas, you seem to have a temper shorter than Lady Gaga's hotpants! Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- How about the childish and amateurish infobox fanaticism? We see this on a daily basis - and yet nothing is said? Why do you assume that those who dare to have a differing opinion to you are "childish and amateurish"? With regards to my "civility"? Well, I'm not here to make friends; I'm here to write, and if people piss me off along the way, without good cause, then I'll tell them, as I would in a real life situation. I'm afraid I don't pander to the Snowflake generation. I have always maintained that I would never say something to someone on here that I wouldn't have the balls to say in real life. And I think I've been pretty consistent with that. I abhor ageism, sexism, racism, homophobia, and the mocking of people with mental health issues. So to say that I'm by far the worst offender, is entirely inaccurate, I assure you, as I've seen it and have been the recipient of it on more than one occasion. For someone whose supposedly been here ten years, I'd suggest that you've led a pretty sheltered life around here if you consider my comments to be the worst. CassiantoTalk 17:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- I concede that I do not see nor watch everything. :-) But this is the honest truth as far as I'm concerned: I both find your contributions to articles valuable and your behavior towards editors with whom your disagree extremely uncivil. Of course, you'd see this very differently. You state that you are "not here to make friends" but being civil is not the same as seeking friendships; the insinuation about physical confrontation does not help either (i.e. "I would never say something to someone on here that I wouldn't have the balls to say in real life"). That's great, neither have I ever. But this is not because I'd be scared or be afraid of getting my ass kicked, or something. Anyway, what can I say - ever since I fell upon it (some weeks of months ago), I found the whole "infobox brouhaha" something strictly for the funny pages. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- How about the childish and amateurish infobox fanaticism? We see this on a daily basis - and yet nothing is said? Why do you assume that those who dare to have a differing opinion to you are "childish and amateurish"? With regards to my "civility"? Well, I'm not here to make friends; I'm here to write, and if people piss me off along the way, without good cause, then I'll tell them, as I would in a real life situation. I'm afraid I don't pander to the Snowflake generation. I have always maintained that I would never say something to someone on here that I wouldn't have the balls to say in real life. And I think I've been pretty consistent with that. I abhor ageism, sexism, racism, homophobia, and the mocking of people with mental health issues. So to say that I'm by far the worst offender, is entirely inaccurate, I assure you, as I've seen it and have been the recipient of it on more than one occasion. For someone whose supposedly been here ten years, I'd suggest that you've led a pretty sheltered life around here if you consider my comments to be the worst. CassiantoTalk 17:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Cassianto (and this is in response to your first message, edit conflict, but it's probably good for the other as well): I have a clear and simple policy about infoboxes on top of this page, summary: stay away from the topic as far as you can. There are people writing about them who don't understand the basics of our article, and it's tiresome to repeat the same things, for example "not necessary" (yes, of course not, nothing we do here is necessary), "redundant" (yes, of course, designed to repeat), and so on. Happy editing! It will be happier for everybody if the phrases "toxic", "insane" and "obsessed" are avoided. Remember? (2014) - I'd know a few more terms I really hate (and then being amused is more positive than despair), but let's try just those for a start. Alex, that means you as well. I wish you well with your attempt to improve the atmosphere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- The trouble is, Gerda, you don't stay away from infoboxes, do you? You add them more frequently than they are taken away. Like this, for instance. What possibly possessed you to add that? It is as ridiculous as the day is long. And when they are taken away, you make a note of them on your user page. You "thank" people who add them and snipe at those who disagree with you. You are as bad as Gnome, Jcc, and the rest of them, only you are passive aggressive about it. CassiantoTalk 19:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- I said "as far as you can", no? When I add to an article, I also add an infobox. Your edits to the article have been reverts only, right? Usually described as drive-by. I withdrew the DYK nomination. What I don't do because it's a waste of time is "discussing". I did it here only because you mentioned the example. - I don't believe Gnome and Jcc are bad, nor you, so I enjoy the company. Every editor is a human being. If I may ask for two more terms to please be avoided then "fanatic" and "passive-aggressive". - I thank people who correct my mistakes, who revert vandalism, and yes, those who support my view that an infobox is helpful for some readers, which is enough for me. Back in 2013, I pleaded "but is it possible if it's good for only ten people", like Abraham when he argued with God ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Can you tell me what's helpful about the one you added on the Palm 149 article? I would suggest "nothing" as it carried only one field, "Hebrew", which is mentioned in the caption directly above it. Take that away and all you're left with is a box outline. This then begs the question why did you add it? You seem reluctant, or perhaps unable, whichever suits, to say why this is; uniformity, consistency, or aesthetically? Because I can tell you, it seems it's been added using not a lot of common sense. CassiantoTalk 21:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- What did you not understand in "the repetitive discussions are a waste of time"? I will try to first understand more about these psalms, find more background and information, but need time for research. Some help finding out when that was written by whom would be appreciated. They are not all by David, nor all from the same time. I am new to the topic, and curious, and Yoninah has helped a lot already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- So unable or reluctant to then; I thought as much. The more people like you keep sticking your heads in the sand and hiding behind "civility" tags "own" accusations, or such as in this case, focusing on the discussion process rather than the cause of it, the more these discussion will be repeated. Sadly, until the next time... good evening. CassiantoTalk 21:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- You must confuse me with somebody. Civility was never my topic, nor did I say "OWN", and I hate tags. I wrote Der 100. Psalm, and will improve Psalm 100, and some others. To my understanding we have an unwritten agreement that I don't try to change "your" articles (Michael Hordern), - how about the same the other way round? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- 1). More selective reading; I said people like you use OWN and CIVIL, not you specifically. 2). There's no such thing as an "unwritten agreement" on Wikipedia as the alternative is a verbal one, and I'm pretty sure we've never spoken. 3). I will change what I like, when I like, and you can do the same; whether each other's changes have any merit or not is a different story. CassiantoTalk 22:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- My logic seems to be different than yours, which perhaps explains some misunderstandings. 1) I would not say "people like you" if I didn't mean you also. How else can the "like" make sense? How about less "people", but be specific? 2) Not everything that's not written has to be spoken.
- The only thing I revert is vandalism, otherwise I let writers pretty much do what they like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- 1) Your logic is different to mine, which perhaps explains this misunderstanding. 2) Aside from the power of positive thought and the sending of a carrier pigeon that pecks out a coded message on a piece of wet bark, I cannot think how this could happen. But who cares. I suspect this is was only said in order bolster up a rather weak attempt to make me feel guilty about removing a box from "your" article when you don't add them to "mine". It doesn't. CassiantoTalk 23:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have no idea why you bring "feel guilty" into play. You don't sound like you feel guilty much. - I remember Max Reger, and it was written ("I will never convince you by argument, and you will never convince me by argument, so why not stop arguing and let people add an infobox (as long as it's not incorrect) if they like it, and others leave an article without it, if they like it." written June 2016). - Now, I need sleep. Even a fanatic, obsessed and passive-aggressive monster needs sleep at times ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- People can add infoboxes, but they should expect to have them challenged at any time, if someone deems them to be not fit for purpose. That's the beauty of having different opinions, you see; it's just the pro-box side think that everyone should just conform to their way of thinking, and if they don't, then they're just troublemakers. Not on my watch. Good evening. CassiantoTalk 23:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have no idea why you bring "feel guilty" into play. You don't sound like you feel guilty much. - I remember Max Reger, and it was written ("I will never convince you by argument, and you will never convince me by argument, so why not stop arguing and let people add an infobox (as long as it's not incorrect) if they like it, and others leave an article without it, if they like it." written June 2016). - Now, I need sleep. Even a fanatic, obsessed and passive-aggressive monster needs sleep at times ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- 1) Your logic is different to mine, which perhaps explains this misunderstanding. 2) Aside from the power of positive thought and the sending of a carrier pigeon that pecks out a coded message on a piece of wet bark, I cannot think how this could happen. But who cares. I suspect this is was only said in order bolster up a rather weak attempt to make me feel guilty about removing a box from "your" article when you don't add them to "mine". It doesn't. CassiantoTalk 23:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- 1). More selective reading; I said people like you use OWN and CIVIL, not you specifically. 2). There's no such thing as an "unwritten agreement" on Wikipedia as the alternative is a verbal one, and I'm pretty sure we've never spoken. 3). I will change what I like, when I like, and you can do the same; whether each other's changes have any merit or not is a different story. CassiantoTalk 22:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- ps: kindly get rid of the meaningless image caption in Psalm 100, IF you think you have to revert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- You must confuse me with somebody. Civility was never my topic, nor did I say "OWN", and I hate tags. I wrote Der 100. Psalm, and will improve Psalm 100, and some others. To my understanding we have an unwritten agreement that I don't try to change "your" articles (Michael Hordern), - how about the same the other way round? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- So unable or reluctant to then; I thought as much. The more people like you keep sticking your heads in the sand and hiding behind "civility" tags "own" accusations, or such as in this case, focusing on the discussion process rather than the cause of it, the more these discussion will be repeated. Sadly, until the next time... good evening. CassiantoTalk 21:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- What did you not understand in "the repetitive discussions are a waste of time"? I will try to first understand more about these psalms, find more background and information, but need time for research. Some help finding out when that was written by whom would be appreciated. They are not all by David, nor all from the same time. I am new to the topic, and curious, and Yoninah has helped a lot already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Can you tell me what's helpful about the one you added on the Palm 149 article? I would suggest "nothing" as it carried only one field, "Hebrew", which is mentioned in the caption directly above it. Take that away and all you're left with is a box outline. This then begs the question why did you add it? You seem reluctant, or perhaps unable, whichever suits, to say why this is; uniformity, consistency, or aesthetically? Because I can tell you, it seems it's been added using not a lot of common sense. CassiantoTalk 21:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- I said "as far as you can", no? When I add to an article, I also add an infobox. Your edits to the article have been reverts only, right? Usually described as drive-by. I withdrew the DYK nomination. What I don't do because it's a waste of time is "discussing". I did it here only because you mentioned the example. - I don't believe Gnome and Jcc are bad, nor you, so I enjoy the company. Every editor is a human being. If I may ask for two more terms to please be avoided then "fanatic" and "passive-aggressive". - I thank people who correct my mistakes, who revert vandalism, and yes, those who support my view that an infobox is helpful for some readers, which is enough for me. Back in 2013, I pleaded "but is it possible if it's good for only ten people", like Abraham when he argued with God ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- The trouble is, Gerda, you don't stay away from infoboxes, do you? You add them more frequently than they are taken away. Like this, for instance. What possibly possessed you to add that? It is as ridiculous as the day is long. And when they are taken away, you make a note of them on your user page. You "thank" people who add them and snipe at those who disagree with you. You are as bad as Gnome, Jcc, and the rest of them, only you are passive aggressive about it. CassiantoTalk 19:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Sing a new song
New day, and with a new idea, and encouraged by this, I try to explain once more: The first sentence of infobox reads "An infobox is a template used to collect and present a subset of information about its subject, such as a document. It is a structured document containing a set of attribute–value pairs." That tells me: it has to present no additional information (but a subset, so is always redundant), and it is not restrained to information from the lead (but the whole article). I am used to these attribute-value pairs, being an opera lover, because a traditional opera plot begins with giving place and time of what follows. For me, an infobox - minimum version - does that: give me place and time for an article in a structured form. See Götterdämmerung: premiered when and where. See Beethoven: baptized when and where, died when and where, List of his compositions. - Cary Grant: A man's face, first word "Publicity", which is sort of fine for people who recognize the face. I and most of my cabal didn't go to the RfC there (wrong question: no word about restoration of a long-time infobox, no definition of a future one), as you may have noticed, - trying to leave things peaceful. For the psalm, Sing a new song, I don't know time and location yet, but will research. We have stub articles, why not tolerate a stub infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Because a stub article is readable in terms of its length. Why bother to write the sub at all if we can get away with filling out an infobox template? I’m not really concerned with the Infobox article you link to; I’m more interested in the MoS that advises that an “infobox is neither prohibited or required" which, although it’s sitting on the fence a little bit, is fair in its description. But I'm the first to recognise that such impartial writing from our "guide" is perhaps why so many disputes take place. CassiantoTalk 12:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- I can probably recite the "neither prohibited nor required" from memory. How many times was that quoted in discussions? The arbs ruled in 2013: "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general." Perhaps that should be repeated more. - I don't get from your answer if you understand that "infobox is redundant" is never a good argument because it's the concept of an infobox to be redundant, and that all arguments mentioning the lead are also no good, because neither does all infobox data have to be in the lead, nor is it restricted to information from the lead. - I come from articles like this: The lead describes the character, while the infobox has the numbers. I like Imogen Holst.---Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- "Decorum and civility" unfortunately, gets stretched to the limit when the same old discussions by the same old people, keep getting rehashed every couple of months on the same old pages; moreover, as with Shelley's article, on a page where an obvious consensus exists, but like the Brexit situation, certain sections of the community want a best of three situation in order to overturn a decision that doesn't sit with them very well. Alex Shih, and people like him, can virtue signal all they want about civility being more of a concern than the subject at hand, but why fix the sink when it's the tap at fault? Civility is a byproduct of the flawed infobox ruling, and this is exasperated by people edit warring, taking the moral high ground that "consistency is key" and "you don't speak for the readers, I do" kind of talk. This is aggravated by patronising behaviour, and people refusing to accept others views or any offers of compromise. Oh, and is Alex going to devise an "edit notice" for those of us who specifically opt to create articles without an Infobox? I shouldn't think not. CassiantoTalk 16:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- You manage beautifully to respond to the part of my comment that was less important (civility, - I said above it's not my topic), while my focus was "to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general". Example Cary Grant discussion: if you ignore the comments that speak about infoboxes in general, not much would be left. I am sure that Alex thinks of a "no infobox edit notice", because no other is needed. We pro-boxers (= fans of structured information) don't need a notice. Did you know that I have not edit warred once in my Wikipedia career? The closest I came to it was on Sparrow Mass, when I restored the preferred version - weeks later - after the edit war of others. I recommend strict 1RR to anybody who wants to listen. This old woman has not started an infobox discussion since Pierre Boulez (when he died, 2 years ago). Long live his memory. Stay away from any infobox stuff, is what I learned and try to pass on. Look at the pristine talk page of Imogen Holst, - that's the goal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- I know, fancy me selectively reading another persons post. CassiantoTalk 17:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Cassianto, if flawed infobox ruling from 2013 is the key problem, what remedy would you suggest? I am not actually so concerned about incivility; I think it's necessary to get things in order first, which I assume is what you meant by fixing the tap. I'll revert myself if you think edit notice is a bad idea, I was experimenting with thoughts reflected from reading comments by Dr. Blofeld, to devise some sort of mechanism to reduce drive-by additions of infobox. Alex Shih (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Just to add, having watchlisted pages like Stanley Kubrick and Cary Grant recently does already gives me an small insight on how ridiculously frustrating it can be seeing edits like this one come up persistently. I am leaning toward the opinion that once a status quo has been established from extensive discussions, the status quo should remain in place unless if specific arguments about the article are proposed. But I'd like to know better solutions so that I can propose them to other members of the committee. Alex Shih (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Can you two perhaps talk on one of your pages? - About that edit: I never heard that editor's name, and believe they meant well. A little bit more AGF might also help. Seriously. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry Gerda, perhaps I went too far off, I'll go away. To be fair, you asked me to read the cordial exchange here, so I read them and responded with my thoughts. Anyway, I don't think it's a bad thing to be frustrated at ill-advised but perhaps well-meaning edits; I thought Ian Rose's edit summary in his revert was fair and quite AGF. Alex Shih (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- You don't have to go away if you talk to me. Ian is also someone who seems to be respected by all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- You can talk to me, Alex, on my talk page. It appears that Gerda is losing interest, despite the fact she keeps starting new threads about the same discussion, on her talk page. Gerda, if you don't want people talking about this (and you do) then please don't keep starting new threads and baiting people into discussion. CassiantoTalk 19:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- You can talk to me, Cassianto, but - forgive me - it looked to me like you two wanted to talk to each other, about things such as the 2013 ruling which was flawed but who cares, and the history of two articles that I know too well, and about me in the third person. Talk constructively about the future, and I am ready. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'd like to, Gerda, but it appears to some, that I've been "hounding" you. It's a shame, as there's nothing look a good discussion to sort out differs of opinion, and I was rather enjoying having a debate with you. CassiantoTalk 09:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- You can talk to me, Cassianto, but - forgive me - it looked to me like you two wanted to talk to each other, about things such as the 2013 ruling which was flawed but who cares, and the history of two articles that I know too well, and about me in the third person. Talk constructively about the future, and I am ready. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- You can talk to me, Alex, on my talk page. It appears that Gerda is losing interest, despite the fact she keeps starting new threads about the same discussion, on her talk page. Gerda, if you don't want people talking about this (and you do) then please don't keep starting new threads and baiting people into discussion. CassiantoTalk 19:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- You don't have to go away if you talk to me. Ian is also someone who seems to be respected by all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry Gerda, perhaps I went too far off, I'll go away. To be fair, you asked me to read the cordial exchange here, so I read them and responded with my thoughts. Anyway, I don't think it's a bad thing to be frustrated at ill-advised but perhaps well-meaning edits; I thought Ian Rose's edit summary in his revert was fair and quite AGF. Alex Shih (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Can you two perhaps talk on one of your pages? - About that edit: I never heard that editor's name, and believe they meant well. A little bit more AGF might also help. Seriously. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- I know, fancy me selectively reading another persons post. CassiantoTalk 17:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- You manage beautifully to respond to the part of my comment that was less important (civility, - I said above it's not my topic), while my focus was "to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general". Example Cary Grant discussion: if you ignore the comments that speak about infoboxes in general, not much would be left. I am sure that Alex thinks of a "no infobox edit notice", because no other is needed. We pro-boxers (= fans of structured information) don't need a notice. Did you know that I have not edit warred once in my Wikipedia career? The closest I came to it was on Sparrow Mass, when I restored the preferred version - weeks later - after the edit war of others. I recommend strict 1RR to anybody who wants to listen. This old woman has not started an infobox discussion since Pierre Boulez (when he died, 2 years ago). Long live his memory. Stay away from any infobox stuff, is what I learned and try to pass on. Look at the pristine talk page of Imogen Holst, - that's the goal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- "Decorum and civility" unfortunately, gets stretched to the limit when the same old discussions by the same old people, keep getting rehashed every couple of months on the same old pages; moreover, as with Shelley's article, on a page where an obvious consensus exists, but like the Brexit situation, certain sections of the community want a best of three situation in order to overturn a decision that doesn't sit with them very well. Alex Shih, and people like him, can virtue signal all they want about civility being more of a concern than the subject at hand, but why fix the sink when it's the tap at fault? Civility is a byproduct of the flawed infobox ruling, and this is exasperated by people edit warring, taking the moral high ground that "consistency is key" and "you don't speak for the readers, I do" kind of talk. This is aggravated by patronising behaviour, and people refusing to accept others views or any offers of compromise. Oh, and is Alex going to devise an "edit notice" for those of us who specifically opt to create articles without an Infobox? I shouldn't think not. CassiantoTalk 16:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- I can probably recite the "neither prohibited nor required" from memory. How many times was that quoted in discussions? The arbs ruled in 2013: "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general." Perhaps that should be repeated more. - I don't get from your answer if you understand that "infobox is redundant" is never a good argument because it's the concept of an infobox to be redundant, and that all arguments mentioning the lead are also no good, because neither does all infobox data have to be in the lead, nor is it restricted to information from the lead. - I come from articles like this: The lead describes the character, while the infobox has the numbers. I like Imogen Holst.---Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Precious to the one deserves it most
For the most precious of all for your kindness and unfailing efforts to find peaceful ways of dealing with all of Wikipedia no matter the provocation to do otherwise, for the poetry of your approach, and for your extensive contributions, dear Gerda.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC))
- Thank you, fits nicely with the monster needing sleep ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
DYK for In Exile (Sumsion)
On 23 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article In Exile (Sumsion), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the motet In Exile for double choir by Herbert Sumsion was premiered at Gloucester Cathedral? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/In Exile (Sumsion). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, In Exile (Sumsion)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt
On 23 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the German Christmas carol "Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt" is based on a Czech song derived around 1500 from a Latin model (manuscript pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Narodil se Kristus pán for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Narodil se Kristus pán is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narodil se Kristus pán 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. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 23:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)