User talk:RandomCanadian/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

fyi

I noticed you recently closed some discussions at milhist. I wanted to suggest you use the Non-admin closure template by adding {{nac}} after your signature when closing... well, just about anything really, (except for RMs). Just a heads up. - wolf 04:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Well any editor in good standing can close most discussions, so I tend to use it only when the matter seems mildly controversial (some RfC or the like) or where others might expect the closure to have been done by an admin (such as when I got involved in AfDs). In this case I don't think it really matters, does it? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, of course I probably shouldn't have used such forceful language like 'insist' and 'demand'. I probably should've just used more amiable language like 'suggest' and 'just a heads up'. I of course will strike... oh, wait.
- wolf 17:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

I wouldn't call it obsessive (it's only technical) but you're right, I have myself suggested the same to others replying to many posts at times. I had the impression that those who had already voted were no longer participating and felt it may have been my responsibility to fill the gaps, (but it's not) and more editors ended up participating today anyway. Because of the canvassing, various entries will likely get ignored anyway. Thanks for the reminder, —PaleoNeonate – 22:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Ping didn't work

User:El C Sorry for annoying you with something as simple as this, but does it work this way? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And it shouldn't matter how you link it (template or no). Anyway, not sure about the reason for its absence. Let's chalk it to a quantum event. El_C 23:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

User:El C Maybe it has something to do with Template:ping which is the one I usually use (space in your name might not be helping either). It happens, don't know if it's part of a wider issue: I somehow didn't get a ping at WP:RX, and only noticed the comment addressed to me once I scrolled through the page a few days ago. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi

I had reverted twice only and it was to reatore a vandalized page as you did, which I thank you for. I gave up to avoid an edit war. Otherwise how do we stop the Vandalizing? OyMosby (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby: You warn the relevant editor and you ask for page protection at WP:RFPP (already done on my end). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note for the future. So if one reverts more than once in a short period it gets classified as an edit war? If so I apologize. However page protection only blocks IP vandels, no? Not all editors. I trued reporting on the vandalims page as the users uses ethnic based insults and accusations in their diffs. OyMosby (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby: Edit-warring, broadly construed, is when one or more editors revert each other because they disagree about the content of a page (usually it involves more than once, but there's leeway in the exact definition to avoid badly intentioned editors rules-lawyering, and also per common sense). See WP:EW. As for protection, there are different levels of protection, see WP:PPLIST. Their edits were probably disruptive (and if they're using ethnic slurs and that, also uncivil), but they're not exactly vandalism as far as I could see from a quick glance. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Right in their history here. They keep wiping pages that are non-Serb and blanket claimg “RS” a number of editors reverted them and here, here and here. Evidently notnlooking to make good edits but nationalist vandalism. OyMosby (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby: On the article I checked at least what they seemed to do was adding sourced content - whether it was appropriate or not I didn't look in detail (it was a large edit), just that it was obviously controversial and that it looked like edit warring (but not vandalism). As for Hussar, looking at it, it might be wise to reconsider having multiple different variants which come out to the same (the serbian-croatian-macedonian scripts are equivalent AFAICS, except maybe for capitalisation). But of course that's ignoring the edit summary. As I said I wasn't commenting on that edit but on the other article. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I was demonstrating that they ignore other editors, wipe pages falsely claiming the sources are not RS. For the Hussars page he deleted the entire Croatian section. How is that related to naming? 4,000 characters....OyMosby (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby: Oops, entirely my bad for not scrolling down. Of course that is more clear cut. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Lol it’s okay. I was really confused. I reported them on user report page bu haven’t heard from them. I guess all I can do is wait?OyMosby (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby: Yeah. Though if Ed hasn't done anything yet I don't think AIV will be the right place for the report (if they continue edit warring now that they've been warned, the place is WP:AN/EW). Anyway their last edit seems to have been 50 minutes ago se we'll probably have to wait and see if they do anything tomorrow. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Though you can see theybare trying to cover their tracks with random edits like President Obama. Hehe. Good idea to wait an see. Not sure if Ed is on tonight as they didn’t say anything on their page. Thanks for your help and explaining things. Take care OyMosby (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Please do not compare mento the vandal. My diffs were nowhere near as toxic and disrespectful as theirs. And I was returning pages to stable Un wiped conditions. Ed made clear what the ediotrs was doing and saying. I will avoid secondary reverts in the future but my edits were done in good faith and reason. Most my diffs saying “vandalism” or minor snarky comments. OyMosby (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby: I simply do not care whether they are being a vandal (see WP:NOTVAND) or merely disruptive, but you both called each other, respectively, "anti-Serb" and "anti-Croat". WP:CIVIL is not negotiable, simply because you disagree with each other (especially in what I assume you know is a controversial area, in real life or on Wiki) is no reason to start casting aspersions. If there is an issue with their edits or their behaviour, as I said, it is nearly always better to be patient and report them to the appropriate noticeboards (see, they got a temporary block for edit warring, which IMHO is the correct outcome so far [that, if they're not a block evading editor, but we'll know that soon enough]). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Among us

It's a week old, but this reverted edit may be of interest. Certes (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to remove these two...

I don't have to "trim the whole list", I only removed the two names because they were added after the sources were written. One user used a tweet as a reference only. nyxærös 08:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nyxaros: What I meant to say was that a long list of names is not helpful to an encyclopedic coverage of the subject: by a quick count there's nearly two dozen listed there. A more realistic solution would be to simply mention the outpouring of condolences, without giving a detailed listing (in addition, this would solve the WP:CITEBOMB at the end of the sentence because of the coverage of content which really falls under WP:NOTNEWS). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The change I reverted doesn't have much to do with the length, and I also don't want so many names to be included. However, the sentences you wrote contradict what you are doing. As a result, you have added two more names to the long list. nyxærös 14:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nyxaros: "the sentences you wrote contradict what you are doing"? What? I very clearly said that the list needs to be trimmed "without giving a detailed listing". That doesn't imply we can't list anybody. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yet you reverted a revision that shortened the list and removed two names without a source. You could've just trimmed it yourself, because that edit had nothing to with length. Bye. nyxærös 15:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

French railway articles

Feel free to move all other Chemin(s) de Fer.. articles except for the CF du ARB to Chemin(s) de fer titles. The ARB article can be moved once the RM discussion has been closed. Mjroots (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I tried with Chemin de Fer de la Baie de Somme, but the target page, Chemin de fer de la Baie de Somme, already exists... I'll do the moves that I can, mind using admin tools on the others so I don't have to file multiple technical move requests? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

List those you can't move here and I'll sort them in the morning. Mjroots (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I've made a temporary request at WP:PERM; if that doesn't work then the pages that remain with the wrong capitalisation in the category (Category:Metre gauge railways in France) should be the ones. I reckon the whole of the category tree starting at Category:Rail_infrastructure_in_France will have to be searched for these, but there's always a start. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: In the metre gauge category: (ARB, to be done once the RM is over); everything listed under C that has not been moved; and Chemins de Fer de Provence. Additionally, there's one page which I didn't move; Tramways Électrique du Finistère; because the French page is under a different purely geographic name, so I'm not sure whether I should just translate that (depending on the outcome of the RM, or maybe there should be an RfC at the wikiproject about that...). I'll prune through the rest of the category tree eventually. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Think I've got all the metre gauge ones. An RFC at WikiProject level would be the better idea. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I think I've taken a look around and fixed what I could find (through the prefixes and through the relevant categories of rail and tram transport in France, Belgium, ... - maybe I should also take a look through the African railways [former French colonies]). Oddly enough only Chemin de fer du Nord needed redirect suppression. There's also this oddity which I was going to move, but then I couldn't find any evidence about it, so it's at AfD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

And as an extension to the above, there's also the inconsistency of some purely geographic titles ending with "Railway" and others with "railway" (there's one somewhere I moved out of consistency with the category it was in); this probably also warrants some discussion somewhere. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh well, seems I'll be busy with Africa for a bit; not only are there plenty of moves required but also some of these articles probably require a lot of updates... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Spring flowers

happy Valentine's! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I am as usual (last year it was Passion and Easter hymns in June, now it's Christmas in Lent) completely out of season: any commentary on Christians, awake, salute the happy morn? Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm late as well, should have given you March flowers. All fine with the hymn, I'd just say "appeared" (vs. "appears") for something that happened in the 18th century. Thank you for the rescue of the meaning of my song of defiance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: There's such a thing as narrative present (historisches Präsens), but yeah since I'd written the rest in the past might as well stick to it for consistency. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, RandomCanadian. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: Is it okay if I use if for other stuff that I happen to full upon, ex. this (or when I decide which title the disambig page I'm working on needs going to), or should I stay strictly by the rules? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's stick with the task at hand for now. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: Ok, thanks. Mind solving User_talk:RandomCanadian#Regent_Square_moves while already here? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Jack likely has a better idea of what's going on (and I don't really have the time atm), so I'll let him resolve that request. Primefac (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: Gosh I'd love not to have to do this kind of stuff again. Do you think there'd be any support for a proposal to partially implement an ability to suppress redirects when moving from a title in draft to the same title in mainspace (via the usual "make an RfC for it" route) for users who have shown they're not entirely clueless (if such a thing is technically feasible)? This is just a needless backlog... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, you're in luck because you don't need to request deletions like that; just leave the draft and call it good. There is no harm (and considerable benefit, generally speaking) to leaving those as redirects. Primefac (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: Pray tell me more on the "considerable benefit" of leaving those (beyond, I assume, unlikely attempts at recreation/over-writing [in such a little known subject as this? unlikely]) - I know that there's nothing that links to the draft, fwiw. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, for this particular draft, probably no tangible benefit, but redirects are cheap; in general, though, it helps the draft creator track their page if it has been accepted through AfC (or just moved by another party) etc. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah; this was just me creating a draft cause I wasn't sure I'd find enough sources for it; and then moving it later. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Eligibility Legislation - Sourcing discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If you think a source supports your inclusions into the United States presidential eligibility legislation article regarding eligibility you must first engage the discussion, If you have a valid secondary source it will be included by consensus. The content added failed verification for "eligibility" of the "President." --Frobozz1 (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Frobozz1: See WP:BRD - you attempted to remove the whole section, you were reverted; now you should attempt to continue the discussion on the talk page. A discussion between 3 or 4 editors where one of them expresses an opposition and where there was no further back and forth seems hardly a consensus. Your objections seem misguided, as the section is about requirements for being eligible to the office. In any case see also my comments there. All sources mention that somebody who is impeached/disqualified/whatever cannot be elected to the office again. Whether it uses the exact word "eligibility" or some different variants that end up meaning the same thing is not crucial to the topic. I fail to see how removing the whole section (including the basic constitutional requirements) is of any help. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help needed

Plz cab you help me on Annexation of Hyderabad page (personnal attack redacted) Kautilya keeps removing a very reliable source which exposed how Indian troops were engaging in killings of civilians in Hyderabad the source states " "We had absolutely unimpeachable evidence to the effect that there were instances in which men belonging to the Indian Army and also to the local police took part in looting and even other crimes" PremijAnans (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@PremijAnans: You should follow the process described at WP:BRD - you attempted a change, now it has been reverted by other editors who disagree; therefore you should engage in discussion on the talk page in an attempt to gain WP:CONSENSUS, preferably without claiming that other editors are "nationalists" - see WP:AGF. Cheers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you removed my edit and all articles from Kahlil Byrd's page. These are published articles in well known papers. iWachtel(talk) 2 March 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 01:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@IWachtel: Because that is not information within the scope of an encyclopedic article. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Simply because the papers were published and the information is true doesn't mean that we should list them. The final test is WP:SUMMARY, and in this case a listing of all papers without any context or information (did any of these papers have a significant impact anywhere?) is definitively NOT an inappropriate level of detail. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Health and 5G

Thanks for this revert at COVID-19 misinformation. It sure seems like whispering into a hurricane, trying to get folks to understand this. Here's a site you may enjoy, and perhaps steal an example some day in a discussion to illustrate your point. All I can say in response, is, I'm thinking of upping my consumption of extra-large pizza in order to promote the number of doctorates issued. You think I might be on to something? Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Ha! Indeed, made me laugh. Now I don't know about doctorates (not there yet) but at least in my domain (music) it's no secret that practice makes perfect; so [Insert "I am not a doctor (in all possible meanings of the term)" disclaimer here] I'd recommend a different course of action which will not have negative impacts on your health :). As for people not knowing the difference between correlation and causation, other than an issue of education or lack thereof for some people, I'm afraid the diagnosis attributed to Mr. Einstein remains the most accurate thesis on the situation... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Regent Square moves

Hey RandomCanadian, I saw you'd suggested the reversion of the moves at Regent Square / Regent Square (Pittsburgh) and that you were preparing a disambig page. To make this smoother, I was wondering whether you could create the disambig page either in your userspace or as a draft, and ping me here, and I will do all the moves to slot it in at Regent Square all at once? If you disagree, either let me know or re-copy the template text (hidden in source here) to WP:RMTR. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Frost: User:RandomCanadian/Regent Square (disambiguation). Of course the mainspace title can get rid of the parenthetical, that was just a draft. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey RandomCanadian, that's all done: Regent Square (Pittsburgh) redirect --> CSD G6. Regent Square --> Regent Square (Pittsburgh). User:RandomCanadian/Regent Square (disambiguation) --> Regent Square. Cleanup should be done as well. Jack Frost (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Pop Smoke

I think Pop Smoke's article should be semi-protected forever. The semi-protection just wore off, and IP addresses are already starting to vandalize his article. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexander the Great Caption

Hello, RandomCanadian! I think not everyone will read the article about the mosaic, but information about the date of creation of its original is very important. Many people may mistakenly believe that this 1st century BC mosaic doesn't have a 4th century BC prototype. Sergeiprivet (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sergeiprivet: That doesn't change the fact that captions should be short: if you can convey that information without ending up with a too long caption, feel free to do so. Otherwise it might be best to just remove the dates entirely: if people are interested in that information (which is only tangentially related to Alexander) they will click the link, and for the others that aren't the date of creation being omitted entirely is not an important detail... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! What is the maximum number of lines and words in a caption? Sergeiprivet (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sergeiprivet: There's no real strict limit, although usually we should be wary of the context of the article and not go into too much detail. An (exaggerated) example of definitively too much is some of the long captions at Special:Permalink/954695472 (if you scroll down a little bit, you'll see). Back to our specific case, we have to keep in mind that 1) this is an article about Alexander, not the mosaic and 2) it's in an infobox, so the text is already smaller [and potentially harder to read on phones and other small screens]. Therefore as few details as necessary should be given - the shortest I can think of is "A mosaic depicting Alexander in battle" - but that obviously might be too little. Anyway, cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I still think that +two lines would not do anyone badly. Anyway, thanks for the answers! Sergeiprivet (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

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)