User talk:Francis Schonken

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

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

Victionarium → User talk:Francis Schonken/Latinus

Archives: Archive 01 - Archive 02 - Archive 03 - Archive 04 - Archive 05 - Archive 06- Archive 07

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Johann Bach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Magnificat (Torri)

The article Magnificat (Torri) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Magnificat (Torri) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Juliette Han -- Juliette Han (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alles mit Gott und nichts ohn' ihn, BWV 1127, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adagio.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source code of scores

Libre art source code, have a nice day :) http://libreart.net/libreart-a4/libre-art-music/d/e/esurientes-r.ly SZERVÁC Attila (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

	The Original Barnstar
	For figuring out the answer to my quandary @ Talk: wp:Middle initials --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw the RFC's are on different topics. Thanks!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

Hello Francis. An editor has opened a complaint at WP:AN3#User:Francis Schonken reported by User:Nemo bis (Result: ). You can respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks regarding MOS:CITEPUNCT

Funnily enough, I have never noticed the second listed exception in MOS:CITEPUNCT until your revert. A genuine thanks! — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is POV edits by Francis Schonken on Murder of Samuel Paty. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assem Khidhr (talk • contribs) 17:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty has an RFC

Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Assem Khidhr (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Reverting a bot with a valid, presently-uncontested BRFA with the rationale "unauthorized bot", then dropping an edit warring template on the operator's talk page, earns you the kind version of this template. You should cease post haste. Izno (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harv ref error query

Hi Francis, I hope you're doing well. I was going through the harv errors on WP Classical music GAs and found one on Magnificat (Bach) which you are the primary contributor for. The culprit is ref 101 (Rilling) which doesn't connect to anything in the biblio. Any idea what it's supposed to connect to? If it helps, there's this very helpful script you can install to spot these quickly, I've been using it myself and found it very helpful. Also, while I'm here, I'll be resuming the Kleiber list in the a week or two (have some other stuff I want to get through first) and will probably find myself coming to you for insight/advisement (if you're still willing of course). Best - Aza24 (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Discussions are ongoing on the article's talk page, so the the page has been reverted to the version before your changes. Debresser (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin

Hi Francis! I thought you might like to take a look at this which one of our friends has thought appropriate - I don't know whther you should be pleased or insulted that he has left you out! --Smerus (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smerus: I have the DRN page on my watchlist, and was typing my comment there while you were typing yours here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Francis Schonken, thank you for your interest and for your contributions. I didn‘t want to left you out on the DRN, I just was not sure how many users can be added and that’s why I just picked the ones shown on the list there now. But of course you are very welcome to contribute! Best,--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Francis, would you allow me to make some small changes to your suggestion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Francis Schonken portion? I'll keep my additions separate on the main board, and you may revert me at any time. François Robere (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Seems much better you would write your own suggestion (you can of course copy as much as you want from my proposal in the one you write), per the instructions laid down by the moderator. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll do that. François Robere (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frédéric Chopin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Walker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin RFC

Thank you for publicizing, Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Meine Seele erhebt den Herren (Hoffmann), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anhang.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wer ist der, so von Edom kommt, TWV 1:1585

I have noticed that you had reverted the two edits I made to both the article about Telemann's Palm Sunday cantata from the "Französischer Jahrgang" Wer ist der, so von Edom kommt TWV 1:1585 and the relevant part in the Passions-pasticcio "Wer ist der, so von Edom kommt". The changes I made were based off the score and parts of the cantata Library Signature D-Fmi Ms. Ff. Mus. 1473. They should therefore be reinstated. --Dgljr5121973 (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reversal of Calvin Ayre edit

Hi… I was wondering if you could explain the reasoning behind your decision to undo my recent revisions to the Calvin Ayre page. My edit may not have resolved all of the page’s issues, but if part of the problem was that the page read like PR, I thought that eliminating some of the extra detail was at least a step in the right direction. Thanks. GorgeHoward (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion notice

A discussion has been started at WP:ANI#Mathsci Iban violation. You are welcome to participate there, but considering the Iban you are under, it may be wiser not to. Best to keep an eye on it though, as people may discuss your edits or have questions for you as well. Fram (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied

Hi, and thanks for reverting my mistaken edit! However, Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied currently links to a disambiguation page, which lists various works by this name. Should it link instead to Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied (spelled slightly differently), the original hymn by Matthäus Apelles von Löwenstern? If so, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied, where I propose that article be renamed. Lennart97 (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops my bad (last month) → corrected --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Busoni AfD

I don't know how to rescue that page, but it's a shame to delete a sortable formatted list like that merely because it includes some less significant information in addition to the presentation of the majority of his works. I don't have the technical skills to retool it, but if you are interested in appealing the close or working on it in draft space, that would be a great public service, in my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said during the AfD, imho the real job ahead is to get List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni, List of adaptations by Ferruccio Busoni and Ferruccio Busoni discography up to notch. If you think that the deleted page may be of help for such tasks, then ask a WP:REFUND for the deleted content (any admin can put the deleted page in, e.g., draft space or your user space), so that it can be "harvested" for such maintenance work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as to the objective. Meanwhile, @Gerda Arendt: has archived the deleted page in user space and I've made a copy in mine as well. At least the formatting can be repurposed. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, proceeded with this – which settles it for me for the time being (that is: without prejudice about major improvements across the topic area). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography. Thank you.--Smerus (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. oncamera _{(talk page)} 06:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your IBAN with MathSci

As you are of course aware, you are subject to an interaction ban with MathSci. The point of IBANs is to put a halt to disputes between two editors. Such IBANs are dramatically undermined when one or both of the editors involved fail to honor the spirit of the IBAN.

The action you have taken to create Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music violates the spirit of that IBAN. I am not the only person who thinks so (@Drmies: letting you know of this in case you wish to respond). An action can be taken that is 100% correct and otherwise in the best interests of the project but still cause significant harm if it violates an IBAN. This is what has happened here with your creation of that article (note; I am not asserting the split is 100% proper; I've not analyzed that, so no comment on that). This sleeping bear did not need to be poked, most especially when the other editor subject to the IBAN was blocked.

This IBAN was placed to stop this ongoing dispute between the two of you, not make it worse. As Fram noted in that original thread that resulted in the IBAN, a topic ban on either or both of you would be tough for either of you. If the spirit of the IBAN continues to be violated by either of you, I think the community would consider topic bans in this subject area as the next step to end this dispute. If an IBAN is incapable of ending this dispute between the two of you such that the two of you can continue to edit in this subject area without causing further problems, the IBAN will have failed and other actions will need to be taken to stop the dispute.

An IBAN means you are going to have to take steps to ensure that anything you do on articles, especially in this subject area, are not things that are affecting the edits done by Mathsci, and that needs to be broadly construed. Please carefully read WP:IBAN and consider the spirit of that policy. I make particular reference to where it says "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;". Splitting off a section of an article written by Mathsci, then pointing to it, is to say the least provocative. This was not necessary. There are times when one can see something they think needs to be done but shouldn't take action because of the unintended consequence of aggravating a situation. This, for you, should have been one of those times. This didn't generate a bright line violation of the IBAN, but it unquestionably violated the spirit of the IBAN. Greater caution on your part needs to be taken to avoid this happening in the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: thanks for your time. Is there any action you suggest for me w.r.t. the Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, thank you: you said it well and I appreciate you taking the time to write this up carefully. Francis, I think you're asking if the calf can somehow be saved by pumping the water out of the well, as the Dutch might say; the calf is drowned. Speaking for myself (I do not wish to presume to speak for Hammersoft), the horse has left the barn (as the Brits might say), and what I would be looking for from you is recognition. I don't know if contrition is too much to ask, but if you ever wish for a more collegial atmosphere that would be a good start. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(@Francis Schonken) No, as I've not investigated the appropriateness of the fork. More abstractly, edit warring regarding this or any other issue is something you are well aware is a serious problem. You have been repeatedly blocked for edit warring before, the most recent being a year long block. Despite this, your talk page even now is replete with warnings about edit warring you have been doing and links to noticeboard discussions about edit wars you have been involved with. You've been here a very long time. You know full well about our Wikipedia:Edit warring policy. You've been blocked for edit warring eight times in the past. I find it difficult to understand how you could construe edits such as your attempt to force {{Split portions}} onto Clavier-Übung III as anything other than blatant edit warring.

Let me be crystal clear here, and forgive me for being blunt. I am trying to help you in saying this. I've been looking into this for the past couple of hours now. I am quite displeased with what I have been seeing. You've been here for 17 years and have nearly 70,000 edits on this project. At this point, if you don't understand the expectations we have of editors in regards to collegial editing, I dare say it's unlikely you will ever obtain this understanding. A suggestion was made in 2018 to indefinitely block you (see discussion). You were blocked for a year at that time. Since then there have been a large number of discussions regarding negative aspects of your editing behavior (1, 2, 3, to name but a few). This combined with the above concern I voiced regarding your Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music article, and the reality that that might not have been isolated (see discussion), paints an extremely grim picture of your editing here.

I am not the first one to piece parts of this mosaic of your editing together. You are standing on exceptionally thin ice. Worst of all, you may not even realize this is the case. If there are continued problems with your editing, most especially with regards to edit warring, it will almost certainly result in another noticeboard discussion regarding your editing here, and I would not at all be surprised if such a discussion considered a site ban for you. I urge you, in the most adamant terms, to reconsider your actions here in edit warring and with regards to your IBAN with Mathsci. At an absolute bare minimum, you should place yourself under a permanent WP:1RR restriction on any article. Stray but a little, and this stands a very strong chance of ending badly for you. I could have created a new noticeboard discussion regarding your behavior with what I have found in the last couple of hours. Had I done so, I probably would have suggested a site ban. I am not saying this to threaten you. I am here as a last ditch effort to communicate with you about the very serious problems I am seeing repeated over and over and over again with your behavior. I could have used a template here to give you a final warning. Instead, I decided to craft this post to be as clear as possible. You should unequivocally consider this a final warning. Please, I beg of you, amend your editing behavior now. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC) (@Drmies: sorry for taking more of your time. I would appreciate a review of the above and your commentary. Thanks.)[reply]

@Hammersoft: (1) On February 15 Francis Schnoken reverted a number of my edits at WP:REDLINK, saying "take to talk." I took it to talk. (2) On February 24, with discussion in progress, Francis Schnoken changed the text being discussed. A third editor pointed out on talk that "We need a stable version if discussion is to be worthwhile." (3) I then revered FS's February 24 version back to FS's February 15 version (the version under discussion). (4) FS has now reverted back to FS's February 24 version and given me a 3RR warning. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken, was there some part of what I wrote above that was not clear? This can not be ignored and tossed aside as nothing to be concerned about. I said you were standing on thin ice. This latest action of yours is nothing short of jumping up and down as hard as you can trying to break the ice under your feet. You are at the point of daring the community to ban you. If there is some part of this you do not understand, ASK me. This message is on your talk page, a place where you have engaged people multiple times. You can not say you didn't see this. There is no excuse, there is no quarter at this point. You have been on this project for 16+ years. You are risking throwing that all away because you want a preferred version of a page while discussion is ongoing. How can you do this? This ends. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert)

The article Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227

The article Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227

The article Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slick that this is up to GA-status now; however, I did not add importance levels where they were missing because I'm not an expert in the subject, so I would suggest you probably doing this instead. --K. Peake 12:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography has been accepted

Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

GeneralPoxter (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and BRD

I would like to note the following series of edits:

7:09 16 March 2021: With this edit you add external audio [1], and pictures File:Cantigas - Bell player.jpg and File:Vredesbeiaard met tuimelaar.jpg. With edit summary: "add external audio, and another bells image"
12:22 16 March 2021: Nikkimaria reverts this content [2] with edit summary "rm gallery per WP:IG; rv poor-quality audio + OR note"
14:08 16 March 2021: With this edit, you revert Nikkimaria with edit summary "revert step of WP:BRD".
20:24 16 March 2021: Smerus reverts this edit with edit summary "Take this to talk page if you wish it to be restored"
20:27 16 March 2021: You revert Smerus [3] with edit summary "this was already a BRD".
21:43 16 March 2021: Smerus reverts [4] with edit summary "WP:BRD is supposed to be a means of obtaining consensus. It is clearly not being helpful in obtaining consensus here. Please raise on the talk page, rather than just re-reverting"
3:03 17 March 2021: You place a uw-3rr template on Smerus' talk page.

Your application of WP:BRD is wrong. It should not be necessary to explain this. But, here I am. WP:BRD isn't policy or guideline, but if you are going to invoke it please do so correctly. The order of operations here is this:

You make an edit
Someone reverts your edit in part or whole
You discuss

Step 3 is not revert the person who reverted you and tell them to discuss. The onus is on you to explain/rationalize your original edit at appropriate venues, such as the article talk page.

This incident is not isolated. It did happen after I gave you the very sternly worded final warning I gave you above at #Your IBAN with MathSci. Other similar incidents happened on 23 February 2021 at Johann Sebastian Bach and 27 December 2020 at Classical music.

I would also like to note that someone else failing to abide by WP:BRD is not a reason for you to continue to revert them. I.e., if the following scenario happens:

Someone makes an edit
You revert them, and invoke BRD asking them to discuss
They revert without discussion
You revert again

Step 4 should never happen. What should happen is you initiate discussion with them, making sure they are aware of the discussion and work collaboratively to a solution.

To be extremely blunt, I should not have to explain this to you. You've been involved in umpteen edit wars, and have previously been on a 1RR restriction before. I fail to understand how the BRD cycle is unclear to you. Furthermore, you appear to have understood how to properly apply it in some cases such as with Monkbot's edit here being reverted by you with this edit. That IS the appropriate application of BRD. An edit is made, a revert is made, discussion ensues if the revert isn't acceptable to whoever made the original edit.

Given the above sternly worded final warning I gave you above, I dare say there are many administrators who would have blocked you for months, if not indefinite for the March 16 incident at Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53. Frankly, I'm absolutely astonished that you would even begin to countenance the idea that your March 16 actions on that article were somehow correct. The only reason I am here explaining this to you rather than block you for edit warring is that in the time that I have spent (which, honestly, I wish I didn't have to spend) looking into past threads regarding your edit warring, nobody apparently explained in explicit detail that your application of BRD is wrong.

With all the past blocks for your edit warring, with all the past discussions regarding your edit warning, with the sternly worded final warning I gave you above (specifically this edit), there simply aren't any options moving forward. If any incident like this or any other kind of edit warring happens again, I will initiate a discussion to request your permanent ban from Wikipedia. I will provide copious evidence to that end, as I do not believe a site ban is a trivial matter. Am I clear? Is there anything about this that you do not understand? This is on your talk page. You can't say you haven't seen this. Amend your behavior. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I used to get it right in the past (as you indicate), I need to get it right again. I hope this is a better handling of the situation. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given your interaction ban with Mathsci, performing this edit was potentially provocative. I would never have taken that action with WP:BRD in mind. The edit was wholly unnecessary as it did not in any respect affect the rendered format of the article. While technically your edit did not violate your WP:IBAN since it did not change anything Mathsci did, the technicality is dancing on the head of a pin. I strongly encourage you to avoid making any similar edits in the future. Such provocation, most especially when it has no effect on the rendered article, is not conducive to collegial editing on the project nor is it in keeping with the intent of an IBAN. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IBAN violation

As you are of course aware, you are subject to an interaction ban with Mathsci.

On 19 March 2021, Mathsci made this edit which added the English translation of the hymn text. Today, you changed the rendering of that text with this edit. This is a violation of your IBAN with Mathsci.

I am not going to block you for this incident. However, any further incidents will result in a block. You have not been blocked for violating the IBAN with Mathsci before. Please do not start down this slippery slope. Please carefully read and adhere to WP:IBAN with regards to Mathsci. I am well aware that it is difficult to work on the articles where you and Mathsci both edit without affecting the content produced by Mathsci. Yet, this is what you are required to do as a result of the IBAN. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Review requested: I have blocked Mathsci for three months for IBAN violation. Thank you. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am an uninvolved observer and am only doing the needful, as, though the discussion is not about you (or should I say, wasn't exactly about you when initiated), editors are commenting on you. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert)

On 21 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Sonata in C major for piano four-hands by Franz Schubert was, for over a century after its publication in 1837, thought of as a symphony in disguise? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Kyrie–Gloria Mass for double choir, BWV Anh. 167

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kyrie–Gloria Mass for double choir, BWV Anh. 167 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend adding the appropriate wikiprojects to the talk page (I would, but honestly I'm not familiar with the article's topic). --K. Peake 12:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added the Germany and Classical wikiprojects but if there are any more to be added, I strongly suggest to since you are the one who has an expertise in the subject. --K. Peake 12:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Kyrie–Gloria Mass for double choir, BWV Anh. 167

The article Kyrie–Gloria Mass for double choir, BWV Anh. 167 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Kyrie–Gloria Mass for double choir, BWV Anh. 167 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Kyrie–Gloria Mass for double choir, BWV Anh. 167

The article Kyrie–Gloria Mass for double choir, BWV Anh. 167 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kyrie–Gloria Mass for double choir, BWV Anh. 167 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prelude in C minor, BWV 999, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Convolute and Fascicle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of orchestral works by Johann Sebastian Bach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soloist.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits, and engaging in edit warring.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to ban you from the project.

I have made a proposal to ban you from the community. If you wish to make a statement in opposition then please post it here. I will copy it to the AN/I discussion. User:Hammersoft says they will monitor your talk page as well so that, if I am away from my computer, they can copy and paste it instead. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, if you wish to make a statement at the ban proposal and Butwhatdoiknow hasn't already copied it, I will happily do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban

Per this discussion, your conduct on en.wikpedia has unfortunately resulted in a community ban being imposed on you. If you wish to be considered for unbanning at any point, please consult the procedure at WP:UNBAN. — Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Authority control Q

Template:Authority control Q has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:NotRef

Template:NotRef has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lists of music by Ferruccio Busoni

Template:Lists of music by Ferruccio Busoni has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:ChoR

Template:ChoR has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:UO" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:UO and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 14#Wikipedia:UO until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Q 𝟤 𝟪 08:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:MotR

Template:MotR has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman-era philosophy has been nominated for merging

Category:Roman-era philosophy has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Missa in B minor, BWV 232 I (disambiguation)

The article Missa in B minor, BWV 232 I (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). The primary topic redirect points to an article section with a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mount Qingcheng (disambiguation)

The article Mount Qingcheng (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation is not needed. Other than the primary topic, all DAB entries are partial title matches.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Christe qui lux es et dies" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Christe qui lux es et dies has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § Christe qui lux es et dies until a consensus is reached. Felix QW (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Elisabeth of Belgium" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Elisabeth of Belgium has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 6 § Elisabeth of Belgium until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat: Contentious topic designation removed

Hello Francis Schonken,

As a very late update to the Prem Rawat arbitration case, the contentious topic designation, previously "discretionary sanctions", originally "article probation", has been removed following a successful request for amendment.

Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure.

This notification may be mostly unnecessary, but as you had been a party to the original case, I thought you might be interested in hearing that after about 15 years, this remnant has been removed. Until today, it was listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions § Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Western philosophy has been nominated for deletion

Category:Western philosophy has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]