Talk:Requiem (Duruflé)

Background and History of Composition

Professor of the History of the Church at the University of Oxford Diarmaid MacCulloch's recent 1,200-page doorstop "Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years" describes this work as actually having been commissioned and composed earlier, during the État Français period by Durufle, which fact was "conveniently shrouded in obscurity" after the end of the war. The work was actually commissioned by the Nazi collaborationist Vichy government, and the publisher was a supporter of Petain. (Nevertheless, MacCulloch describes it as "one of the most beautiful works of modern Catholic liturgical music.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.1.47.98 (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This article states that the Dies Irae text of the Requiem Mass is omitted by Durufle. This is incorrect. Durufle sets this text to music, although briefly, in measures 52-76 of the 8th movement, Libera Me. Randy Jordan (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC) Randy Jordan

Versions

It exists in three orchestrations: one for organ alone, one for organ with string orchestra, and one for organ and full orchestra.

In the main Durufle page, it says the following:

   * Version with Organ (1948)
   * Version with Orchestra (1950)
   * Version with small Orchestra (1961)

Which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperOctave (talk • contribs) 20:30, December 5, 2006

The Requiem (Duruflé) article is correct: all three versions contain an organ part, which is very difficult indeed in each case. —Cor anglais 16 22:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

But 1950 for the version with orchestra is nonsense, isn't it? The Requiem was composed in 1947, and if I am not mistaken, the orchestral version is the original one. --FordPrefect42 14:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Structure

Is the structure presented really correct? I have checked CDs available, and the structure seems rather to be 1-Introit, 2-Kyrie, 3-Domnie Jesu Christe, 4-Sanctus, 5-Pie Jesu, 6-Agnus Dei, 7-Lux aeterna, 8-Libera me, 9-In Paradisum. That is, 3,4 and 7 is not correct in this text? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.211.134.33 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, the structure presented is correct. Domine Jesu Christe is the appointed Offertory text for the Roman rite Requiem mass; the Sanctus includes the Benedictus (in some mass settings, the Benedictus appears as its own movement); and Lux aeterna is the appointed Communion text for the Roman rite Requiem mass. However, Duruflé does not label all of the movements of his Requiem with the generally accepted terms (i.e., as they are referred to in the Liber usualis); he used the incipits from the text instead in the movements you specified. Perhaps the incipits should be noted in the movement list as well? —Cor anglais 16 23:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Harmonic Content

I heard this piece performed by the USC Choir and Thornton Symphony last night, and I cannot figure out why Durufle would end such a masterful piece with a dominant 9 chord. Does anyone have any idea?

The overall harmonic content of the piece is extremely modal, especially in reference to Gregorian chant mode systems and contrapuntal structure. But the dominant 9 chord at the end of the piece seems to emerge from nowhere. And in all places, the very last note of the piece! It is a beautiful coloristic ending, but it seemed unprepared.

-Kyle Malkin

You have answered your own question: Durufle did not conclude REQUIEM with the major/minor Diatonic (dominant 9) chord; his harmonic arena embraced modes as employed by Palestrina and Renaissance polyphonists.

Durufle was a mystic, and the final chord is penultimate; in that, on earth, we have a glimpse of Life Eternal, and our 'eternity' is incomplete. You say "it seemed unprepared" rather than "unresolved". (Durufle believed in the perfection of Eternity and strove for perfection in his compositional craft.)

One curiosity, the final chord of REQUIEM has, in it's center area 4 consecutive whole steps (e-f#-g#-a#, as represented by fa-so-la-ti). The spaces between those tones, the 3 whole steps could be said to represent a Trinitarian idea, intended by Durufle as a suggestion the body, at death, returns to God, or to perfection. In this instance the symbol is surrounded by tones of the Harmonic Series that occurs in Nature. Writing a final chord and leaving listeners with heightened expectation seems an appropriate, lovely gift and a natural musical conclusion for Durufle's REQUIEM.

Jean Thiel, DMA Hailbale (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

--Hailbale (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailbale (talk • contribs) 12:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Requiem (Duruflé). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130106034821/http://www.stetson.edu/music/concert-choir/choirCDinfo.php to http://www.stetson.edu/music/concert-choir/choirCDinfo.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The Gnome (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

I suggested an infobox, as they are in similar works by Mozart, Verdi and Reger. It was reverted by an IP without reason, which also reverted other fixes to the article. Discuss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

One of my favourite requiems, but re infobox, Could not care less, so pls don't escalate as a polarising issue. Still reeling from the loss of friends this kind of attitude has lead to. Ceoil (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Condolences for your "loss of friends". But if you "could not care less" about the existence of infoboxes, you normally should not be involved in a discussion about having an infobox or not. -The Gnome (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

What a horrible attempt to stop people questioning the opinions of others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.77 (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your exceptionally cold response. You obviously have not been paying attention and are completely missing the point, with added insufferable presumptuousness. You'd want to be fairly low on the IQ scale to not realise that I was dampening flames. But hey, lets personalise all the same. Ceoil (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It's the interwebs! Everyone can shove an oar in, however unwanted or ill-informed! Kafka Liz (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Its called baiting, and sadly works. Ceoil (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

"Low on the IQ scale", huh. Again with the personal attacks. Typical, this - because I have been paying attention (to such antics). A very sad state of affairs. -The Gnome (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Have some smelling salts. The fainting couch is this way, poor dear. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Kafka Liz, you should know that this is not an issue of "sensitivity" at all. What we do and how we are in real life should have no influence on what we do here on Wikipedia. In real life, we might have passed the stage of conversing many an hour ago. But here we are obliged not only to converse but to do so under very specific rules, too, the most prominent of which is that of being civil to each other. I hope this is not too great a surprise for you. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Done here really means done, for me at least. I'll not be drawn into this again. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Not really. Re-read you contributions and tone here and take responsibility. You point comes across "editors are expendable, and I am disinterested in substance, being primarily interested in baiting." Look at the sequence and disprove otherwise. You claim to know the nuances, but not seeing it. Ceoil (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Also you seem confused or are wanton wrt the word "again". Thats low skill baiting...you've lost me. Ceoil (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You want me to prove that what I'm saying is not equal to "editors are expendable"? And you want me to prove that I'm not "disinterested in substance"? Merely the fact that you demand I prove a negative shows the intellectual strength of your arguments. Consider taking a small break in order to regroup your thoughts. No one here is "expendable." Take care. -The Gnome (talk)

I'm done here. All of this is crap, and I'm ashamed to have been involved. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Well according to The Gnome's utilitarian outlook, you were expendable anyway, and boo hoo. Ceoil (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Who was it who said "could not care less about infoboxes"? Ah yes, now I remember. :-) Be well. -The Gnome (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Quite chuffed :-) to make the first response that is related to the subject. As it happens, and although I consider the issue not one of life and death, I'd find the existence of an infobox quite helpful in the article. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

How patronising and obnoxious your comments have been. So dismissive of all opinions except your own

We really have to have infobox discussions that focus on content. They are generally useful for presenting simple, basic material, and those who oppose their addition have not come up with a new argument against them in years. The only real debates about them should be on content and format, not inclusion itself. Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

What utter rubbish. Inclusion should always be questioned, or you fall into the lazy assumption that they are beneficial for everything. They are not, or the wikipedia rules would insist on them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.17 (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hiding behind an IP does not give you the right to continuously and quite casually violate the rule about being civil. You have not made one single constructive comment in this discussion. Are you proud of yourself? Do you think you are accomplishing something important by behavign like this? -The Gnome (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

More baiting? It's an interesting tactic you have. I'm not "hiding behind an IP", as I do not have an account. You know that's allowed do you, person who "hides behind a pseudonym"? Are you proud of yourself for baiting an IP?

Inviting you to start making constructive contributions instead of being persistently uncivil is not "baiting". Editing through IPs is perfectly acceptable; being nasty and uncivil to other editors as you evidently are is not. Make an effort. -The Gnome (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

From the patronising baiter? You have said little of worth on this page at all, on only seem to be poking others or shutting down valid criticism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.17 (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess you consider as "valid input" this habit of yours of going around vandalising other editors' user pages (e.g. here) or smearing over articles (e.g. here). Well, I guess we will disagree about the concept of "valid," sorry. :-) -The Gnome (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

As I have pointed out below, those were nothing to do with me. So it's either ignorance of how IPs are assigned by mobile phone companies, or you are lying. I think it's probably that you don't understand how IP addresses are assigned or used, so I have explained below why you need to be carefully before you lie to make an uncivil personal attack again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.177 (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverts

Which tag-teaming edit warrior accused me of vandalism? It's not, and the tag team ownership is disgusting

Accusing editors of editors of vandalism when it obviously isn't, really is a low thing to do, although I'm not surprised — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.238 (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, and I - if you mean me - did NOT accuse you of vandalism. I said that the treatment of reverting an edit without an edit summary (as was done here) should be reserved for vandalism. I don't know if you understand that difference. - I am in no tag team, so I don't know if you mean me. - Can we please discuss the edit now, not assumptions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Guilty conscience there. I referred to the nasty individual who reverted for "driveby anon IP vandalism" (in the edit summary)

Montanabw is not Gerda Arendt. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

No-one has said he is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.77 (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I did, usually a drive-by IP who has multiple talk page warnings from previous edits is a vandal. This IP, whoever it is, has a contribs list of many random edits and many warnings on the talk page. This does not appear to be a productive editor who is here to improve the encyclopedia and usually blanking of content for no reason is vandalism. Montanabw^(talk) 20:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

What rubbish. This is a mobile phone network with hundreds of users all using the same IPs at any time and switching them them around. To judge my edit on the basis of the anonymous editors previously shows an amazing degree of incompetence in how to treat editors who make good faith edits. You should be ashamed of yourself

It we were to accept that this is indeed a case of "hundreds of users" using the seem IP as yours, then we would have to also accept that, by a sudden, very large statistical deviation, all of those "hundreds" of users have the exact same attitude you have, i.e. not a trace of civility when talking with other editors. Why, we should report this momentous event to the Mathematical Society or something. -The Gnome (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

What childish nonsense. Perhaps I have to do mobile phones 101 for you. Hundreds, possibly thousands of mobile phone users use or have used the IPaddress. We use it to check sports reports, read the news or edit wikipedia. Some of them have done bad things, others have not, and the warnings will be for acts by different users. The good edits done on this IP will have been done by yet more different people. I suspect you know this already, but your baiting, or pouring gasoline onto a fire, does not rile me.

So far, the texts coming out of IPs 213.205.194.77, 213.205.198.238 and 213.205.198.17 read practically identical. The use of the term "baiting" is also a common theme. :-) But there'll be more. -The tGnome (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, those IPs are all me, well done. They are assigned by my phone company. So what? I'm not trying to hide anything

Anon IP 213, please sign your posts. I also suggest you get a username or you could subject yourself to an investigation to see if you are attempting to evade a block or engage in sockpuppetry. At this point, your behavior is purely disruptive and you've performed three reverts in less than 24 hours via these related IPs. I will not revert you again, speaking only for myself, but you need to chill out and be more constructive. Montanabw^(talk) 21:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not need to register for an account. I am sure you and everyone else here knows it. Thank you for trying to blacken my name further by the suggestion of evading a block or sockpuppetry. I will add them to the lies in your edit summaries as yet further grounds of bad faith bullying. 213.205.198.162 (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's see. You appear to have the viewpoint that everyone here is against you, whoever you are. Perhaps instead of viewing this as bullying, perhaps you could realize that your behavior is problematic? Judging by the many warnings on all save one of your IP accounts, you have been "not getting it" for some time. Either that, or all the other people on these shared IP addresses are themselves problem editors, and that could result in a rangeblock for the domain, which I am sure would be a problem for a lot of other people, given where this IP geolocates. It is not difficult to get a throwaway email account and then create an account here. Might be wise for you to do so. Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

See above for the basic explanation of the IP address assignment by the mobile phone company. Thousands of users use these addresses, and it is possible that the each warning is for a different phone user. No-one has any way of verifying that. The flip side of that is also true, in this little anti-IP mindset two people are showing: every single one of those good edits could be by different phone users. A range block? Does that mean you'll block several hundred thousand mobile users just because they may hold a different opinion to yours? 213.205.198.162 (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

A word in your ear, if I may, sir. You have already copped to the fact that all these IP addresses are yours. Check up a few lines above, if you must. Your references to "hundreds of other users" or the "mobile phone company" (!) or any other helpful titbit you might hold in reserve, are henceforth pre-emptively null and void. We are way past the denial stage. I'm saying this only to keep things interesting. Carry on. -The Gnome (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Reminder to everyone

Please read WP:Talk page guidelines and pay special attention to the following sentences:

"Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. . . . Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal. No meta: Extended meta-discussions about editing belong on noticeboards, in Wikipedia-talk, or in User-talk namespaces, not in Article-talk namespace."

Almost none of the comments in the two previous threads have anything to do with improving this article and are therefore in violation of this guideline. This is not a place to discuss IP editing, a specific IP editor, infoboxes in general, or any editor's personal frustrations. Please stay on topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Tell me, Cullen328, what's the penalty for discussing an IP-hopping editor's behaviour on the talk page of the article where they are editing? Given that they don't have the same talk page two days running, how else are we to communicate with them? --RexxS (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

And let's not worry about the lies, tag-teaming and ownership here. The above comment was from yet another edit warrior who has ignored the BRD policy and has made no attempt to discuss the changes, just imposed his or her personal preference. No wonder IPs get fucked off with the games you people play. It's odd how this small unattended article has received so much attention from the infobox obsessives who have never been here before. Its almost like someone has been going round contacting people to highlight a change they want made. Maybe an admin should look at the communication voiced here, just to check who's been acting as ringmaster. (Now that is something that should be stamped down on, along with the trolling and baiting being done by others, particularly Ghome)

A word in your ear, if I may, sir. To save bandwidth (and people's time), here is how I found myself involved here: After looking up one of your Talk Pages, I chanced upon an editor's remark that you "removed content [from the article on Requiem (Duruflé)] without adequately explaining why." This was the least serious remark, by the way, among the many warnings in your Talk Pages to stop your acts of vandalism. And I looked up the article - only to find the typical mess. Upon the rest of the comedy, there shall be no comment. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

bullshit. At least one editor has been going round publicising this on a string of talk pages, and the obsession you and they are showing in appearing in every infobox discussion that comes up is disruptive. It will only end badly for you. (And next time you want to comment on IP addresses, learn some of the basics, almost everything you have said is wrong to the point of idiocy. It ishould be obvious to all, but I will clarify for you, who seems to be struggling: not every edit made on wikipedia by the IPs is by me. The edits on this topic have all been by me. Has that worked its way through yet?) So accusing me of the strings of vandalism made by the ranks of users of this mobile telephone network is a personal attack and severe breach of the wp:CIVIL policy. You can get off your high horse and stop with the inane baiting now.

I didn't mention any penalties, RexxS. Editors should just follow the talk page guidelines and all will be well. Feel free to communicate with the IP or any other editor about improving this specific article here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I know you didn't mention any penalties, Cullen328, that's why I asked. In fact, not only is there no penalty associated with discussing an IP's behaviour here, where it is germane to the article, but it is the only sensible place to do so. So I'd be grateful if you'd quit patronising experienced editors who are quite aware of the TPGs – and their deficiencies – until such time as you manage to figure out a better place to discuss an IP's behaviour in these circumstances. It's worth noting that, ironically, your intervention has even less to do with improving the article than that of any other contributor on the page. Your cooperation in improving that sorry state of affairs would be appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

And this from a tag-teaming, edit-warring owner of the article, who has miraculously "appeared" at this page, as if by magic. Deciding not to bother with the whole BRD thing, or talkpage, ironically, their intervention on both the article or talk page has even less to do with improving the article than that of any other contributor on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.177 (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm just going to pop in to say this - if nobody reverts RexxS' latest change, then brilliant, we have consensus, end of discussion. Meanwhile, the article has had a {{refimprove}} tag on the article for three years. Could y'all talk about resolving that issue instead? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Let's ignore the noise, whether eponymous or anonymous. -The Gnome (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

feck me, what an inane and trite comment (from the Ghome, not Ritchie333)

Per RexxS's reinstatement of the infobox, yes, I would like that to be justified here on the talk page as he himself offers, and look forward to seeing his arguments. If convincing arguments are not forthcoming then I will be amongst those who suggest it should be reverted. But whether or not there is to be an infobox here, Ritchie333's point takes precedence. At the moment for example the infobox, as RexxS has reinstated it, contains 'information' for which there is no citation - e.g. dedication, scoring, no. of movements. If RexxS is genuinely concerned about the quality and probity of Wikipedia articles, perhaps he could sort that out as par of his justification. In the meantime I am removing those elements which are not sourced. − Smerus (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Smerus: Thank you for inviting me so courteously to expand on why I feel the infobox improves this article. I won't edit-war over it, but I do think it helpful for other editors to understand why I felt restoring that version improved the article. I'd also like to take this opportunity to contest your recent removal of several pieces of information from the infobox.

• The infobox that I restored contains a more concise summary of the lead image in its caption, which I feel is more appropriate for a lead section (of which an infobox is naturally a part).
• The structured nature of the key-value pairs associating a label with a piece of information in this infobox allows third-parties to retrieve the information more concisely and accurately using automated tools.
• The infobox contains the "published" microformat which allow microformat readers to retrieve the date of publication directly.
• The infobox contains eight further pieces of information, which I believe to be key items that any reader wishing to get an "at-a-glance" overview of the work would find useful. They also may represent commonly asked questions that a reader may wish to find a quick answer to. I accept that "catalogue number", "publication date", "based on", and "dedication" are available in the lead, but it is convenient for the reader to have them in a single place, along with the link to Music for the Requiem Mass and the other three pieces of information not present in the lead.
• That the dedication is to his father's memory is as well sourced in the infobox as it is in the lead. I'd be grateful if you'd restore that piece of information (or delete it from the lead if you really believe it to be untrue).
• The language of the piece is Church Latin. Domine Jesu Christe, Sanctus, etc. are recognisably Latin even from someone who last studied Latin in 1967. Please be kind enough to restore that piece of information or explain why you challenge its veracity.
• The number of movements is nine: Introit (Requiem Aeternam); Kyrie eleison; Offertory (Domine Jesu Christe); Sanctus and Benedictus; Pie Jesu; Agnus Dei; Communion (Lux aeterna); Libera me; In Paradisum. Count them. The articles states this and the infobox summarises that key fact. If you really want a reference, you can listen to the entire work at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TneUTtCAJlE where you'll find nine movements. Please be kind enough to restore that piece of information or explain why you challenge its veracity.
• The scoring is a collation and summary of the information already in the article in the Structure and Instrumentation sections. Please be kind enough to restore those pieces of information or explain why you challenge their veracity.

It really doesn't seem appropriate to me to remove items from the infobox as "not sourced" when they do no more than summarise what is already in the article. For some of these items, verification would not depend on reading a fact in a source, but on a reader's ability to recognise Latin or count the number of movements in a work. WP:CALC removes the requirement for sources for trivial calculations and I would have thought that counting was in the spirit of that policy. WP:No original research states that the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. Do you really challenge the fact that the language of the work (a requiem mass, no less) is in Latin? Please have another think about your recent edits and ensure that you are genuinely concerned with "the quality and probity" of this article, rather than your dislike of the infobox. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic exchanges
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"I won't edit-war over it" PMSL!!!! You already HAVE edit warred over it! What utter hypocrisy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.109.165.72 (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC) I have made exactly one edit to this article and I have explained here why I felt it was an improvement. You, on the other hand, have reverted four times against three other editors in less than two days, with not one single attempt to justify your reversions on this page. The very definition of an edit-warrior. You're the hypocrite and a coward to boot: why don't you log in with your real account and take some responsibility for your actions? --RexxS (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Coward? Another personal attack from the registered editors. As I have made very clear above, I have no account. I will not wait for an apology for the name-calling (there have been too many lies for a bullshit apology to actually men anything) Yes, you have edit warred, regardless of how many edits made to the page. You did it based on little more than your own person bent, rather than actually discussing it to gain a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.84 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Another piece of garbage amongst your other worthless contributions. And Satan will be going to work on ice-skates before the likes of you get an apology for calling you what you are, coward. I don't believe you have no registered account: you're merely editing logged-out to troll this discussion. Why don't you log in and take responsibility? You have demonstrated clearly that you have no concept of what "discussing it to gain a consensus" means, as you've singularly failed to discuss any part of the article here. Hypocrisy is the only talent you seem to have. --RexxS (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)