User talk:RandomCanadian

• New messages go at the bottom.
• If you have been redirected here from another project or language, please leave the message here to ensure I see it and answer in a timely fashion. Thanks!

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 4 as User talk:RandomCanadian/Archive 3 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

French railway articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spring flowers

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

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

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

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

Page mover granted

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

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

Useful links:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Welcome back! Nice ArbCom appeal. BlueCrabRedCrab 19:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@BlueCrabRedCrab: Apparently this year's incarnation of ArbCom are faster than last year's (in case you really wonder, t'was an unfortunate, and I guess obvious - particularly given the long edit history of my IP before I created an account [though I can't read the mind of the person who blocked me so have no clue how this happened], case of mistaken identity). Cheeers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Eligibility Legislation - Sourcing discussion

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

---

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

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

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

Help needed

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

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

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

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

Health and 5G

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

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

Regent Square moves

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your support at the UKDR S2 talk page - please remember to keep a level head (allow the opposing editors to be heard - accessibility is a journey of learning for others) ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Pop Smoke

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

Alexander the Great Caption

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

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

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

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

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

Alexander Bielaski DYK

I'm nominating it now instead of waiting for GA, because I'm in the WikiCup, and you get points for expansion DYKs, but not GA DYKs. Also, I found this guy's life interesting, and didn't want to risk being too busy when it passed GA to have the time to craft a DYK hook. Hog Farm _Talk 20:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: So even admins aren't immune from WP:MMORPG? . Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:X1, the time an admin created 50,000 useless redirects and had a speedy deletion criteria specifically to delete their "work"? It's my go-to example of admins behaving badly. Hog Farm _Talk 21:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I'm mostly aware of the CSDs but I didn't know the exact context behind that one (or at least I never bothered to investigate). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks/Archive 12#Commenting out Lilypond audio

Hello, thanks for the heads-up; I will take a look. Looking at the search results for "insource:/vorbis="?1"?/ -insource:/%vorbis="?1"?/", there are new occurrences for the initial request as well. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I completed the original request. The recent additional one is quite a bit harder, because "score" also seems to be quite a common template parameter. Why is this not possible to do on the MediaWiki side anyway? After all, it is able to display "Musical scores are temporarily disabled." Why not just behave as if the parameter wasn't there? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4: That would indeed be the best solution (and it would solve the problems on all other wikis). Sorry about the annoying slip though, I probably meant to write "sound=1" (as per the actual documentation; but then with the above query I only get instances of section headers ending with sound (ex. ===Ultrasound===). I'll bring it up on the relevant phab task; though I don't know if that's the most appropriate place. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

G4 request at Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography

Greetings! I wanted to wait until you commented on the AfD prior to approaching to you about your G4 nomination of this article, as I did not want to appear as if I were canvassing you to the AfD. I saw your G4 nomination and compared the last version of the article before it was deleted from the first AfD with the now current version of the article to see how similar they were. There are some differences sufficient to question whether a G4 was valid, which is why I converted it to a second AfD. I know you couldn't see the deleted version, thus couldn't directly compare the two. This was simply a procedural conversion and was not in any way meant as a commentary on your G4 tagging. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Thanks. I still find the recreation rather WP:POINTY, if you see what I mean (and there's also a whole history between FS and Mathsci, which I'm not sure if it also involves the discography section, although they both edited the main article recently)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware of the history. I've given warnings to both FS and Mathsci regarding their actions. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hammersoft, please also watch BWV 1. The image. Coordinator's note. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hammersoft, what do you see when you look there, today, after I obliged? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing edit warring, if that's what you mean. At least, it's not readily apparent to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything like 3RR, but I see that the first attempt to swap the images was a bold edit, and should - once reverted - have been discussed. For any article, but especially a FAC during the review process to which several users contributed. Instead, today's swap is the third. I'll wait what's next. I probably don't have to tell you who uploaded the lead image. - Thank you for hosting us, RC! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Gerda, walk me through it diff by diff if you would. I didn't pick up on it while reviewing diffs (sorry; human after all :) ) --Hammersoft (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

RC, do you have more patience with this? - Hammersoft, for context: in a FAC, reviewers usually don't touch the article without asking. (I had to request that Aza24 made minor corrections directly in the article instead of describing, and I do it.) Now we have an editor here who is unfamiliar with the whole FA procedure, but I don't want to say so all the time. Reviewers who wrote FAs (one of them more than 100) supported after a few minor points. - In January, Mathsci uploaded a higher quality image of the violin part (lead image since 2015) to the commons [1]. On 14 February, F offered a pic of the manuscript of the continuo part, with bass figures by Bach himself. Great, I added it to where the music is described. F, possibly believing that the pic is clearly/objectively better (because of the little numbers in Bach's hand that nobody will even see are there without explanation), swapped the two images. I disagree that it's the better lead image. Now diffs of swap and revert: February: F1 · G1 · F2 · G2 · March: F3 · G3. By simple WP:BRD, this should have stopped after G1. By FAC situation and article stability, not even F1 should have happened. By iban, F1 should not have happened, but perhaps F was unaware of that, let's assume good faith. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: No problem with it; I'm enough of a WP:TPS myself that I don't think I have any leg to stand on if I complain. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Actually, perhaps you'd like to participate in the pic concerns, where suddenly the image that was good enough for years, and good enough for Bach Digital to link to the article, was declared "not appropriate". The review is linked to from the top of the talk of the cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: To be fair the violin part is cleaner (no crossed out bits - clearly the copyist was more careful, since he didn't require Bach's intervention). The continuo has figures which are unreadable at usual resolutions and only provide clutter. And well the violin is also the very first thing most listeners will notice (since the ear is naturally drawn to the higher voice...). Can I ask for some of your time, though? If it's not too sensitive of a subject, this RfC needs closing and although the outcome appears rather non-controversial I think it best if somebody uninvolved took a look, given there was some spirited opposition. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the evaluation which supports mine. In case of need, I'll ask you to repeat that at the FAC. We have now 3 added pics, and the continuo would be the one I'd through out if that seems too many. - I am sorry, I am behind on many things. Mourning Yoninah is not only terribly sad, but also creating a giant load of work she would have done, just look at DYK (archived: Crisis) and the psalms. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I was out yesterday. So, when you make a revert of something that changes nothing for the reader, you have sinned against your iban, but when you push your clearly inferior pic to the top position against the other's, again and again, we assume good faith? I'll go to church now and pray to let me forgive. Need it. - I miss Yoninah. - Block the two in alternating months, how is that? - Late for church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere, the situation with FS is not going without notice. Despite the two editors being wrapped up in each other's edits, please do not juxtapose them and feel that action at one place somehow provides evaluative effect on the other. They are independent of each other. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

They are not independent. I suggest I take BWV 1 4 7 ..., F 2 5 8 ..., M 3 6 9. I believe we should grant good faith evenly, or go by incidents evenly. There was no reason for F to touch the movement 1 analysis. Had I been around, I would have dealt with it, and Mathsci would not have been blocked, and now I feel guilty. Happy Bach's birthday, how lovely shines the morning star. BWV 4 is TFA for Easter, please watch it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I will not and can not justify the actions of one editor due to actions of another editor in an IBAN. IBAN does not make allowances for that, nor should it otherwise it would permit edit warring. I said FS' actions are not going unnoticed. I meant it. I was quite well aware that impropriety might be perceived if I took action with respect to Mathsci and not FS. I assure you there is none. I am watching the situation closely. I have not, am not, and will not take sides in this issue. If I perceive that I am doing so, I am WP:INVOLVED and will exit. You should not feel in any respect that you are responsible for Mathsci's blatant disregard for the IBAN in performing the edit for which I issued the three month ban. Mathsci chose to do that. Assuming the best case (WP:AGF) Mathsci should have taken the time to evaluate the edit they were about to make in the context of whether what they were doing was going to affect what FS had done. Mathsci didn't do that. If it was the worst case, it was intentional. Either way, Mathsci took an action which openly reverted the actions of FS. I'm not responsible for that. Neither are you, nor anyone else. Only Mathsci is responsible for having clicked "Publish changes" on an edit that reverted an edit FS committed...less than an hour before! If the IBAN wasn't warning enough, if the week long block in November wasn't enough, if the month long block wasn't enough to bring home that serious nature of the IBAN, maybe...just maybe...a three month long block will. There are those who feel an indef block would have been appropriate. There are those (including me) who feel the IBAN is doomed to fail. But, I hold out hope. The three month block is a measured response, and one I am trying to communicate the severity of to Mathsci. I gave a warning to Mathsci that the next IBAN violation would result in a minimum of a three month block from me. Mathsci chose to not take that warning to heart. I'm not responsible for that, nor are you. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You can't tell me what to feel. You are correct, but I still feel miserable about it. The iban seems to be wrong, can we agree? Doing more harm than good. You know the section mentioning movement I, and the heart having gone into it. Sure, we shouldn't own ... I'll go outside now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I can't. I'm just saying you shouldn't. Mathsci is responsible for their actions. They were clearly warned about the very serious nature of violations to the IBAN and what would happen if they violated it again. With the various violations that had happened before, with the blocks that had happened before, and with the sternly worded final warning, choices were extremely limited. It was either (a) allow the violations to continue or (b) block. If I'm wrong, I would be glad to hear of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hammersoft and Gerda Arendt: I think the issue here is that it took too long realising the IBAN was ineffective (AGF and all, these two editors simply are much too involved in one specific topic for them to simply not cross each other's path). Whether we should move on to a topic ban (as I suggested at AN) or straight to almighty (total) Banhammer in light of this is a different question. @Gerda: entirely unrelated to the unfortunate topic above; but how much content do we have here on Pachelbel (besides that piece which we've all heard too many times - why do only baroque afficionados ever play the gigue too)? Just played this today and well was wondering. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, RC. I don't know much about Pachelbel, heard Telemann today, rather fascinating word painting 1 (of 5). On Bach's birthday. The closest thing to celebrating the morning star is Sirius for TFA. Wanted to expand BWV 157, instead searched for refs for the bass who died. On DYK, the Schubert with too much history, too little music. Got a kitten, though, and should not be too bitter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Chemical graph generator​

The principal issue concerns the reproduction of material which I expect to be protected by copyright. Petergans (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Petergans: The issue of close paraphrasing and being based much on one single source is one thing. However, as far as I can see, the information is properly licensed; see Chemical_graph_generator#Sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The link above states: "This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license." Note also that it is incorrect to attribute the diagrams as "own work" as is done for the first diagram in the article https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Overlapping_Structures.svg and the other diagrams. Petergans (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Petergans: Well the uploader of the file does seem to be the same as the author of the paper. Anyway the paper was published under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia (CC-BY vs Wikipedia which is actually more restrictive, CC-BY-SA) so the information can be corrected. In either case, in the case of drawings of structures of molecules, that is irrelevant as such drawings do not contain sufficient creative work to be copyrightable (you can't copyright a simple drawing of a square; and well chemical molecules are not that far off: letters connected by lines...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

See also Template:PD-simple. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Modest flowers

Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

section closing

Regarding this edit: I'm puzzled as to why you did this. It's unusual to close part of an ongoing discussion with a summary statement. It gives your interpretation of what was discussed in that section greater prominence. I feel it doesn't help contribute towards a collaborative environment. isaacl (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Isaacl: The discussion has clearly moved on from that area to elsewhere. Providing a summary for those who may not have followed since the beginning was my intent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Nonetheless, I feel it gives undue weight to one person's view. There are times with large conversations where it might be helpful, but I don't believe this conversation was sufficiently large to warrant it. isaacl (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Well I spent about 15 minutes crafting it and going through the comments by all editors so I don't think it gives undue weight to my views - I tried to pick the gist of everyone's comments. If you think I missed anything important feel free to tell me/add it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean your personal view on the topic, but your interpretation of what were the key takeaways from the discussion. Though I'm still not convinced of the need to have a summary, I appreciate your placing the summary in a collapsed box. isaacl (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Christians, awake, salute the happy morn

The hooks scheduled for Easter are already in queues so I couldn't make that date request work when I promoted the hook. You could try asking if an admin can switch out one of those hooks for it on the DYK talk page. SL93 (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Christians, awake, salute the happy morn

On 4 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Christians, awake, salute the happy morn, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Christians, awake, salute the happy morn" is a hymn based on a poem that John Byrom first presented "For Dolly"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christians, awake, salute the happy morn. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Christians, awake, salute the happy morn), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Titles in non latin-characters

(Redacted) (don't come to my talk page with that tone, ever) Nyttend backup (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nyttend backup: Native names are one thing (and yes, there's plenty of acceptable examples, ex. Nürnberg or München or Aix-la-Chapelle or Montréal. If that was the only part of my reason for declining you might have half a point. The other part of my decline was that there's no point in creating the redirect, as there's no legitimate reason why one would need to wikilink to the version in non-latin characters; and readers looking for the non-latin version will be pointed there via the search function anyway. So the redirect is useless. But obviously you're already at the level of threatening sanctions so there's no point explaining it calmly. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Closing a discussion where you are are heavily involved in the topic

This close [2] is poor form at best. The discussion itself was admittedly poorly opened. But when you are deeply involved on one side of a topic, as you are in this case, it is not a good idea to close a discussion related to the topic. The closer should be neutral. I would suggest you revert your close. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)