User talk:Nemov/Archives/2024/April
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
Hey man im josh (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 |
Congratulations! Music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you for Vivaldi accessibility of his works! I reverted its revert. Would you seek clarification on WP:COMPOSERS? Rossini has the same situation. There seems to be a misunderstanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt I posted at MOS:INFOBOXES since MOS:FORCELINK was cited. Nemov (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Having seen the positive repsponse, what do think of reviving the Rossini discussion, and perhaps try a general clarification at WP:COMPOSERS that the typical format for classical composers which has been used for Bach, Beethoven and Mozart can safely be used? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- My experience with that project is that there's not enough participation to pursue it. They could refine their own infobox template, but there appears to be little interest when I've asked in the past. Rossini doesn't have an infobox right now and the regular actors will come out if the topic is pushed further which is also a time sink. Anyway, it doesn't appear this FORCELINK argument will stand up to any type of independent scrutiny. Nemov (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at Vivaldi - and Rossini "who" doesn't have an infobox because of that same reasoning that I fail to understand - I believe that we need to invest some time to make common sense prevail. If there really was a guideline against a link from a composer to their work it should be abolished or amended. But it isn't, - it's only misunderstood. {{infobox classical composer}} was drafted in 2008, and moved to mainspace in 2010, and has worked well for many composers for a long time. I don't know what we can do in order not to have two parallel discussions. The most constructive comment I've seen was by Michael Bednarek, but that was in the MOS discussion that SchroCat said to unwatch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's a narrow interpretation so I'm not sure it's worth the effort, but let's wait to see the consensus of the discussion. Nemov (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- You asked for someone to revert to the status quo, - I did it twice already, so don't think I should, although I am sure that it is the better version: helping to the works. I begin to wonder if we need arbitration clarification. Remembering how I was taken to enforcement, I promised myself that I would never do that to a colleague, but clarification is a different story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about it. There's very little support for their interpretation of policy. The editor's actions are transparent. So based on previous history they'll just drag out this process as long as possible. Heck, they're probably even reading this (thanks for stopping by). It's all so very predictable... the dramatic "unwatch" followed by the prompt return several hours later. I attempted to give them an opportunity to work towards consensus, but it's clear they're not interested. Nemov (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- thinking of the birthday of a friend who showed me art such as this, and of Vami --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Rossini's Petite messe solennelle was premiered on 14 March 1864, - when I listen to the desolate Agnus Dei I think of Vami. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I uploaded vacation pics (from back home), at least the first day, - and remember Aribert Reimann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Next day, around Porto da Cruz, on Bach's birthday. A bit of history: on this day in 2013, I suggested an infobox for him, a version that still listed some prominent names. Later we found the better solution: a link to the list of compositions which is more neutral and less prone to some editor's preferences. It has served Bach and Beethoven well since 2015. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Some days later, a calf in the mist and chocolate cake, and a story of collaboration --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I listen to Bach's St John Passion today, - 300 years after it was first performed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Two days later in time, a different music, - Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about it. There's very little support for their interpretation of policy. The editor's actions are transparent. So based on previous history they'll just drag out this process as long as possible. Heck, they're probably even reading this (thanks for stopping by). It's all so very predictable... the dramatic "unwatch" followed by the prompt return several hours later. I attempted to give them an opportunity to work towards consensus, but it's clear they're not interested. Nemov (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- You asked for someone to revert to the status quo, - I did it twice already, so don't think I should, although I am sure that it is the better version: helping to the works. I begin to wonder if we need arbitration clarification. Remembering how I was taken to enforcement, I promised myself that I would never do that to a colleague, but clarification is a different story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's a narrow interpretation so I'm not sure it's worth the effort, but let's wait to see the consensus of the discussion. Nemov (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Having seen the positive repsponse, what do think of reviving the Rossini discussion, and perhaps try a general clarification at WP:COMPOSERS that the typical format for classical composers which has been used for Bach, Beethoven and Mozart can safely be used? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)