User talk:RandomCanadian

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

1962

I added the short description from Wikidata. Ffffrr (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ffffrr: This is Wikipedia, not Wikidata. Short descriptions which are essentially a restatement of the article title are not useful. See WP:SHORTDESC, in particular WP:SDNONE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I did it to match the other articles. Ffffrr (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ffffrr: The simple solution is to go and fix those other articles, not repeat the same mistake just because it's done everywhere else (that would be the typical appeal to tradition)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I figured since that was how the previous editors did it I would do it like that too. Ffffrr (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, those previous editors were wrong. Again, simple because other people did it doesn't mean it needs to be repeated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess you’re right. Ffffrr (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Rheinmetall sourced entirely to corporate website. Thank you. --Schierbecker (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Friendly FYI

Moving content to Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to have created some cite errors in the references on that page. Missing named refs which I assume are still in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I'd help fix now but have to head out. Will check again and help when I get back to WP. Just noting here in case nobody else saw it. --N8 17:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@N8wilson: Looks like it's only one source ("AP_stand_firm"), which does not appear in the original article either, so I'll have to dig through the page history to find it... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow. You got that fixed fast. Thanks and apologies for jumping to conclusions - I saw it right after the move and assumed that contributed but sounds like it may have been present for some time before that. Thanks again! --N8 21:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Your close

I disagree with your procedural close of the move requested by Keepcalmandchill on Russo-Ukrainian War. Unlike the earlier request, the new request presented a good target and rational for a move and the arguments against the first request don't all apply to the second. The current title page of the page is unclear for readers trying to comprehend the background of the latest Russian invasion of Ukraine in light of the longer conflict. Please can you undo your close so that we can discuss the request? Pious Brother (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pious Brother: As I say in my close, it is bad practice to have repeated discussions about the same topic, and when a previous proposal which was somehow similar in intent if not in exact suggested title was overwhelmingly rejected in less than 24 hours, it is unlikely that a new proposal will attract much more support. Neither did I say that all arguments against the first could apply to the second, but most of them do: editors complaining about "conflict" or "intervention" being an euphemism is a valid one for both suggestions; as is the argument that recent events do not mean that what preceded them was not a "real war". On top of that, some of the comments in that discussion specifically address an alternative "conflict" proposal. Simply put, it is nothing but foolhardy to expect that this proposal will gain any significant support at this time. If you think the article is at a wrong title, my suggestion would be to let the dust settle (both the one on the unfortunately very real battlefields and the proverbial dust here on-Wiki, which I must remind is not a battlefield), and revisit this in a few months when there will be more coverage which is not in the heat of the current events. It might also be informative to look at previous discussions on the topic to see why the current title was chosen and has remained unchanged so far. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for being the top contributor to an article related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

March songs

I just listened to the charity concert mentioned here. I created the articles of the composer and the soprano. - Do you think you could word what the source "Mawick" says (p 6) about the melody of Bewahre uns, Gott? - It's probably still under copyright. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Now, you can also listen on YouTube, and more music, the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices call "Freiheit!" (freedom, instead of "Freude", joy). Music every day, pictured in songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The Prayer is on the Main page, finally + new flowers --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with Bach's works and his No. 1 especially today! - Turning to BWV 56, - how about music examples? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Will see what I can do. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		COVID-19 Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to COVID-19. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Every time we almost improve Wikipedia it is destroyed

I am so frustrated. We slogged through a tough RfC, and got consensus to remove the ludicrous participation guidelines. It is being fought against. Than we have people who have the total audacity to say that Wikipedia does not have enough football bios. Half of our BLPs are on sportsplayers, and despitre the fact a huge number of fields one is unlikely to become notable before age 35 our largest birth year category is for 1989. There is no way we have too little coverage of any field of sports endevor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: Some moderation is still required, and this isn't a battleground, so there's no point attempting to piss off other people. If you are genuinely frustrated by what some editors are doing (and, I also, at least in part, am), it's probably better if you let them dig their own hole instead of trying to push them in the ditch. Patience is likely to do more good both to you and to advancing the goal of reducing the sports-spam issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

What we need is less of the battleground mentality of Johnpacklambert and some other editors on this issue, and more of the collaboration between editors with different views. Of the people who are actively working on NSPORTS changes, I personally find RandomCanadian to have been one of the most helpful in trying to strike a balance between tightening the restrictions whilst also not just removing everything, which is unhelpful. So thanks for that, RandomCanadian- hopefully some of the versions of your proposals will actually get implemented. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

A suggestion on decorum

I agree entirely with the sentiment of this section header, but would counsel that a synonym like "this nonsense" or "this absurd display" might better suit the noticeboard. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giants–Jets rivalry

Hello. Your close was a gross and inappropriate use of WP:SPK and WP:SNOW, especially as a non-admin closure while only allowing 7 hours of discussion! As a non-admin, I urge you to revert your closure, or reach out to WP:AN to have an admin review your application of WP:SPK and WP:SNOW. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I was not involved in the discussion, but I just read it, and I'd have to agree with Gonzo fan2007. Though I don't have a problem with the non-admin fact, as you are certainly well experienced enough to close this, I do have a problem with your invocation of WP:SNOW and WP:CSK. ––FormalDude talk 05:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I must disagree. A simple glance at the article (not even necessary to make a google search!) reveals stuff like [1]; [2]; [3]; or even [4]. That's four examples of clear SIGCOV about the title subject (and the usual suggestion is WP:THREE, so you've got it covered and then some). Since the only valid reason for deletion was an alleged fail of GNG, and that is obviously wrong (the requirement for CSK no. 3), then there's not much room for debate. As for the "non-admin" bit, my point of view has always been WP:NOBIGDEAL; and this is also supported by WP:CLOSE (where, specifically, Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review 2) if the complaint is that the closer is not an admin.. Nor does the argument against SNOW appear to have any merit, as there was not a single editor in favour of deletion besides the nominator.

Also, you shouldn't take this personally. The whole point of speedy closes and WP:SNOW is to prevent needless bureaucracy when the ultimate outcome is obvious (WP:NOTBURO and WP:5P5), and how long the discussion has lasted is not usually a material factor. It just happens that this was the case this time. I'd even consider it lucky: discussions where the outcome is not so obvious can degenerate into an unhelpful mess and then everybody has a hard time moving on. This way? Minimum drama, minimum waste of time, everybody can find something else to work and improve.

The CSK assessment was made independently of the rest of the discussion (since, for the nomination to be obviously wrong, one would assume that this would be obvious in the article itself), but once you take into account the actual comments at the AfD, one finds plenty of evidence, including multiple sources, which further make it clear that there is significant coverage about the topic (hence why I also mention WP:SNOW, as even a very brief discussion has shown the existence of such sourcing).

Of course, you're free to appeal, but unless you're telling me that none of the sources which have so far been shown are actually SIGCOV, that's unlikely to yield anything constructive. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I personally think a team rivalry needs strong support in RS, since you could technically call any match that occurs between two teams more than once a rivalry, it is highly prone to a slippery slope. And the four sources that you say are clear examples all actually seem to cast some doubt on whether this can be considered a real/true rivalry. ––FormalDude talk 05:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Whether they are casting "some doubt" upon it or not, they're actually covering the subject (and we have plenty of articles about stuff which is outright false, or at best questionable, if it is covered in sufficient depth, so that is not really a consideration). On top of that, an intra-town rivalry (both teams are from New York) isn't exactly the kind of "exceptional claim which would require exceptional evidence"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's a close call and I won't be appealing it. ––FormalDude talk 06:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel a little guilty about this one, having been the person silly enough to 'suggest' AfDing this one: though essentially rhetorically rather than in advocacy of doing so, in response to an WP:OTHERSTUFF whatabout, and not to Gonzo_fan2007 themself. I should have seen that coming, and not done so: Reichstags, Spiderpersons, beans, etc. Close seems fine to me, by way of being correct on its merits. Whether it was wise in terms of saving process overhead, and thereby leading to... yet more process overhead, is a subtler and closer question. On "rivalries" generally, in a sense the "LA" one doesn't even pass that (rather low) bar, by way of the "because same city at the same time" criterion. And I concur with RandomCanadian with the "protesteth too much" anti-rivalry coverage. Even if all the SIGCOV were of the 'it's definitely not a rivalry, but yet we keep writing about it much as if it were!' sort, it'd still argue for their to be an article, and at the very most to call into question what it might be called. ("Missouri Mongooses–Colorado Cobras soi-disant 'rivalry'.") 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I endorse this close. The question to ask here is whether there is any reasonable possibility that the discussion, if left open longer, would lead to an actual consensus to delete. There is not. I would also point out (and probably would have done so in the discussion had it crossed my rader) that a rivalry is not necessarily contingent on direct encounters between rivals. Teams can have a rivalry over who sells the most tickets, or who draws the best fans, without even facing each other on the field. I am particularly aware of this because I happen to be the author of the article, Rivalry. BD2412 T 06:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have opened a discussion here regarding your close: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of Snow Close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giants–Jets rivalry. Please feel free to continue the discussion there. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Nevermind. Just nevermind. In the future, let deletion discussions go at least 24 hours, especially when established editors make a good faith nomination. That's just a recommendation. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Renaming an article whilst an AFD discussion is in progress

It's not actually forbidden, but there are a few fixups that one has to do that one would not normally have to do, namely going to the AFD discussion page and altering the section title, altering the section title link for the transclusion to the main per-day page, altering the {{la}} so that the closing administrator hitting the convenience links gets the right page, and performing whatever is necessary to note the point that the rename was done. (For the latter, in the case of Cochrane Road (Hamilton, Ontario) (AfD discussion), I'd already done my old long-standing practice of a horizontal rule at the point of a significant change to the article.) Speaking as the author of the Project:Guide to deletion I can say with confidence that I never wrote a rule forbidding this, just cautionary notes that it's more complex during an AFD discussion, so you aren't ignoring any rule from me. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Uncle G: I just happened to move an article to a new title that was undergoing an AFD myself (Clive Disposal Site). Is there any cleanup I need to do? ––FormalDude talk 05:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Alleluia! Sing to Jesus

I understood that categorisation should be at the target, when appropriate. I think that is an obvious choice here.

Besides this being the same song and this redirect being classified as Category:English Christian hymns not withstanding the target is at Category:Welsh music; Category:Easter hymns is a reiteration of Christian hymns, isn’t it?

Category:Songs about Jesus, as we have discussed elsewhere is pretty redundant here. It is also on the target.

Understanding how melodies and texts are used in church music, it might be better to have a redirect ‘hymnal text’ or similar which redirects to music, but as I have little interest and limited knowledge of the subject I shall not propose elsewhere.

Your revert of my edits will not be reverted, this and that page are not watched, unless I come across it again in my WP travels in months to come.

Happy editing, --Richhoncho (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: While there might be some general guidance about "songs", there's no formal prohibition about categorising redirects, and in this case it makes sense as the hymn (and in this instance, the text in particular) is a different subject from the tune. This is a bit of an odd ball as articles here are usually about the hymn texts and not the tunes, but in this case this seems to be the other way around (and the fact is that most hymns tend to be associated primarily with only one or two tunes, so usually it is not worth having a separate article about those), although eventually it would make sense to have a separate article on the text (hence why {{r with possibilities}}). Regarding your particular objections about categories, Category:English Christian hymns in this case refers probably both to the language (the text is in English) and the author of the text (W. Chatterton Dix, born Bristol, 1837); which are distinct from the composer of the tune. Category:Easter hymns is a reiteration of Christian hymns - no, not at all, you can have all sorts of Christian hymns (Christmas hymns, Easter hymns, hymns for other occasions or periods (Lent, Advent, ...). The by-language category tree and the occasion-in-the-liturgical-year trees are distinct. And while I have expressed my doubts about all of those "Songs about X" categories, in this case it's difficult to deny that this song is indeed specifically and primarily about Jesus... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

But surely Easter Hymns, or even Christian Hymns are automatically about Jesus, which makes it 'redundant' (which is the word I used before). As for melodies being about Jesus, I give up.--Richhoncho (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: You can have Marian hymns, you can have hymns which are about a saint or about an event involving Jesus but not directly about hymn, you can have hymns which are more of a personal thought on some religious matter... As for the tune, yeah, sure, if that category is there, then it should be removed, because a melody is not a song... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Going back to my original point, can you please justify your reversion using WP Guidelines? Neither direct, nor target confirms the categories, which fails WP:V. Cheers. Don't worry about my tone, I do consider this a friendly discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: None of the categories are contentious (and you can easily verify their accuracy by googling "Alleluia! Sing to Jesus"), so they don't really fail WP:V. As to your question, I can't find anything specifically about it, but my instinct is always less about rules and more about the end result (see WP:IAR). If something is not an improvement, or makes things worse, or removes pertinent and accurate information (as here), that is usually a good enough reason to revert. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

So you are saying we no longer need to cite references because we can find them elsewhere via Google? I thought everything, whether contentious or otherwise should be verified. FWIW, if the target article had the information, your reversion would have been proper and correct. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: Not what I said. What I said is that the information is easily verifiable. The target does say that "Hyfrydol has been used as a setting for William Chatterton Dix's hymn "Alleluia! Sing to Jesus!"" - there's also Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue... If you absolutely insist, one could add hidden references at the redirect, but that is not usually necessary for information which is not contentious - and that this is in English is obvious, that it is a Christian hymn is obvious, that it is about Jesus is obvious if you can read the text, and that it is an Easter hymn (or more specifically, for the Feast of the Ascension, which marks the end of Eastertide) is also not really controversial, and given the lack of a Category:Ascension hymns, this seems like the most reasonable compromise. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• (and you can easily verify their accuracy by googling "Alleluia! Sing to Jesus"),

  . We fundamentally disagree. Plenty of other editors disagree with you, but as we are not moving in any direction, there is no point continuing this discussion. My last words on this is quite simply, that these cats do not assist the reader. Happy editing. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Avoiding using the word “flight” too often.

Thanks for this - I am unreasonably happy when I see such edits which improve the style of articles out of all proportion.

Regards, Springnuts (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

My overlinking

Re: The plane crash article

Yes, I do tend to add lots of links, and I've been trying to cut back on that, but I do have a reason. I think lots of articles on a wide range of topics have a tendency to be written by and for people who already understand the subject. I don't believe an encyclopedia should be written that way, so I often try to clarify things in ways the average person can understand without having to flip to one or more other articles.

You say meters per minute is the common method of showing descent speed, fine. I'd be willing to bet that no one without some amount of specialist aviation knowledge would know that. Furthermore, I'd also think that very few people have a mental conception of how fast that is. I had no intention of removing the meters per minute measurement, but I added mph and kmph just to make it easier for the average person to understand. It's the same reason other units are given in both metric and imperial units.

For more common terms like "flight attendant," I was considering a potential reader who might be from some faraway place who had little or no familiarity with commercial flight. Maybe someone would be trying to learn something by researching a recent event, who knows?

And about linking to "wildfire," that was just a mistake. Sorry. --JDspeeder1 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@JDspeeder1: I don't believe an encyclopedia should be written that way - right, but there's no need to assume the reader is entirely unfamiliar with the subject (to the point of not knowing what a flight attendant is, really?) On top of that, since whatever the actions of the flight attendants might have been do not seem to have had any significance whatsoever here, that would just be a superfluous link which would not add much to the readers' knowledge and would more likely be a distraction than anything else.

Re. units - I'd be willing to bet that no one without some amount of specialist aviation knowledge would know that. It's long been accepted that articles should use whatever the conventions of the topic field. As an example, articles about trains in the UK use miles and chains (even though chains are otherwise pretty much obsolete and probably not used that much outside of that context in the UK). Articles about aviation tend to use the conventional units (which are, de facto, nautical miles for distance, knots for speed, feet for altitude) of that field.

Specifically for descent speed, as I hinted in my edit summary, stating it in feet/meters per minute avoids any possible confusion with the plane's actual speed (which is different from the vertical speed), and it is also a more practical unit not just because it is the one used by convention, but because, generally, climb after takeoff and descent prior to landing are rather rapid phases (taking a few minutes, maybe at most half an hour) so having a unit which is about the same magnitude as the phenomenon being described is more informative (and feet/meters per minute are easier to use: how much time does it take for a plane climbing at 1500 ft/min to reach a cruising altitude of 33000 ft, assuming for the sake of simplicity the rate is kept constant? 22 mins (33/1.5). Now do the same math with a plane climbing at 17 mph - or 27.4 km/h and an altitude of 10,050 meters, and it requires more calculation steps [slightly less so for the metric system, which is inherently better, but still - of course, if I also give you the climb rate in meters/minute [450], then it's as easy as feet and feet/minute above]...). Combine that with the absence of possible confusion, and feet/meters per minute is a clear winner.

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: units

Sure, the metric system is indescribably more logical than imperial, but us US-ians typically have no internalized conception of what the metric units are. Blame our schools and our government, but it is what it is. Anyway, I wasn't suggesting that the feet per minute be removed, just added to. When I read the article myself and saw "31,000 per minute," I had zero clue how fast that is. It took an external website and a calculator app before I found a number that made sense to me. I don't think other readers should have to do the same thing.

I know lots of niche fields use units of measurement that rarely show up anywhere else. Let them keep doing that, but I would also add more familiar units afterwards. For example, the height of a horse is traditionally given in hands. 1 hand = 4 inches, and the average thoroughbred racehorse is 16 hands tall at the withers (the vertebra right between the shoulder blades). I don't know how much you deal with horses, but if you're like me, basically none. Without my conversion of hands to inches and explanation of what the withers is, do you think a person who is unfamiliar with the horse world would be able to make any sense of "16 hands"? Without resorting to doing math, "16 hands" barely gives any information at all. I wouldn't remove the measurement in hands, but I would add feet+inches and centimeters to it. JDspeeder1 (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That's why templates like {{cvt}} or {{Hands}} exist. If your beef is specifically with using specifically feet/meters per minute, I hope I've explained why that is preferrable, in this instance, to using the standard miles/kilometers per hour, and why adding those would actually have a potential for confusion and not provide much useful data to readers in return. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of compositions based on the British national anthem

Hello, RandomCanadian. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of compositions based on the British national anthem, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Copyright question regarding "Dove sono" page

Hello! HandsomeMrToad here. Thank you for several very nice additions to the brand new "Dove sono" page I created. I'm just a little concerned: are you quite sure that the YouTube video you linked to - Dorothea Röschmann singing the aria, with the Royal Opera, 2006 - is in public domain and not under copyright? I ask because I have gotten dinged (rebuked by lords of the Wiki-verse) for posting links to YouTube uploads which turned out to be violations of copyright. We all must resist the urge to just assume that if there were a copyright problem YouTube would take care of it or delete the upload - unfortunately, we cannot count on this! I'm not blaming you for not knowing; I was very surprised when it happened to me. But do please investigate and if it's under copyright, try to find a recording which isn't. Getting rebuked by someone with actual authority here (unlike me who have no authority at all) is no fun.

Best wishes, and thanks again - HandsomeMrToad (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I saw a concert version which should be fine, and a staged version from Vienna which I'm almost sure is not, so no link to RgiHATejS2E --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@HandsomeMrToad: The video is from the ROH's official channel, so there shouldn't be any issue... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Aha! Great! Nice work. Thank you. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

can you help in Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine?

i have seen a lot of errors in the page, including bare urls, sources that don't mention the division on it, unreliable sources (tabloids and stuff), etc, and, as i have seen that you contributed to the page a while ago and removed some of the stuff i mentioned, im asking for you to sweep again through the page and do these fixes, thanks. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

IPs

Hey - regarding that revert, take a look at Special:Contributions/174.212.212.163/20, and also at Special:Contributions/174.212.227.189/20, who I suspect is the same person. They have a dynamic IP, which makes contributing to community discussions difficult, but they seem to be a fairly experienced editor and I don't see any reason to suspect bad faith. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 20:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Urgh, yuck - there's also a probable white supremacist on the same IP range. Well, I doubt they're the same person who writes extensively about schools, uses talk pages, understands sourcing policies, and makes arguments of the sort they made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston Christian High School. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. The IP is also warned about uncivil behaviour; do not revert-war over their comments, as misguided as they might be. It's better to report the behaviour to ANI, or better still, ignore it and start editing the article - the source template is given above. Persistence in removing others' comments that are merely uncivil will earn you an ANI report. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)