 
Getting Started
|
|
|
Getting Help
|
|
|
Policies and Guidelines
|
|
|
The Community
|
|
|
Things to do
|
|
|
Miscellaneous
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, LawrencePrincipe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful. Hafspajen (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
I like your improvements to his article! The number of cantatas: I can't access the ref, I also doubt that a choir website would be the best source for that number, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Nice to hear your comments User:Gerda Arendt. The source being used here is Professor George Stauffer from Rutgers University in the U.S. He has written a good book review of the new Bach book by Gardiner Music in the Castle of Heaven. At 600 pages it is one of the best studies on the Cantatas in recent years. The book review itself might be found electronically on the website for The New York Review of Books in the current issue. It should at least give you more details about the source if this helps out. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
- I found several reviews of the book online, but how would any of them support the number of cantatas which Bach wrote? We know how many are extant, and we know of some by other means, like a libretto, but how can we be sure how many are completely lost without a trace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, the New York Review of Book review by Stauffer from last year is still one of the best ones available. There are 190 extant Cantatas for which copies survive of the nearly 300 Cantatas which where documented in the various registries of the Churches for which he wrote them. Prof Greenberg gives an account of the unfortunate sales and destruction of many of Bach's manuscripts left in his Will and Testament to relatives. If there is time over the next few days then I can try to make a short edit about this unfortunate legacy after his life where many manuscripts were lost. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
- (I removed "@Gerda Arendt" from your comment above. What we say is for all ;) - Call me Gerda, - and I will watch from time to time, no need for a ping, which works only with a link anyway. You may want to compare the findings to List of Bach cantatas and perhaps change there. For the composer Bach, I suggest you propose on the talk page and discuss, rather than changing back and forth, explaining in edit summaries some readers are unable to find. We will never know how many cantatas Bach composed exactly, because some may have been lost without the slightest trace. How do different versions count, for example 134 and 134a where the only difference is the text (and shortening)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Nice of you to bring this up here. It seems the best direction would be to take the same approach as for the "lost books" of the classical authors of philosophy and tragedy. It would likely work on the Bach page. The lost works of Aristotle provide a useful model. It is an unfortunate circumstance of history that the five Masses of Bach are no longer all available. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
- I suggest you start an article on the topic, as we have Lost operas by Claudio Monteverdi, because it is certainly too much for the composer's page which is lacking more important facts. Until yesterday, we didn't even have articles on two of the four churches he was responsible for. I will expand and then add with a link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
- That is really a nicely done article on the Lost operas as started by Brianboulton. The material on Bach which you refer to is usually covered in Bach biographies to show that Bach's fame as a composer only began many decades after his death, which partially explains the lost manuscripts and transcriptions. If you are interested in doing the Lost transcripts of Bach as a separate article analogous to the Monteverdi, then the starting outline is fairly straightforward: (a) The lost Cantatas, 190 survive, over 100 lost; (b) The 3 lost Passions, only Matthew and John survive, one of the lost ones is Mark; (c) The 4 lost Masses; only the Bminor survives. If you start something like this, the first stop might be to try to identify who took over Bach's assigned office at the Thomaschule since many of the transcriptions of the Cantatas and other works were kept there. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yunshui 雲水 08:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Done. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
thank you for your question! Indeed, I have not used this angle and I am not too familiar with this approach, although it does sound sensible and resembles general governance standards studies. Pundit|utter 03:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
- I'm not sure whom are you referring to... Pundit|utter 06:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
- No, absolutely no idea. Obviously, I cannot edit the article myself as in COI. But that's awkward indeed :) Pundit|utter 17:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Could you preview ideas on the talk page? We really need to discuss them among those of use who have a sincere interest in the project. I know you have some views you are promoting that are constructive and of interest, but we still need to try to act collaboratively. Thanks! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Specifically, you may wish to explain why this suggestion isn't as ridiculous on its face as it appears. --Calton | Talk 03:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hi. I recently saw your discussions on Talk:Wikipedia. You may want to check this section at the talk-page, if you have not already done so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia#Blatant_deletion_of_important.2C_relevant_and_reference-backed_content_.28without_any_discussion.29_by_User:Chealer.
Regards, --EngineeringGuy (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hi Lawrence, just to explain my revert here, it made the scope section long, and it isn't really about the gender gap (i.e. why women don't edit WP and what we can do about it). Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Re: your reply on my page (better to keep the discussion in one place), the edit was about the numbers of editors falling in general (and it was very long). It said nothing about why women are not editing and how to change that, which is what that section is about. If by incentives, you mean why we want women editing, it's not just to swell numbers. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks for getting back on this. Both Susan and JWhales have asked that the 25% goal be taken seriously (they identify it as the half-way point to full gender parity). Are you sure you want to leave the article without any discussion of incentives to achieving goals? LawrencePrincipe (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
- There's a notice at the top of the page listing some of incentives, namely fewer women = less content, lower quality, systematic bias. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
- The cited 2014 Economist article was published as a warning sign to Wikipedia that attrition losses in editor numbers need to be addressed. The potential number of possible female editors available represents the largest available demographic for ameliorating the attrition losses being suffered at Wikipedia since 2007 and on (the cited Economist article). Attracting more women editors at the Susan and JWales level would substantially ameliorate the documented attrition problem which is currently not covered in the article. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
- The last 5000 new accounts (that have edited) were 9 male, 1 female, 4990 unset. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC).
- Thanks, Rich, that is important to keep in mind (also, specifying user gender is only possible since october 2011):
- "However there is no reason that a full text analysis of all talk page contributions could not be done, and it might well lead to a model with good gender predictive power, since there is a valid training set consisting of the gender identified users." - Except that this would be freaking creepy! --Atlasowa (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Declared: male = 502573, female=98369 , female = 16.40% of those with declared gender.
- Admins: female=56, male= 600.
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC).
Archiving on VP(T) is set to 120 hours without a comment I beleive. The archive bot does not recognise my signature, however it it not likely that that section will be archived before several more days have passed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC).
- @Rich Farmbrough: Yes, I noticed that its at the top of VP and put a note on the Talk page at Gender Gap by your graph. It should be of top interest to keep tracking this data while trying to expand voluntary participation in the self-identification of editor's gender. Gender is otherwise generally tracked on all passports and other IDs so it shouldn't be overly objectionable. Maybe putting the pronoun preference tab at the top of the new editor preferences page would increase the likelihood of new editors self-identifying pronoun preference in order to track the gender stats progress. Your graph was on target. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi Lawrence,
I noticed your edit to the film's page, citing WP:LEDE, and referring to the fact that the body of the article does not support the material in the header. That is a potentially valid style observation, and one which I believe should be addressed. I have reverted the edit, however, because the community is currently engaged in a consensus-seeking discussion relating to the substantive content of the material. Notwithstanding style concerns, visibility of the substantive content and its associated references (and reference flags) is necessary in order to facilitate review and discussion.
If the consensus is to retain the material in any form, then issues of style should be addressed immediately at that time. However, it would be silly to edit the body of the article (to comply with WP:LEDE) where the consensus may be to remove the content altogether. If you disagree with my reversion, then please feel free to join the discussion and include your suggestion for final disposition of the content (whether that is moving the content to the body of the article and/or out of the leader, complete removal, etc.) in the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Thank you! Xanthis (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Hi Xanthis; Running an RfC is not meant to allow person to sidestep Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:LEDE. Let the RfC run, but no violation of WP:LEDE is allowed just because an RfC is initiated by an interested editor. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Hi Lawrence, Please substantiate your claim that asserted style concerns require immediate deletion of substantive content. I am a relatively new user, so I am likely to be ignorant of such a policy, if one exists. I do know enough about Wiki policy to know that the usual prescribed procedure is:
- Bold --> Revert --> Discuss
- WP:BRD
- If you disagree with a reversion, the usual remedy is to take the matter to the talk page, not to begin an edit war.
- It seems to me that your problem with the content is one of style -- that if it is mentioned in the leader, then it should also be mentioned in the body. While that may be so, it seems to me the best solution is not to remove substantive content altogether while discussion is underway. Visibility of the content (and its associated reference flags) is necessary to alert readers and facilitate discussion. Any questions of style can be easily resolved as part of the discussion process.
- Perhaps you and I could agree that the content be moved to the body of the article, while discussion is ongoing, so as to satisfy and WP:LEDE concerns that you might have? Xanthis (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Hi @Xanthis: Thanks for getting back on this. I did answer on Talk at the film page yesterday, but received no answer there. All comments should probably best be kept there so that they are all in one place. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Hi Lawrence, I'd be more than happy to reply on the talk page. But since it's probably going to be just you and I talking to one another, please help me out by letting me know your position. First, please substantiate your claim that asserted style concerns require immediate deletion of substantive content, for my benefit. As a new user, I like to become familiar with Wikipedia policies as I encounter them. Second, to answer your question on the Talk page -- yes, if consensus is to retain the material, then I think it would be prudent to edit the body of the article.
- Perhaps you and I could agree that the content be moved to the body of the article, while discussion is ongoing, so as to satisfy and WP:LEDE concerns that you might have? Xanthis (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Hi Xanthis; The issue I raised on the Talk page at the film article was a serious one and should be answered there. This is generally seen as a courtesy to the other editors who have already responded to this issue there and might have more to say. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —Xanthis (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Upon reviewing the situation, Lawrence, your behavior on that page is unacceptable. Edit warring to remove subject matter that's being actively and reasonably discussed on the talk page. Inappropriately closing an RfC, wrongfully invoking WP:SNOW—that RfC is nothing near a SNOW situation. Multiple editors had acknowledged that there was reasonable evidence supporting the fact that it was in NY. Not to mention the fact that you were involved, and claimed to be acting "per WP guidelines for closure". What? First of all, there are no official "WP guidelines for closure". Second of all, if you had actually read the relevant information pages regarding this, you'd see that Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs and Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure clearly state that formal closure can be done by an uninvolved editor. You clearly violated the common practice while falsely referencing some vague guideline. Speaking of which, that's exactly what you were doing when you were removing that content from the lead. Vaguely referencing WP:LEDE, while not actually specifying what part of that guideline was being so severely violated...I'll answer that mystery for you by the way—none. I can't see any way the content was blatantly violating any part of WP:LEDE. WP:LEDE says, "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The information you were trying to remove is the epitome of trivial and I certainly wouldn't deign to call it a "significant" piece of information that needs to be covered in detail in the body of the article. I really have no idea what you're doing over there but you're behavior has been nothing short of unacceptable. See below. Swarm... —X— 06:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Five years ago, you were recipient no. 1158 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi. In Jan 2015 you deleted my reference to the chemical element Promethium. I've only just noticed, and I've reinserted something similar in the introductory section. I think it's relevant, but I'm open to discussion.HuPi (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
|
