Talk:Symphony No. 83 (Haydn)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Date of Scoring nonsense

I was hoping to get Willi Gers07 to make a constructive edit for once and not post nonsense that he expects other editors to clean up for him... but since another editor kindly cleaned it up, its moot. No big deal. Willi, why can't you create a "Scoring" section yourself. I don't like it when you create a nonsensical section names just to be a jerk. Don't be a dick. Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That inspiring essay doesn't give criteria for comparison, so the following might be apples and oranges: Yesterday, you deleted a citation from a Cambridge University Press book which Steblin restored, then Eusebeus deleted, and then you yourself restored. I, on the other hand, made a heading with what the other editor considered two extraneous words, which amount to 7 bytes (maybe 14). If my calculations are correct, as a dick I come up pathetically short. (I know, I walked into that one). Willi Gers07 (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why the added the CUP reference first place was to "test" whether or not your "date of scoring" nonsense would be reverted if it was mixed in with a real reference (trivial instrumentation that could be found anywhere). You've admitted doing this type of thing before. You're just being a jerk. Make real edits that don't intentionally force people to clean things up after you or go away. DavidRF (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Go away." That's really the part of your advice you want me to heed. You intend to make sure that I effectively can't contribute to Wikipedia, regardless of what I do. Even if I make "real edits" (whatever that means) you'll revert them, just because they came from me. Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. You don't like wikipolitics. Fine. You like honesty. Fine. YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE! How is that for "not playing the game" correctly? This coming from an editor you yourself has described as "reasonable and sensible" [1]. I don't revert all your edits... you know that... check your edit history... I only revert when you are a jerk. You don't give a damn about the articles here, you're simply stirring up controversy for fun. How is that acceptable editing behavior? And in the oddest corners of wikipedia, too... 20:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when are popular Haydn symphonies odd corners of Wikipedia? Next you're going to tell me that Beethoven's Fur Elise is unjustly neglected and rarely performed. Or maybe you're trying to give me some hint as to how my contribution list is going to be falsified, if it hasn't already. If it hasn't been falsified yet, David, please look at it. If I really was "stirring up controversy for fun," I've done a lousy job of it, of learning the lessons of the Eusebean tactics. Willi Gers07 (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is similar to Jean-Philip Rameau's piece La Poule from Nouvelles Suites de Pieces de Clavecin (1728).

The hell it is.Kostaki mou (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]