Reader / editor worried at the extent of deletions by Random Canadian where there appears to be no valid reason, authority or knowledge applied to the deletions / edits
Tags: RevertedVisual editMobile editMobile web editAdvanced mobile edit
Truly not sure why you seem to be deleting additions recent and historical in a wholesale manner. Many that were there before you ever started editing and nearly all your deletions relation to information that is and was historically correct at every level.
The previous information you deleted on madden referencing the bands single releases was completely correct yet you deleted everything on no apparent authority and clearly little or no historical knowledge of the band.
Bizarre frankly.
I think we need to find a solution to your apparent wholesale deletions with scant justification as there won’t be a page left for readers to reference soon.
I would even go as far as to suggest you leave the page alone completely unless you can prove you are an authority on their releases and their history.
Topics of interest: (Baroque) music, (military) history, and, surprisingly, cricket!
I've managed to (by random luck) trace back my first edit (using an IP), which was in August 2016. So I've been here, sporadically, for about 7 years.
Extra information
Barnstars
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for fighting vandalism! P.S: Did you know that there is an tool called Twinkle? You should try it out ;) TheImaCow (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATHSLOPU 08:34, 31 May 2020 (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)
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)
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Dear Random Canadian, thank you for improving and maintaining the highest level of scholarship in all our Wikipedia articles related to SARS-CoV-2. In particular your reliance upon scientific scholarship has brought much of this work into the encyclopedia and made it available to the billions of people who read our site. It is no exaggeration to say that lives are saved as a result of the education people can receive here. Thank you! Darouet (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity
For many well-reasoned and level headed interactions you've had around here recently. But definitely for this rename close [1], which I thought was very fair and nicely articulated. Shibbolethink(♔♕) 02:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
On 25 September 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Canadian federal election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Hymnology
Thinking on starting a possible Wikiproject/taskforce on this. In any case, for the time being; a list of relevant high quality sources with commentary:
An important publication, and unprecedented nor surpassed in scope since then. Most of the information within is quite accurate despite the age of the publication. Statements about "common use" must be taken with a grain of salt as they're, well, a century old...
The modern successor to the above, includes of course updates from the last century of research on the matter. The catch? It's not exactly freely available so unless you are lucky you will only have limited access to the article about your desired search subject...
Primarily a database, includes commentary from some hymnbook companions (including John Julian above). Occasionally blurbs from the editors there about the hymns. A great help in looking up textual variants and usually also has statistics about the pairings of text and tune (most, but not all, major hymnals are included).
In-depth textual analysis, occasionally some musical analysis of the tunes. Not topic specialists as far as I can see, but they hold academic qualifications in related fields, and both authors have published material with Good News Publishers. Caution should probably be used for any claims that seem particularly opinionated, but otherwise this is a fine source for textual analysis.
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
