User talk:Francis Schonken: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:04, 29 December 2019

Communications in Dutch: please see User talk:Francis Schonken/Dutch

Overleg in het nederlands: op User talk:Francis Schonken/Dutch a.u.b.

Victionarium → User talk:Francis Schonken/Latinus

Archives: Archive 01 - Archive 02 - Archive 03 - Archive 04 - Archive 05 - Archive 06

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Les Danaïdes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horn. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concertino. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpretation of consensus

I really boned myself with that one. I made dozens of edits based on my misinterpretation of that consensus. Please be merciful. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fantasia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susman et al

You've made a huge mess with that substing. The articles that are at AfD are at AfD on their own merits, not as an effort to inherit notability from someone else. Belarca is Susman's label, but it needs to meet NMUSIC on its own, just like artists who release on Belarca need to meet NMUSIC on their own. The repeated subst has actually put your argument in places it simply isn't appropriate to be in. MSJapan (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest suggestion is not improving things. I know you're doing this in good faith, but it's really causing more of a problem. If you want to deal with any article subject, do it on the talk or AfD for that article only. MSJapan (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Francis Schonken, I appreciate your help. I personally think we could have kept the discussions centralised at COIN. Anyway, currently we can collapse some of the discussions to keep the AfD clean but the content still on the page for interested editors. How about like this? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piccola Accademia degli Specchi --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit

I can understand the desire to tighten up a discussion, but why do your edits suggest a concern with my work, of all people? I work toward policy-based discussions. How often do you see me using charged language? Your recent hatting left standing a direct attack against me, "You fail on all 3 points"; immediately before your claim that my response addressed the contributor, not the contribution. Yet the words in my response were, "why have you responded..."

The biggest problem I had was the removal of the sentence, "So if they are not unethical, then they practice independence in their journalism ethics. Unscintillating (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)". This was the single strongest statement in the discussion I initiated on independence in journalism ethics, and possibly the single strongest statement in the AfD. Why did your hatting cut that sentence of all the sentences that it cut? Your hat comment for this removal was that it was WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, which as best I can see is an essay unrelated to anything about independence in journalism ethics.

Luckily for me we aren't having to have this discussion in real time, you've reversed your edit due to the timing of the close, and I don't expect a response if you don't want to respond. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had already self-reverted: undo self: wrote this while the AfD was being closed, didn't want to add anything after the closure) --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate link

Why did you just restore a duplicate link. We should not place two identical links side by side as you have done. Perhaps you would care toe xplain why we should leave the link one time on the talk page. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach

Template:Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Specto73 (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728. Since you had some involvement with the Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MSJapan (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number

Template:Cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Triple Concerto, BWV 1044

added links pointing to Allegro, Dolce, Adagio and Tanto

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suite. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Urtext. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human sciences has been nominated for discussion

Category:Human sciences, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to WP:USPLACE at WP:Article titles

Respect your opinion, but disagree... Please discuss further on the policy talk page (I have started a thread for it already). Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Francis Schonken. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Francis Schonken. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Orledge

Hi! I've removed what appears to have been a foundational copyright violation from Robert Orledge. I do of course know that there was much less attention paid to copyright matters back then, and also see that it was one of the very first pages you created. Could I ask you to have a look through your other early contributions to check that there weren't any other occasions when the same thing happened? Thanks, season's greetings, etc. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Your disruptive edit-warring has previous resulted in restrictions to your editing. On wikipedia the normal process of editing articles involves WP:BRD. You have not observing that. Instead you have edited disruptively, edit warring to restore forked content. You have in addition removed links to established articles. That is unhelpful to the reader and disruptive. You yourself have created a series of fork articles, all of which involve your own brand of original research, which is unhelpful and misleading to the reader. You are now on the point of making three reverts and risk being blocked. Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihounding

Pkease stop following the articles I have created. I have removed the section you disruptively tried to start on WikiProject Classical Music. That discussion has happened before and there is no reason to revisit it. It has been noticed that you are following my edits; and the discussion that you tried to start is an example. In this case your concentration on my edits and this latest article falls within WP:HOUND. WP:HOUND is a form of disruption and a way of harassing another editor in a deliberate way designed to cause distress. Your editing falls within that category. I seem to be the sole object of your interests: that is usually not tolerated on wikipedia. Please stop hounding me. Thank you, Mathsci (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruption by Francis Schonken. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 05:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mathsci (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DRN January 2017

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying users

Greetings. Please be advised that selectively notifying other users of discussions on the basis of their perceived opinions on an issue, as was apparently done with this edit, is considered Votestacking and is disruptive to consensus on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for more information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move my comments again

If you were smart enough to figure it out, so was any other admin/editor. The entire thread was littered with multiple !votes. In addition, please learn how the ping function works. If you don't sign in the same edit as the ping, it doesn't work and I was not notified that you moved large sections of my comments. !votes are comments not votes so having more than one or counting them at all is completely unnecessary. Lastly, I have a talk page. If you are confused about what I wrote, my talk page is the place to ask for help regarding your confusion. If you choose to be an ANI busybody, you should probably decline to engage in the discussion as moving comments and !votes of editors you have disagreed with in the discussion is frowned upon for obvious reasons. --DHeyward (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[reply]

What happened, new editor is wondering your quick close in a talk page

Hi, as a new editor I wonder what happened here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Defining_reliability_of_a_medium_via_the_trust_on_the_medium_among_its_readers It seems to me that you decided to close a discussion, based on something I might have done wrong, or based on some conclusion in the discussion not really there. My question you seemingly used as a reason for closing was a simple question of a new user after a while without any new comments, if that was wrong please guide me to the rules explaining that. I'd also like to know what would be a proper method to request re-opening of the discussion. If from you, please reopen and I remove my last question if it was against some rule/practice. All I'm in for is to help Wikipedia and I do not have any hurry with the edit in question - even that you seemed to get such an impression. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't do anything wrong. Your idea is very unlikely to work. You would have found out about that eventually. Sorry to shorten that process a bit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks. So could you please tell what's the practice to reopen? If it's just asking from you, please do - your "shortening of that process" might have been done to help me, but really, the discussion is clearly not in any point of agreement yet. p. I think your suggestion "unlikely to work" should be a comment in the discussion including some reasoning, which I'm actually interested about as well. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "practice to reopen" – the procedure is explained at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. Here's the good news: you're in the process of taking the first step flawlessly (i.e. "contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion").

Re. "might have been done to help me" – yes, that (you seemed intelligent enough to cope with it), and also: stopping the time sink for the other editors.

Re. "should be a comment in the discussion" – it could have been (not "should"), and I considered that possibility. Nonetheless you seemed to be talking next to each other: the interaction "...fallacy of argumentum ad populum..." → "...I see that already taken care of..." (where, in fact, that argument wasn't "taken care of") may illustrate that. So whatever I might have contributed to the discussion, the chances were too high that that would have resulted in further talking next to each other. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking the procedure. I hope further steps are not needed, so I do my best explaining my point of view here between us. About time sink - I think every editor contributes exactly the time they want. On "Should" vs "Could", yes my mistake, sorry. I do think that discussing any new issues on the topic should be discussed on the talk page. Might be the best if we limit the discussion here to the reasons used for closing and find a mutual understanding on those, if possible. There were seemingly three reasons use used:

(A) "-- most participants in the discussion --" - There were not enough of editors for such reasoning.

(B) "-- early close was prompted by the OP suggesting --" - You already wrote I did nothing wrong asking a question, which I take as that was not a reason to close the discussion, but instead your argument to speed it up. Agreement on this reached already?

(C) "-- signals given by other editors that this appears to be heading nowhere --" There were only two such signals: (1) didn't even read the suggestion, (2) was fairly argued and counter-argued, suggesting the discussion is going on.

Based on my arguments on each, I request you to reopen the discussion, please. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re. (A): there were enough participants to see that the discussion was going nowhere.

Re. (B): "not doing anything wrong" is not a synonym to "being meaningful". Not picking up signals, talking next to each other, getting sidetracked in a discussion, etc., are no crimes (it happens to the best of us). That is not the same as the discussion going somewhere.

Re. (C) – here's another signal you didn't pick up: the "... (once again) ..." of the 4th participant. Not that you did anything wrong by not picking that up: for a newbie editor that would maybe be near impossible to pick up. It indicates that the same material (or material closely similar to it) has been discussed more than once before. Hence I added a link to WP:PERENNIAL#Define reliable sources in the PS of my close, hoping that would put you on track to understanding why the proposal was bound to fail anyway.

My condition for reopening is that there would be no more "talking next to each other", and a general awareness that this (and similar) paths of assessing reliability of sources for use in Wikipedia has been discussed and rejected multiple times before. For me the focus is on you understanding why the approach you proposed wouldn't work well. I still think this can be done better by me explaining to you and/or giving you some more links to places where you can see how it works currently, and why, despite its imperfections, that is still the best approach – rather than you getting half-joking replies, without you picking up on irony etc., leaving you half in the dark on why your proposal is kind of flawed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(A) Could you explain your claim "most" with math, as how did you calculate that?

(B) What reason for closing are we talking about?

(C) Please confirm I got this right, that your claim "-- signals given by other editors that this appears to be heading nowhere --" is based on

(C1) editor not reading the suggestion

(C2) editor with a fair argument

(C3) editor "indicates that the same material (or material closely similar to it) has been discussed more than once before".

When we have a common understanding on the reasons used, we are on a steady ground to discuss. Please don't add any new reasons here, as for me that indicates that your reasoning wasn't fair in the first place. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:RS guideline is closely related to the WP:V policy. What you didn't (seem to) realise is that some aspects of your proposal would need a change to WP:V. For these aspects you got 0% support by the other contributors (counting you in that gave, at the time of my closure, 25% support for these aspects) where you would need, say, around 90% to change such fundamental aspects of WP:V. Changing WP:RS, with a smaller majority (which you didn't have either), to something incompatible with WP:V would be undesirable too.

Re. (B): "not going anywhere" (or: taking editor time with little chance to success) is a reason for (early) closure, see WP:SNOW.

Re. (C1): TL;DR kind of reactions may seem unfortunate for the proposer, but they indicate that the proposal is poorly written in the assessment of the commenter. You didn't pick up on that signal. Re. (C2): whether "fair" or not, the second commenter did not support your proposal, nor did this commenter return after your second response (so the last response of this commenter remains one of no support), nor did you wait for this commenter to return before posting your "can we edit the guideline now?" comment. Re. (C3): again, you didn't pick up on the "not again" signal of the third commenter.

Seeing that you didn't respond to my conditions for re-opening I think we're about done here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems unnecessarily difficult, and my feeling now is that you're as hasty in this discussion as you were in closing the discussion. Your "condition on reopening" includes issues not used as reasons for closing in the first place, hence my (still) delayed reply on that. Even that I would agree, what I want to understand is if the reasons USED for closing were fair, and I've done my best to narrow our discussion here to concern only those reasons. All other reasoning should, in my fair opinion, be discussed under the original topic, but you have repeatedly brought up new possible reasons for closing into the discussion here.. I think we both need to understand that we're not alike (obviously) in the way we discuss. We really need to find a common ground before going on. First and foremost, we need to agree if we stick with the reasons used or if we could reach a mutual understanding better from a wider perspective. I'd like the narrow one, as narrow as possible, dropping each issue (A,B,C1,C2,C3) as soon as mutual understanding is reached, adding new letters only if they have a solid base in your original reasoning visible in the. Would this be comfortable for you too? 81.197.179.232 (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"...picking up on the signals given by other editors..." (of the closure) translated to "...no more talking next to each other..." (as reopening threshold); Similarly "recommended further reading: WP:PERENNIAL#Define reliable sources" → "general awareness that this (and similar) paths of assessing reliability of sources for use in Wikipedia has been discussed and rejected multiple times before". You may be nit-picky about these rewordings as much as you like, these are the conditions.

My assessment of the discussion when I closed it is the same here as in the closure report, which by its very nature is a summary of the salient points. You didn't like the short report, nor, apparently, a more detailed explanation of the same points. Really, as I said in my last post, we're done here. Especially as now, a few days and several considerate & detailed replies later, you put me off as working hastily. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How did we end up with this:

1.You wrote "My condition for reopening is that there would be no more "talking next to each other", and a general awareness that this (and similar) paths of assessing reliability of sources for use in Wikipedia has been discussed and rejected multiple times before."

2.I responded with "Please don't add any new reasons here, as for me that indicates that your reasoning wasn't fair in the first place."

3. You wrote "Seeing that you didn't respond to my conditions for re-opening I think we're about done here."

4. I wrote: "This seems unnecessarily difficult, my feeling now is that you're as hasty in this discussion as you were in closing the discussion." (pay attention to: my feeling now). Additionally I explained why my respond wasn't what you expected.

5. You wrote "Really, as I said in my last post, we're done here. Especially as now, a few days and several considerate & detailed replies later, you put me off as working hastily.

Looking at this all, I agree we're done here. Thanks for your efforts, I'm sure they were done in good purpose but now we might benefit from a 3rd party to check the issue. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More apology

I now see what happened. I was trying to rollback to the edit prior to the IP's edits, but your edit got in just as I was switching from the history view to the diff view, causing me to think that your edit was that edit. But all I actually managed to do was to affect the signature. Thus your edit summary, which I didn't understand and failed to AGF about when I left my last message here. It was my snark, not your snark, and that fault is entirely mine and I apologize. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem: your edit showed up as a revert of my edit in the messaging system (not the kind of stats of my editing record I want to see upped although I haven't been confronted with WP:EDITCOUNTITIS lately), and it factually reinstated a minor vandalism I had removed. Well, such things happen. Not knowing what caused this odd edit I said "please" in the edit summary, the kind of politeness that would suit any editor – indicating such polite and factual request as snark would not, imho. All apologies accepted & non-issue closed as far as I'm concerned, for clarity. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (List of concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach, Francis Schonken!

Wikipedia editor Steve Quinn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good job for restoring this. If you need help keeping the page at this title (or name) let me know.

To reply, leave a comment on Steve Quinn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Steve Quinn (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Brandenburg Concerto No. 5

Hello Francis Schonken,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Brandenburg Concerto No. 5 for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Brandenburg Concertos.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo permissions

Hi. I saw your revert of the Steven Hassan photo I found and used to replace an older photo. So I found another one on Commons, which I added - then I looked at the page in Commons and saw this one also has a permissions issue banner. I have personally taken photos and uploaded them - only to have them deleted from commons for copy-write reasons I did not fully understand. That is one thing... but in this case I used photos ALREADY on the site and also am having similar problems. Can you clarify this policy for me? RobP (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Sympathies

'Nuff said. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:History of the Greek language

Template:History of the Greek language has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valses nobles et sentimentales (Ravel)

Hi Francis, way back in February 2005, you created the "Valses nobles et sentimentales" page. On that page, you noted that Ravel wanted his orchestration of that work to have a clearer sound than that of his Gaspard de la nuit. However, as Vladmirfish just pointed out in this edit, Ravel never orchestrated the latter work, so that sentence made no sense. I've gone and replaced that mention with a link to Ma mère l'Oye, the only work that makes sense given the timeline listed at the list of compositions by Maurice Ravel. Hope this is OK. Graham87 15:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#RfC: revert back to non-Wikidata version?

The discussion is at WP:AN#Review of NAC of RFC --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Though I agree with the outcome your close of this seems premature, both in that it’s only been running a few days and it does not seem to approach the threshold for a snow close - one more oppose and it would be much more finely balanced.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take full responsibility for my assessment that this was ready for a WP:SNOW close: there were WP:SNOW chances it would result in a "keep" of the Wikidata version in the {{Infobox World Heritage Site}} template. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to this premature closure of the discussion. Please undo it immediately. Mike Peel (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No more premature than implementing a reprogrammed template on hundreds of pages, before the code was ready for it. Decline to undo the close. I could rewrite the close statement though in a fashion that makes more apparent what went wrong in the implementation before proper consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Premature_closure. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review of Fawad Khan

Hi! I've requested a peer review for Fawad Khan, it was listed as GA but failed FAC. It'd be kind of you to review it.(Wikipedia:Peer review/Fawad Khan/archive1). Thanks Amirk94391 (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chorale

FYI

– Conversation moved to Talk:Chorale#Confusion --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff

Nice additions at WP:CFORK/I. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 21:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Wikidata/P of Q

A tag has been placed on Template:Wikidata/P of Q requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Thayts ••• 15:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied now, hope it was OK to remove the CSD tag. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Still, I see no point in keeping this template. Thayts ••• 17:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Chorale

Hello! Your submission of Chorale at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Francis Schonken. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stravinsky

Thank you for fixing the page number needed templates! I guess I should have done it myself. Anyway, cheers! --‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transposed samples

I didn't see it as splitting the discussion -- I brought it to the project because the result would affect just about every clarinet, trumpet, and saxophone sample out there, and I didn't think that should be determined on a single piece's talkpage. I wish you had closed the concerto discussion instead. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Schubert's compositions for violin and piano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ferdinand David (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

best organizing helpful references

Greetings. re: your deletion of (identical) sections from two G.P.Telemann articles, you understandably comment that the deleted content doesn't really belong to (either) article, and further, that "flutists' interests" are also, basically, "out of scope." Got it. Point taken. Please consider helping me —an amateur, inexperienced editor— here. If I feel it might be helpful to a certain subgroup of musicians/ musicologists/ what-have-you, and I wish to create such an article... what in the world would I title it? "Duets by Georg Philipp Telemann Possibly of Particular Interest to Recorder Players"?? Seems absurd, and therefor, although I hesitate, I posit the existing duet articles were enhanced by the additional, if tangential, info & links you've deleted. All Good All Ways Topstonemusic (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Christopher Barry[reply]

Here are a few ideas:

Chamber music without basso continuo (Telemann) or just Chamber music (Telemann)

See also Telemann-Werke-Verzeichnis page, there are some redlinks there too (just click on a redlink and start writing the article) – one I'd particularly would like to see started is Burlesque de Quixotte, TWV 55:G10 [scores]. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC), updated 21:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some routes you can follow if want to write about flute music by Telemann exclusively:

Go find some decent literature that describes this as a separate topic in its own right, and start an article on that topic, which could then be named Telemann's compositions for flute (compare Schubert's compositions for violin and piano which I wrote these last few days) or Flute music by Georg Philipp Telemann (compare Piano concertos by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart), etc.
Start Chamber music without basso continuo (Telemann) or Chamber music (Telemann) or another general article about Telemann's music, and add a section "==Flute==" or some such, leaving a {{empty section}} tag in comparable sections for other instruments.
Complete the listing of works by Telemann with works for flute at Telemann-Werke-Verzeichnis
Start articles about specific Telemann flute compositions, e.g. ~~Douze solos pour la flûte transversiere sans basse, TWV 40:2–13~~ (already exists: 12 Fantasias for Solo Flute (Telemann), not a good example), and connect such new article with existing ones via the {{Georg Philipp Telemann}} navigation box.
Expand the article text and references of existing Wikipedia articles on such compositions, e.g. 12 Fantasias for Solo Flute (Telemann)

... etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC), updated 21:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC), Francis Schonken (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Hello Francis Schonken: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Francis Schonken!

Happy New Year!

Francis Schonken,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ich steh an deiner Krippen hier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epiphany (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

The page is {{in use}} at the moment and you are creating edit conflicts at the moment. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from here:

Were you still planning any major edits on the Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" article in the next few hours? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. I've told you explicitly—several times— that for the next one or two days I want to concentrate on Breig's commentary and how it fits into Butler's explanation. Please be more patient. There is no need for urgency at the moment. That means allowing some space to create content. Mathsci (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about the next few hours, not the next few days. The {{in use}} tag is obviously causing a lot of distress (call it time pressure or whatever). So, removing the tag for now will alleviate time pressure, and you can place it back during active editing sessions.

What I'm seeing now is the panic of someone who fears losing WP:OWNership of a page. See also what I wrote above more than a year ago. Wikipedia doesn't allow such ownership, and it causes stress for those who try to acquire it nonetheless. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to understand this: I am the principal creator of this article, which was written in 2009. After 2010 I decided to upgrade part of the commentary, in particular the long pdf files of Werner Breig from 2010. I used Breig's edition when I purchased it in Cambridge. I havealso been intermittently performed the organ from that score. At the moment I am using essentially 5 densely pages on Breig's commentary to give a revised and clarified versions of Bulter's long essay. It involves the engravings and the autograph manuscripts, and how they all fit in. What is the problem? Mathsci (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's easy to understand. It's called WP:OWN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You are presumably of the 2010 Breitkopf edition including in the 2 pdf files. I have been reading the file and I have been updating it steadily: it's easy to check as I edit. I have been quite surprised by your reaction. Mathsci (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please give up your pretended ownership of the Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" article. It is against policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pdf files of Werner Breig are very detailed. The Introduction elaborates on Butler's explanation of the order or possible order of the 5 variations. The explanation is complex. The edits have been continuing fairly steadily. Mathsci (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been reading Werner Breig's files? There is no policy on updating secondary sources like this. In footnote 40 of Breig's introduction, he writes, "In the following account, we base ourselves on the closing chapter (Companion Study) of Butler 1990as well as on Butler’s essay Bachs Kanonische Veränderungen über “Vom Himmel hoch” (BWV 769) – Ein Schlußstrich unter die Debatte um die Frage der “Fassung lezter Hand”, in: Bach-Jahrbuch 2000, pp. 9–34." That's how wikipedians create content. It's part of the five pillars of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep imagining that you should, by some dogmatic necessity, be the one summarizing Breig? For starters, Breig isn't as complex as you pretend it is: at least I had no trouble reading and understanding it. The problem is and remains pretence of ownership, and using the {{in use}} tag to implement/acquire that ownership in an attempt to keep it under the radar of the WP:OWN policy. Your repetition of "I am reading Breig" (as if nobody else could) makes it too obvious what is going on. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try to remember we are talking about Breitkopf & Härtel's commentary on Vol. 6 of the urtext version. We have 5 variations and have to work out the order or the possible order. Apparently Hans Klutz in the 1957 critical commentary NBA is not reliable, etc, etc. That is how content is edited. You have made a number of odd statements; but that does not change how the editing of Werner Breig's proceeds. We continue the standard method of summarising and paraphrasing on wikipedia using secondary sources. Those are the five pillars of wikipedia. Breig's content is new content, so is obviously not covered by your odd interpretation of WP:OWN. Mathsci (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, of course it is part of WP:OWN, each time you say "we" as a pluralis maiestatis. Again, you don't want anyone else to read & understand Breig (while I obviously do), because you want to be the sole editor of the Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" article, and thus WP:OWN it. That's the single reason you use the {{in use}} template, to prevent others from editing, so that you can always claim you are the sole editor of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing editing as I already said. Probably quite a lot of Breig's commentary will be added; partly some of it will be merged. As I said it is fairly complex content. You have been discussing about Breig's secondaty sources and content for quite a long time. I am quite tired at the moment, so could you please stop on Talk:Mathsci. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: Yes, I saw, you claimed ownership again, again deleting my edits for no good reason, again introducing errors such as "Johann Sebastian Bach: his work and influence on the music of Germany, Page 221, Vol. III, 1880" – again: there was no Vol. III of that book in 1880. All of this amounts to deteriorating Wikipedia, for which no sound excuse has been given. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schwanengesang

Thank you for the better image. It made me think if Schwanengesang shouldn't better be a redirect to Swan Song, or a disambiguation, - there's Schütz also. The term doesn't lead naturally to a specific one by Schubert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In English, Schubert's song cycle would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC afaik: so no, doesn't seem right what you're proposing. Proceed with WP:RM if you think differently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding discussions about the integration of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keyboard concerto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

29 March

user:Francis Schonken, I have made it quite clear that I am not interested in your project of moving around content wholly written by me. I have made that quite clear on WT:WikiProject Classical Music. You have been ignoring WP:consensus. If you don't understand that, I will explain again. User:Softlavender has also explained that to you: you have simply ignored all her comments, see WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. You already made made 3 consecutive reverts on 25 March in 24 hours: you were completely aware that was edit-warring, a form of disruptive editing. That pattern has continued today. You seem to spend all your time concentrating on my article edits: see WP:HOUND. Mathsci (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ein Lämmlein geht und trägt die Schuld

On 30 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ein Lämmlein geht und trägt die Schuld, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that several composers of the 18th century used Paul Gerhardt's hymn "Ein Lämmlein geht und trägt die Schuld" to begin their Passion music? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ein Lämmlein geht und trägt die Schuld. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ein Lämmlein geht und trägt die Schuld), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Weimar concerto transcriptions (Bach)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Weimar concerto transcriptions (Bach), Francis Schonken!

Wikipedia editor Nerd1a4i just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great new article!

To reply, leave a comment on Nerd1a4i's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nerd1a4i (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fake reverts

Hi. I occasionally get notifications about my edits to WHS infoboxes that you're "reverting". That would be fine, but the edits you're making aren't actually reverts. E.g. [1] is supposedly reverting [2], but that's actually using a completely different template. Please either actually revert my edits, or avoid marking your edits as reverts. Mike Peel (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Pi bot 2. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mike Peel (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WHS sites in Japan

Would you mind taking a look at the infoboxes for Sites of Japan’s Meiji Industrial Revolution: Iron and Steel, Shipbuilding and Coal Mining and Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities)? They list single Wikidata locations for each, despite multiple locations (30 locations across half of Japan, in the case of the former) and I don't know how to fix it. --Calton | Talk 13:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather avoid to list 30 locations in an infobox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but ONE location is flat wrong. --Calton | Talk 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to complain to me then: it seems to be the coordinates for the combined site as published by UNESCO.

If you don't want to show the coordinates in the infobox:

Switch the infobox to {{Infobox UNESCO World Heritage Site}}

...or...

explain the problem at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site

--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AN discussion

I have started a discussion about you and Mathsci at WP:AN#Bach editing. Fram (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding WP:Peacock

Francis Schonken, it's one thing if "enormous" is unattributed, it's another thing if it is attributed...ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to a community editing restriction

Per this discussion, you are indefinitely banned from interacting with Mathsci, subject to the usual exceptions. See WP:IBAN for details of what edits this restricts. GoldenRing (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cathedral of Syracuse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syracuse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm 137

Thank you for converting to prose! I'll help when I'll have a bit more time, next week possibly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Q re an edit of yours on WP:ATT

[I recognize you are currently blocked, but hope you will be able to answer this in due course.]

Your edit of WP:ATT on 13 Nov 2007 changed "surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media" to "surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography". Do you recall the rationale for that change? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for one year for resuming the behaviour that got you blocked for 6 weeks right off the bat. The ANi discussion may result in a different block, but your behaviour was in any case unacceptable. Fram (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Royal chapel (disambiguation)

It looks to me as if you do not have a fully developed ear for the English language.

Have you noticed how on the disambiguation page which you splendidly created Every item refers to a Chapel Royal!!? Eddaido (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do get confused. Eddaido (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eddaido, do you want to wait for a reply until October? (Not a native speaker myself, I am a bit allergic ...) - Go ahead, fix it, I's say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone new has begun to rehash anew an article about the Chapel Royal at St James's Palace in London. This article was the centre of squabbling some years ago. At that time an editor believed this article was about royal chapels (whatever he/she believed that might be). (possibly Francis Schonken) By some accident i found myself looking at this disambiguation page which is so very absurd and had begun to write my complaint before I noticed the sign at the top. I intend to take no action except keep in mind to go and look at the Chapel Royal article at some future date to see if it badly needs to be fixed.

Thank you, I don't expect any kind of reply but badly needed to leave a protest which the editor concerned may meditate on, or not. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I found that you are the editor of bach’s compositions. May I ask where and how you get the information about it ? Classical1215 (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suites has been nominated for discussion

Category:Suites, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe links to composer's works

The usual way to refer to the work by a composer leaves the composer outside the link: Mozart's Requiem. The same is true for piped links, Bach's Missa, not Bach's Missa. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: just discovered that you're actually wrong on this one, the guidance is at MOS:LINKCLARITY and reads thus:

The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link, given the context: for example, When Mozart wrote his Requiem (...) rather than When Mozart wrote his Requiem, or Previn conducted Mozart's Requiem rather than Previn conducted Mozart's Requiem – this makes it clear the link is to the article on Mozart's Requiem in particular, rather than that on requiems in general. The link target and the link label do not have to correspond to each other, but the link must be as intuitive as possible. (etc)

Thanks for also adopting this in your editing practice in the future. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen Wagner's Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg anywhere, nor Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. It sems a guideline which is not well-known and often not followed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As said, thanks for you following it from now on. Afaik, one would rather say Wagner's Meistersinger, which doesn't look awkward and conforms to the guidance (also, please read the remainder of the guideline section I linked to, and other sections of that guideline which explain exactly that). Anyway, don't come lecturing me on my talkpage about something regarding which you were obviously wrong (or do you put yourself above Wikipedia's guidelines?) Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the impression I tried to lecture you. I described what I see being used, or rather not, and see that we'd reach a perfect sea of blue following it which I normally try to avoid. When caught between two conflicting guidelines, I follow the lowlands of common sense. Would anybody reading "Beethoven's Ninth Symphony" expect the link leading to an article Ninth Symphony? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd thought you'd done something wrong I'd accept your apology. I don't have time to give you personalised advice on how to apply guidelines, please just follow them, and stop trying to guilt me into not following them. If anything is unclear about the guidance, and how to apply it, the appropriate place for speaking about that is this way – it is not this user talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brandenburg concerti

Thanks so much for your comment and reversion - apologies for being sloppy ! Here's another reference for the failure of Bach to be paid; would this be acceptable ? https://www.britannica.com/topic/Brandenburg-Concertos Robma (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imho: no. "Such royal requests could be quite lucrative for a composer, but the margrave never paid for Bach’s work, for reasons that remain unclear" is quite nonsensical. Betsy Schwarm is apparently not a very high-quality author on Bach either. template:Johann Sebastian Bach lists 16 scholars, most of which have written on the Brandenburg Concertos: after these sources are covered, I don't know whether additional somewhat questionable details need to be added. What's wrong with Schwarm:

the request can hardly be called "royal", afaik a margrave is no royal
such request would not normally be lucrative: a musician was paid by his employer, and if he wanted to work for an employer somewhere else, he'd need a permission from his current employer (Bach once ended up in jail for changing employer without such permission: that was two years before the Brandenburg Concertos were comissioned). Thus it seems unlikely any fee would have been negotiated when the Margrave suggested Bach write some music for him. If such request was eventually lucrative in some exceptional cases it would hardly ever be "quite" lucrative.
"the margrave never paid for Bach’s work" – speculative: no payment is *known*, that is not the same as positively saying that no payment whatsoever occurred. As if, after three centuries, we'd have a record of every asset that entered or left the Bach household.
"for reasons that remain unclear", to an amateur maybe: afaik there has been no explicit refusal of the Margrave to honour whatever agreement, there probably never even was an agreement (probably nothing more than the slightest suggestion by the Margrave according to reliable sources), and Bach most likely sent the concertos as (what we nowadays would describe as) promotional material.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

autograph

How about reading autograph. If you insist on using the word, please don't link to that article, or rewrite the article which says "can be used" rather late. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read it and it starts with "An autograph is a person's own signature or handwriting" (my emphasis). That's all that is needed. Yes, the Autograph article has many problems, but that is not a reason not to link to it, on the contrary: it is an invitation to any reader to address that article's issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about writing autograph (music)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could be you have time to write such article, I don't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL ^{Query me!} 20:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Kyrie–Gloria Mass for double choir, BWV Anh. 167 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CPO

Missa Providentiae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CPO

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 567: / Line 567: @@
 |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 16:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 |}
-== A friendly request ==
-Francis, would you mind striking the text {{tq|''the OP of that section admits they don't really understand what the WP:PRIMARY sources say ("My classical Japanese is not great, and my wakan-konkō is even worse...")''}} from [[Talk:Mottainai]]? I consider it a personal attack -- you wouldn't tell [[Bart Ehrman]] that he "doesn't really understand what the New Testament says" because he [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ehnEZtqj2Mo&t=1324s joked] that he could "kind of slosh [his] way through a Greek text if [he has] a good dictionary sitting next to [him]", and this is not dissimilar. Most '''professional scholars''' of Japanese literature and linguistics (even in Japan) will tell you that ''wakan-konkō'' is a pain. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 10:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)