User talk:RandomCanadian

• New messages go at the bottom.
• If you have been redirected here from another project or language, please leave the message here to ensure I see it and answer in a timely fashion. Thanks!

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 4 as User talk:RandomCanadian/Archive 3 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Welcome back! Nice ArbCom appeal. BlueCrabRedCrab 19:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@BlueCrabRedCrab: Apparently this year's incarnation of ArbCom are faster than last year's (in case you really wonder, t'was an unfortunate, and I guess obvious - particularly given the long edit history of my IP before I created an account [though I can't read the mind of the person who blocked me so have no clue how this happened], case of mistaken identity). Cheeers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your support at the UKDR S2 talk page - please remember to keep a level head (allow the opposing editors to be heard - accessibility is a journey of learning for others) ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Bielaski DYK

I'm nominating it now instead of waiting for GA, because I'm in the WikiCup, and you get points for expansion DYKs, but not GA DYKs. Also, I found this guy's life interesting, and didn't want to risk being too busy when it passed GA to have the time to craft a DYK hook. Hog Farm _Talk 20:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: So even admins aren't immune from WP:MMORPG? . Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:X1, the time an admin created 50,000 useless redirects and had a speedy deletion criteria specifically to delete their "work"? It's my go-to example of admins behaving badly. Hog Farm _Talk 21:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I'm mostly aware of the CSDs but I didn't know the exact context behind that one (or at least I never bothered to investigate). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: re. "behaving badly" now I don't want to think I'm seeing ghosts so please, could I have your opinion: is stuff like this (over what seems, at least to me, like a minor affair, no matter who's right); or even stuff like this something that falls a bit over WP:ADMINACCT? Not that I think any action is required (unless there's a long term pattern I'm missing, but that's well above my paygrade), but just to have another pair of eyes... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Probably best to just ignore that - I've seen way worse. I was recently a party to an arbcom motion where a user got desysoped for calling everyone racist for suggesting that stubs should meet notability and verifiability requirements, and that situation is nowhere like that. It's not optimal behavior, but it's probably best to ignore. Not worth the drama, and from what I've seen with those discussions you linked, it seems rather unlikely that the threatened sanctions could get a consensus. Calmer heads generally prevail. Hog Farm _Talk 04:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thanks. Re. Stubs and notability? Don't get me started... Saddened to hear it bears relatively close kinship with prior Wikidrama of that level, though. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks/Archive 12#Commenting out Lilypond audio

Hello, thanks for the heads-up; I will take a look. Looking at the search results for "insource:/vorbis="?1"?/ -insource:/%vorbis="?1"?/", there are new occurrences for the initial request as well. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I completed the original request. The recent additional one is quite a bit harder, because "score" also seems to be quite a common template parameter. Why is this not possible to do on the MediaWiki side anyway? After all, it is able to display "Musical scores are temporarily disabled." Why not just behave as if the parameter wasn't there? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4: That would indeed be the best solution (and it would solve the problems on all other wikis). Sorry about the annoying slip though, I probably meant to write "sound=1" (as per the actual documentation; but then with the above query I only get instances of section headers ending with sound (ex. ===Ultrasound===). I'll bring it up on the relevant phab task; though I don't know if that's the most appropriate place. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

G4 request at Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography

Greetings! I wanted to wait until you commented on the AfD prior to approaching to you about your G4 nomination of this article, as I did not want to appear as if I were canvassing you to the AfD. I saw your G4 nomination and compared the last version of the article before it was deleted from the first AfD with the now current version of the article to see how similar they were. There are some differences sufficient to question whether a G4 was valid, which is why I converted it to a second AfD. I know you couldn't see the deleted version, thus couldn't directly compare the two. This was simply a procedural conversion and was not in any way meant as a commentary on your G4 tagging. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Thanks. I still find the recreation rather WP:POINTY, if you see what I mean (and there's also a whole history between FS and Mathsci, which I'm not sure if it also involves the discography section, although they both edited the main article recently)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware of the history. I've given warnings to both FS and Mathsci regarding their actions. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hammersoft, please also watch BWV 1. The image. Coordinator's note. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hammersoft, what do you see when you look there, today, after I obliged? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing edit warring, if that's what you mean. At least, it's not readily apparent to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything like 3RR, but I see that the first attempt to swap the images was a bold edit, and should - once reverted - have been discussed. For any article, but especially a FAC during the review process to which several users contributed. Instead, today's swap is the third. I'll wait what's next. I probably don't have to tell you who uploaded the lead image. - Thank you for hosting us, RC! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Gerda, walk me through it diff by diff if you would. I didn't pick up on it while reviewing diffs (sorry; human after all :) ) --Hammersoft (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

RC, do you have more patience with this? - Hammersoft, for context: in a FAC, reviewers usually don't touch the article without asking. (I had to request that Aza24 made minor corrections directly in the article instead of describing, and I do it.) Now we have an editor here who is unfamiliar with the whole FA procedure, but I don't want to say so all the time. Reviewers who wrote FAs (one of them more than 100) supported after a few minor points. - In January, Mathsci uploaded a higher quality image of the violin part (lead image since 2015) to the commons [1]. On 14 February, F offered a pic of the manuscript of the continuo part, with bass figures by Bach himself. Great, I added it to where the music is described. F, possibly believing that the pic is clearly/objectively better (because of the little numbers in Bach's hand that nobody will even see are there without explanation), swapped the two images. I disagree that it's the better lead image. Now diffs of swap and revert: February: F1 · G1 · F2 · G2 · March: F3 · G3. By simple WP:BRD, this should have stopped after G1. By FAC situation and article stability, not even F1 should have happened. By iban, F1 should not have happened, but perhaps F was unaware of that, let's assume good faith. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: No problem with it; I'm enough of a WP:TPS myself that I don't think I have any leg to stand on if I complain. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Actually, perhaps you'd like to participate in the pic concerns, where suddenly the image that was good enough for years, and good enough for Bach Digital to link to the article, was declared "not appropriate". The review is linked to from the top of the talk of the cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: To be fair the violin part is cleaner (no crossed out bits - clearly the copyist was more careful, since he didn't require Bach's intervention). The continuo has figures which are unreadable at usual resolutions and only provide clutter. And well the violin is also the very first thing most listeners will notice (since the ear is naturally drawn to the higher voice...). Can I ask for some of your time, though? If it's not too sensitive of a subject, this RfC needs closing and although the outcome appears rather non-controversial I think it best if somebody uninvolved took a look, given there was some spirited opposition. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the evaluation which supports mine. In case of need, I'll ask you to repeat that at the FAC. We have now 3 added pics, and the continuo would be the one I'd through out if that seems too many. - I am sorry, I am behind on many things. Mourning Yoninah is not only terribly sad, but also creating a giant load of work she would have done, just look at DYK (archived: Crisis) and the psalms. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I was out yesterday. So, when you make a revert of something that changes nothing for the reader, you have sinned against your iban, but when you push your clearly inferior pic to the top position against the other's, again and again, we assume good faith? I'll go to church now and pray to let me forgive. Need it. - I miss Yoninah. - Block the two in alternating months, how is that? - Late for church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere, the situation with FS is not going without notice. Despite the two editors being wrapped up in each other's edits, please do not juxtapose them and feel that action at one place somehow provides evaluative effect on the other. They are independent of each other. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

They are not independent. I suggest I take BWV 1 4 7 ..., F 2 5 8 ..., M 3 6 9. I believe we should grant good faith evenly, or go by incidents evenly. There was no reason for F to touch the movement 1 analysis. Had I been around, I would have dealt with it, and Mathsci would not have been blocked, and now I feel guilty. Happy Bach's birthday, how lovely shines the morning star. BWV 4 is TFA for Easter, please watch it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I will not and can not justify the actions of one editor due to actions of another editor in an IBAN. IBAN does not make allowances for that, nor should it otherwise it would permit edit warring. I said FS' actions are not going unnoticed. I meant it. I was quite well aware that impropriety might be perceived if I took action with respect to Mathsci and not FS. I assure you there is none. I am watching the situation closely. I have not, am not, and will not take sides in this issue. If I perceive that I am doing so, I am WP:INVOLVED and will exit. You should not feel in any respect that you are responsible for Mathsci's blatant disregard for the IBAN in performing the edit for which I issued the three month ban. Mathsci chose to do that. Assuming the best case (WP:AGF) Mathsci should have taken the time to evaluate the edit they were about to make in the context of whether what they were doing was going to affect what FS had done. Mathsci didn't do that. If it was the worst case, it was intentional. Either way, Mathsci took an action which openly reverted the actions of FS. I'm not responsible for that. Neither are you, nor anyone else. Only Mathsci is responsible for having clicked "Publish changes" on an edit that reverted an edit FS committed...less than an hour before! If the IBAN wasn't warning enough, if the week long block in November wasn't enough, if the month long block wasn't enough to bring home that serious nature of the IBAN, maybe...just maybe...a three month long block will. There are those who feel an indef block would have been appropriate. There are those (including me) who feel the IBAN is doomed to fail. But, I hold out hope. The three month block is a measured response, and one I am trying to communicate the severity of to Mathsci. I gave a warning to Mathsci that the next IBAN violation would result in a minimum of a three month block from me. Mathsci chose to not take that warning to heart. I'm not responsible for that, nor are you. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You can't tell me what to feel. You are correct, but I still feel miserable about it. The iban seems to be wrong, can we agree? Doing more harm than good. You know the section mentioning movement I, and the heart having gone into it. Sure, we shouldn't own ... I'll go outside now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I can't. I'm just saying you shouldn't. Mathsci is responsible for their actions. They were clearly warned about the very serious nature of violations to the IBAN and what would happen if they violated it again. With the various violations that had happened before, with the blocks that had happened before, and with the sternly worded final warning, choices were extremely limited. It was either (a) allow the violations to continue or (b) block. If I'm wrong, I would be glad to hear of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hammersoft and Gerda Arendt: I think the issue here is that it took too long realising the IBAN was ineffective (AGF and all, these two editors simply are much too involved in one specific topic for them to simply not cross each other's path). Whether we should move on to a topic ban (as I suggested at AN) or straight to almighty (total) Banhammer in light of this is a different question. @Gerda: entirely unrelated to the unfortunate topic above; but how much content do we have here on Pachelbel (besides that piece which we've all heard too many times - why do only baroque afficionados ever play the gigue too)? Just played this today and well was wondering. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, RC. I don't know much about Pachelbel, heard Telemann today, rather fascinating word painting 1 (of 5). On Bach's birthday. The closest thing to celebrating the morning star is Sirius for TFA. Wanted to expand BWV 157, instead searched for refs for the bass who died. On DYK, the Schubert with too much history, too little music. Got a kitten, though, and should not be too bitter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Chemical graph generator​

The principal issue concerns the reproduction of material which I expect to be protected by copyright. Petergans (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Petergans: The issue of close paraphrasing and being based much on one single source is one thing. However, as far as I can see, the information is properly licensed; see Chemical_graph_generator#Sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The link above states: "This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license." Note also that it is incorrect to attribute the diagrams as "own work" as is done for the first diagram in the article https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Overlapping_Structures.svg and the other diagrams. Petergans (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Petergans: Well the uploader of the file does seem to be the same as the author of the paper. Anyway the paper was published under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia (CC-BY vs Wikipedia which is actually more restrictive, CC-BY-SA) so the information can be corrected. In either case, in the case of drawings of structures of molecules, that is irrelevant as such drawings do not contain sufficient creative work to be copyrightable (you can't copyright a simple drawing of a square; and well chemical molecules are not that far off: letters connected by lines...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

See also Template:PD-simple. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Modest flowers

Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

section closing

Regarding this edit: I'm puzzled as to why you did this. It's unusual to close part of an ongoing discussion with a summary statement. It gives your interpretation of what was discussed in that section greater prominence. I feel it doesn't help contribute towards a collaborative environment. isaacl (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Isaacl: The discussion has clearly moved on from that area to elsewhere. Providing a summary for those who may not have followed since the beginning was my intent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Nonetheless, I feel it gives undue weight to one person's view. There are times with large conversations where it might be helpful, but I don't believe this conversation was sufficiently large to warrant it. isaacl (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Well I spent about 15 minutes crafting it and going through the comments by all editors so I don't think it gives undue weight to my views - I tried to pick the gist of everyone's comments. If you think I missed anything important feel free to tell me/add it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean your personal view on the topic, but your interpretation of what were the key takeaways from the discussion. Though I'm still not convinced of the need to have a summary, I appreciate your placing the summary in a collapsed box. isaacl (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Christians, awake, salute the happy morn

The hooks scheduled for Easter are already in queues so I couldn't make that date request work when I promoted the hook. You could try asking if an admin can switch out one of those hooks for it on the DYK talk page. SL93 (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Christians, awake, salute the happy morn

On 4 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Christians, awake, salute the happy morn, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Christians, awake, salute the happy morn" is a hymn based on a poem that John Byrom first presented "For Dolly"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christians, awake, salute the happy morn. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Christians, awake, salute the happy morn), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

wild garlic

On this day in 1742, He was despised was performed for the first time, and when I wrote it in 2012, I didn't only think of Jesus. Andreas Scholl sang that for us, - you are invited to a Baroque stroll. - The psalms: I think a general article about the psalms and their musical treatment would be desirable, telling such things as metric paraphrases, psalters, and certain composers setting series. In German, we have Psalmlied (psalm song), songs that can replace a psalm in the liturgies. Anything like that in English? - Specifically: could you add to Psalm 115? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

There are the metrical psalters (Genevan psalter, for ex.); and of course a couple of paraphrases. I'd assume churches which favour exclusive psalmody would employ those. Anglicans of course have their brillant method; although AFAICS hymns based on psalms (such as those by Watts or others) are also otherwise employed - I do not know if there's any place (whichever denomination) where they are substituted as is for liturgical psalms, though.

Now, I am personally more involved in French-language usage, but I'm not quite sure that in that instance there is much more besides the old psalters, since there's essentially a dearth of hymns in French because the French protestants were mostly practitioners of exclusive psalmody... There are some translations of hymns from other languages (ex. "C'est un rempart que notre Dieu", and more on that same site). Of course in the Catholic parish where I'm organist the congregation is more used to stuff like post-Vatican II compositions from people like fr:Jo Akepsimas or fr:Joseph Gelineau or more modern ones, but they're all similar in that it sounds and looks (from a theoretical and melodic point of view) closer pop music (repeated notes, sometimes bizarre voice leading in the melody (harmonisations are mostly non-existent, or if they are there then the voice leading is even more dubious), irregular meter, ...) than the hymns familiar to English and German ears. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! A song recommended today is a paraphrase of Psalm 36, written in 1971 by a Catholic author, to a melody of the Reformation from 1525 (and one of the best hymn melodies ever, I'd say), - taking the best of two cultures. It played a role in my life when it was the first church comment after 9/11, before any word was spoken. Singing of "unlimited goodness" then was a challenge, - I remember that every time we sing it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for improving an article about music significant in my life, Bach's motet Jesu, mein Freude by a fine image, among others! From the start to the Main page in 15 years ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The individual psalm settings in Psalms is random (pun intended) and useless. Why 126 by Rameau but not van Nuffel, and both knew that psalm as 125. Just one example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for removing the self-nominated {{prod}} from my stub article. The self-nomination was a test to see whether other people thought that my content is worth keeping. Apparently, somebody else also attempted to write an article on the same subject (also in Draft: namespace) and it got deleted as a duplicate of mine (which started in mainspace, got speedied, then undeleted and removed to draft namespace, and finally put in its present location.)

Since this topic is related to my occupation I suppose I should improve the article... when I have a chance.... Bwrs (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yoninah tribute

You appear to be both supporting and opposing the proposal? P-K3 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: I'm supporting reposting some of Yoninah's best hooks, but not mentioning them directly to our readers on the main page (i.e. keeping the symbolism for us). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just not sure the RfC is set up to reflect that position. Hopefully the closer will figure it out. P-K3 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I think the Support position is exactly yours, there is no proposal to mention her directly. As it stands I think your Oppose is just cancelling out your Support. P-K3 (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: Nevermind me cancelling my !vote; the formatting was confusing. Hopefully I've done a few changes to make it clearer now? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it was confusing. That's much better, thanks. P-K3 (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Closing discussions

Hello, RandomCanadian,

First, thanks for helping me out with the question on Drmies' talk page. Your quick thinking was appreciated. Second, whenever you close a discussion--which is perfectly fine for you to do at the appropriate time--please add {{nac}} either at the beginning of your close or by your signature. This will place "(non-admin closure)" on your closing comments. For some editors, they want to know if a close was done by an admin or an experienced editor so this is just about transparency. It's typically done on WP:ANI. Thanks again for your help! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Can't say no to a request like that, hadn't though of that before (I personally don't really fuss much about it, but I understand some editors might not subscribe to WP:NOBIGDEAL as much as others - or at least given the recent massive RfC over desysoping and of course what some say about RfA, that's likely the case). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. Your close was perfectly fine so that's not an issue. But since some folks care, we just add that bit. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz.All for Poland (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)