User talk:RandomCanadian/Archive 1

Thine be the Glory
High RC. Do you have a source from which you copied the tune? It's a nice (and as far as I can tell accurate) harmonisation, it just needs some sort of attribution. I don't like fly-by tagging with cn, so I thought a quiet word to you would be more effective. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, it's from "Complete Anglican Hymns Old and New‎"; where the only mention for a composer is Händel himself, and although that hymnal is merely 20 yrs old, I don't think there should be an issue with copyright since when that is the case (ex. Veni, veni Emmanuel then there is a convenient notice to the effect). On a quick look at a vocal score (p. 131 if you're interested) this attribution does appear to be correct as the first 8 bars are exactly the same (once transposed down a fourth to D major) except for some rhythmical adaptations for the German lyrics. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 14:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's excellent, thanks. It means that anyone who doubts yor excellent work can go back and check. :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for your constructive editing! Your edits are greatly appreciated, and I understand that Welcome message was probably very unnecessary, but thank you! Feel free to ask me anything on my talk page if you need any help.

Ed6767 (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 

hymn tunes
Welcome, unless we met over hymn tunes before ;) - Today, we have a special case, Seht, er lebt, no Baroque music but a 1973 poem, - I'd normally guess that a melody was copy-righted, but this one seems to be a traditional from Israel. Question is how traditional, and if we may do lilipond of at least part of it, such as the refrain for which the text is quoted. Melody (for different text) is here, third row. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to that book preview from Canada :( ... Maybe you can do it yourself (see Help:Score for a basic primer, or if you're more familiar with German here) - it shouldn't be too hard if you can read normal musical notation. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 16:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I could try, but the first question is if the melody would be "free" enough to be presented, and I can't tell. It's mentioned with the name "Kol dodi", but I couldn't find a thing. - I changed "de" to "com" in the link above, - can you see that, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it this, perhaps? The only change I notice with the .com link is that the text saying the pages (103-104) are not available in the preview is now in English instead of in German... RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 16:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Or this (which appears to match the meter of the German text)? RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 16:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The above music matches with an (in-wikitext, linked ) audio I found on the web... I will work up on it to add the lyrics and add it to the article. Shouldn't pose problems copyright wise as it's a short quotation used for demontrative/educational purposes (i.e. fair use). RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 17:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick look at the Chabad page, and it claims the tune was written by Alter Rebbe. Putting that name into DuckDuckGo and the top three hits refer to a gentleman whose dates were September 4, 1745 - December 15, 1812 O.S.  If that's correct he's been dead 208 years and any copyright has long since expired of old age! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it's the other tune, which is not ascribed to any author in the source I found... RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 17:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (late to this:) it's the second tune, but (for low-singing congregations) from E. Someone said all these NGL songs are in E minor, and it's not far off ;) - thank you so much! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I compared to the hymnal: they have the second measure exactly like the first, and the last note also a half-note. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think it's better the song can be transposed to e minor using  (and changing the key signature, which is not much trouble). I will change the durations as you describe. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs)  17:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * done, worked! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Motet
What is a motet? Our article doesn't really answer that question. Is Hear My Prayer even a motet? Is Die Sintflut a cantata. In both cases, I think the label is wrong, or at least borderline. I thought a motet is word-driven, and therefore not accompanied, unless colla parte. I thought a cantata is sung but with a substantial independent instrumental part. With these - see Bach - ideas, no to both questions. But If the composer or publisher cals something a cantata it must be a cantata ;) - Who calls Mendelssohn's work a motet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe the proper term could be "anthem"? Anyway, I wasn't making a judgement on the word motet, I was removing the redundant "Christian" right before. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 14:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know, anthem seems to be an Anglican term when it comes to church music, an ambiguous one (could be also a national anthem), and I don't know, - I met anthems with organ, which would not be motets as I understand it, but also not cantatas because for those, several movements seem a must. - - So, I call an thing an anthem when a source does, but would not know exactly what might fall under the description without a source. ever for Bach, that is. - Always learning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not just Anglican, the Methodists certainly use the term and I think the URCs do as well. National- and Pop- anthems are by analogy to this standard Christian usage. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Learning ;) - Can we say English Christian? If that is so, please change the lead of anthem, because there, national comes first, only Anglican is mentioned in the lead. Later it says "essentially English musical form", and claims that it's analogous to Catholic and Lutheran motet, but that seems a misunderstanding what motet means. Shortness seems to be all it takes to be an anthem, while the German motet, as explained above, means a specific way of setting text, not necessarily sacred at all, and some are rather long, see BWV 227). - I would not know a German equivalent to anthem. The German article de:Anthem also only mentions Anglican. The English "national anthem" would be "Nationalhymne" in German, and what English calls a "hymn" (in a "hymnal") would be a Lied (in a Gesangbuch) in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hymn would be Kirchenlied, no? (i.e. Lieder are also what Schubert wrote, and I doubt those would be performed in church...) "English" is not the same as "Anglican" for this purpose; for example there are Anglicans in the USA and elsewhere (and I assume most of them speak English (language), but they are not all English (i.e. England)). In the case of Mendelssohn, maybe simply "sacred vocal work" would be the most simple, if a bit imprecise, solution. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 19:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is getting into a bit of a gray area. An article on hymns might mention that they are called Lied in a section on German practice, but they would still be hymns to the English Wikipedia.  What Germans call anthems isn't really or relevance (except in passing).  As regards the lead to anthem it seems fine to me as it indicates whence the term came.  Later the Etymology and History sections expand on this.  Just my 2d worth! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec also) Officially, hymn would be Kirchenlied. In real life - at (any) church - nobody says so, just "Wir singen jetzt das Lied ..." - In German, Lied is a very general term for anything sung, - I guess "song" would be an equivalent. Only in English does lied mean "German art song". RC, "sacred vocal work" could be an aria, or a hymn actually, but "motet" (the German meaning) requires a choir. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Martin, if you want me to know that Anthem is not just Anglican, it has to be in the lead of anthem, - you can't expect readers to study the whole article if the lead gives the impression of a summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, "song" in English is also very general for anything sung (or, erroneously, for any piece of music...), although in many contexts (such as in a serious academic work) the more precise terms are preferred. "sacred choral work"? Shouldn't we move this discussion to the relevant article talk page? RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 20:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we now looking for something instead of "anthem", or "motet", or what? A "sacred choral composition" can be a motet, but also an "oratorio", while "motet" is a quite precise description. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Which article? No move to a talk, unless we'd know what to ask. - If anthem has a broader meaning than the lead suggests, just change the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

the article we've been discussing, Hear My Prayer... Wasn't the whole point of this that "motet" was the wrong term (and the "anthem" is too specific to the Anglicans)? I'm fine with "anthem" as it stands; but I was making suggestions if you think there's a better way to say this than either term, and "sacred choral work" seemed like a specific enough idea (maybe "song" instead of "work", but in any case I don't think there's any possibility of confusion with "oratorio"...) RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 20:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For me, that article was only a reason to find out what a motet is for whom. I have no more time today, but just find these clarifications helpful. - Monteverdi's birthday tomorrow, and I want to get 3 articles in better shape for it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Fisher's method
I suggested to remove the paragraph on HMP in this article for 3 reasons. (1) HMP was proposed very recently, and has not yet gained wide acceptance in the statistical community [1]; there are currently two published responses to Wilson's paper disputing some of the claims, and as such, HMP should not yet be treated so definitively on Wikipedia. (2) The paragraph on HMP was written by the author of HMP (Wilson) himself, and this suggests a possible conflict of interest. (3) HMP is not an extension of Fisher's method; the two methods have somewhat different goals, although you are correct that Wilson says in his paper that his method complements Fisher's method.

I do think HMP is a valuable contribution to statistical research; and of course scientists can and should promote their research where appropriate. But essentially, I think that we must take care to keep Wikipedia free from potential conflicts of interest, and we must try to ensure that Wikipedia reflects the consensus of the scientific community. If every scientist plugged their own research on Wikipedia, it would quickly become a problem.



— Preceding unsigned comment added by Statsguy123 (talk • contribs)


 * If there is contention within the scientific community then, per WP:NPOV; we simply provide both (all) viewpoints without making a judgement on it. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs)  16:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has explicit policies on conflict of interest editing [1]; my view is that the section on HMP in this article violates the COI policy, because the author of HMP himself created the paragraph on HMP in this Wikipedia article (simply check the edit history). Fisher's method has existed for nearly 100 years, it is very widely used, and it has been cited nearly 20,000 times.  Essentially, this edit is self-promotion, and that is not what Wikipedia is intended for.



— Preceding unsigned comment added by Statsguy123 (talk • contribs)


 * Please sign your comments using ~ (there's even a button for it, Sign your posts on talk pages:) If you think there is a problem with the way that information is covered then try contacting the editor who added it and if that doesn't work go to Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 16:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

My Talk:J. B. Hunt request
Hello! Thanks for your feedback at Talk:J._B._Hunt, I replied your comments, do you think you could take a look? I would love to know your opinion to work out the new section & expand the article a bit more!. Best wishes SamanthaSwiss (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:  Anarchyte  ( talk &#8226;  work ) 12:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
 * Note: Please see the comments I left at WP:PERM/PCR.  Anarchyte  ( talk &#8226;  work ) 12:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2400 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

For Liebster Jesu, the melody in common use is not the one Bach used for his settings, but what you hear in the YT video, actualy more interesting ;) - Could you add that, please? Yes F major. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * gets out notes from theory class : Sounds like this? I'll make something of a 4-part setting so that it doesn't compare too badly with the Bach. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How about just the melody, for easier comparison? That's what the typical German hymnal has, anyway. Only with the 2013 edition of Gotteslob, there were few (!) four-part setting, such as Tochter Zion, and the Taizé Veni, Sancte Spiritus, mentioned in the list, with YT. I could make the latter an article, if you want more work ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * When you get too motivated into something and don't notice talk pages messages or time fly by... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lovely! Can I motivate you to use the words of the second stanza? The one mentioned in the DYK ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I probably should ask no more, but ... could you make - by a repeat after the 1st line - clarify the bar form? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Strange that they don't repeat ... - Good tempo! (Most congrations will go much slower.) - I probably should ask no more, but it's only 2 days from Pentecost, with this List of hymns for Pentecost coming up, and a video supplied for Komm, Schöpfer Geist, kehr bei uns ein (G major in the book).
 * I just took the same tempo as for the Bach :) (I believe I originally took this as example - of course not a congregation so they might be singing a tad faster...). Maybe I should have checked on some other website before making a harmonisation; this appears to be the same tune (though, see, they write down the full repeats too...) (check the audio they provide, it's also at about the same tempo I put). I will check on Komm, Schoepfer Geist in due time. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making me discover this composer; very interesting (although due to copyright can't be included in the article). Though I do have something to work with so I'll see. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The melody should be 1741, out of copyright, no? ... and it's more or less a metrical version of the thousand-years-old chant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not the melody, the setting. Though of course if its just the melody then it poses no problem, but its more interesting if we can have something more interesting. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I know just the setting. Just the melody would be better than nothing, though. I'll expand the article, promised, - same due time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lovely! Just get it down to G major as said above. I know you told me how to do it, but there's RL (real life) waiting, and I don't remember where it was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages
I see you recently accepted a pending change to May 22 that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the edit notice on that page, the content guideline and/or the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. All new additions without references are now being either reverted on-sight or in some cases where the patroller is especially motivated, immediately sourced. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you and please keep up your good work! Toddst1 (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked up the related articles and the information there seemed to be ok and the sources were given so I AGFed, of course totally unaware of this seemingly WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - WP:V states that the information must be verifiable, not that we need to add a citation for everything (and, in this kind of list article, if the page is linked and the information there is sourced, that's easily verifiable). Is it really absolutely necessary to duplicate the information? That seems to me like a little bit of WP:CREEP... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Days of Years (DOTY) pages were becoming a complete mess with incorrect and unverifiable info so things have changed so that all new entries require a direct source.


 * The DOTY project had exempted themselves from verifiability. As a result, almost none of the pages had any sources to back things up, based on the naive (and against Wikipedia policy) belief that all entries would be backed by reliable sources in the linked article.  It turns out that was not the case and the DOTY pages were filled with incorrect info and even worse, other places started believing the info there and publishing the incorrect info in newspapers, for example on "Today's date in history" type listings.


 * So about two years ago the DOTY project took the bold step of requiring that all new entries be backed by direct reliable sources. Several of us have gone through and started cleaning things up.  May 11 is an example of where we want to be. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page.


 * We could use your help in:
 * Preventing new entries that don't include direct sources and when they occur, either supplement them with a reliable source or reverting them.
 * Helping us clean up articles. The project members have asked all participants to go through their birthday and clean the entries up by adding reliable sources to each entry, or removing entries where reliable sources aren't readily available.
 * I hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been seeing your edits around.
Thanks for the good work. And, as Paul Heinreid said to Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, "Welcome to the fight." Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism advice
Hi, thanks for helping with vandalism patrol! When you think you're ready you should apply for rollback permission and get Huggle. I find that Huggle makes monitoring the recent changes feed for vandalism a LOT easier compared to other tools. –Gladamas (talk &middot; contribs) 23:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your revert on List of Philippine National Railways stations
Good day!

Poblacion I is an actual barangay (smallest government unit) name in the Philippines. Our country is a former Spanish colony. That's how our language became similar to Spanish. I hope this clears the issue here.

Cheers!  Hiwilms   Talk   06:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Wajid Khan (artist)
There is enough on google to suggest that a reliable source exists and that the birth date is probably wrong. But I’m not in a position to add this right now (on mobile). Perhaps you can help those newer editors out? Thanks, Prodego talk 03:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out at the article: "Wajid Khan, of composer duo Sajid-Wajid, dies at 42"... Wrong guy, apparently (this one is only 39). Also he is described as a composer, which this artist apparently is not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks right about it being a different person, if you can help sort it out or let the editors know, much appreciated. :] Prodego talk 03:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Turns out it is this one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Atomic core
Hello! Atomic core is not the atomic nucleus. Atomic core is a nucleus plus all inner electrons. Please undo your deletion.Ufim (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Inner electrons" - whatever this article is about, it surely is already covered at some other article (and we don't want duplicate articles...). Maybe Core electron? (which also has the exact same picture...). In any case I still think that "Atomic core" should redirect to "Atomic nucleus" as it's a less surprising outcome... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * In professional scientific literatire (in atomic physics, quantum chemistry and spectroscopy) atomic core always means an atom without valence electrons (i.e. nucleus plus inner electrons), never the nucleus itself. Only books for laymen or children may mix these things. If you tell Google to search "Atomic core" in parentheses, you'll see many articles with my meaning and only one article with "only nucleus" meaning in the first several Google pages.
 * The content of this article is partially covered in the articles about the nucleus, the core electrons, partly not. You are surely not going to delete the Atom article because its content is already covered in Atomic nucleus, Electron shell etc. I think, all the information in the Atom article is already scattered in other Wikipedia articles. You are not going to delete the Cell (biology) article, too, despite its content is already covered in Cell nucleus, Cytoplasm and other articles.
 * The issue of a less surprising outcome can be resolved by Template:About. The template adds the caveat "This article is about the nucleus plus inner electrons. For nucleus only, see Atomic nucleus" in the beginning of the article.Ufim (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite your strawmen: this seems like only a sub-topic. The article you created is rather short anyways so I think it could be reasonably covered in Core electron. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The subject Core electron is a sub-topic of "Atomic core". When the Core electron article was created in 2006, it was only 84 bytes long. My article has been created today, and it was 3207 bytes long. The Core electron article overcame the "3000 bytes" barrier only in 2015.Ufim (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but because it exists, it should go directly in the relevant article instead of being split-off elsewhere. See WP:SPLIT for when we split articles and when we shouldn't. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't want to split an article. I created a new article. Imagine that the Cell (biology) article didn't exist yet, but Cell nucleus, Cytoplasm do exist, and somebody wrote a small article Cell (biology). If I wrote that the Cell (biology) article should not be created because of splitting, would you agree with me? Perhaps not.Ufim (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What you're doing is the opposite. To take you example, assume Cell (biology) was a small article (say, 10 kB). Now say someone writes a small article on Cytoplasm (say, 3 kB). Well then the proper course of action would be to merge the two articles together at 'Cell (biology)' (now a 13 kB article with proper content on an important aspect) with the relevant information from the Cytoplasm article. From what I understand of the above, the description of "Atomic core" most closely matches with the relevant section at "Core electron" (though as a redirect it's also a plausible term for "Atomic nucleus"). My suggestion is to include the information there instead. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Core electrons are part of a core (as well as cell nucleus and cytoplasm are parts of a cell), not the opposite.
 * 2) Core electrons are named after the core (as well as cell nucleus and CYTOplasm are named after a cell), not the opposite.
 * So, my imaginary example (a new small Cell (biology) article while big Cell nucleus, Cytoplasm do exist) makes sense.
 * 3) By the way, why 3207 bytes is a small size for a new article? Most articles in Wikipedia were much smaller when born.
 * 4) Many people which use the atomic core concept are not interested in core electrons. The chemists are interested in valence electrons, while the atomic core as a whole creates the effective field of the atomic core acting on valence electrons. The same is true for optical spectroscopy, they call only external electrons "optical electrons".Ufim (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) If you think about merging now, maybe we should start a merger dicussion, instead of a quick deletion or a quick merger?18:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) If you undelete the article, I can enlarge it by the stuff which cannot be put neither into Core electron nor into Atomic nucleus. The shortness issue will dissappear too.Ufim (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This is "big" (mind, there are other much larger articles); this is "moderate". "Core electron" is currently at only 6 kB (so it's quite a small article). "Most articles in Wikipedia were much smaller when born" implies that those articles where not created in a very competent manner (because if you create even a short article with a few well-sourced sentences, eg. this, it already runs to well above 1 kB)...

If you wish to make a proper article about "Atomic core"; then you should probably ask for a speedy deletion of the current one per criteria G6 or G7 (I certainly haven't deleted it and even if I wanted to, I can't...) and then move "Core electron" to "Atomic core" (to preserve page history). Then you can rewrite the lead so that it's about the atomic core; keeping the existing content on core electrons, and adding your own as you go.

Alternatively, if that's too complex, just use your sandbox to make a proper looking article about "Atomic core" (as you suggest in no. 6) and then when you're happy with it you can ask the redirect be deleted (again using db-g6/db-g7) to make way for a page move. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these proposals. I would prefer the second one: I intend to absorb neither Atomic nucleus nor Core electron. The latter will grow large, because ferromagnetism people and X-ray people look at one or a few core electrons rather than on the atomic core as a whole.Ufim (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for coming in like that, but nuclear/radiation physics is my field of expertise. I looked at my books and there is no mention of either atomic core or core electrons in the index. I believe the core electrons are more related to chemistry than nuclear physics. Technically speaking, there is no such thing as an atomic core (except maybe in a bomb, referencing the plutonium core?). I hope this helps. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this is directly relevant to you. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hans Schmidt (general) & Operation Deadstick pages
Hi RC, Thanks for your message. With regards to my edits, Operation Deadstick was not the name of the Operation to capture the Orne River bridges. It was the name given to the Glider Pilot's training before June 6th.

"And Deadstick, the codename for the glider pilot training, started." Jim Wallwork No1 Glider Pilot

http://www.britisharmedforces.org/pages/nat_jim_wallwork.htm

Deadstick is not referred to by General Gale, not Brigadier Chatterton in their books. Neil Barber also confirms it was the unofficial name for the training. Not the Operation.

Hope this helps?

How can I correct the pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 52ndLI (talk • contribs) 19:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See, the problem is that on WP we use the WP:COMMONNAME for article titles. Operation Tonga already exists and covers the whole of the paratrooper activities of the night. Given that this particular sub-topic has attracted considerable attention, then we use the most common name used by reliable sources for the matter (even if it's not the official title, see for example China and not People's Republic of China). See also the full title guidelines. Given that the IWM refers to this as "Operation Deadstick", and given that a lot of other sources seem to use this too, then it appears to be an unambiguous title for this military operation. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks RC, I am new to editing Wiki pages. But felt the need to in order to make things factually correct. True events 75 years ago appear to have now altered and things have since developed from what was an unofficial nickname into the name of the actual Operation, this unfortunately is not factually correct. However, understand your view point. Just a shame it seems a lot of other sources have got this confused too. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 52ndLI (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If you want further feedback and more knowledgeable opinion on the matter you can try leaving a comment on the discussion page of WP:MILHIST. (oh, and don't forget to sign your comments using ~ ) Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

A random kitten for a Random Canadian
Thank-you for being here today, I appreciate you.

Ifnord (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC) 

Vous parlez un peu français ;)
Alors je me permets de vous poser une question à propos de vos derniers ajouts à la version WP:fr de O haupt voll Blut und Wunden (j'ai créé cet article), je parle un peu allemand aussi et je sais que "Confie à Dieu ta route" n'est pas la traduction littérale du choral original...

En revanche la mélodie de O haupt est le plus souvent chanté en français avec la traduction du texte Befiehl du deine Wege qui se chante aussi sur la mélodie de O haupt. Les sources écrivent le plus souvent "sur l'air de O haupt". Aussi je pense que je vais révoquer la suppression de la mention du texte français. Ou en tous cas j'aimerais en discuter avec vous.

Très cordialement à vous

--Bosay (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * La solution idéale serait de créer un article sur Befiehl du deine Wege et d'aborder le sujet à cet endroit. Si on désire mentionner le lien entre les deux chants dans l'article sur O Haupt, la manière la plus simple d'exprimer le tout sans induire confusion aux lecteurs serait d'indiquer directement que 'Confie à Dieu ta route' est une traduction de Befiehl du deine Wege, qui est également chanté sur la mélodie de Hassler (je l'ai déjà entendu chanté sur d'autres airs, par exemple celui-ci, mais bon...). Merci, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Merci ! Je ne l'avais jamais entendu au temple sur l'air de Hassler mais uniquement sur l'air de O haupt, d'où ma surprise : le problème étant de considérer les chorals et leurs traductions comme des formats : poésie + mélodie (auquel cas chaque traduction mériterait un article différent, dans l'absolu), juste mélodie (auquel cas O haupt = Befiehl = Confie à Dieu ta route) ou juste poésie (au quel cas Befiehl = Confie à Dieu ta route ≠ O haupt)... Je serais pour ma part pour la première proposition mais cela, il me semble, diffère selon les chercheurs auxquels on se réfère. Votre dernière modification me plaît davantage puisque, en France, "Confie à Dieu ta route" est un tube autant que "O haupt" l'est pour les germanistes. Le mieux serait en effet de créer "Befiehl" ce que j'essaierai de faire selon le temps très vite sur WP:fr. Merci à vous,--Bosay (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, j'aurais peut-etre pu mieux structurer mes idées; pour clarifier: la mélodie de Hassler est celle que vous connaissez et celle que Bach emploie dans la Passion selon St. Matthieu (BWV 244) (voir O_Sacred_Head,_Now_Wounded); l'autre mélodie est de Bartholomäus Gesius. Concernant les multiples articles je note qu'en général sur WP:EN ils portent le plus souvent sur la combinaison texte + mélodie (lorsque le texte est connu sous plusieurs mélodies, ex. O Little Town of Bethlehem, on prend la peine de mentionner les variantes les plus importantes), quoi que si la mélodie est suffisament connue et qu'elle n'est pas trop fortement associée à un texte en particulier c'est possible d'avoir une page sur la mélodie, ex. Cranbrook (hymn tune) ou Hyfrydol. Je note également que deux des ouvrages les plus compréhensifs sur le sujet, le Dictionnary of Hymnology de John Julian (1892, 1907) et le succeseur moderne de cette publication, le Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology, semblent tous deux se concentrer principalement sur l'aspect textuel. Si vous voulez un petit coup de main pour traduire le tout en francais n'hésitez pas. Merci, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Ye Choirs of New Jerusalem
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Excellent expansion, thank you! - Any chance for lilypond for Nun jauchzt dem Herren, alle Welt, - want to expand that? Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist? Catholic melody there but not yet the more interesting one by Walther. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * When I look at "Nun jauchzt dem Herren" I immediately think of the Old 100th tune because it's (unsurprisingly) a perfect fit. I assume the melody you are actually referring to is this one? Or this alternative one? Regarding Nun bitten wir: would Bach's setting be ok? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Franzdorfer is it ;) (hymnary is a different hymn: "Nun danket alle Gott".) The Bach setting is interesting, but the melody quite embellished. Better for the cantata in question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A little, hopefully without too many mistakes, attempt at German Das Lied "Nun danket alle Gott" ist mir bekannt... Auf die Hymnary Seite habe zwei lieder; der zweite ist "Nun jauchzt dem Herren" mit der Melodie von "Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend"... Well in any case I'll get to doing it; too bad there's no suitable setting for that from any composer I know of. For 'Nun bitten wir": Crüger's setting (pages 171-172 in the given document) seems rather simple if I discard the two added instrumental aprts and doesn't have much in the way of passing tones, so I'll go for that. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, great. The Walther settings are closer to Luther's time but too complex. Should probably be linked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How bad was my German? Done with the Crüger, I'll take a break for now and I'll figure something for Nun jauchzt later on. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for Crüger! I plan to expand the other over the next days. - German: not bad, I got what you meant. My version would be: "Ich kenne das Lied ... - Die Hymnary-Seite zeigt zwei Lieder, das zweite ist ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Ist das Tempo richtig? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, not when I sing it alone, then twice as fast (happy dance), but probably yes for Crüger, knowing what the other instruments would have to do. As we don't see the other instruments, how about somewhat faster. I talked to a conductor today who was in the Thomaskirche and in Divi Blasi and said that the latter is so resonant that it calls for slow tempo and little harmony change (Aus der Tiefen), while the former is rather dry, and every little fast movement will be heard. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't Cruger (it's me, since I couldn't find a setting anywhere)... Do tell which stanza of text I should put, I'll correct the tempo. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you even more for the effort, - now I remember, Crüger's was the other one, - first stanza please, - "säumet nicht" means don't be slow (better word wanted, translation program is no help). - DYK the totally different setting of the same text (well, sort of) by Max Reger? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If the meaning you are hinting at is no. 3 here then it would be "Don't delay". If I translate rapidly the first stanza based on this then it would go:


 * Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's the one, - interesting that English has no word. "Don't wait"? - Come to serve him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If I take the literal meaning of "To do something later than it could be done without a good reason" then that would be procrastinate. In the context of the hymn though if I had to make a translation I would probably replace the negative with the opposite word, i.e. "Hasten, come with rejoicing" (which, funnily enough, if wiktionary is to be believed, means rather the same thing in German...). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding YT: this? Or maybe not, because we don't hear the singing that well... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and any comment/improvement/suggestions for There is a green hill far away? Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lingualpfeife: impressive young man, but I try to stick to the official Gotteslob videos. The other is a bit on the showy side, too much prelude, and when he finally gets to the song, slowing down, - while I believe that a good prelude should set the tempo. "Your hymn" next week, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Nun jauchzt", not sure if we need a link to Gloria Patri, after we had one to doxology further up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I searched for a translation of "Nun jauchzt", and hymnary gave my "All people". I realised then that it was earlier, but still think its juxtaposition to the German would help readers understand where Denicke departed from the plain psalm rendering. Also: we don't have the complete text of "All people" anywhere. Will you write an article about it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the suggestion to place "All people" on Psalm 100: that has too many translations already, we don't need several metric versions there on top. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should have answered on your talk page to avoid having the conversation over multiple pages Well, both texts are based on the same Psalm so it is unsurprising that they have similar features. It remains that hymns are usually considered as a grouping of text + music (as I pointed out to the editor from french WP below, if you understand) and "All people" is not usually sung to the tune of Nun jauchzt (read between the lines: I have only ever heard it sung to one tune and you know which one)... Regarding what I suggested on Psalm 100: no, not placing it there; the Psalm_100 section has no text and we could mention there that there are multiple hymns based on the text (without giving the full text there, naturally). I see the same article already gives the full text by Kethe: Psalm_100. I'll see what I can do on making an article for "All people"; the only resources I have access to (currently) is what can be found on the internet (i.e. mostly this; hymnary; and the digitised version of John Julian's A Dictionary of Hymnology) and partial access to this wonderful website. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Merged to article talk as you suggested. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Waking up ;) - Just between you and me, teh history. I looked for a translation of "Nun jauchzet", found that hymnary page, inserted the text, and only then found (per year and number of verses) that Kethe probably translated the Becker psalter version, which you can use in your new article. The longish ref has details about how it compares to Denicke, which I'll insert if I get to it, - needs time. I want to make "Nun jauchzet" a GA for private reasons, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

German
I think we should avoid speaking German on article talk, which may remain a mystery to others ;) - but how about learning?
 * "Warscheinlich, aber dies ist die Englische Wikipedia, so das ist keine Probleme für uns." good, better:
 * Wahrscheinlich, aber dies ist die Englische Wikipedia, so ist es für uns kein Problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi RandomCanadian. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have&#32;temporarily [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ARandomCanadian enabled] rollback on your account&#32;until 2020-07-22. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

WP:AFC Helper News
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest. Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
 * The template db-afc-move has been created - this template is similar to db-move when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

1962
I added the short description from Wikidata. Ffffrr (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, not Wikidata. Short descriptions which are essentially a restatement of the article title are not useful. See WP:SHORTDESC, in particular WP:SDNONE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did it to match the other articles. Ffffrr (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The simple solution is to go and fix those other articles, not repeat the same mistake just because it's done everywhere else (that would be the typical appeal to tradition)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I figured since that was how the previous editors did it I would do it like that too. Ffffrr (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, those previous editors were wrong. Again, simple because other people did it doesn't mean it needs to be repeated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess you’re right. Ffffrr (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Rheinmetall sourced entirely to corporate website. Thank you. --Schierbecker (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Friendly FYI
Moving content to Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to have created some cite errors in the references on that page. Missing named refs which I assume are still in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I'd help fix now but have to head out. Will check again and help when I get back to WP. Just noting here in case nobody else saw it. --N8 17:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's only one source ("AP_stand_firm"), which does not appear in the original article either, so I'll have to dig through the page history to find it... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow. You got that fixed fast. Thanks and apologies for jumping to conclusions - I saw it right after the move and assumed that contributed but sounds like it may have been present for some time before that. Thanks again! --N8 21:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello RandomCanadian! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)