 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Edit revert
editI have reverted all 17 edits (none with a edit summary) by Labrynthia9856. They consisted of unsourced, unencyclopedic, essay-like writing, weasel words, formatting not in accordance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and a complete removal of the section "List of numbers in Belshazzar". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
And left a quite useless torso. Made worse by the obsolescence of the link to alleged programme notes on this work, which I have just tried. It no longer exists. Presumably the list of numbers has been restored as window-dressingDelahays (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- No window dressing, simply a restoration of material that was removed in those 17 edits. Did you read the material added by Labrynthia9856? Which parts of it do you consider suitable for this article? Since June 2009, no other editor made any attempt to restore any of it. As for "useless torso": You are encouraged to improve the article; you might start by removing the dead external link you noticed. As for your assessment of my edits, I suggest you consult Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
With due respect, whatever you did is unassessable, since only your own account survives. All I have to go on is your own fairly uncivil description of your edit in 2009, and which doesn't seem calculated to encourage any further editing. What we have now acknowledges no performance of Belshazzar in the past 140 years or so, which is absurd. A list of numbers has its uses for those who already know the work, but very little for folk going to an encyclopaedia for general information about it. For this sort of factoid, a score reference to imslp would be enough, surely. There doesn't seem to be any consistent approach in Wikipaedia to dealing with Handel's oratorios in general. I don't feel inclined to blame you, or anyone for that, but there are over twenty of them, and a number of these are now regularly performed and would seem to be consensually accepted as masterpieces. This is one. It deserves better treatment.Delahays (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing gets lost on Wikipedia; all this article's versions (about 60) since 28 March 2007, when it was created, are accessible through the "history" tab. I did provide a link which showed the cumulative effect of those 17 edits. In which way was my summary of these 17 edits uncivil? Pointing out flaws is constructive criticism.
- Unlike Grove and other scholarly works, "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that everyone can edit", which means that there is no coherent treatment of Handel's oratorios or anything else. If there's anyone to blame for the current state of articles, it is those readers who know better but don't improve them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I have now found the edits you removed, though I did so through a link you yourself seem to have provided, rather than through what appear to be the usual channels. Apologies. Not much could have been salvaged by rewriting, but at least the contributor's instincts were in the right place. The current article is still a useless torso. I had hoped that if people were concerned about editing they should try and leave articles they amend, even to their original state, better than they found them. I shall have to see what can be done about "Belshazzar". It might take a month or two to get it all checked. No doubt you will be around to correct it when it appears.Delahays (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)