User talk:RandomCanadian

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Alexander Bielaski DYK

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

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

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

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

@Hog Farm: re. "behaving badly" now I don't want to think I'm seeing ghosts so please, could I have your opinion: is stuff like this (over what seems, at least to me, like a minor affair, no matter who's right); or even stuff like this something that falls a bit over WP:ADMINACCT? Not that I think any action is required (unless there's a long term pattern I'm missing, but that's well above my paygrade), but just to have another pair of eyes... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Probably best to just ignore that - I've seen way worse. I was recently a party to an arbcom motion where a user got desysoped for calling everyone racist for suggesting that stubs should meet notability and verifiability requirements, and that situation is nowhere like that. It's not optimal behavior, but it's probably best to ignore. Not worth the drama, and from what I've seen with those discussions you linked, it seems rather unlikely that the threatened sanctions could get a consensus. Calmer heads generally prevail. Hog Farm _Talk 04:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thanks. Re. Stubs and notability? Don't get me started... Saddened to hear it bears relatively close kinship with prior Wikidrama of that level, though. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

G4 request at Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chemical graph generator​

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

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

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

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

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

Modest flowers

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

section closing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK for Christians, awake, salute the happy morn

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

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

wild garlic

On this day in 1742, He was despised was performed for the first time, and when I wrote it in 2012, I didn't only think of Jesus. Andreas Scholl sang that for us, - you are invited to a Baroque stroll. - The psalms: I think a general article about the psalms and their musical treatment would be desirable, telling such things as metric paraphrases, psalters, and certain composers setting series. In German, we have Psalmlied (psalm song), songs that can replace a psalm in the liturgies. Anything like that in English? - Specifically: could you add to Psalm 115? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

There are the metrical psalters (Genevan psalter, for ex.); and of course a couple of paraphrases. I'd assume churches which favour exclusive psalmody would employ those. Anglicans of course have their brillant method; although AFAICS hymns based on psalms (such as those by Watts or others) are also otherwise employed - I do not know if there's any place (whichever denomination) where they are substituted as is for liturgical psalms, though.

Now, I am personally more involved in French-language usage, but I'm not quite sure that in that instance there is much more besides the old psalters, since there's essentially a dearth of hymns in French because the French protestants were mostly practitioners of exclusive psalmody... There are some translations of hymns from other languages (ex. "C'est un rempart que notre Dieu", and more on that same site). Of course in the Catholic parish where I'm organist the congregation is more used to stuff like post-Vatican II compositions from people like fr:Jo Akepsimas or fr:Joseph Gelineau or more modern ones, but they're all similar in that it sounds and looks (from a theoretical and melodic point of view) closer pop music (repeated notes, sometimes bizarre voice leading in the melody (harmonisations are mostly non-existent, or if they are there then the voice leading is even more dubious), irregular meter, ...) than the hymns familiar to English and German ears. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! A song recommended today is a paraphrase of Psalm 36, written in 1971 by a Catholic author, to a melody of the Reformation from 1525 (and one of the best hymn melodies ever, I'd say), - taking the best of two cultures. It played a role in my life when it was the first church comment after 9/11, before any word was spoken. Singing of "unlimited goodness" then was a challenge, - I remember that every time we sing it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for improving an article about music significant in my life, Bach's motet Jesu, mein Freude by a fine image, among others! From the start to the Main page in 15 years ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The individual psalm settings in Psalms is random (pun intended) and useless. Why 126 by Rameau but not van Nuffel, and both knew that psalm as 125. Just one example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for removing the self-nominated {{prod}} from my stub article. The self-nomination was a test to see whether other people thought that my content is worth keeping. Apparently, somebody else also attempted to write an article on the same subject (also in Draft: namespace) and it got deleted as a duplicate of mine (which started in mainspace, got speedied, then undeleted and removed to draft namespace, and finally put in its present location.)

Since this topic is related to my occupation I suppose I should improve the article... when I have a chance.... Bwrs (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yoninah tribute

You appear to be both supporting and opposing the proposal? P-K3 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: I'm supporting reposting some of Yoninah's best hooks, but not mentioning them directly to our readers on the main page (i.e. keeping the symbolism for us). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just not sure the RfC is set up to reflect that position. Hopefully the closer will figure it out. P-K3 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I think the Support position is exactly yours, there is no proposal to mention her directly. As it stands I think your Oppose is just cancelling out your Support. P-K3 (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: Nevermind me cancelling my !vote; the formatting was confusing. Hopefully I've done a few changes to make it clearer now? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it was confusing. That's much better, thanks. P-K3 (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Closing discussions

Hello, RandomCanadian,

First, thanks for helping me out with the question on Drmies' talk page. Your quick thinking was appreciated. Second, whenever you close a discussion--which is perfectly fine for you to do at the appropriate time--please add {{nac}} either at the beginning of your close or by your signature. This will place "(non-admin closure)" on your closing comments. For some editors, they want to know if a close was done by an admin or an experienced editor so this is just about transparency. It's typically done on WP:ANI. Thanks again for your help! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Can't say no to a request like that, hadn't though of that before (I personally don't really fuss much about it, but I understand some editors might not subscribe to WP:NOBIGDEAL as much as others - or at least given the recent massive RfC over desysoping and of course what some say about RfA, that's likely the case). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. Your close was perfectly fine so that's not an issue. But since some folks care, we just add that bit. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

AFD discussion

Hi RandomCanadian! I would advise not reverting All for Poland's vote in this discussion any more - the user is just going to restore it back, and then it becomes edit warring territory - obviously not good. I completely understand your suspicions about the user, but let's let the SPI report come to a close, and we can move on from there. I just don't want to see you get sucked into a dispute or edit war between the two of you, and I don't want to see you get heat or get blocked over it. Just relax... if you're not Icewhiz, then you have nothing to worry about at all. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Ok, thanks. I've justed filed an ANI thread since AfP (eerily similar to AfD, no?) is quite noticeably NOTHERE - do I really need to give them a notice? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian - Yes. If you've filed an ANI discussion that involves All for Poland, you must notify the user on their user talk page that you've done so. You can use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so easily. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I should really have added that really to the question. In any case, they're already blocked so that's it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yup! Easy peasy! I left you this note because I really didn't want to see you get sucked into edit warring or anything else with the user... not over something silly like this. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: And now I've wasted away an hour of my time when I could have been reading a book or something about this pesky discussion in a bid to help clean-up the current issues with these articles (Crusades and Crusading are pretty much on the same topic...). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, If I had $1 for how much time I've had to waste toward LTA accounts, harassment I've received, ridiculous accusations, the works... I'd be plenty well off... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Last request regarding this, since I can't see: is AnnieGrannyBunny == All for Poland? Or at least do their requests look frivolous enough that they might be socks of each other (and ultimately of a so far unknown, at least to me, master)? In any case the G5 treatment on the relevant bits of the SPI (as done by Amanda previously) might be appropriate. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Willma Gendb

There was nothing inexplicable or puzzling about it at all. The entire point of draft space is to guide new users in the article creation process — so if a draft is too advertorialized to accept, the correct process is to reject it under the "submission is written like an advertisement" criterion, give the creator some direction as to what we're actually looking for in terms of writing tone and sourcing, give them a reasonable (but obviously not unlimited) opportunity to improve it, and then delete it only if and when they've failed to improve it in a reasonable time frame. Drafts are not routinely deleted right away for being advertorialized — yes, it has happened, but it's in no way the norm. The standard process for drafts is "give creator feedback on the problems, and give them a reasonable amount of time to fix said problems", not "rush it into the garbage can right away for exactly the same reasons as it would have been deleted in articlespace" — because giving new users feedback and guidance in creating proper Wikipedia articles is the entire point of draftspace in the first place, and its entire purpose is completely defeated by treating it exactly the same as articlespace. Bearcat (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bearcat: When I leave a message on your talk page, I'd expect to get an answer there. Anyway, IMHO, there's a clear difference between rejecting good faith drafts which need some improvement, and speedily rejecting COI self-written biographies ([2]) which are of a clearly self-promotional nature. I would not have written to your talk page if there was no criticism of your "inexplicable" decline at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Willma Gendb... In addition to strong discouragements, AGF and all, COI editors should be pointedly given notice when their self-written articles do net heed such calls for caution and are so clearly promotional that there's nothing to save from them. If they're not here solely to promote themselves, being told about the problem directly is likely to help them steer clear of future such poor efforts better than making them think their article just needs some minor improvements because "it's written like an advertisement". Also @Athaenara: who apparently fell on the user page (which was a carbon copy of the draft) independently and then when I pointed that out, apparently agreed with the MfD's calls to similarly delete the draft. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I am the one who originally said the decline is inexplicable and it is. The standard for G11 might be lesser in draftspace but it is not exempt from G11, which you heavily implied. It's nothing but a raging advert with no salvageable content. The solution for dealing with promotional material that is irredeemable (and particularly about non-notable subjects) is not declining or rejecting and giving the author(s) false hope of improvement, it's deletion. TAXIDICAE💰 13:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Thewhitebox/Walmartsucks.com

Hello, RandomCanadian,

This draft was just edited in March so it does not qualify as a CSD G13 which requires six months of nonbot inactivity. It is also the subject of a MFD discussion.

Please check the edit history of any page you wish to tag for deletion. You might also want to review Criteria for Speedy Deletion to better understand the criteria and when they apply. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: It was indeed edited in March... to be nominated for deletion... I don't think that really qualifies, does it? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoheadings

I'm not sure how it impoves the encyclopedia to make it less accessible, which seems to be what you're saying, and I don't want to further derail the closure discussion. I'd appreciate it if you could explain further. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mackensen: When there are so few notes, NoMad,_Manhattan#References (as I just fixed it) is better than Special:Permalink/1019687566#Notes, no? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, oh sure, I have no problem with either. My problem is specifically with using bolding to create a fake section heading (as in [3]), because a screen reader doesn't understand it the same way a sighted person would. Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"books and other publications"

I feel your pain regarding Francis Schonken's resistance to your change at wp:NOT. I've done what I can so far to help you out by adding (a) a link for "context information" and (b) the "showing encyclopedic merit" text. I'm thinking that is enough to support this edit.
That said, what do you think about trying to add "publications" (without the "books" part) to the simple listings paragraph?Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow: Thanks. That was an improvement. I avoid making a comment at the recent thread because I don't have much to say. Hopefully our colleague now has the opportunity to self-reflect on his sometimes arrogant and acerbic attitude (the edit warring et al. are symptoms of that, I think). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yet another lab leak discussion

Discussion appears to be heating up at Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Discussion_of_4th_origin_hypothesis. The SARS-CoV-2 article has avoided the worst of the disruption until now, but it seems that it can avoid it no longer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I don't think there's a particular issue with that discussion. The MEDRS sources at WP:NOLABLEAK are rather clear this is a FRINGE position, so the only issue is how, or even if, it can be presented without being UNDUE. Adding the extra information from the MEDRS sources (try something like expanding the first paragraph at COVID-19_pandemic#Background) and updating the current text wouldn't hurt, though. Also don't WP:CANVASS on my talk page? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Chernobyl close

Hi, I didn't !vote in the Chernobyl RM, but I was watching it with interest. I agree that there was not consensus for the proposed change (making Chernobyl a primary redirect to Chernobyl disaster), but I'm wondering if you considered whether there was consensus for the option of DABifying the basename? By my rough count, the headcount for dabifying was something like 14 to 5. (I assumed that anyone who supported the proposed move would also support dabifying as a second choice, since it's basically a middle ground between the current state and the state proposed in the nom. Only two users explicitly opposed dabifying, but I also counted any generic oppose !votes as being against dabifying unless they specifically stated otherwise.) Just wanted to throw it out there.

Also, just FYI, I think you forgot to include the {{RMnac}} tag on your close. Colin M (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M: I found the argument by Kahastok persuasive as far as policy (consistency, naturalness, primary topic) is concerned, and his argument was supported by many (note that his comment, along with Lugnut's, seem to have significantly changed the direction of the discussion, judging by the !votes before [mostly "support"] and after [mostly "oppose" or "dab page"]). The concept of a dab might be a valid one (although the current use of hatnotes seems to be a working solution in getting readers to their intended target), but here is why I didn't close the discussion that way:

1. "Chernobyl, Ukraine" was proposed, but some objected to that as it could be ambiguous, and on general policy grounds, and these arguments were not addressed. Accepting a dab with a move to that suggested title would have been a supervote as there was no consensus (at best, there was some embryonic discussion about that title)
2. Other users supported a dab page (with policy based arguments, such as Lugnuts) without suggesting which title the page should be moved to ("support moving the city article to some other title"...) - this would of course not have been possible to implement without a consensus for a title.
3. Finally, moving to a disambiguation page requires that there be some form of consensus that there is no suitable primary topic. There was, indeed some dispute as to whether "Chernobyl" was an appropriate primary topic. Arguments that the city was the primary topic for the current title (such as those by Kahastok, but also by Nohomersyran and Justlettersandnumbers) were generally more comprehensive in terms of policy than those against (such as by Ortizesp, 36.77.93.104 (who appears to be on a dynamic IP, see Special:Contributions/36.77.0.0/16) or BarrelProof) which were generally statements of belief or opinion or even vague waves at policy without much argumentation. Per WP:NOTAVOTE, I was inclined to give more weight to those arguing that the city was indeed the primary topic, therefore closing with a result of disambiguation would not have been an appropriate assessment of the discussion, IMHO.

As to the NAC, I'm fairly on the WP:NOBIGDEAL side of things, so unless you can convince me that RMs must be closed by admins... (as far as I know, the general requirement for closing any discussion, whether it be AfD, RfC, ..., is "any experienced editor in good standing, provided implementing the result of the close doesn't require administrative tools [save a few exceptions, ex. TfDs]") RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Cool, that all sounds reasonable, I hadn't really thought about the difficulty of identifying consensus for how to disambiguate the city.

As for the NAC thing, I didn't mean to suggest that I objected to you closing as a non-admin (I do non-admin closes of RMs myself from time to time), I was just pointing out that you left out the {{RMnac}} template from your closing message. WP:RMCI says it's mandatory for non-admin closes (though personally I've never understood what purpose it's meant to serve). Colin M (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M: Thanks. That thing saying it's "mandatory" seems like WP:CREEP to me, but anyway, I have bigger fish to fry. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Bellville One-Act Play

Hello, This was my first edit so I'm kind of confused. I don't know what counts as significant, can you please help me out. I thought it was significant because its the first time they went to the state competition ever and the only source that published that information was the local newspaper. Can I cite that and would it make it significant? Itchsg (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Itchsg: The local newspaper is usually not sufficient to establish whether something is really significant. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a "summary of knowledge", not a listing of every fact about it's subject. High-schools participate in competitions, sometimes win, sometimes lose, ... That is, most of the time, entirely routine and non-significant stuff. Now, if, say, non-local newspapers reported about the occurrence (I guess this would happen only if something unusual happened along with it), that might be worthy of consideration. Many things that might seem important shortly after the events are really not, and are instead more just observer bias due to being closely related to the events. See WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS for further guidance. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Itchsg (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Use these tags

Hi. There is a bunch of useful tags used to mark moved discussions {{moved to}}/{{moved from}}, here are examples:

Moved to WP:ANI § COVID: SYNTH, BLUDGEON and MEDRS (moved from AE)

Moved from WP:ANI § COVID: SYNTH, BLUDGEON and MEDRS (moved from AE)

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov: The only thing I "moved" from AE was my own comment (collapsed at the top) and the general spirit of the discussion (i.e. what to do with persistent Idonthearitis...), so besides the notice given textually I don't think the templates were strictly necessary, but thanks for the heads up. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Routine info and thanks for point me to WP:NPOV

Hi. Thanks for the feedback on May 2021. I have no issue with ur comment regarding NPOV and totally agree with you. It was definitely shabby writing on my part. Regarding routine info, should the same be applied on St Thomas's Church, Oakwood's page? JoshuaMRomero (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen Is there a reason for this act of random kindness or should I just enjoy the spirit? Thanks! RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You've been around a long time, and deserved it for faithful and constant service. I've noticed your edits for a long time, and you earned a pat on the back. Gnomes deserve love too. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Polandball

Hello, i'm DinosaurTrexXX33, I saw that in April, you deleted some part of Polandball in section "Other Countries". Can you please explain why you did this? Thanks, DinosaurTrexXX33 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@DinosaurTrexXX33: See WP:V. Information in articles must be cited to reliable sources. Given that none was provided for most of the statements, I removed the information, and summarised the rest. WP:FANCRUFT also suggests that specific details like that might be too much information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a listing of every fact about a subject. If you can find a reliable source which supports the information, feel free to add it back. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Alright, thanks for telling me that. DinosaurTrexXX33 (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!

I have been noticing how good your edits have been and I wanted to drop you a note thanking you. Good job. You can expect a little something extra in the paycheck Wikipedia sends you^{[Citation Needed]} every week. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"Unnecessary archive pages"

Hi RandomCanadian, I created the "unnecessary" archive pages because there was a manual archive at Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis/Archive 1 and 2 automatic archives at Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis/Archives/ 1 and Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis/Archives/ 2. I was just fixing it so that everything is in order. There were 4 because things were in the wrong order some of the time. Hope you understand. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aknell4: That was because the bot was giving a wrong title (for an unknown reason). You could just have moved the two existing bot archives to nos 3 and 4 without bothering. Do check if there's any duplicates now. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I tested the order on a sandbox page, and for some reason the threads didn't line up. There were some threads in the manual one that should've gone to one of the automatic ones and vice versa. I organized things on a page in my talk page and then I divided things. I wanted all the archives to be the same size and I wanted there to be a maximum of 4, but that didn't work out and the 4th one was way overstretched. Thank you for cleaning things up. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, although you probably didn't mean for this to happen, the expansion of the archive pages for Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis have messed up the archives. There are misplaced and duplicate threads across the archives. Just though I should let you know and ask whether I should try to clean it up. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a request

Hi, you marked my article as a G11, I am not mad, I wanted this to be my first Wikipedia article and I wanna get it right, can you help me out, not sure how to not make it seem like an advertisement as it wasn't my goal. I was wondering if you could give me some tips/advice. I'd really like to get this right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkJames1989 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@MarkJames1989: The bigger issue is that you need to cite independent reliable sources to establish whether the subject is notable. WP:GNG is what you need to take a look at. In short, primary sources, such as publications by the subject (youtube videos, self-published website, social media pages...) and interviews, are not enough. I hinted at G11 because of the poor sourcing, but on second look might have been wrong on that. In either case, I suggest you try to make a better article by starting a draft (Draft:YandereDev) and submitting it to the AfC (WP:AFC) process - editors there might have more time and experience to help you (I noticed your edit, here, since it caught my attention because it cited youtube and similar sources, which is usually not that good of a sign). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I appreciate your advice!! I'll do this for future reference. The Wikipedia editing game is a lot bigger than originally anticipated, I will be extra careful in the future and I'll make sure I have even more reliable references like articles and such. Have a fantastic day! MarkJames1989 (talk / contribs) 4:14, 16 May 2021 (PST)

You have chosen your alias wisely: random, moving without purpose. The quality of testimony is the life of argument. For a racist to accuse someone of tyranny tells us more about racism than about tyranny.

It might seem odd if an Encyclopedia Britannica paragraph contained a sentence which cast doubt on a previous sentence, or a later clause, on an earlier clause in the same sentence. As if, "Professor Schama says ISIS is bad but he also says racism is good except when it blames other racists, so his judgment on ISIS is dubious." Now the EB editor might judge that all a bit hazy. Maybe you should change your alias to "hazy Canadian". But the EB editor would more likely remove Professor Schama. A judge might instruct a jury to disregard a witness's entire testimony if the witness was revealed to have undisclosed loyalties to those on trial. In any event, the jury would notice if the witness was arbitrary and capricious. I gather from a brief survey that Wikipedia has no rules on the heart of its process, the production of argument. You could probably not distinguish an opinion from a fact as a matter of theory. The lawyer would speak of a claim and some evidence. All claims are opinions, bare conjectures. So the evidence is required, both to prove the claim but, first, to make clear what is being claimed. What is Professor Schama saying about ISIS? "Tyranny". Isn't racist Israel an outstanding example of tyranny, and isn't the Professor's condemnation of critics of Zionism as racists obfuscation even before it sheds light on the relative racism of ISIS and Israel? His condemnation, "anti-Semites", of critics of Zionism, would have us distinguish good racism from bad racism. You are defending your little corner of the promised land zealously. I had not realized just what it was about Wikipedia that made it irrelevant on any vital issue. I could have figured that out if I'd tried. It is a court hierarchy without a supreme court, but instead some guy named Jimmy, is it? Well, I think we do this mostly to socialize. Don't you? Harsh language is your way of getting attention. Not liking perspective because it interferes with perspective, that's cute. Did you see xinhuanet.com yesterday? But tell me, why your alias?Chrisrushlau (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)