Archives

2011–2019 2020 2021

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Piano Quartet (Strauss) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Piano Quartet (Strauss) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Piano Quartet (Strauss) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Piano Quartet (Strauss) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Piano Quartet (Strauss) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been observing that you are erasing the information provided by me, as well as constantly undoing my edits without proper clarification. The edits made by me were previously made by consensus among many editors, I'm just following their lead. Also I've previously clarified that since China & European Union wields far more influence than India & Russia, their classification is above India & Russia, hence the term emerging, also superpower & hyper power are different classifications, a power that dominates in all fields unconstrained, without consequences is hyperpower, which US was, but is no longer, & can be considered extant superpower. Also I'd like to let you know that I'm new to wikipedia editing, & don't use registered account, as there's no wikipedia policy mentioning unregistered users cannot make edits. I would appreciate that you stop constant undoing of my edits. Regards.

Your edits are not, in any sense, based on consensus; on the contrary, they are uncited and violate NPOV. On the article's talk page, another editor (Subtropical-man) has questioned and reverted your edits. Per WP:BRD, if you find your changes reverted because of disagreement, you do not start edit warring to get your changes included: this will lead to a block. You have made no attempt to resolve these issues by debate on the talk page. There is no policy against unregistered users, but you are repeatedly violating policies that all users are subject to, registered or not. intforce (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I'll edit that part only after consensus, however why did you erase the McKinsey report's information ? Also it seems you had word war with User Fijipedia, over my reverts, I've clarified it in his talk page. As mentioned there, I'll erase the 2021 Asia power index report, as it's already mentioned below in China segment.

So I'm adding factual information to the University of Zürich website about open science and the universities' activities in this area. And you are removing it saying it is not appropriate. What's up? I have linked to sources where possible, and I'm sure that others can improve on this.

Science is facing a global crisis and universities are responding in various ways and the UZH has taken steps in this direction. Your power to revert my changes is exercised without justification. This does not seem right. Nbreznau (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have replied on the article's talk page. intforce (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

in Requiem (Mozart), previous changes have been removed. what is the rationale of this decision? your change have been reverted until this is explained. thank you for your understanding. --Christophe.moustier (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Christophe.moustier: I have explained my reversion in the edit summary: as a user-generated site, Ultimate-guitar is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. The edit as a whole was also ill-formatted. We don't put up lyrics and chord symbols like that. In my opinion, it is also a statement of trivia that is not notable to the article as a whole. If you wish to include this, discuss on Talk:Requiem (Mozart) first. The onus is on you to gain consensus before adding it, now that it has been reverted, see WP:BRD. intforce (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

bro - you're not the owner of all wiki pages related to classical music. Quit removing my and other people's contributions. Gqayala (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gqayala: I suggest you familiarize yourself on the Wikipedia policies on edit warring. If you wish to discuss, open a discussion on the article's talk page. intforce (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Intforce. What is your process for obtaining music excerpts such as in the featured article Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven)? examples --> (diffs: [1] [2] [3][4]) I think the article Piano_Concerto No. 5 (Beethoven) needs those kinds of pictures too. Are you using the process from Help:Sibelius? Thanks YourJudge (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I use Dorico to engrave short excerpts; it also supports SVG files. intforce (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited XVIII International Chopin Piano Competition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bruce Liu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Technical University of Munich people indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Explanation for your Hamburg change please. Everything you like, you leave as it is, and what you don't like, you delete. You deleted Bauer Media Group but Gruner + Jahr is still there. You deleted Heinrich Hertz, Johannes Brahms and Felix Mendelssohn, but Helmut Schmidt is still there. I wonder who is more famous. You deleted the Vltava info, although it was just a note not occupying space, and you deleted also the Stern info but Spiegel is still there. And you did all this, without explanation. And at Erfurt, note that it is completely uncommon to mention all the distances to different German cities. Justification for all this please Tibesti1 (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I restored an earlier revision (see WP:STABLE) because your changes are problematic from multiple viewpoints.

• Major grammatical errors and MOS violations.
• Removal of ((Lang)) templates. They are there for a reason.
• Factual errors. Stating that the Elbe river is actually the Vltava river is simply wrong. And also has no place in the lead.
• Trivial additions not relevant to what a lead is supposed to do: summarize the most important contents of the article.

Quite frankly, you have to be very careful when editing the lead of a major article. If you disagree with my assessment, please discuss it on the article's talk page, per WP:BRD. intforce (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, let me tell you, the manner in which you go around here deleting things is not very pleasing. Treating my edits as if they were vandalism, although none of them has the slightest touch of that.

Secondly, a closer look at what you exactly do shows, that you can't have read carefully through all my edits before reverting them, but that you just randomly and broadly reverted all my edits from one day. Otherwise it is not explainable, that the Spiegel is now again called a newspaper in the lead, and not a magazine. You tell me to be careful when editing a lead of an article, when it is in fact the case that i'm the one who reads through it carefully and tries to improve it, and you are the one reverting it to a state full of mistakes.

Now that i told you the first mistake you made reappear again, it goes on. To begin with Frankfurt (Oder), your reverts are highly problematic.

• First of all, you deleted the second spelling variant as well as the local dialect variant from the infobox, although a look at other cities' articles shows, that it is in fact common practice to mention the alternative names in the infobox. For sure, you will be able to cite the Wikipedia rules that allow you to delete the alternative names from the infobox.
• Secondly, you deleted the info, that there also appears a gallic rooster in the coat of arms of Słubice and not just of Frankfurt. Now while one can do that, one doesn't have to do that. Maybe you can explain why it's better not to mention this.
• Thirdly, the name section of Frankfurt seems to be much too short to be justified. If there is not enough material for a name section, the alternative names are normally mentioned right at the beginning of the article.
• Fourthly, there is now again that sentence "The large lake Helenesee lies within Frankfurt's city limits." in the article. This sentence reads like a non-sentence, as if there is missing something.

Concerning Hamburg, my first question would be, if the lead is supposed to summarize the most important things as you wrote, why is it that Olaf Scholz being chancellor since December 2021 is in the lead of Hamburg. Do you really think that something like that would be in the lead of Britannica? It is obvious, the most famous sons of Hamburg are Brahms, Mendelssohn and Hertz, and you deleted all of them, while Merkel, Schmidt and Scholz are still there. But you will surely have a good explanation for that, too.Tibesti1 (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tibesti1: You are treating this like a personal issue, when it's not. I have no intention nor desire to be hostile to you. All of us are volunteers, and I have no personal stake other than wanting to see each article improved. We do have policies and guidelines to follow here, but that is not the point. Wikipedia is built on consensus, and if someone disagrees with your changes, you discuss the topic on the talk page, so other editors can may in.

When you make a massive edit that improves some aspects while introducing a number of gross errors, you can not reasonably expect other editors to manually undo every error while keeping your improvements in. In that case, a reversion to an earlier revision is not an endorsement of the prior revision, as you imply, but simply a recognition of the fact that the newer revision has made the article worse from an objective viewpoint. To avoid this, make small, individual changes over time, and use the edit summary where you explain your reasoning behind the change, giving other editors the chance to review each change individually. intforce (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Frankfurt (Oder) change. Are you telling me that i may not revert your last change there, but discuss each of the four points on the talk page, or change it back again in four different steps? Tibesti1 (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not convinced that the Marchian name is notably to warrant such a prominent inclusion in the lead and infobox. Adding a footnote is perhaps more suitable. intforce (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what are the criteria for including Low German names of cities in the Low German language area? As we can see at Turin, there the infobox also shows the name in Piedmontese. Tibesti1 (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inclusion is decided on a case-to-case basis. Feel free to discuss it on the talk page if you disagree. intforce (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Africa (Saint-Saëns) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Africa (Saint-Saëns) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Africa (Saint-Saëns) and Talk:Africa (Saint-Saëns)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I notice that you have not yet started work on addressing the issues made in my review for this article. Please note that the nomination will be failed on 11 July, as stated in the review, if they are are all sorted by then. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I see that you reverted my changes to the lead of the quantum computing article without providing an explanation.^[1] I think that it is always a good idea to explain your reasons for preferring the older version when reverting changes to an article.^[2] I had made the change to help make the lead more concise, and to mention the hype around quantum technology, as I had previously discussed with Igor Markov in the article talk page.^[3] Could you please explain your rationale at Talk:Quantum computing so that we can reach a reasonable consensus?  — Freoh 12:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Freoh, thank you very much for your contributions to Wikipedia. I agree that the lead should highlight the practical limitations more. Nevertheless, I believe the earlier version had certain merits that deserve consideration, mainly in terms of flow and coherence, offering a clearer explanation of the relationship between classical and quantum computers, and introducing quantum supremacy in a more natural way. I also think that the phrasing "hype around the discipline" is potentially unencyclopedic. Additionally, I'm not too sure why you removed the final sentence that introduced quantum complexity theory, which was certainly useful. However, I value your thoughtful edits and encourage you to continue refining the article. intforce (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Intforce, I can agree that "hype around the discipline" doesn't seem encyclopedic, but it is semantically appropriate given the circumstances. Would you be comfortable with "unusually high expectations for" or "irrational exuberance related to" "the discipline" or some other appropriately elevated substitute? Igor Markov 23:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a universal scientific consensus declaring quantum computing to be overhyped? If not, I propose rephrasing "generated hype around the discipline" to something like "generated notable interest in the discipline" or "drawn considerable discourse in the discipline" to comply with WP:NPOV. intforce (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Africa (Saint-Saëns) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Africa (Saint-Saëns) for comments about the article, and Talk:Africa (Saint-Saëns)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]