Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner)

Editors involved in this dispute
I am not sure that the section Editors involved in this dispute is complete, because two other editors have been already involved in the dispute: User:Gerda Arendt and User:Montanabw. In addition, Gerda has also had in the past disputes with User:Nikkimaria for similar concerns.

As I put on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, there are probably not so many Wikipedia-specialists with a with a music background of Anton Bruckner. There is one for sure: User:Artiumbremen alias Benjamin-Gunnar Cohrs - one of the editors of the Bruckner Gesamtaugabe.

Nikkimaria is clearly not a Bruckner-specialist. She has in the meantime added to Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner) additional references, which she has found in the daily press, as "The Arizona Daily Star" and "The Sunday Times" to substantiate her changes. I do not think that such references are really trustworthy for an article, which is part of the WikiProject Classical music.

Another independent user, who is participant of the WikiProject Classical music and could mediate, is User:Kleinzach. He asked me to participate as Bruckner-expert in creating the new List of compositions by Anton Bruckner and to ensure its follow-up in the framework of the WikiProject Classical music. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

My position
None of the Bruckner-related pages is my ownership, even when I was the initiator or the only author of them. I have no problem when someone is removing my input (or input from others) with well-substantiated justification, or replacing it with higher-quality data. On the contrary, I do not accept that well-substantiated data from high-quality sources, which were put by myself or by others, are removed without good justification, or replaced by data coming from less-quality sources as blog-like websites or daily papers. In the past I have as, e.g., User:Montanabw and User:Gerda Arendt also did, restored some of such removed data, but I have never removed contents from other users, well sometimes added a well-substantiated precision to them (example: "23 January 1904" instead of only "1904") - having always in mind to provide Wikipedia with high-quality information.

As Hans Roelofs e-mailed to me, "(Translated) I find your Wikipedian 'adventure' with the Canadian user boring – it is knowledge on democratic base, it will end with a voting! I am understanding the philosophy, which is behind it. One wants so to avoid proliferation and manipulation, as well as garbage, but the whole construction has holes. … In a 'old-fashion' encyclopedia you could not describe people, who were not enough relevant to be taken ito account for it. On the opposite, of course people, works, etc., which were faulty forgotten, can now be put to attention of the audience – anyhow in a single language. When someone like you, who has already won his spurs by Wikipedia, writes a lemma which is relevant and suits the Wikipedia-Bruckner-concept, has someone else the right to hold it? ... I find the idea behind Wikipedia very pleasant, I have already found a lot in Wikipedia, but I know that I have always to check whether the article is accurate, on a more critical manner than by an encyclopedia or a manual."

To avoid further worsening of the current situation, I have decided to stop my contribution to the concerned Bruckner-pages till the ongoing mediation (or any other intervention) has solved the ongoing issue. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: In the meantime I will well add suggestions / comments on the talk-pages of the concerned Bruckner-pages. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)