Page semi-protected

User talk:Mathsci

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Mathsci (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

The blocking administrator has given only vague reasons for the block which include copyvio issues and borderline personal attacks. I would like my request to be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. Copyvio issues concerning user translations on article talk pages were resolved over a week ago with the help of Dougweller, Moonriddengirl and Diannaa. When asked, like me, Dougweller was not certain about how to proceed in describing a foreign language source on an article talk page. Diannaa explained that it could be done either through a brief straight translation, as permitted by copyright; or by a translated paraphrase, as if for a wikipedia article. I have apologised to Timothyjosephwood several times for the comments I made during discussions of foreign language sources and translations from a foreign language. I regret if I caused him any distress and unequivocally retract any personal statements I might have made about him. I have no history of making copvios or personal attacks. This is the first time I have edited an article on a news-related event as it unfolded. At ANI I also voluntarily committed myself to ceasing editing 2016 Nice attack or its talk page indefinitely; the advantages of my knowledge of France and the French language at this point are outweighed by the disadvantages, including my emotional investment in the subject matter itself (a little too close to home). I am making this unblock request so that I can resume my pre-Bastille-Day parallel editing of articles on baroque music (Orgelbüchlein and multiple related articles on Latin and German hymnology) and mathematics (Uniformization theorem, Planar Riemann surface, Differential forms on a Riemann surface).

Accept reason:

Unblocked per the conditions outlined and agreed to below.[1] Bishonen | talk 16:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC).

The blocking admin provided a response at ANI here. Note that the voluntary cessation of editing was just above, approximately a half hour prior. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm an uninvolved admin. Hi, Mathsci. It seems the Nice attack was an issue that touched you deeply; you had a lot of knowledge about it, but also perhaps too much investment in it to discuss calmly. Well, you say so yourself above. To not edit the article going forward seems a good solution to that particular issue. But you have been in trouble before for the way you interact with other editors. Some of those were indeed cases where you were right about the underlying issues, as proven by your opponents since being indeffed. But having been on Wikipedia so long as you have, I'm sure you're painfully aware of how highly the system values civility. So what would you do differently if you were unblocked? Are you thinking of sticking to uncontroversial articles altogether? Obviously we would be very glad to still have your editing on baroque music and mathematics. Mind you, if I sound like I personally advise avoiding all subjects that can be argued about, I don't; I think it would be a loss to Wikipedia. But you know yourself a lot better than I do; what are your thoughts on editing controversial articles going forward? Do you think you'd be able to avoid getting in the same trouble? Bishonen | talk 08:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC).
    • User:Bishonen, thanks for the reply. I apologise in advance for giving a detailed and unfortunately lengthy reply.
ARBR&I: The only problems with articles were in 2010 on Race and intelligence and the associated article I created, "History of the race and intelligence controversy", on the suggestion of Steve Rubenstein (stable since its creation): those edits were made from April-July 2010. There have been no problems on other articles or their talk pages; and my meticulous editing was mentioned by arbitrators in WP:ARBR&I. In the ARBR&I case itself, after discussions with User:Newyorkbrad, I voluntarily withdrew from editing anything related to R&I and have stuck to that ever since. Sanctions were lifted in December 2010. They were reimposed after a wikipedia email from Courcelles for unknown reasons. There have been plenty of problems related to meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry following WP:ARBR&I. Having been given the green light by arbitrators, I have consistently helped arbitrators/checkusers identify sockpuppets, even while blocked. Mainly that involved possible Mikemikev socks: generally I can tell whether they are socks or not, from their talk page language and topic fixations.
Echigo mole: Since 2009 there was intensive hounding by User:Echigo mole and his 300 odd sockpuppets which lasted until May 2013, when he tired of his hounding and declared a partial list (100+) of undisclosed/unused sock accounts. His editing affected almost every article I wrote, because he trolled there. He also trolled on arbcom pages and a motion about restoring his edits was passed by arbcom in 2012. Echigo mole/A.K.Nole's intention was to create as many problems for me as possible: he posted on WikiProject Mathematics and anywhere else he could stir up trouble by trolling (Reginald of Durham was an example, when I was writing content related to St Cuthbert and early Christian saints in Britain; he stayed away from Godric of Finchale and Guthlac of Crowland).
Apart from the R&I case and Echigo mole-generated disruption, there has been no prior history of editing problems on articles or article talk pages.
Nice attack: In the case of 2016 Nice attack, French editors were active on not on That is completely understandable. A news article about confused events where sources are only corrected a week or two after the event is tricky to write. Those corrections and clarifications have only appeared when the people involved were interviewed or made announcements (witnesses, heroes who engaged with the driver, national police officers who "neutralised" him, the police officer in charge of CCTV footage, the French prosecutor). Mostly that has been in French sources, since these reports are not considered newsworthy outside France beyond brief comments. I was the main editor who detected those problems and took a lot of time finding sources that were reliable. I just looked at fr:Attentat du 14 juillet 2016 à Nice and noticed a huge divergence between the content written by French editors and the article here. No POV or BATTLEGROUND about that; just a statement about how some things can go wrong on in cases like this. I was the only person to notice the problems and nobody has disagreed. I have pinpointed how the problem arose from whether news sources were updated/corrected or not.
Sorry for this long reply, but you mentioned my editing history. The arbcom ban was solely due to an inappropriate captioned image on my user page. (I have been informed that any confusion about that is being discussed by arbitrators at the moment.) I have also been subject to off-wiki harassment; the arbitration committee was fully aware of that since it was all outlined briefly in my unban request in March 2016. My ban could have been appealed in April 2014. Personal circumstances, including ongoing health problems, intervened in the interim. Thanks again for commenting, Mathsci (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Mathsci, you have given a history that would probably be useful in some circumstances, but not really in response to my post, which I suppose you realise was an implicit offer to unblock iff you gave me some undertakings. ("I'm an uninvolved admin" is the code.) You haven't addressed my questions nor my observations at all. You changed the subject, and at the same time gave a bit of an impression you'll never let that stuff go. :-( You may be right in every single instance, but that's not the point. Please address what I asked. Personal suggestion: please don't be in a hurry, take a walk or sleep on it or something first. Bishonen | talk 10:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC).

Q: I'm sure you're painfully aware of how highly the system values civility. So what would you do differently if you were unblocked?

A: I would be far more careful not to overreact. I would state problems with edits dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments about editors. I would be careful to show that my edits on talk pages are there to help other editors as much as to discuss improvements to the article. I would strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors with different skills.

Q: Are you thinking of sticking to uncontroversial articles altogether?

A: Yes, of course. I have up until now avoided unfolding current events, as I have done in the past. They are not encyclopedic content (perhaps in 5 years times, when experts have written about them, they might be). I edited this one first of all because I could help with images and maps, given my knowledge of the region. This was not a controversial article, however, just an article that was hard to source (for the reasons I've explained above). Almost exclusively I have edited or created neutral and anodyne articles where no other editors are active. For a long time I watched (and still watch) Europe, Marseille and Aix-en-Provence. I don't foresee editing articles on current events again. The mismatch with the French article was unfortunate but not of my creation.

Q: But you know yourself a lot better than I do; what are your thoughts on editing controversial articles going forward? Do you think you'd be able to avoid getting in the same trouble?

A: This was not a controversial article, just one with language problems. The sources were also upsetting—listening to interviews with French people as they recounted their harrowing experiences; these people could have been my neighbours. As I say I don't edit articles on controversial topics. When there are content problems that require expertise (knowledge of mathematics, knowledge of organ playing, knowledge of French) I would be careful to speak dispassionately about the problems and strenuously avoid belittling other editors. I would step away from the computer rather than post a hasty reply. Here is an example of a mathematical discussion from 2008 where I had different expertise from another editor and where this was resolved through civil discussion.Talk:Restricted_representation#Clifford_theory I normally am careful to remain civil and not loose my cool. I will take even more care in future. User:Pincrete's comments about my overreaction here are quite correct. I have taken on board his comments as to what was wrong with my interactions on the talk page of the article: less is more; and there is no need to belittle other editors.

I hope this answers all your questions, particularly the ones on civility issues. Thanks again for clarifying things, Mathsci (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is an example of editors trying to write content using amateur cell phone videos as WP:RS. As explained above, perfectly good written sources exist which would avoid this WP:OR. That's the problem with the article: poor sourcing. Where's the "rolls eyes" icon? Mathsci (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
No, I guess one wouldn't call the subject of 2016 Nice attack controversial, but a controversy about sourcing nevertheless developed. Theoretically, I suppose that could happen wrt baroque music as well, but it's far more likely with unfolding current events, naturally. You say you normally don't edit those, so I conclude you edited the Nice article precisely because you had strong feelings about it. I think you can see where I'm going: if you're impelled to edit a current events article, it's likely that you do feel strongly about it. So I suggest you consider simply staying away from them altogether. I know you say you don't "foresee" editing them, but something might turn up that you think is urgent. I'm not setting a voluntary self-ban from current events as a condition for unblocking; I don't think that would be fair; but please consider the risks. People will be watching you, some of them from pure motives. But you clearly have enemies as well, so please don't give them a handle.
Anyway, considering what you say in your first answer above ("I would be far more careful not to overreact," etc), I'm now going to have a word with Fram. (Please stop talking about 2016 Nice attack, in any venue. Look at Begoon's post. That's the impression it makes when you do. Impressions are important!) Bishonen | talk 14:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC).
Point taken. Je me tais. Thank you again for your help and sorry that I did not answer your questions when you first asked them. I do appreciate your help. I initially edited this article to help with the images and that led me to look at the French article. I add images quite a lot; recently Richard III, Henry VI, Lady Margaret Beaufort, Eleanor Cobham, Duke Humfrey of Gloucester, Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset, Christ's College, Cambridge, St John's College, Cambridge, Hobson's Brook, René of Anjou, Walter of Durham, Painted Chamber, A solis ortus cardine, Talbot Shrewsbury Book, Elizabeth of York, Margaret of Anjou, etc. Mathsci (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking through my email archive, I found one from Iridescent sent on 6 July 2009 about postings of Grep on Wikipedia Review. It's easy to see now that Grep was A.K.Nole/Echigo mole (e.g. he drew attention to hoax articles on Letchworth and Spirella). Something I hadn't realised before, but obvious once noticed.Mathsci (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Conditions for unblock

Fram has now replied, saying that he still has concerns but also that if I feel your reassurances are reasonable enough to give you another chance, then I'm free to do so.[2] That, together with the discussion of my unblock proposal on ANI, is enough backing for me. I will unblock if you explicitly undertake to live up to your own statement higher up on this page about what you'd do if you were unblocked: "I would be far more careful not to overreact. I would state problems with edits dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments about editors. I would be careful to show that my edits on talk pages are there to help other editors as much as to discuss improvements to the article. I would strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors with different skills." Also, please read the ANI unblocking discussion I have linked to and be aware that if there's a next block, it's highly likely to be a permanent community ban. If you agree to these conditions, please indicate it below. Bishonen | talk 15:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC).

Yes, I reiterate everything in my unblock request, in particular the section in green that you have just quoted and highlighted, which was the most significant portion. As I also wrote in the request, I will not edit the 2016 Nice attack article and its talk page. Thanks again for your help and guidance. Mathsci (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll unblock in a minute. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC).
  • Glad that worked out Mathsci. If you ever need a friendly sanity check on editing, feel free to drop me a note. I may not appear to be around but am definitely lurking! --regentspark (comment) 23:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
    Perhaps. But I would certainly recommend against this. Though that remark is not particularly problematic for most editors, unfortunately, because you've had an arbcom judgement against you, you're on thinner ice then most and it may not be a bad idea to recognize that reality and exercise some restraint. I've seen too many otherwise great editors get caught up in this 'death spiral'. Probably bad for the wiki in the long run but that's what we have to live with. --regentspark (comment) 02:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    Agreed. That sort of thing was previously dealt with at WP:WQA. It was an overreaction on my part, but an isolated incident. As for the thinner ice, there are some issues with one arbcom page which have been or are being discussed on arbcom-l. Mathsci (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Herzlich tut mich verlangen

Herzlich tut mich verlangen, - I have to interrupt for the day, translation and more to text and use in music missing. In case you can add, you are most welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Christian Jacobi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Nitschmann. 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) 10:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


Could you help to any image of the music of Der 100. Psalm? I know there's a postcard of the composer and the beginning of the words with music in his handwriting, because it's in the Dr. J Butz publication. Some more music would be even better, like his Requiem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The music is out of copyright and a facsimile of the 1909 score of the Peter's edition is in this pdf file on IMSLP. You can extract a jpeg (or png) image of the page. There is a low resolution png image of the first page already on the IMSLP site here but it's too poor quality for wikipedia. I'm not sure about autograph scores. Mathsci (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The original composition manuscript (skizzen) with Reger's name on the first page is on the digital document provider of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek here. Mathsci (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for finding them! I guess the last one is interesting, but very pale, - it could be linked. My experience with images from documents is zero, - would you do the conversion of the first for me, please? - See us pictured before singing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I have converted the first page of the pdf file to jpeg and mailed it to you. I am very busy creating the lilypond and audio files for the 3rd section of BWV 39/i. It is quite difficult, but in the process I discovered how to make permanent forms of audio files that do not rely on readers' software and how to simulate solo voices and choirs. That applies in particular to organ music, but needs a lot of work for each individual piece. Mathsci (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Next wish: Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80. Something relevant to the work, not some stained-glass imagination of Luther inspiring Bach ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Next wish: music for Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Francis Schonken (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Audio files

Hello, no worries that article had been sorely missing for years! . I can't think of anything to add to it at the moment (I don't know much about the trio sonatas myself), but if I do, I'll add it to the new article. I agree re the audio file; it's rather nice for a MIDI and is reasonable for demonstrating the work. I don't hear the click in Winamp, but another way to remove it may be to use Audacity to find Zero crossings (the function is in the edit menu in Windows) and then save the remaining audio, which will be automatically selected for you. Graham87 09:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback. The tip is also very helpful. I have been using audacity but didn't know it had that extra function. I'll try it right away. Thanks again, Mathsci (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Score images

Yo, noticed that your score images are often JPEG files. Please also or instead upload SVG versions; JPEG is very much the wrong file format for that kind of content. Thanks! :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 18:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been adding scores for years as png or jpeg because Mutopia presents their miniscores in png, eg here (reproduced in Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes). I am only adding extracts, so that is convenient. Available outputs from lilypond are ps and pdf (both automatic); and png, eps and svg (as options). I use the pdf file and linux software to create a png or jpeg image with the resolution that suits me. Can you give me an example of a complicated score on wikipedia in svg format? What purpose would it serve if it's only an extract? Mathsci (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand what your problem is with using SVG. The benefit is that the files do not become blurry when zoomed in: JPEG files look ugly, for instance, when using a high-DPI monitor. If your problem is you don't know how to make SVG extracts from Mutopia PDFs, it's trivial: say you want page 4, system 2 of BWV651:
  1. $ wget
  2. $ pdf2svg ./bwv651-let.pdf ./BWV651-Mutopia-p4-s2.svg
  3. $ inkscape ./BWV651-Mutopia-p4-s2.svg
  4. Right click document -> Ungroup
  5. Drag box around page number and top system, press backspace
  6. Drag box around bottom system, press backspace
  7. File -> Document Properties -> Resize page to content...
  8. (Fill in your desired margin values, e.g. 50, 50, 50, 50)
  9. Click the "Resize page to drawing or selection" button
  10. Close the "Document Properties" window
  11. File -> Save
  12. File -> Quit
  13. Upload the resulting file "BWV651-Mutopia-p4-s2.svg" to Commons
  14. Result:

—{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 20:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I can read the lilypond manual without your help if I wanted to produce svg output.[5] But I asked you a question. Where on wikipedia has anybody used an svg file for the miniscore extracts I'm using, They are high resolution because that's how I created them. They are extracts not scores of a whole piece. So what examples are you thinking of that are currently used on wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Here is my high resolution jpeg file.

BWV39.1 first section melisma.jpeg

Although I would still like you to answer my question, what is the problem with the resolution of this image in its largest version on commons? Mathsci (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know of examples of score extracts as SVG, and I don't care to look for them, since your question about them is irrelevant to my point: JPEG is intended for photographic images, while SVG is intended for images consisting of solid-colour shapes. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 11:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes these extracts are created with images from a photographed score which is not necessarily of high quality. Are you saying the images are problematic at 800px or is there some zoom feature you're talking about? Why not produce screenshots to show me what you mean? Mathsci (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
My point isn't about photographs. JPEG is perfect for photographs of scores. My point is about score images that are non-photographic in origin: they should be SVG. Please have a look over at Wikimedia Commons's page on file types if you have any questions about why SVG is better for this use case. Thanks. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 14:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The commons pages don't help very much. All they tell me is that svg is used for maps and diagrams. Musical scores are not remotely related to things like that. If you think that the rendered files create problems, please show me how—with a screenshot—so I can see what you mean. In any case the extracts I produce are not raw pdf files. They are always cropped from a high rsolution image (using gimp). But if you show me the problems that arise by providing a screenshot, that would help. If somebody sees the score on a page, they have to click for more detail. That takes them to the file page on commons and they can choose their own resolution. Unless I see what the problem might be with jpeg, I won't even think of using svg. If you really want to persuade me, you'll have to provide a screenshot. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Mathsci. But your "high-res" score, which is actually 1,308 × 330 pixels large, looks horrible lo-res and blurry on my screen that's in 3,840 x 2,160 resolution. This brings about the value of SVGs: they are much more future-proof than "high-res" JPEGS. Ahyangyi (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Without a screenshot, I have no idea what you are talking about. So screenshots please. Also I wll not do anything at all until somebody gives another example of a musical score of similar complexity that uses svg. Here is another file produced from a nineteenth century score (i.e.not using lilypond). It could not be produced in svg.

Bwv39.1-3 fugue.jpeg

So screenshots please. I have no idea what kind of computers you are using. For that matter, I don't know whether either of you can read music. Mathsci (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I cannot see any difference with the rendering of the previous score in svg (produced directly with pdf2svg without using inkscape).
BWV39.1b score example.svg
I am using a very inexpensive kind of computer. So some kind of screenshot please so that I can have some idea what the problem is. Now that you have an svg file to compare with a jpeg file, it's easier to produce the screenshot. Mathsci (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Equally well Goldenshimmer 's"trivial method" is not a very good method in inkscape as it does not allow the choice of a rectangle except by indirect trial and error. Inkscape is obviously not intended for editing music scores. However a reasonable method of cropping to a rectangle is to choose "no paint" at the bottom; choose the rectangle tool and adjust the rectangle to cover the desired area. Then mark that rectangular area using the selection tool. The image can be cropped to the area selected by going, as in Goldenshimmer's method, to document properties and using the button "resize page to drawing or selection". A cumbersome process. Here is the result. I see no advantage so far. Please could we have some screen shots?

svg image


jpeg image

BWV39.1 section one chorus with orchestra.jpeg

Looking at this, I cannot really see any difference between the two (initially I thought I could). Neither is 100% perfect at this resolution. What does it look like on another computer? Mathsci (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sonatas for viola da gamba and harpsichord (Bach), 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) 09:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flute Sonata in E major, BWV 1035, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Malcolm. 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) 12:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


1 hour after a check up, I collapsed again and am back in hospital. Not really serious, but everything is on hold. Mathsci (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope you get well soon. Keep up the spirits.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Magnus. I am out of hospital now, although not everything has been resolved. Mathsci (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
More good wishes for health and spirits, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

For your work on Giulio Cesare! Smeat75 (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It's temporarily on pause, but I will resume adding content from Dean & Knapp when I have finished the current mathematics content. Mathsci (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Improper page moves and misleading templates

Hello, I generally can't stand conflict (and don't handle it very well) and for some reason I could sense that the page for BWV 525–530 would be the centre of it, so I took it off my watchlist, just intending to check it out from time to time (what you've done on the page so far is great!). Re the page move, I'm not sure what I think of the capitalisation but a page mover is very much allowed to assess consensus in that case. The redirect templates they added were fine; the CD/DVD text is a reference to the Wikipedia 1.0 project. Graham87 00:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing someone else's survey submission in an ongoing WP:RM?

In this edit you removed someone else's !vote in the open WP:RM at Talk:Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (Bach)#Requested move 18 October 2016. I'm not sure it was an oversight or that perhaps the other editor was disqualified from contributing to such survey for one reason or another (there was no edit summary to clarify one way or another)? Could you explain, or reinsert the other editor's !vote if it was a simple oversight. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see it. Presumably an edit conflict. Easy enough to put back. Please do it yourself without chnaging my edits and read what I have written elsewhere about my health problems, which you are exacerbating. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
One of my last interactions with Bishonen was about how much fun we had editing Wikipedia this month twelve years ago. The best way to retain a health benefit from Wikipedia involvement is to keep it fun and relaxing imho, and that's what works for me up to the present day.
Here's where Wikipedia involvement can become a net health negative: the WP:OWN policy is clear that content can't be owned. Now there are some who think that ownership is the way to go nonetheless, as long as one can keep it under the WP:OWN policy radar. Then a lot of convoluted mechanisms enter the arena to make that ownership stick without being blunt about it. Keeping such mechanisms operational and at the same time covert is exhausting (again, the Wikipedia editing environment wasn't designed to work that way): in short, such proceedings can exacerbate health problems.
So here's my health wish for you: keep your involvement with Wikipedia breezy – find that relaxing nerve of Wikipedia editing where co-editors are collaborators rather than competitors. The scenarios when you're unsuccessful to tap that health-beneficial nerve are but too predictable: your health is more important than what resides on a web server some place far away. Ultimately your co-editors may need to step in to prevent you from endangering your own health. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
You have both pinged me, but I feel I'm overly threaded through the running feud between you, and would rather you asked someone else to adjudicate if you must escalate this, or for instance everyone else (=at ANI). And, Mathsci, please do take it easy and rest up until you're quite well, I'm concerned about you. Letting Wikipedia get you stressed out is a mug's game. Bishonen | talk 10:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC).

Removing someone else's comment in a discussion

You have now twice removed my comment "for clarity: nobody doubts the reliability of the source, this is about whether the content of the source is rendered correctly in the Wikipedia article" (and some other content) from WP:RSN (diff 1 diff 2), and accused me also (in the edit summaries of those diffs) twice of moving your comments – I did not move anyone else's comments, and surely not yours. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not read your comments carefully enough. I had written something similar elsewhere. You can add back that new content where you wish but please do not start a new section. The reliability of the 2004 Urtext Barenreiter edition is not under discussion; andWP:RSN is not the place for to make nit-picking comments about my edits which are still in process. A fourth person has now questioned your sourcing. Mathsci (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleting content and references at Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach

With this edit you deleted...

  • [1][2][3]
  • , with the addition of a second violino di ripieno part,[4]


  1. ^ BDW 1226
  2. ^ Kilian 1986, p. 105ff.; Kilian 1989 p. 43ff.
  3. ^ Rust 1869, p. XXI (Preface) and pp. 221–272 (score)
  4. ^ Schulenberg 2006, pp. 145–146

...from Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. With any other editor I would have reverted such deletions as vandalism. Is there any reason why your deletions should not be regarded as such? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You copied over the tags and have been copying content from one page to another recently. I would normally call that "obnosious trolling". Perhaps in your case it's different. You have shown no sign of using the references properly, so I am rewriting the original content (not due to yopu) properly. I have obvious skills that you don't have. I go to libraries and find books and articles. I read them and check them. I also play most of the pieces in the articles thart I edit. My ability to create musical score and audio files is an added skill, which is spin-off of my training as a musician. I play the transverse flute (nobody would call it a traverso in English), the recorder (alto, sopranino), piano, harpsichord and organ; I have performed some of these works in public. So I am in a very good position to improve the original content. You didn't make use any proper use of the new sources, that I found. You turned your nose up at the main ones, in you own inimitable way. The above message is unduly aggressive. Besides I provide the references to Schulenberg (three pages). There's no need to be a hypocrite as well as a bully. Mathsci (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
None of your defense disqualifies the removals listed above as obvious vandalism. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Obviously not vandalism, since I am obviously improving the content at the moment and have a reputation as an expert editor with experience in producing high quality content on Bach's keyboard music. Why did you copy over the tags from another article? Tags are added to individual articles. That was disruptive editing. I think your incipits in German were poor for this article: I can produce some myself as time permits. It could take a day or two. Your responses seem quite aggressive. Calling my edits "vandalism" was quite an obnoxious thing to do. Mathsci (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I only described the deletions listed above as vandalism. Yo::u're obviously not wanting to restore them, and can not give a reasonable explanation as to why this content and these references were removed in the first ::@::place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Content and references as listed above restored ([6]) – none of this impedes a further development of the article, improve sourcing etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
You made those edits when two "in use" tags were up and where new content is obviously being created. I do not intend to use Kilian at the moment. Can you please stop editing so disruptively? Just because you use sources poorly (as orthers have said on WP:RSN), please don't bully other editors into using your poor standards of sourcing. Judging from your edits to BWV 1044, it seems unlikely you have read Kilian's commentary. I don't know whether any of it is useful at this stage: I will look in the Cambridge UL tomorrow where it is only available in the reference section (2 copies, the second donated by Christopher Cartwright). That is how we edit wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Putting up a {{in use}} is a lame excuse for covering up vandalistic deletions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I don't think it is of much interest to go into great lengths about the history of the manuscripts: that is not done for any of the other works, which in some cases (e.g. the reworking of Brandenburg Concerto No. 4) have as complicated a history; and I believe that this is of no interest to the reader beyond a brief summary. I will prepare my own excerpts for BWV 1044 in lilypond as a short excerpt can be created quite quickly (at most 2 or 3 days). I will also look for the Wollny article tomorrow. Looking at the sources before rewriting the content seems like a good idea. I have played all of these pieces myself: BWV 894 on the harpsichord; and BWV 527/2 on the organ. I have also incidentally performed the harpsichord version of Brandenburg 4, 2nd and 3rd movements, and in fact created lilypond files for these. As it happens, for almost all the articles I am currently editing, I have played the music at some time or other (most recently selections from BWV 1014–1019 with a 1st violin from the Boston Symphony Orchestra). At the moment I am preparing the articulation and ornamentation for the audio file for BWV 529/1 which mostly involves inserting micro-rests. Mathsci (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated to the topic at hand: none of the reported deletions involved the "history of the manuscripts", music performances, the Wollny source, micro-rests or whatever else you're writing about in the above paragraph. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Please read what I've written. I do not believe you have looked at Kilian (in a major university library it is only a reference volume). I am going to look at it on Monday to see whether it has any relevance. I cannot imagine at the moment how it could be useful for creating any useful content since the Introduction to Bach studies does not recommend it. I have not seen a paraphrase by you of any content created from that source. Before my trip to the UL tomorrow, why don't you give me some examples of sentences on BWV 1044 that you've read in Kilian that might be relevant. Just copy the German verbatim. Take as long as you want. There is no rush. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Mathsci. 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)


Hello, Mathsci. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

YohanN7 (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Editing through "in use" template

Please discontinue editing through the {{in use}} template at List of solo keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach ([7], [8]), as I asked you at the talk page ([9]). Your suggestions are welcome at Talk:List of solo keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You are reproducing a list and have been told not to on the talk page, The fact that you ignore other editors does not justify you forcing your list back on wikipedia with an "in use" tag. It is another disruptive ploy by you. Please use the talk ogae instead of creating disruptuve content that pushes your own point of view. Mathsci (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you going to persist editing thus disruptively through the {{in use}} at List of solo keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
On the article talk page, you said your intention was to write an article about the concerto transcriptions. That does not seem to be happening. Instead you have cherry-picked one sentence which you wish to place in the lede to justify your own personal feeling that the Italian concerto belongs to the same musical genre as the transcriptions. That is not born out by the literature. Obviously you think that your view is correct and you want to make a big issue of it in a wikipedia article, to the point that you scream it out in the lede. But evidently that is an example of WP:UNDUE. It is disruptive tendentious editing.
I've already told you several time that I reject an umbrella list article containing the concerto transcriptions and the two much later works, entirely composed by Bach. If you want to write an article on the transcriptions, that is easy enough. But why try to force you own ideas on readers? It is misleading, confusing and unhelpful. I think you are misrepresenting secondary sources at the moment. The Italian Concerto and the Overture in French style are mature works which belong together and had the same purpose, quite different from the concerto transcriptions. The transcriptions were written as part of Bach's reception of the concertos of his contemporaries (particularly Vivaldi) and probably at the request of his employer. The transcriptions are related to all his subsequent concertos regardless of instrument. So why pick two at random with one that only marginally fits your description (the two harpsichord concerto)? I think you're being very disruptive at the moment and you have misled me on the talk page about your intentions. Mathsci (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Regardless, could you please answer the question whether you'll continue to edit through an "in use" template with sweeping changes at the List page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── WP:IDHT has been your response for a while. You want to restore the list article with your own WP:OR ideas in it and I've told you cannot do that. I have written rather clear reasons which seem supported by all the literature I've seen. Putting the "in use" tag up in your case is just a way of locking the article in a state which has no agreement on the talk page. It is tendentious and disruptive editing. I've said that if you want to write an article on the concerto transcriptions, you can go ahead and do it. But you somehow want to make some point about other compositions that comes from your own imaginings, i.e. WP:OR.

Up until now you have said one thing on the talk page (that you are going to write an article on concerto transcriptions); but then you proceed to do something completely different on the article page. In so doing, you are misrepresenting yourself. Your true intentions are borne out by your proposed new lede, one sentence long, which cherry-picks a sentence out of context to justify one of your own WP:OR ideas. You want to edit disruptively and ignore any points I want to make. But everything I have said is supported by the literature; your point of view is not.

If I put up the "in use" tag, it means I am working on difficult content. At the moment I am preparing content on BWV 1055/2, a movement which has been analysed over 3 pages by Dominik Sackmann in a book which fortunately is available in my university library. That is an appropriate use of the "in use" tag. I am adding detailed content in a way which I hope will help the reader. But creating content about musical structure requires reading the sources (often technical), understanding them (requires musical training) and then translating that into non-technical terms that hopefully are of assistance to the reader.

If you want to create a new article on "concerto transcriptions", I don't see the problem. But you obviously want an article where you can very firmly make the point that the concerto transcriptions and the Italian concerto are generally regarded as belonging to the same musical genre. Mathsci (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

2016 Nice attack

Hi, Mathsci. I see you have recently edited 2016 Nice attack and its talkpage, something you explicitly undertook not to do in August 2016.[10] I have no criticism of your edits as such, but have you forgotten, or changed your mind, about completely staying away from that article? I didn't specifically put that into my unblock conditions, but, you know, it was sur le tapis. You'd be wise to take the article off your watchlist, IMO. And a happy new year to you! Bishonen | talk 17:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC).

remettre sur le tapis ? Je vous souhaite une bonne année. Mathsci (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear Mathsci, I also read "Je me tais" as an agreement with Bishonen to not edit that article anymore, and the subsequent "I will not edit the 2016 Nice attack article and its talk page" was pretty clear. But I see that you've been on a Bach trip since then, so I assume this is all water under the bridge. Water on or under the tapis is probably a sign you need to take the dog for a walk. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I am now worried that if I lift up my floor covering I will find a menagerie swimming around in a pool. Meanwhile I will cross that bridge when I come to it and let sleeping dogs lie. It is true that strange things have been found near here, e.g. an anglo-saxon bed grave. Mathsci (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The short update on Nice was exceptional, but uncontroversial and designed to be helpful to readers. I haven't followed editing on the article. I should add that, since 2010 I have made no edits related to articles on race and intelligence, apart from pointing out sockpuppetry by email to a checkuser (almost always the same banned user). As far as Bach edits are concerned, for several months I have been followed around wikipedia by Francis Schonken. Others have noticed this.[11] Mathsci (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


Please do not remove dispute resolution noticeboard filings from the dispute resolution noticeboard as a way of declining to participate in them. The proper way to decline to participate in moderated discussion is to reply to the filing by stating that one does not want to participate, since participation is voluntary. I have commented at the dispute resolution noticeboard talk page as to next steps, which may include a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend

The hymn has been started, but the author is not really that sure ;) - more to come, later. Good enough to link to, I'd say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! You already have one image and I can add another. Mathsci (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Circular re-directs

Just noticed... Your recent edits have resulted in Weimar concerto transcription (Bach) re-directing to Concerto transcriptions (Bach) and vice-versa. —Patrug (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution 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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustBerry (talkcontribs) 02:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was unbanned in April 2016 under the condition that he

refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This restriction is now rescinded. The interaction bans to which Mathsci is a party remain in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence

DYK for Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend

Updated DYK query.svgOn 27 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bach composed five organ settings of the hymn "Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend", which was translated by Catherine Winkworth for communion as "Lord Jesus Christ, be present now!"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend), 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.

Harrias talk 12:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


"how this is done" - about the titles of references: it is done differently. I do it like this: Notes (with a notelist) contains (only) footnotes, Bibliography contains cited books and sources, References (with a reflist) cites these books and sources (names-year-pages), External links has other sources. You can do it differently, but I see no reason to edit war over it. The compositions by Reger have it as described above, which includes FA Requiem, for Notes compare Komm, du süße Todesstunde, BWV 161. Can we please keep the Reger works consistent? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this really an issue? I used the same kind of format as I did for Walter of Durham or The Four Seasons (Poussin).
I removed content that you had included about Catholicism that did not march the source. Where did it come from? (I don't doubt that some general statement like that is true.)
As far as the image in the infobox is concerned, the original cover of one of the three volumes digitised here might be preferable.
Since you're here, could I ask you to comment on my suggestions on the DYK template for Was Gott tut? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It seemed an issue for you, changing and reverting. I have seen it, and other again different versions, but would still like the compositions by Reger look similar. This was a brandnew article, - I confess I hadn't even sorted cited books and others yet. The fact that he was raised Catholic but was fascinated by Protestant hymns (even before he married a Protestant which got him excommunicated) has been cited elsewhere, - I may find it. The main objective in creating at least a stub on this Op. was to get the 52 pieces off the works list. Any image more related to the piece instead of the man is most welcome. Commenting the Was Gott tut hooks is more up to the reviewer than to me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sieben Stücke, Op. 145 has been nominated for Did You Know

Updated DYK query.svgHello, Mathsci. Sieben Stücke, Op. 145, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Sieben Stücke, Op. 145

Updated DYK query.svgOn 4 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sieben Stücke, Op. 145, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in seven last pieces for organ, Sieben Stücke, Op. 145, Max Reger quotes Lutheran chorales and a patriotic anthem? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sieben Stücke, Op. 145. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sieben Stücke, Op. 145), 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.

Mifter (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for 52 Chorale Preludes, Op. 67

Updated DYK query.svgOn 16 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 52 Chorale Preludes, Op. 67, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Max Reger recorded some of his 52 Chorale Preludes, Op. 67, on the Welte Philharmonic organ? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 52 Chorale Preludes, Op. 67), 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.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In case you didn't see this: thank you for writing the bulk of that article, and very well! - Can you fix the citation errors I see for the Naxos liner notes ("not used"), by either moving them to further reading, or using them? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan

Updated DYK query.svgOn 20 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 17th-century German hymn "Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan" has been described as "one of the most exquisite strains of pious resignation ever written"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I just received the note that a cousin died. RIP. Any images to be added for BWV 56? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your loss. I have added an image for BWV 56. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
See also this broadcast on BBC Radio 4 about "Ich habe genug," BWV 82. (Oboist George Caird recalls playing Ich Habe Genug at his father's funeral; theologian Paula Gooder recalls the effect of putting her new born baby into the arms of an elderly relative; Danish music therapist Lars Ole Bonde tells how this music provided vital solace for him as a teenager growing up with a father suffering from depression; American Susan Dray remembers how the Cantata helped her when she was grieving for her baby; and tenor Ian Bostridge wonders why we never feel that we have "enough".) Mathsci (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the image, and for sharing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Precious six years, on Bach's birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Could you add the US license to the manuscript image, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hyperbolic metric space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mikhael Gromov. 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) 09:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Bach's Triple Concerto

Hi Mathsci... regarding my edit and your revert at Template:Chamber music, Orchestral works and Transcriptions by Johann Sebastian Bach, I changed the entry "Triple Concerto, BWV 1044" to point at Triple Concerto, BWV 1044 because I thought targeting to a section of a broader article was likely left over from a time pre-dating the creation of the stand-alone article. The broader article, Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach, has keyboard concerti as its subject, which was also a surprise to me as I was reading after seeing an amazing performance of the D Major Concerto (BWV 1064R) for Three Violins (which I would call a triple concerto, and so I was expecting to find it following a "triple concerto" link, though I did not check the BWV). I thought this was a simple case of targeting which was inconsistent with the principle of least surprise. I did notice that the stand-alone had lots of tags and needed work, but thought that it would benefit from more eyes and that it would be an expansion of the original section. I also thought it odd on the template when the keyboard concerti article already had its own entry. I have now looked much more closely and read talk:Triple Concerto, BWV 1044, and see that the situation is much more Schoenberg than it is Bach (dissonant and unsatisfying), so I am glad that you made the revert – thank you – as the section gives much better coverage of the triple concerto. I acted too quickly in changing the template, for which I want to apologise.

I am now wondering what to do about the stand-alone article, which has sat basically untouched since November last year. It is not attracting much traffic and has only one incoming link from article space (from Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis) and so is effectively orphaned. Can it be deleted without prohibiting recreation of a properly comprehensive stand-alone article at some point in the future, if that is seen as desirable? I realise you probably don't want further conflict with the editor who created it, beyond what I already see on the talk page and with a hatting war at WP:RSN etc, but leaving it to just sit seems undesirable too. Could it be changed to a redirect to the section, or do you think that would be provocative? Any advice? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this message. I think it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. The differences between the forked content and the main content are quite clear, in terms of information and sourcing. I think things are OK at the moment: a properly written account is available in the main article on the keyboard concertos and it is not too hard to find. Mathsci (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Mathsci. 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)

User talk:Francis Schonken

Hi. I have no idea what your dispute is about but per WP:OWNTALK, don't we generally let editors remove messages as they see fit? Your insistence on re-posting your messages looks like WP:IDHT and WP:EW. Maybe you ought to just let the issue drop or seek help at a drama board. If Francis doesn't want you posting there, I see no point in forcing the issue. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have read what User:Doug Weller and User:Newyorkbrad have mentioned. You seem to have ignored the ongoing problem of my stroke: you seem to have acted in a matter-of-fact fashion, as if you didn't care about it. Please could you be more careful next time. When I was informed about the status of my stroke, I did not expect an editor (Francis Schonken) to add the comment "rvv". That was not vandalism in any way. Mathsci (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Mathsci, please add some link to where Francis Schonken added the comment "rvv", as I can't find it, and as it stands am very close to blocking you for harassment of Francis Schonken instead (your antics at his talk page, following him to other discussions here). Fram (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It was an error or oversight that I wrote "rvv" instead of "rv". Sorry about that. I have still a few verbally difficulties with the stroke.
Doug Weller has explained the stroke status. I have also explained in User:Newyorkbrad and User:MastCell. Doug Weller wrote,
"Please step back and disengage yourself from the talk page. I should have responded here earlier but by the time I saw the messages the discussion had stopped. Mathsci told me about his stroke when he got out of hospital, and he not surprisingly isn’t fully recovered. However right you may think you are, it simply isn’t important enough. I’m off to bed now. Doug Weller talk 22:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)"
I am not sure I can explain anything more about that. Shortly after being discharged (my stroke resulted in my computer being damaged—it is now on a temporary new laptop, with a live kubuntu usb), Doug Weller contacted me by email on my status stroke fairly shortly after that. He is the best person to contact me about User:Doug Weller. Mathsci (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
You still haven't given any link to the "rv" edit you are apparently upset about. Without that link, it is impossible to see whether you violated user talk page rules and so on but were clearly baited or otherwise provoked, or whether your actions were unprovoked or totally disproportional. As it stands, it is impossible to follow what you are talking about, and all we see are your actions, and not the edit(s) which caused these. Fram (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately that's what happens with a stroke. Often I can only stutter, because of the mismatch between left and right hemispheres. I am sorry about that. Here is the diff [12] and my apology about the error. I have removed all the comments now. Please see what Doug Weller has written. Mathsci (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
That "rv" came "after" you repeatedly reverted him, so it can't explain why you started reverting his removals on his own talk page. Fram (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Is this about Talk:Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142? Some section was automatically archived during your hospitalisation, FrancisSchonken said "sory to hear about your health problems", and for some reasons you remove posts by Schonken with unreasonable reason "Unless my health problem are addressed, there will be no further replies to messages", you then remove some text you added with the edit summary "stray text - no need for trolling by Francis Schonken" which is not an acceptable edit summary. I do see a "rvv" edit summary on that page,here, but that was Francis Schonken reverting an IP which attacked you, an edit which was later revision deleted by Doug Weller as "grossly insulting".

If that last edit is the one you are so upset about, then it looks to me as if you totally misread the situation. Francis Schonken never made fun or misused your stroke, and actually reverted as vandalism an anonymous editor who did just that. All your upset edits against him (like the examples I just highlighted, or your reversions on his user talk page) seem to start from this misunderstanding. If this is a correct reading of the situation, then please take a step back and stop treating Francis Schonken like some insensitive bastard, which he doesn't seem to deserve at all. You two don't agree on content issues, fine, but the personal animosity you display seems totally undeserved here. Fram (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that rev/del, unfortunately. It would have helped if you'd thanked Francis Schonken about that, no matter how you feel about him. I also think it's in your own best interest to drop this now. As I told Francis Schonken, it simply isn't important enough. And yes, I saw his response, but that's immaterial. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I saw this several hours ago and assumed Mathsci had misinterpreted this fast removal ("rv") as "rvv". However, that would not excuse the restoration of text a user had removed from their talk page (WP:OWNTALK). Mathsci is great on developing properly referenced, high quality encyclopedic content, and I have seen Mathsci interact well with other users, even when there is a disagreement. However, once a problem reaches a certain point, Mathsci can switch and adopt an inappropriate approach which involves total annihilation. The solution is to never refer to an editor in an edit summary or heading (except at ANI/Arbcom). Give how far this has gone, Mathsci should never refer to FS at all (except at ANI/Arbcom). Instead, provide a dispassionate explanation of the perceived problem, focusing on content and never on contributors. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the BWV 142 article, I'd like to restore this three-paragraph version of the text of the lead section, and what has been removed here. If that needs further discussion, I suppose it is best to have that discussion at Talk:Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142. Unfortunately, that talk page and its edit summaries contain several off-topic comments. Some of these are experienced as quite offensive by me, which I tend to ignore per the recommendations given at WP:NPA#Recurring attacks ("In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and focus on content ..."). So, I'd like to proceed with on-topic discussion only at that talk page. If it helps to remove some of the previous off-topicness I'd support that, but the main focus should imho be that future discussion would be on-topic only. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Major edits

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)

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

───────────────────────── 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)

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) 02:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week

YOu have three times removed the same section with questions from Talk:Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her"[13][14][15], and haven't responded to questions about it from me (before the third such revert) and from Francis Schonken (after the third revert), despite answering everything else. This coupled with your blind reversion of every edit they make, even the most obvious improvements[16], and the previous section on this talk page about you two where you also didn't reply to requests for explanations and links or to the explanation of what you probably misinterpreted. Having a content dispute or not liking another editor are not excuses to ignore all policies and to e.g. remove talk page sections with factual questions (no matter if you believe them to be misguided or not) with "rvv".

I have blocked you for a week now. Fram (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I will respond later. That might take quite some time, because of my circumstances. Please be patient.
  • User:Doug Weller has already spoken to me several times in private about my own health problems and his genuine concerns (my stroke on 29 January 2017, reported in A&E at Addenbrookes Hospital in 30 December and discharged on 11 January 2018. On wikipedia, two other wikipedians have been sympathetic, User:Johnuniq and User:Gerda Arendt. On a wikipedia email at User:Softlavender, I had given a lengthy account. I found it only on 31 January that Softlavender had very kindly responded to me, to which she later referred: "part of the stress was FS's hounding of you." In my wikipedia email I wrote:
You might have heard from Doug Weller and others that on 29 December 2017 in the late evening I had a stroke. That unfortunately was only detected 12 or more hours later. I was unable to speak except in a jumble and one person living at home with me did not know what was going on. Fortunately she eventually contacted the paramedics who worked fairly quickly out that I had had a stroke. I was sent to Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, in A&E (999), very close to where I lived. I was then later sent to the acute stroke ward. I was discharged on 11 January 2018. Before that I was aided by a friend [ ... ], and later by my eldest brother [ ... ].
[ ... ] have kindly arranged for a period of convalescence at [ ... ]; it is continuing here. Yesterday one of the consultants in Addenbrookes by serendipity happened to be investigating another matter unrelated to the stroke incident (syncope). Because of that coincidence, she was able to give me over an hour of her time to explain what had happened and how my heath problems could be remedied. Although impaired, my speech has returned and for example I can still play the organ. However, the stroke initially resulted in my vision being limited and one of the two carotid arteries was damaged by 50% of one of them.
In a less detailed description than I wrote privately to Doug Weller over a week ago, Doug has suggested that you could be of great help. I apologise that this has happened in this way, but you have been kind and considerate to me. If you are willing to discuss these matters with Doug Weller, either in private and/or in wikipedia, that might be a way of improving matters.
I have removed some personal identifiers (a Cambridge College). I have also removed three paragraphs from the account. This is a preliminary statement, mostly concerning my current health. After my health concerns, I will respond directly to User:Fram. Please be patient. Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
On my restored talk page (28 January, User talk:Mathsci#Major edits), there was some kind of incident. It seems that I was not permitted to edit in a normal way. Mathsci (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
My major content editing of BWV 769 on Werner Brieg's Introduction continued, without sleeping, until 7 a.m. on 29 January. Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Fram, without looking into details (no time, really): I know that both Mathsci and Francis Schonken are experts on the topics, but even experts sometimes disagree. Block both, or none, see also another view. I'd prefer none, but don't know how to make them realize that life is too short for edit warring. How about avoiding articles where the other one is a major contributor, or at least go to the talk page right away. Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I have not blocked for content issues, but for conduct issues. Mathsci had been edit warring on FS' user talk page last week, plus was accusing him of things which were clearly false, but has not made any attempt to rectify this or indication that he understood the problem. Since the, he has edit warred on the article talk page to remove a section of factual questions (I don't know and care whether they are in any way correct questions, and Mathsci is not required to answer them if he feels he has answered these things before; but he doesn't have the right to remove them, he certainly doesn't have the right to remove them with "rvv", and he continued to remove them even after I asked about it, and didn't reinstate them after he was given the easy way out with suggestions that it was a "mistake"). Fram (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I speak about conduct. It takes two two edit war. I usually go away. (BWV 4, BWV 10, Der Messias). ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
        • I haven't blocked for the edit war on the article, I protected it. But edit warring to remove text which is perfectly acceptable on a talk page, with false claims of vandalism, and continuing after you have been asked to justify the previous removal and edit summary? That's not a case of "it takes two to tango", that's a case of one person blatantly ignoring multiple policies, and this less than a week after they had a similar "edit war" on that other user's talk page, then to reinstall text FS didn't want on his user talk page (which, again, is perfectly within policy for FS and clearly against policy for Mathsci). That you need two persons (or more) to edit war doesn't mean that both are right or both are wrong. Fram (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Direct response

  • On 29 January I borrowed Butt, John (2008), "Canonische Verängerungen über "Vom Himmel hoch"", in Rampe, Siegbert, Bachs Klavier- und Orgelwerke, Das Bach-Handbuch (in German), Laaber–Verlag, pp. 949–961, ISBN 9783890074597 from the University Library and added commentary on John Butt on the "muical analysis" of Peter Williams.[17] That addressed Francis Schoonken's that I had a second secondary source for the section on 'Musical structure" (apart from Peter Williams). That objection of FS persisted on 1 February three days after the new source was added.
  • "Same section fails the WP:NOTLYRICS policy." No idea what that is supposed to mean: the article BWV 606 (from Orgelbüchlein) uses the same text and translation, without any obection. Similarly the article Vom Himmel hoch uses the same text and translation without the objection "fails the WP:NOTLYRICS policy." I have no idea what FS was objecting to.
  • "Same section fails layout guidance, in particular MOS:SANDWICHING" No idea what this means. It doesn't sound like any standard wikipedia policy.
  • "Insufficient inline citations (most prominently in the Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her"#Musical structure section), failing the WP:INCITE guidance" There are copious notes and reference in this article, careflly annotated notes in {{harvnb}}. There are far more than citations than usual in fact.
  • "Contains typos and other errors, requiring application of the WP:COPYEDIT guidance." There is no policy on correcting small copy-edits on article pages.
These objections were reported three times. The reference on Laaber-Verlag, unearthed by me, was added in the article on 29 January. On 1 February, three days later, all of those invalid objections ("multiple issues") persisted. I am not sure User:Fram has looked particularly carefully at the objections.
On the other hand I completely agree with User:Fram that I should not have reverted those postings, no matter what had been written. It was poor judgement on my part and I apologise without reservations for that. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I have no interest in the content issues. If people post things on the talk page which you believe you have already answered, you are free to reply "already answered" or to simply ignore the questions. You are not allowed to revert them, you are even less allowed to revert them with "rvv", and you have removed them three times, once after I asked about this, and haven't reinstated them after you were asked to. If you feel FS is harassing you or otherwise is making it impossible for you to edit normally by some unreasonable behaviour, you need to seek dispute resolution, e.g. an interaction ban. If the dispute is content-based, you can look for a neutral third opinion. But the way you acted is unacceptable, and considering that your actions had been criticized last week, that I again asked you about these new things on the article talk page, and that I had to protect the article for the actions of both of you, it is clear that you had plenty of warnings and simply continued with the same behaviour. The only reasons I didn't reinstated the indef ban was because more than a year had passed since your last block, and because FS isn't blameless in this sorry episode either (though his actions didn't rise to a clearly blockable level). Fram (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Addenbrookes Hospital, 2–8 February

There was an emergency incident in the evening of 2 February. I was out of contact from then until the evening of 8 February. These started with two episodes of syncope. After roughly twenty minutes of unconsciousness, I was accompanied by paramedics, where there was a second shorter spell of syncope.There they recorded an ECG and blood pressure. After admission to A&E Addenbrookes Hospital, further measurements were made of CE scans, X-rays and echocardiograms. I was transferred to cardiology early on 3 February after blood pressure first continued to drop. After 2 or 3 days, this resulted in hypertension which failed to stabilise. Having consulted the local GP and hospital cardiologists, the previous medication was restored so that normal blood pressure could be regained on 6–8 February. Mathsci (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

PS. I had an implantable loop recorder installed by Addenbrookes Hospital on 7 February. Mathsci (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her", you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minim (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) 09:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Addenbrookes Hospital 23–24 February (A&E), 25–27 February (MSEU ward)

There have been two further emergency periods at Addenbrookes connected with cardiac problems; following the second sets of tests (ECG, X-ray and elevated troponin levels), these have so far been resolved without incident. Mathsci (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

UC Berkeley

I reported that IP user here already. UCaetano (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Update on 18-27 May 2018 hospitalisation

Still in isolation ward N2 following CT scan & colonoscopy. Mathsci (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

2nd stool test also came out negative on Thurs. Now starting 6th week without food. Feeling very weak. The troll/revenge editor who tampered with my personal IP in Newnham, Cambridge, has resulted in my emergency phone (for hospital purposes) now almost running out. This might give a wry smile of satisfaction to the troll/revenge editor, but, like Suppenkaspar/Augustus from Struwwelpeter, this is not really a joking matter. I had 2 hypertensive emergencies last weekend. In a hospital ward, contacting relevant consultants (in this case for stroke follow up) is not straightforward. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The gastrointestinal problem has now been resolved (an expert radiologist had a closer look at the CT scan). Why it happened after 5 weeks is probably unanswerable: the secrets of the Cambridge Whitefriars. Mathsci (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately not resolved ... Mathsci (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The above edits were all made at the hospital, prior to discharge. One month ago, free internet facilities became available there for the first time: the resource is at the moment quite primitive and prone to crash; it involved pointing very carefully one key at a time on the virtual keyboard. Mathsci (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Take care, thinking of you, and WP is nothing compared to well-being! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Would you know what de:Orgelsachverständiger would be in English, or is it just organ expert? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I was very lucky that today at noon the stroke consultant created a new slot for me and I was discharged. I will not give a direct answer to the second question, but it involves royalty and organists. In July 2016 I made edits to the article William Henry Harris, along with its image and caption. Princesses, madrigals and Argentinian honey are mentioned. And don't forget the December 1944 Christmas pantomime, "Old Mother Red Riding Boots." [18][19] Mathsci (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A report has been filed

Please be informed: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_banned_user_commenting_on_topic_ban_violation_on_said_topic Carl Fredrik talk 12:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Certainly a moot point, as the topic ban in question was lifted five months ago: [20]. (Credit to Johnuniq for flagging this at AN/I.) Even if the topic ban were still in force, the report seems to be a veeeeery big stretch, even for "broadly construed". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to a community editing restriction

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

DYK for An Wasserflüssen Babylon

Updated DYK query.svgOn 3 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article An Wasserflüssen Babylon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the hymn tune of the 16th-century "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" ("By the rivers of Babylon") was largely popularized with the text of a 17th-century Passion hymn? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/An Wasserflüssen Babylon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, An Wasserflüssen Babylon), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank for all the work you put into it! Best wishes for your health! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg I was reviewing some of your edits and activities and saw that a few months ago you talked about your health troubles.

I am writing to say that I wish you good health and thanks for editing Wikipedia's math articles. A new user was asking about your work. I was thinking to send this person to you, and I will, but I also wanted to say thanks in general and good health. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Puzzling step in Gauss's construction of isothermal coordinates

Update on September 22: By going back to Volume IV of Spivak, I have figured out how Gauss's construction works, and I have rewritten Section 2 of Beltrami equation to present that technique as I understand it. If there are ideas in your 2012 version of Section 2 that shouldn't be lost and that are not incorporated in my new version, please let me know.

LyleRamshaw (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I have a Riemannian 2-manifold with an explicit real-analytic metric for which I would like to numerically compute isothermal coordinates. In 2012, you extensively edited the page for "Beltrami equation", adding a cookbook presentation of Gauss's construction for this case. I was very happy to see your cookbook, since I find the presentation of Gauss's technique in Volume IV of Spivak a bit too abstract for me. I find most modern research in this area even less helpful; they prove the local existence of solutions under weaker and weaker assumptions, but at the price of more and more complex arguments and with little apparent interest in actually computing those solutions.

Unfortunately, I also don't understand the last few steps in your cookbook. Perhaps z and w got swapped in some of your formulas, or something like that? In June, I added a "Talk" section to the "Beltrami equation" page explaining where I get confused. If you have a chance to look over the issue, I would be delighted for any suggestions.

LyleRamshaw (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)