Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bonadea (talk | contribs) at 10:31, 8 November 2019 (Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

'a' numbers for Debussy

Where did you get those from? I copied my own list straight from the book, though it's been quite a few years. I certainly don't remember any numbering of the fugues. Also, in a composition list movements of a whole symphonic work (i.e. the piano trio) are not appropriate. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Precious

compositions lists

Thank you for quality improvements to articles such as List of compositions by Claude Debussy, List of compositions by Maurice Ravel and List of compositions by Franz Liszt, for adding to Guillaume Lekeu, for "you can check the validity of my changes", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Just a brief word to say thank you for your thoughtful and open-minded (not to say scholarly) contribution at the Debussy talk page. It is such a pleasure to work together with editors who aren't combative or territorial and who just want to make WP articles as good and reliable as they can be. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 14:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Clara Wieck's piano concerto

Discussion moved to Talk:Piano Concerto (Clara Schumann)

Clara Schumann

Discussion moved to Talk:Clara Schumann#Clara Schumann

pp

Discussion moved to Talk:Clara Schumann#pp

Clara Schumann

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thank you for your hard work in assisting the review of Clara Schumann. It was a pleasure working with you and Gerda Arendt to help it achieve good article status. Best wishes! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Well done, Chuckstreet. A wonderful effort. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mark Savage (British journalist)

Hello Chuckstreet,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Mark Savage (British journalist) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

TomCat4680 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

:de:

Thank you for the Litzmann article. Please never use direct links to other Wikipedias, they create a problem for example for the blind. Whenever possible, split authors in last and first, for granularity's sake. The best solution, of course, is creating the articles. A FA shouldn't have any red links left ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the silly above: also never leave the foreign text in article space, not even temporarily. The copyright violation police will be after you. (I sometimes leave bits that I will translate as soon as I find a ref.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt - Q: What problems do links to articles on other WP create for blind people? Does it have anything to do with screen reader problems? I'm also wondering how easily tables like List of Compositions work with screen readers.

Re splitting authors to last,first: Not sure what you mean by "for granularity's sake"??

Redlinks: there's one left: Mark Savage. He was still on a disambiguation page, so his article was deleted before. I tried creating another new article, but it got deleted right away, reason: he's "not notable" (see my talk page above). There are 2 places in the text with this cite. The first is a famous Clara Schumann quote I've see elsewhere (I can't recall now), so we could change that cite, the second is a sentence that probably doesn't even need to be cited, does it? The two are in shortcite fn#69. Then maybe we could delete the Savage source since he's not notable ;-|

Re: copyright police: I don't understand you about leaving foreign text on English WP articles temporarily? The WP instructions encourage you to copy a foreign language article (or portions of it) from a non-English WP to an article on English WP, and put special template tag on it that puts it into a queue to request translation, and someone will get to it. That's not what I did, however; I chose another of the 3 options: to simply put a link to the foreign WP page and add a special template that displays a box allowing the viewer the choice of clicking a link to read the original foreign page or another link to translate it on-the-fly and view it in English immediately.

Chuckstreet (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

For the direct links, ask Graham87. - Granularity#Data granularity - If Savage is not notable, he should have no link. - Perhaps I didn't look enough, - I saw the message which suggested there was foreign text in an article. With a "translated" template on the talk, that may be ok. - Excuse briefness, bedtime, and an article not where I want it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Direct interlanguage links in the main namespace are bad for screen reader users like me because by default there's no way to distinguish between ordinary wikilinks and links to articles in a different language ... the colour distinction isn't shown. {{Interlanguage link}} is a bit better for this (though it's probably hard to use in citation templates); it also has the advantage that if an article is ever created in the English Misplaced Pages on the subject, it will be automatically linked. For authorlinks I just wouldn't link them unless an English Misplaced Pages article exists ... there are lots of places in Misplaced Pages where author links aren't used. Graham87 02:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Graham87: How well do tables (or their sortability) work with screen readers? Like List of compositions by Johannes Brahms. Chuckstreet (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

They generally work pretty well. However, the fact that the table spans multiple headings means that sorting doesn't work here. Maybe ask at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility ... I don't know that much about the nitty-gritty of tables. Graham87 03:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Soundfiles

Good idea to move soundfiles to where the description is, but please consider to have them as the boxes on the right instead of in the body. Compare Magnificat (Vivaldi). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I know, I just wanted to get them out of the List quickly. I copied the style from other Debussy subpages that have related soundfiles on them. Move them around to your liking. I just don't want to delete the List links outright for fear the bites will be orphaned. The ones left on the List have no subpages. Create please? Lotsa work, I know. I'm not into it at the moment or any time soon. Chuckstreet (talk) 08:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no time to move anything around. Concert coming up on Saturday, guests coming, 3 people I admired died in a few days, - sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Not a stub

A stub is an unsourced one-liner. An article with four references is not a stub, even if short. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Who are you responding to? This sounds like I walked into the middle of a conversation. I haven't been talking about stubs unless I've been sleepnetting... What specifically are you referring to? But generally speaking, you couldn't be more wrong about stubs. Read WP:STUB. Stubs are short articles that need expanding. The term refers only to the size of the article, not any considerations of references. Chuckstreet (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You gave the B. L. article four stub categories, but it is no stub, - waste of time, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Chuckstreet (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

On second thought nevermind clarity. I think you meant to post this on someone else's talk page, yes? Time for my bed here. Too early in the day for you... B-/ Chuckstreet (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt: Eventually I figured out what "B. L." was. Sorry, I was too tired. I added stub templates to the Litzmann article when I created it per WP instructions. They got deleted at some point so I restored them. I also added a couple new stub categories; there's a whole list. The max you're allowed is four. Anyway, if nobody gets to it first, I'll translate the German WP page and copy the whole thing over to this one. When I have time. Eventually. Maybe. :-) Chuckstreet (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

He'd deserve it. I am still sure it's not a stub. I tried to spare you a waste of time, no more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Talkback

November 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Nocturnes (Debussy). bonadea contributions talk 08:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Talk:Nocturnes (Debussy) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. bonadea contributions talk 10:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

As I said in my reply to you on my user talk page:

I have read the thread very carefully, post by post. There is no forgery, no slander, and no harassment of you. Moving a post you had made to a new section, while clearly stating that the post was moved (together with the surrounding discussion) is certainly not "forgery". I can understand that you would want to distance yourself from the post in question as it was really rather unpleasant in tone, but that does not change the fact that you did post it in the first place. Now please stop edit warring over this. AUU has offered to discuss calmly and peacefully, so why do you not take them up on that? --bonadea contributions talk 09:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I will add that WP:TPO specifically allows users to move posts made by others to a new section to make talk page discussions easier to follow. --bonadea contributions talk 10:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Chuckstreet reported by User:Bonadea (Result: ). Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 10:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)