Yngvadottir (talk | contribs) →Your fine sense of diplomacy: Yes, blocked I see. |
Francis Schonken (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 219: | Line 219: | ||
:Thanks for pointing me to specific diffs. However, having determined that there needs to be a new discussion, I am trying to ensure conditions for it are set up fairly and clearly, not to intervene in it. As such, it's not my business to determine what the common ground is, nor do I have the necessary knowledge. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir#top|talk]]) 05:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
:Thanks for pointing me to specific diffs. However, having determined that there needs to be a new discussion, I am trying to ensure conditions for it are set up fairly and clearly, not to intervene in it. As such, it's not my business to determine what the common ground is, nor do I have the necessary knowledge. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir#top|talk]]) 05:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
::Doing reverts is "intervening" whether you like the word or not. |
|||
::Please don't "intervene" in the consensus part of the discussion (which is a part where the discussions are de facto concluded, so no longer a discussion) |
|||
::I could be sharper on the fact that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnificat_in_D_major%2C_BWV_243&diff=626883485&oldid=623175273 this was a no-consensus page move with a deceptive edit summary by Gerda] which should be undone, but I choose not to... in order to deflate tensions. If you want to go back to "pre-discussion" state, then indeed that page move should be undone (but I prefer the "parallel versions" solution which is technically more correct). |
|||
::So please undo [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnificat_%28Bach%29&diff=634920817&oldid=634893619 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnificat_in_D_major%2C_BWV_243&diff=634920673&oldid=634894589 this], and please also warn {{ping|BlueMoonset}} not to engage in no-consensus reverts any further. |
|||
::Cluelessness is a possible defense for such no-consensus interventions, but imho a weak defense. |
|||
::Further, indeed the discussion regarding the content of the thing that needs to be sorted out is at [[Talk:Magnificat (Bach)#Merge discussion]] as has already been pointed out above, this is what you set in motion, which I'm thankful for, and which is acknowledged by the other parties in the debate (see above). --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 05:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==Disambiguation link notification for November 21== |
==Disambiguation link notification for November 21== |
Revision as of 05:40, 23 November 2014
BNA access
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Chris Troutman (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yay! Thank you!! Yngvadottir (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Editor201504
Hi! Sorry about the edits, I'm doing an experiment for school to test Wikipedia's reliability. Thanks for reverting my edits so quickly! Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor201504 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Editor201504: Oh. Well, thanks for your honesty. But you need to stop such breaching experiments immediately, or I will have to block you. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Korean vandal
If you run what he has been posting, both on articles and his userspace, through some translation software I think it's apparent that he's not going to be explaining anything. pablo 13:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. When I did so I recalled that I had seen that before. Several now blocked accounts with user names in Korean script have posted the same. I wonder whether at least some of them are the same person, unaware this isn't ko.wikipedia? Yngvadottir (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Possibly - the one I was looking at was User:Jeong Bo-seok, who is definitely only here for the swearing; I doubt he/she would be any more welcome at ko:wp, not with edits like those anyway. pablo 13:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the current one. Currently reverting all the articles to before their first edit. I may be extending too much good faith, but it would be nice not to have this happen again. I see they've given me an old-fashioned "Fuck you" now :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- A real charmer! pablo 14:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Here's a list:
- Materialscientist and Discospinster have often been the blocking admins - does either of you know of a sockpuppet or long-term abuse page on these accounts? Yngvadottir (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
"Best known for" IP
I am growing weary of this kind of thing [1], [2], and particularly this [3] from your friend the floating IP. Persistent accusations of bad faith are, I understood, exactly the kind of thing this "deal" was supposed to prevent. I haven't reverted him once since that deal was agreed. If you and Drmies are not to be made to look ridiculous by this guy, can you tell him to curb this nasty chatter? I wouldn't take it from anyone else, and I am not prepared to take it from him. Next time I will consider opening an ANI against him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Noted. Unfortunately there's a substantial disagreement over the words "best known for", and the IP is right to note that we've now been going round in circles for a while. I believe the decision that the other is showing bad faith is now mutual (with the same going for the IP editor and Summer) - both of you have valid points about each other, yours about the implications of the word "wikilawyer", the IP editor's about AGF not being a suicide pact. I must admit to frustration - that article seems like a good test case for us to talk through the issue, but I now can't see a satisfactory way out of the trenches. I've spoken to the editor about his tongue, and he did step back after that. I'm hoping he will continue to control himself, but I do acknowledge your frustration. Pinging Drmies, who's been away this weekend and may not have looked at that conversation yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't really feel that the IP is showing bad faith in this discussion; I think he has an inflated idea of his own competence, and he doesn't understand the implications of removing the "best known for" wording. I've tried to explain it, but he's not interested. The more I point it out, the more he feels I'm "only there to piss him off". I should not be forced to accept his view just because he doesn't understand my objection. If he actually gave a reasoned response to my objection, I might be happier with it. It's worth noting that he's the only editor I've ever seen who objects to that wording. In some cases he's right to remove it. No question about that. I've even removed it myself sometimes. But in other cases the wording is valid, uncontentious, and survives intact for years and years on some articles, with no objection from anyone, until he comes along. Then there's this unholy fight, in which he's usually alone, and never, ever looks for compromise. I'm trying hard with this guy, for Drmies' and your benefit – not for his benefit. I have even ignored edits that I objected to (I would have reverted anyone else who made them). But I won't be bullied by him. Thanks again, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- This [4] is ridiculous. This is going to have to end now or I will make a formal complaint. If anyone is interested in the truth, I was following Summerphd's edits and realising I don't really agree with a lot of his opposition to the IP. I did however agree with him at the Shipping talk page. I see that you and Drmies didn't get criticised for posting there, even though I am sure neither of you have any interest in shipping. How exactly is the IP sticking to his side of the "deal" you made? If I was stalking the IP, where have I reverted or changed his edits? Nowhere! Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- As you are probably aware, he has now made a larger complaint on his talk page [5]. Perhaps you could ask him exactly how making one edit on a talk page constitutes stalking. I was not aware that I was banned from interacting with him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- After this [6], where he called my attempts to sort out this "best known" thing "repeated absurd attempts to derail this discussion", it is best that I do not engage with this IP again until a wider discussion has been held with others. My patience with accusations of bad faith has been exhausted. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- This [7] is simply a pure insult, which I will not dignify with a response. This guy is taking all of us for idiots, including you for helping him, I am sorry to say. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Summerphd has been harassing me for quite some time, and when one person is attacking me, it's certainly easier to imagine that other people are too. Perhaps you and I can in fact resolve this particular misunderstanding, seeing as there are now a number of articles that we've both edited with no great problem. On that talk page, and here, you are accusing me of not understanding your arguments. That, of course, is a pure insult. To me it appears that you are simply on a Gish gallop, throwing out whatever irrelevant arguments you feel like to stymie any useful discussion. Let me reiterate here what I said there. My edit was made to the way certain facts were described. I removed a subjective unverifiable claim. You have aggressively and doggedly demanded that I explain why the facts themselves are there, which is something I don't care about and is irrelevant to how they are described. By trying to start a different argument it seems that you're only interested in derailing the original discussion. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Bretonbanquet: I will look again, but I see the IP endeavouring to keep to the bargain, including participating in talk-page discussion rather than edit-warring. I recognise SummerPhD's point that the IP will be under scrutiny - heck, I'm scrutinising his edits between other tasks, and that's the agreement when we edit here anyway. And I accept your explanation for how you got involved at Talk:Michelle Thomas. But I must point out that it's contradictory for you to say you are sure I am not interested in shipping; amongst the very diverse articles listed on my user page you will find some on ocean liners and I think one on a freighter/incinerator ship. Quite apart from your knowledge that I have undertaken to respond to the IP's concerns and beyond that to shadow his editing somewhat under the agreement which is the main focus of your complaint here. Please don't assume bad faith in anyone's choice to edit anything. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- This [7] is simply a pure insult, which I will not dignify with a response. This guy is taking all of us for idiots, including you for helping him, I am sorry to say. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- After this [6], where he called my attempts to sort out this "best known" thing "repeated absurd attempts to derail this discussion", it is best that I do not engage with this IP again until a wider discussion has been held with others. My patience with accusations of bad faith has been exhausted. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't really feel that the IP is showing bad faith in this discussion; I think he has an inflated idea of his own competence, and he doesn't understand the implications of removing the "best known for" wording. I've tried to explain it, but he's not interested. The more I point it out, the more he feels I'm "only there to piss him off". I should not be forced to accept his view just because he doesn't understand my objection. If he actually gave a reasoned response to my objection, I might be happier with it. It's worth noting that he's the only editor I've ever seen who objects to that wording. In some cases he's right to remove it. No question about that. I've even removed it myself sometimes. But in other cases the wording is valid, uncontentious, and survives intact for years and years on some articles, with no objection from anyone, until he comes along. Then there's this unholy fight, in which he's usually alone, and never, ever looks for compromise. I'm trying hard with this guy, for Drmies' and your benefit – not for his benefit. I have even ignored edits that I objected to (I would have reverted anyone else who made them). But I won't be bullied by him. Thanks again, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The IP's removal of the offending comment is noted. I do not accept that I am insulting the IP by saying that he does not understand my arguments. No insult is intended by that, which I am sure was not the case when he suggested I had a poor grasp of basic writing. Hardly the same thing. It is pointless to continue the discussion there as I know an unending load of rubbish when I see one. What I will not tolerate, and I see it has continued right here without comment from Yngvadottir, is the persistent accusations of bad faith. "Stymying useful discussion, derailing the discussion" – that is not acceptable. I don't care if that's what the IP thinks it looks like. He should learn to assume good faith, yes, that means even with me. I know what I think his behaviour "looks like", but I am keeping it to myself. Same goes for accusations of stalking, which I see Drmies has supported, although there is no evidence for it whatsoever. If either Yngvadottir, Drmies or the IP considers my behaviour to be harassment, take it to the relevant admin page and let an uninvolved admin investigate it. Otherwise, desist from that accusation. I said above here that I do not think the IP is showing bad faith, and I will stick by that. But I expect the same from him. If I don't get it, I will take it elsewhere. There's no reason why he and I shouldn't edit the same articles, as he says, but I feel that the talk page discussion is futile. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited E.ventures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xango. 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) 10:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Erika Jensen-Jarolim
Your recent editing history at Erika Jensen-Jarolim shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.
I personally hate getting to the point of bringing warnings like this to user talk pages, but your edit warring is getting problematic to the point that you could easily be brought to ANI for violating WP:3RR. You should know better since you're an admin, so I'm hoping something just got you really passionate and you're missing the details being covered at the article's talk page in a hurry. Take a breather and try focusing on the discussion. I for one hate going to ANI, so I'm hoping this just serves as a bonk on the head that it's time to slow down. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- The two of you are determined to gut the article one way or another, to the point where you make conflicting complaints. If she's notable, her work merits a fair statement. The gutting produces an unbalanced account reflecting POV; it actually demeans the subject. Some of the justifications given - such as "no foreign language" and "no-non-MEDRS" make no sense. Nor does "She might not even want this mentioned" when the article started off as an autobiography. I've attempted to respond to your contradictory demands. I've examined and incorporated others' additions. But you, Kingofaces43, started the AfD because you assumed she was non-notable, and what you two have been doing to the article makes it hard to see her notability. I don't give a tinker's damn if you take me to AN/I, ArbCom, or the woodshed, have some respect for the subject of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're really jumping to conclusions here (again time to slow down and remember to assume good faith). The gutting comment was on dealing with the COI edits and building from the ground up on the article first rather than leaving everything there instead. I also started the AfD because I thought the notability was questionable, but I didn't have a horse in the race either way, and withdrew when I saw we did meet notability.
- There wasn't anything particularly conflicting in the things myself or Jytdog mentioned either, which is further reasoning to slow down and ask questions rather than get excited. The justification for things were laid out rather plainly at the article, and I was trying to address your confusion there too. You keep citing notability, but keep in mind we are past that point. Notability applies to whether a topic merits its own article. Once you start getting into content, that's a matter for NPOV, etc. (see WP:NNC). We're talking about due weight in the article now, which means we need to be especially careful about claims in medical topics per WP:MEDRS. That means we need to pull information from secondary sources such as review articles demonstrating that her research had significant contributions to the field in some way. NPOV and article notability are two very different beasts. Is this where your confusion was? The vibe I'm getting is that it seems like there's confusion there and with my intentions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- The intentions of the two of you are very clear from your edits. As I say, having extensively rewritten the article - adding external sources, summarizing, toning down, and rearranging - and having noted at the AfD that there were university materials online supporting more of her curriculum vitæ - I did my best to accommodate conflicting demands that would eliminate all the specifics and cast her notability into question. But you two are determined she only deserves a stub - which amounts to, she doesn't really deserve an article. Look at my contribs again - I have not edited the article for some time. I remain disgusted, and will not have my concerns belittled as "confusion" or accept your shared premise that a way has to be found to keep it a stub. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, what mess do I find here? Are people getting crazy? Hafspajen (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Don't ask me to look at it again. At least I managed to save the article - with the help of others who also saw she is notable - but I am unable to meet the contradictory demands (and am not qualified to search Google Scholar for some of what's being asked for). Yngvadottir (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- How about Sandy Georgia? Hafspajen (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, let it go. The subject is highly intelligent; maybe she will herself suggest papers citing and commenting on her work. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Comparison?
Surely someone has written something about this? Yngvadottir (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, not what I know about it. Well spotted, Yngvadottir, looks the same way. Hint - Romantic landscape - Romantic landscapes - Romantic painting. Hafspajen (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
How about this one? Hafspajen (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Heh, needs someone with an art history training :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Additional info on Sophie Hunter
Hello! I just found out that Sophie Hunter has released another music album in 2011 which Guy Chambers wrote. I would just like to request for you to add it in her page. In the lead paragraph, body, and discography section. Here are the sources http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/reviews/album-guy-chambers--sophie-hunter-songs-for-a-boy-sleeper-sounds-2308594.html and https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/songs-for-a-boy-ep/id442687025
Lead paragraph should read
Hunter has also acted on stage and screen. In addition, she has released her French-language music album The Isis Project (2005) and the English-language Songs for a Boy (2011) both in collaboration with songwriter Guy Chambers.
Career section
In addition to directing, she has also acted in film, television and theatre and has released her French-language music album The Isis Project (2005) and the English-language Songs for a Boy (2011) both in collaboration with songwriter Guy Chambers.
And please do add a table in her discography now that she has two released albums.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH! 94.137.180.20 (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I was busy until now, but someone else has added it. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Magnificat
Would you please look into a so-called merge and help me understand?
- 24 Sep 2014: Magnificat in D major, BWV 243, moved from Magnificat (Bach) to distinguish from the earlier version in E-flat major, an article I wrote in memory of my late conductor. During the last years, several works by Bach were split from a combined article for one BWV number into separate articles for other versions, compare BWV 120, now also BWV 120a and BWV 120b
- 08 Oct 2014: expanded
- 09 Oct 2014: Francis Schonken starts moving sections from E-flat major to D major.
- 31 Oct Francis proposes merge
- 16 Nov 2014 merge tag removed from E-flat
- 18 Nov 2014 I remove merge tag from D-flat, talk pages, Francis is asked by RexxS and me to provide arguments for a merge, which we and Montanabw oppose.
- 21 Nov 2014 Francis merges, closing discussions.
I don't think this is a proper way to handle a merge, on top of believing that two articles would be better. Do you understand? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- See also [8] - apparently Gerda had been going around changing links to the Magnificat article to her version of the article: that's precisely why we don't need content forks, not even WP:REDUNDANTFORKS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Francis. You are ignoring the input of editors on this issue. I find you reasonable on Prem Rawat but this doesn't seem so reasonable to me. This isn't about Gerda's preferred version and that's the invalid excuse you are using to merge; its about several editors asking you for reasons to merge. You still have not offered reasons for that merge. Did I miss that. And I like others cannot see why you insist on merging this content. Then you ignore the other editors (excluding Gerda and me) and merge anyway. It only makes sense that over time our articles on music will become more and more detailed and will require content split offs. And why are you closing discussions in which you clearly do not have a neutral position. Doesn't make sense to me at all, I'm afraid.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC))
- (e.c., @ Littleolive oil:) I have given my reasons, don't just repeat what others say, please:
- --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- (after ec's) @Francis Schonken:: As an outsider - I am barely aware of these particular works and can't keep numbers straight - this does look unjustified. Your argument for merging appears to be (a) that you regard one or more articles as undesirable content forks (but you have not explained why) and (b) no one else discussed. Did you present your argument anywhere else? Same question as I asked Gerda, with this amplification: did you present a reason why you regard these as a content fork? (How other-language Wikipedias split up articles is immaterial.) I see two editors presenting reasoned objections and a third removing the merge tag, which also amounts to a "disagree" vote. (I also see Gerda proposing a compromise solution.) You in any case should not have closed the discussion yourself, having encountered disagreement. What am I missing? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- (2x e.c., short, can elaborate when needed)
- I argued WP:REDUNDANTFORK, which is a particular kind of content fork.
- This isn't about "vote" or "majority vote" --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is, however, about having a discussion. You cannot simply present a link to a guidance page and expect everyone to agree that it applies in the particular case. Also I see people saying there has been no discussion - in fact you say so yourself. This looks procedurally invalid - and by "procedurally" I mean that it does not appear consensus was reached, and that matters. So again - is there any discussion other than the one at Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 that I should be looking at? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- yeah, yeah, sure, I explained the REDUNDANTFORK concept to Gerda, Montana, Rexxx, on their user talk pages.
- The procedure as explained at WP:REDUNDANTFORK is: give benefit of doubt, then merge. I have given benefit of doubt, extensively, from the first sideways discussion at Talk:Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a. The problems never got solved, that's why a merge was needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note that I would be in no way reluctant to give benefit of doubt again, and again, etc... No problem there. If an article can be made that is not a REDUNDANTFORK, or worse, a CONTENT FORK, I'm all in (of course the linking to the specific article where there should be a link to a general article has to be reverted. Dozens of pages: as long as that is not repaired there's no use in having an article on a subtopic claiming incoming links that should go to the general article.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- (2x e.c., short, can elaborate when needed)
- (after ec's) @Francis Schonken:: As an outsider - I am barely aware of these particular works and can't keep numbers straight - this does look unjustified. Your argument for merging appears to be (a) that you regard one or more articles as undesirable content forks (but you have not explained why) and (b) no one else discussed. Did you present your argument anywhere else? Same question as I asked Gerda, with this amplification: did you present a reason why you regard these as a content fork? (How other-language Wikipedias split up articles is immaterial.) I see two editors presenting reasoned objections and a third removing the merge tag, which also amounts to a "disagree" vote. (I also see Gerda proposing a compromise solution.) You in any case should not have closed the discussion yourself, having encountered disagreement. What am I missing? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: The first part of my response got lost in the edit conflicts. Is the merge discussion this one: Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243? Or is there another that I did not find? @Francis Schonken: That's what I meant to ask you about too, sorry. Too much searching and cutting and pasting. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is some prior discussion at Talk:Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a
- Further, there are the (extended) prior discussions as mentioned in the 2nd and 3rd line of Magnificat in D major, BWV 243#Merge suggestion
- And discussions on a handful of user talk pages (can provide links if needed). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you mean Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243#Merge suggestion - that's the one I eventually found. It's unfortunate that you argued your position on users' talk pages so much - it shuts out others who may want to participate. Notice that someone else has appeared here who has not been persuaded by your reasoning. What it looks to me has happened is that you have been overly hasty in interpreting WP:REDUNDANTFORK. It does not say "If you believe something to be a redundant fork, you must merge it. It refers to giving the benefit of the doubt because there needs to be a discussion. The discussion I see brought only disagreement. As such, you needed to explain your position more right there, in order to seek consensus for your view, and certainly should not have closed the discussion and implemented the merger. You were the only one asking for this action, it appears? In the earlier content dispute about Bach's Magnificat(s), you and Gerda appeared to have reached a compromise, but she did say here subsequently that you had moved the article and were requiring her to file at a noticeboard if she was unhappy with your action. That is not compromising. So what I think I should do is undo your merger(s), possibly including the initial removal of content to a different article, and then ask you to start a new merger discussion at which you should both make your case and respond to others' points, and that should be closed by an uninvolved admin. It is possible you are right and will be able to persuade others of that. Or that a compromise solution can be found and accepted by consensus. Or consensus may be to leave teh articles divided as they are/were. But I don't see an emergency requiring us not to go back to the previous situation and do the discussion right. Do you? If so, please explain. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243#Merge suggestion is what I typed. There is however also some prior discussion at Talk:Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a#WP:PRIMARY concerns, e.g. where Gerda says "I see two possibilities to proceed: merge the articles to Magnificat (Bach), or ..." [9] (emphasis added).
- "It's unfortunate that you argued your position on users' talk pages so much", sorry that was something I was the victim of, not something I wanted: time and again I asked others to discuss at the article talk page, and they excused themselves with the most farfetchted reasons, like "the discussion is fragmented", "you didn't state your reasons" while I did, etc. etc. So no, I won't be victimized for that a second time.
- Also, I'm not obliged to answer to ad hominems: I was more than prepared to explain further, only not in response to an ad hominem "you did not give any reasons" style.
- With a slight excuse for the ad hominem (retraction of the lie suffises) I'll resume my explanations instantly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you mean Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243#Merge suggestion - that's the one I eventually found. It's unfortunate that you argued your position on users' talk pages so much - it shuts out others who may want to participate. Notice that someone else has appeared here who has not been persuaded by your reasoning. What it looks to me has happened is that you have been overly hasty in interpreting WP:REDUNDANTFORK. It does not say "If you believe something to be a redundant fork, you must merge it. It refers to giving the benefit of the doubt because there needs to be a discussion. The discussion I see brought only disagreement. As such, you needed to explain your position more right there, in order to seek consensus for your view, and certainly should not have closed the discussion and implemented the merger. You were the only one asking for this action, it appears? In the earlier content dispute about Bach's Magnificat(s), you and Gerda appeared to have reached a compromise, but she did say here subsequently that you had moved the article and were requiring her to file at a noticeboard if she was unhappy with your action. That is not compromising. So what I think I should do is undo your merger(s), possibly including the initial removal of content to a different article, and then ask you to start a new merger discussion at which you should both make your case and respond to others' points, and that should be closed by an uninvolved admin. It is possible you are right and will be able to persuade others of that. Or that a compromise solution can be found and accepted by consensus. Or consensus may be to leave teh articles divided as they are/were. But I don't see an emergency requiring us not to go back to the previous situation and do the discussion right. Do you? If so, please explain. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: The first part of my response got lost in the edit conflicts. Is the merge discussion this one: Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243? Or is there another that I did not find? @Francis Schonken: That's what I meant to ask you about too, sorry. Too much searching and cutting and pasting. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Re "In the earlier content dispute about Bach's Magnificat(s), you and Gerda appeared to have reached a compromise, but she did say here subsequently that you had moved the article and were requiring her to file at a noticeboard if she was unhappy with your action. That is not compromising." — I think you're confusing, maybe you're reffering to Talk:Mass for the Dresden court (Bach)#Name where I proposed WP:RM after two page moves in about as many days (the first by Gerda — did she forget to mention? —, the second by me): as we weren't getting out of it, and Gerda was also not really proposing a single alternative, I suggested to follow the standard procedure, WP:RM. I've done dozens of WP:RMs, nothing comparing to WP:ANI style dramaboard. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your proposal will again result in a WP:REDUNDANTFORK situation, with vague promises being made about improving content (well, that's the situation that has been dragging on since September, ultimately only leading from REDUNDANT FORK to content forking 1.0). No, give Gerda some time to prove she can build an article that makes a sensible split or subpage, I'd be happy to accept it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- (After edit conflict; some of this is less relevant now, but the repeated question at the end is still the meat of it) I'm not seeing where I accused you of lying; looking again, and looking at the DYK nomination for the first time, I see several people writing that you did not give reasons. I also see Gerda giving what look like cogent reasons at the merger discussion. I cannot follow the argument about primary sources or judge why you dismiss Gerda's stated objections as invalid - I am not sufficiently competent in the subject matter. However, we operate by consensus here except in emergency cases. (This goes even if you feel slighted by others' arguments; it is possible that they did not understand your premises, and just as not accusing fellow editors of lying without extremely strong evidence is part of WP:CIVIL, so is assuming that they are not maligning you in order to shut you down.) The DYK nomination, for example, is once more on hold. So I ask again, can you show me any reason not to revert to the prior situation and have a proper discussion, closed by someone uninvolved? Even if you are right and there was undesirable content forking, was the prior situation of multiple articles so bad that we cannot revert to it while you persuade people? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- (e.c.) Re. "I don't see an emergency requiring us not to go back to the previous situation and do the discussion right. Do you?" — there is an *urgent* reason not to do so: make Gerda revert all the incoming links to the 243a article that for no reason go to that article, instead of to the Magnificat (Bach) article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why would the DYK nomination be more "urgent" than the incoming mislinks problem? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't that the article into which you have merged what she argues are better as separate articles? i.e., aren't you now merely saying "It's urgent because I don't like it this way?" Or am I confused over what all articles are under discussion? (Edited to add: I'm mentioning the DYK nomination because that's the only thing I can see here that has any element of urgency. And it's on hold.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I'm saying at all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- See example I gave here [[10]] Peter Kooij is known best for singing an aria from the 243 version of the Magnificat, not the 243a version, as Gerda without a reference made it look like here --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't that the article into which you have merged what she argues are better as separate articles? i.e., aren't you now merely saying "It's urgent because I don't like it this way?" Or am I confused over what all articles are under discussion? (Edited to add: I'm mentioning the DYK nomination because that's the only thing I can see here that has any element of urgency. And it's on hold.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- (e.c.) Re. "was the prior situation of multiple articles so bad that we cannot revert to it while you persuade people?", yes the prior situation (with the forking) was so bad, that it would be a bad idea. The same for the incoming mislinks. Without that being cleaned (and that's up to Gerda, she placed the misleading links) going back to the previous situation is not really an option imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Then why do you think multiple editors have disagreed with you, not just Gerda? Did distinguishing between versions in different keys and/or written at different times) mislead the reader? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see no uninvolved editors disagreeing with me except Gerda. The other users are largely uninvolved in Bach-related editing, some of them even in music-related articles in general (didn't see them showing up before), however not uninvolved in all sorts of discussions Gerda is involved in. So maybe ask them how they showed up there, agreeing with Gerda without questioning what was said by her. I have no problem explaining to them what Bach is about. But if they only wheel in for repeating ad hominems, the discussions tend to be short.
- "Did distinguishing between versions in different keys and/or written at different times) mislead the reader?" — not the distinguishing, but after distinguishing, the in a next step leading people to the 243a article, when the reference should be to the 243 article, is misleading. So the unified Magnificat (Bach) article is the best intermediate solution. Nobody gets misled in the intermediate time, until links are cleaned up. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see the urgency. I would ping everyone who participated in the previous discussions, but that would be to stage the needed discussion here, and this isn't the right place. Accordingly, I think I am going to start trying to take things back to their pre-merger state, and presumably you will then start a new merger discussion - that seems clearer than reopening the one you closed. If you can make a compelling enough case for urgency, you can then get another admin to speedy close the discussion on that basis. Warning to all: I am likely to muck this up at least once. Remembering numbers and letters is not my forte. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Then why do you think multiple editors have disagreed with you, not just Gerda? Did distinguishing between versions in different keys and/or written at different times) mislead the reader? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Addition to above: looking at your response to someone else above, I see you beginning to explain here, but this is in and of itself simply not valid. New daughter articles are created from sections of existing articles every day. It's one of the ways the encyclopedia grows. Two articles on the exact same topic, or forking for POV reasons, are always bad - but breaking up a topic into smaller sections is not bad. You should present your argument that the sources and the situation make it inadvisable in this case, in a new and full merger discussion. You may indeed achieve consensus for your view. I don't know who's right. But your job is to persuade people; you can't validly fall back on "It's a fork therefore it's bad" unless there is a compelling reason for urgency ... because people have opposed you on the issue. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- [11] this is the content forking I was talking about. It is valid to say that was content forking. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Re. "New daughter articles are created from sections of existing articles every day." — Of course, I'm not contesting that. The description of the movements of both versions of the Magnificat is identical. There are some minor differences, but adding a description that is valid for both versions of the same music in one article, and not in the other is a content fork. Note "The description of the movements refers to both the E-flat major version (BWV 243a) and the D-major version (BWV 243), unless otherwise indicated." here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I fully expect you to make a new merger proposal once I've finished; make a good case and people will agree with you. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Addition to above: looking at your response to someone else above, I see you beginning to explain here, but this is in and of itself simply not valid. New daughter articles are created from sections of existing articles every day. It's one of the ways the encyclopedia grows. Two articles on the exact same topic, or forking for POV reasons, are always bad - but breaking up a topic into smaller sections is not bad. You should present your argument that the sources and the situation make it inadvisable in this case, in a new and full merger discussion. You may indeed achieve consensus for your view. I don't know who's right. But your job is to persuade people; you can't validly fall back on "It's a fork therefore it's bad" unless there is a compelling reason for urgency ... because people have opposed you on the issue. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I fully expect you to stop reverting, this discussion isn't finished. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I fully understand what the urgency is in starting to revert. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm typing as fast as I can. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- You closed your own merger discussion and there was substantial opposition. A new discussion needs to happen; you have not persuaded me that the merger you performed was urgently needed. You may persuade others, but in the meantime, it's more important to do it right: to give consensus a chance to form. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Gerda agreed the main article should be at Magnificat (Bach), please stop your reverts immediately, while you're not even clear on what we're actually discussing here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Propose a new merger and discuss there. The old discussion was prematurely closed. I've done my best to restore the earlier situation. Now put up proposed merger templates and start a new discussion. This is not the place. If you can make a compelling case for urgency, an uninvolved admin will merge/move things in response. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- (Back from rehearsal) Thank you, Yngvadottir. I didn't want any discussion here, just present the facts and see if an outsider - like you - can understand them. I am not familiar with merges, but would expect the following: The one who wants a merge has a defined place for a discussion and presents his reasons there. Previous discussions should not count, a person new to the discussion should be able to grasp it from the merge request and not be required to study other material. I would hope that the arguments are numbered, to facilitate comments. - I think that the merge tags here were not accompanied by such a declaration for weeks, and it was not helpful. I missed a notice to the most relevant project and did it myself, but was promptly called canvassing. (Nobody there seemed interested.) I think closing discussions is fine on your own talk page, but it takes someone independent for formal requests, no? - Late here, and I am busy this weekend. Have a good one! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Which language do you understand, Francis? I only said that I have no time for the next days, that doesn't mean others can't discuss, - how can they discuss a merge of articles they don't see? Consider to revert yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: I know you're busy, but Francis has said you were ok with merging something to something. Has that changed or was that a misunderstanding? If either, please spell out for me which articles need separating or which edits need reverting so that the discussion can occur. @Francis Schonken: I take it you have started a new discussion. Good. If it turns out you misunderstood Gerda, or that she has changed her mind after consideration, please respect the consensus-forming process by not reverting me again. I am acting here as an admin, in case you hadn't quite realized that. A new discussion is needed. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- I said that I am ok with the name (!) Magnificat (Bach) for the D major, but that says nothing about merging. - I would even have moved it myself if I could. As in the discussion: We have Ave Maria (Bruckner) for the best known one, but still separate articles for two others by the same composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- You need to be very clear, I'm afraid. I am acting purely administratively here, all the more so because I cannot keep the names and numbers clear. Are you saying you have been misinterpreted and that this revert should be undone in order for the participants in the merger discussion to be able to judge the merits of the argument? I see that Francis Schonken has now reverted me in a series of other places too. Or are you happy with that revert? I don't require an immediate response, I know you are busy, but I need a clear road map on what you agree with and what you wish to be changed back so that the discussion can be clear and fair. I'd rather not post this at a noticeboard or run to another admin to help me because I think my lack of clue on the topic helps me stay demonstrably neutral, but it does have the disadvantage that you need to spell things out. It may require a list of diffs of reverts that need to be made to take us back to a situation where the issue(s) can be properly discussed. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- The edit was by far not the last one ;) - Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 should be moved to Magnificat (Bach), - at present the discussion is on the talk of it. - Otherwise I am sorry that I can't give you a clear road, because changes happen faster than I can follow. - I am afraid that Wikipedia has greater problems then content appearing on two articles. I feel badly represented by all arbitrators but one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you're confused, imagine how I am. Perhaps you should set out at the discussion what you would like restored to its place where, as well as why? Alternatively, post there a list of diffs showing the merging that you consider unjustified. But I take it that the one you just specified is the one you have both referred to as having agreed on? Is there any other edit that really should be reverted in order for people to know what they are discussing? We can wait until you have time on Tuesday, unless you consider something needs to be changed urgently in order for the discussion to happen. (I agree that there are many grave problems on Wikipedia. But this is this problem, getting this discussion to happen in an orderly fashion and reach consensus. We can't fix all the problems at once.) Now signing off for bed, sorry all. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- The edit was by far not the last one ;) - Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 should be moved to Magnificat (Bach), - at present the discussion is on the talk of it. - Otherwise I am sorry that I can't give you a clear road, because changes happen faster than I can follow. - I am afraid that Wikipedia has greater problems then content appearing on two articles. I feel badly represented by all arbitrators but one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, "I think there's no objection to revert this and this" as I wrote here
See also the {{copied multi}} template at Talk:Magnificat (Bach) which explains why a page move from Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 is not necessary imho: the content I put at Magnificat (Bach) with this edit is as much coming from Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 as it originated in Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a. See Wikipedia:Merge page history#Parallel versions why and how this is the most correct procedure in this case.
Classic page move from Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 → Magnificat (Bach) (without the talk page!) would be a possibility too, but less correct, see previous paragraph.
When intervening in a discussion (which I'm thankful for Yngvadottir!) try to see the common ground too, which helps in deflating tensions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing me to specific diffs. However, having determined that there needs to be a new discussion, I am trying to ensure conditions for it are set up fairly and clearly, not to intervene in it. As such, it's not my business to determine what the common ground is, nor do I have the necessary knowledge. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Doing reverts is "intervening" whether you like the word or not.
- Please don't "intervene" in the consensus part of the discussion (which is a part where the discussions are de facto concluded, so no longer a discussion)
- I could be sharper on the fact that this was a no-consensus page move with a deceptive edit summary by Gerda which should be undone, but I choose not to... in order to deflate tensions. If you want to go back to "pre-discussion" state, then indeed that page move should be undone (but I prefer the "parallel versions" solution which is technically more correct).
- So please undo this and this, and please also warn @BlueMoonset: not to engage in no-consensus reverts any further.
- Cluelessness is a possible defense for such no-consensus interventions, but imho a weak defense.
- Further, indeed the discussion regarding the content of the thing that needs to be sorted out is at Talk:Magnificat (Bach)#Merge discussion as has already been pointed out above, this is what you set in motion, which I'm thankful for, and which is acknowledged by the other parties in the debate (see above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Eduard Ludwig
- added a link pointing to Atrium
- Karl Heinrich Menges
- added a link pointing to University of Frankfurt
- The Anomaly
- added a link pointing to Simon Lewis
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi
If you got time on your hands please take a look at the article Detmold child and/or Pettakere cave. Appreciate it.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not right now I haven't, so no promises :-) But I'll see whether I can. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Your fine sense of diplomacy
Is definitely needed, here -> User talk:Joshua Jonathan#About the Thouth & Thinking pages and User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Why I'm wrong. He adds his comment at the top always, hope is a Thai monk. [12] Hafspajen (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- My what? Surely you jest. I have absolutely got to go to bed, but I will take a look when I get up. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Might be too late .. one never knows. Hafspajen (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I see he's been blocked after it went to AN/I. Sorry. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)