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)

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)

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)

22 March 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Johann Sebastian Bach, you may be blocked from editing. The sentences "However, Bach never wrote an opera. It may be that the city of Leipzig showed no particular interest for this genre (no operas were produced in Leipzig from 1720 to 1744), but the actual reason remains unknown" are original research and contentious; they are not supported by the sources of Alberto Basso or Christoph Wolff. Mathsci (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Mathsci, do you have to use a warning template for this message? Drmies (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

What's done is done. Mathsci (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• • @Drmies: Not only that, but the text in bold isn't even what I ultimately put back in [5]... And, according to Mathsci's own words, that "sources are easy to find" (including sources we were discussing on the talk page...), their whole rationale for this post (that somehow, this is OR and unverifiable) makes no sense. Wonderfing whether an IBAN would do any good, because this is frankly irritating... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There are three diffs [6][7][8], all of which write in some form, "However, Bach never wrote an opera. It may be that the city of Leipzig showed no particular interest for this genre (no operas were produced in Leipzig from 1720 to 1744), or that Bach himself was not interested in undertaking this kind of enterprise, but the actual reason remains unknown." I've explained why this unsourced material is not permitted (on the article talk page). There is a fourth edit[9] which reads, "However, Bach never wrote an opera. The exact reason remains unknown." Again unsourced. Mathsci (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Can't have your cake and eat it too. You are deliberately not stating why your edits were not ok (excessive quote length, removing the whole of it when only a small portion posed minor issues, not understanding the difference between paraphrase and OR, ...) And on top of that, you yourself said, and I quote, that sources are "easy to find" (which then begs the question: why didn't you add them yourself, instead of coming on my talk to insinuate I don't have a clue). Neither of the statements that are in the article are wrong or even difficult to verify, or even contentious (it is a well known fact that Bach wrote no operas, and looking at the sources we have discussed, it is also plainly obvious we are not sure of the exact reason why). If you can't be bothered to add the sources which you say are easy to find, and instead come mess with me on my talk page, then the only solution is for me to ask you to politely, but firmly, to get off my talk page. I do not wish to repeat myself. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)