User talk:RandomCanadian/Archive 2

Revision deletion
Thank you for removing the copyvio from Barbara Lee and requesting revision deletion. For your information, I think you requested the wrong revision to be deleted. If you look at the history of the article you should no longer be able to view the offending text, but I actually revdelled the revision before the one you requested, the edit in which it was added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I see you also tagged John Weisbrod for revision deletion but I don't see that any revision deletion is needed here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding Weisbrod: this revision has some text which is clearly copy-pasted from the press release; eg. compare


 * with


 * In other words, a nearly-perfect match... Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm new to revision deletion and I'm still learning! This case looked complex so I left it, and I see that Primefac has now dealt with it. If I had examined the IP's edit more thoroughly I guess I would have seen that he did not just remove a large chunk of information but had also replaced it with a copyvio, one which was considerably shorter than the original text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Squirrel1515 has just readded the offending text... Revdel (and maybe block or page protection) needed again. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

RedWarn - Quick Survey
Hello RandomCanadian! Thank you so much for testing RedWarn so far. I kindly ask that you fill in a short survey regarding the future of RedWarn and to help me visualise general user opinion surrounding certain features.

To access the survey, visit: https://devices.edxt.net/redwarnSurvey

Thank you again for your continued feedback and support, it is greatly appreciated. Ed6767  talk!  22:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

If you'd like to opt-out of receiving messages regarding RedWarn, or have any questions, please let me know on my talk page.

Regarding H:DUMMY
Ah - I didn't know. Thanks for enlightening me.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd
Hi RC. Thank you for closing the lead image discussion at Killing of George Floyd. I wanted to ask you if you think the whole lead image thread and all its sub-parts, not just the RFC, should be closed? The other two threads are proposing changing the image: one to a different frame of the video, and the second to a different crop of the same frame. With the RFC closing with consensus to keep the current image, it seems both of those suggestions are now moot, and changing the lead image would require a new RFC. It's your call as closer but I wanted to suggest closing the whole thread and not just the sub-thread. Thanks again, Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 02:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Many discussions don't require formal closure, but yes, looking at it more thoroughly they entirely dependent on the premise of the RfC so I have closed it too for convenience. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Praise, my soul, the King of heaven
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"Fashion cigarettes" article
Hello RandomCanadian, I agree that a citation would have been necessary for the recent change I made, but I must observe that none of the information in the article as it stands has any source connected to it! Another issue I have is that, first and foremost, the article makes the error of establishing "fashion cigarettes" to only be relevant to women, when cigarettes such as Sobranie Black Russian were the heavier equivalent of Cocktails, designed to appeal to the male market. It's worth noting, for example, that noted figures who smoked the Black Russian cigarettes (as well as fictional ones) tended to be men, for example L. J. K. Setright, Surely the article could be reworked to indicate that not only women were the targets of cigarette manufacturers who wanted to capitalise on a "luxury" image? I have found a source, "Strategic Communication: Cases in Marketing, Public Relations, Advertising and Media" (2012) by Steven Greenland et al, which makes the distinction between the two and their target markets, which I will include. Thanks for the feedback so far! 78.144.69.56 (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Ye Choirs of New Jerusalem
I finished the copy-edit, sorry for taking so long... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just gonna edit a bit (talk • contribs) 19:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion vs. closing edit requests
There's no problem with deletion after the bot has done its work. The way you first deleted the request makes it invisible to the bot that removes closed requests from, so the request stays in the category until it's undeleted and closed. So it's okay to delete superfluous sections; all I ask is that you close a request (yes) and then delete the section after the bot has removed it from the category a few minutes later. It's all good. Best to you!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 22:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm using EPH, which has the option to remove requests. If this causes issues with the bot maybe it should be pointed out there (though the original script maintainer is inactive so I don't know if somebody else has taken up on it). Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

battle battling
I'm loathe to fully protect for long. has been warned about edit warring. If they resume, they should probably be reported to WP:EWN. Neither side should continue edit warring, but at a glance they look to be going against consensus. I don't get involved in content disputes, so the reverting needs to stop. Then it's discussion either on the talk page or at EWN. -- Deep fried okra  ( schalte ein ) 02:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand, it's just I found the move-protection dubious so I though you might have made a slight misclick along the way. No worries, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Twitter oes that automaticaly, and I don't always unclick it in time. -- Deep fried okra  ( schalte ein ) 02:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Twitter? You got in right in the edit summary, though Hah, a little laugh... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Gah. I'm dyin' here. LOL. -- Deep fried okra  ( schalte ein ) 02:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I probably would have too if I wasn't listening to some way too serious music (I really love descants...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nicw. -- Deep fried okra  ( schalte ein ) 02:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please revert your NAC
Please revert your NAC here as I think it warrants further discussion via a relist. Praxidicae (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No, please don't. This user has been harassing me, nominated several of my articles for deletion just to bite the newbie. She is one of the top 3 reasons I'm leaving. She wants complete victory and to have everything deleted, but as the person who nominated the article for deletion, she should not be the person who gets the final say on whether or not it gets deleted or relisted. It was up for over 7 days, you looked at the overall discussion and saw several arguments to keep and determined the consensus was to keep and "fix" the article and noted that Deletion is not cleanup.
 * Just because she wants to abuse power and succeed in bullying her victim, doesn't mean there is a good argument for relisting the article. The consensus was clearly keep, and it was inappropriate for her to even reference the AfD from 4 years ago in her argument to delete it. The topic may be the same but the contents of the articles were likely completely different, and consensus was to keep and fix - Deletion is not cleanup. --Wiki2008time (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please either provide diffs and take this to the appropriate forum or redact your egregious personal attack. I noticed a plethora of low quality, poorly sourced articles coming from you while doing NPP and did what any other editor with this right would do - nominate it for deletion. This is part of a normal Wikipedia process, if you do not like it, I don't know what to tell you but accusing me of bullying or acting in bad faith is unacceptable, especially when you have not provided a single diff of this supposed bullying. Praxidicae (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding the close: I was not aware at the time of the close that this was a case of WP:SOCK. I'd have undone it if User:Nick didn't beat me to the punch. Though, isn't WP:SOCKSTRIKE for sockpuppets of already blocked users (is Wiki2008time such as case?)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The socking isn't relevant, it warranted more discussion because AFD isn't just strictly a tally of keep vs. delete. I'd advise you not NAC for a while considering your short tenure here as well. There is more to take into account than just "delete" or "keep". Praxidicae (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not what I did; and I've been here much longer than this account so I know my way around. If you're directly disputing the close, I stand by my original close. Many of the arguments very obviously fell into WP:AADD. What remained were the two conflicting statements "next to no coverage in reliable sources" and "there seems to be substantial and ongoing coverage of this pageant in multiple reliable sources". A look at the references cited, despite the issues of cite-bombing (WP:DINC which I pointed out), seemed to render the delete argument invalid ("references don't demonstrate notability" was also particularly puzzling, there's AFAIK no requirement that references demonstrate that a subject is "notable" or otherwise "extraordinary", only that they cover said subject to an appreciable depth), since a lot of those references were indeed coverage about the pageant (or it's winners...) in reliable independent sources. So I stand by that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Nun danket
I have a job for you, if you like. In Nun danket alle Gott, there's the melody in some mass (pictured below the infobox, but very tiny notes), the melody shown, and the melody actually sung, - can you make a comparison, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, three versions: infobox (which I'll call "original" although it might not be); Bach, EG. The only difference between EG and the original: melodic motion at the end of the second phrase (the original does (in scale degrees) 1-7-1 while the EG has 1-2-1). Then the Bach is just a "regularisation" of this same version (i.e. making the rhythm boring) with passing notes and other embellishments. I'll check and add the full harmonisation from the same source. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Substing discussion templates
Hello. I see that you have answered semi-protected edit request using discussion templates. It's not necessary to do this, but I recommend that you substitute these instead of transclusing them (use, not ). This is because the templates almost never get's updated, so there is no point in transcluding them. The templates are just one-time use and nothing more. &#123;&#123; reply to &#124;Can I Log In&#125;&#125; 's talk page! 16:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Haha, good eye!
Sorry about my confusing username! Good eye catching it though. --Micky (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for There is a green hill far away
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for a good one. Too bad, that move during the day. In case hits get close to 5k (what they rarely do for hymns) don't forget those for the other version. I believe all articles linked from the Main page should be move-protected during appearance there, sigh. - I'd like you to look at BWV 227, especially mvmt 5. Jones states that the soprano line is a paraphrase of the chotale tune, - hard to see, - do you think it's true and make visible in lilypond. No idea if notes could have a different shape to mark them as belonging to the chorale tune. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * BWV_227_mvt_5_chorale_analysis.png
 * Since you ask, well, there are some melodic segments which are clearly based on the chorale melody (such as the very first one). I have highlighted what appeared obvious in the beginning of the BGA score. In my personal opinion I wouldn't call this a "paraphrase" of the chorale melody, rather I'd say that Bach merely quotes the chorale melody – "quote" being the keyword here, Bach also sometimes made less obvious passages based on the melodies, eg. here (though I would personally dispute whether a few of these are actually deliberate or not, because if look long enough...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is excellent. Always better when the reader can actually SEE something. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you also for the form thing in the article! Regarding the edit summary: look at the image above: it's "Trotz, Trotz", not "Trotz, trotz", - even if Gardiner and possibly others think it's "trotz" = "inspite of" (preposition), Bach clearly composed "Trotz" = "defiance" (noun). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't look at the text or the score, just from memory, so I applied what seemed like logical capitalisation and I was wrong. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting question though. No idea what Crüger meant, but clear what Bach understood, and Gardiner not. (Forgot where he wrote about that, possibly in his book.) I probably told you that I sang it the day before my grandfather's funeral, with much defiance. Today was a friend's funeral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, on p. 470 (had to look up the google books preview because the motet was not mentioned in the index of my paperback edition), Gardiner does say that the word means "in spite of" grammatically (which does render a legitimate sentence in English: "In spite of the old dragon") but that in the context of Frank's hymn then it has connotations with the noun "Trotz", "defiance". Oddly enough that is what the Dellal translation has (though unlike the BG it doesn't capitalise "Trotz"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, ever heard of the hymn mentioned (at the bottom) here? If you can't see it the relevant bit is:


 * "Meine Hoffnung stehet feste" doesn't appear to have an article on German wiki, and except for the mention here at All my hope on God is founded, not here either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And you've surely seen my ping but this DYK had 7807 views (redirects included, but since it was technically deleted due to me undoing the page move of course the number might be higher). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * regarding my last 2 edits to your talk: sorry, misclicked rollback... it happens RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I hadn't even seen ;) - Did you see what I suggested to Bautsch, regarding the Cornelius? Did you know that I knew that piece for a loong time, and only rather recently noticed how cleverly the "Morgenstern" is inserted in the accompaniment, - not obvious, so - I think - not a good audio example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the AfD log in the past few days
Hi, thanks for the correction here. I thought I only faced the problem. I think it should be reported if the problem persists. What is your take on this? Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬  02:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I'd have guessed it was something to do with badly transcluded entries, but all the errors seem to be introduced at the time of closing/relisting so it might be a bug with the XFDcloser script... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for SiIvaGunner
An editor has asked for a deletion review of SiIvaGunner. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

On the Isonzo
Hello, Not sure if im responding correctly and whether you will be able to read this. But if you do the numbers are from an official slovenian-site http://www.100letprve.si/en/mejniki/the_isonzo_front/casualties/index.html which match with the overall, but non detailed, casualties so far cited and also with thsoe in J. R. Schindler's book. The Asiago numbers i have from the IT::Wikipedia page and ahs a cited source attached. I also think the overall numbers on the Italian Front page are incorrect when compared to these sources #1(K.u.K.) https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses_austria-hungary #2(Italy) https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses_italy, check it out for yourself and let me know what you think is better. User:Agilulf2007
 * The numbers on the Italian front page seem fine to me. For Italy, the article has "651,000 [military] dead" and "589,000 Italian civilians died of war-related causes"; which fits loosely with the "It seems reasonable to impute this mortality to the war and its direct consequences of approximately 1,250,000 people, but how many losses exactly were military and how many civilian remains in the realm of hypotheses." of the 1914-1918 online publication; and scholarly "hypotheses" are probably worthy of being mentioned.
 * Looking at Austria-Hungary I am not sure what to say. The sources all seem to indicate a total (for the whole war) of 1.2 millions military deaths; and if what is in the article currently can be trusted, about 30% of those would have been on the Italian front. The exact numbers given for the Italian front also only seem to include those in the "front", not those in the rear areas or missing. The proportion is still about 1/3 (150 thousand out of about 500) so this seems to match with the current information.
 * I am a bit dubious about the slovenian website since it doesn't cite a source for where they got that precise information. For the record the Italian language page already cited on the various pages here also appears like a poor source since there's an explicit disclaimer saying that responsibility for the content lies solely with the authors of the texts (i.e. no editorial oversight). Sticking with Schindler's numbers, which come from a reputable historian, might be the best option.
 * Regarding Asiago, you should have cited the sources directly there when adding the information. I'll add them tomorrow in the morning. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds good.Agilulf2007

Deletion review for James Bodenstedt
An editor has asked for a deletion review of James Bodenstedt. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

July
Next wish: music for Zeige uns, Herr, deine Allmacht und Güte, old melody, so we could have the complete melody, right? (thanks for the bits we have already!) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would but lilypond is not functional for new examples due to some code security bug (T527066) so it will have to wait. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking for the next,, wanting to ask how playing was, - singing again was good. Take care. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * no rush - I'll give you a sunrise when I get desperate but bin Kummer gewohnt. Which article would you like dedicated to you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Non-administrative closures and relists
Hi Random, I'm Barkeep49. Not sure we've had the pleasure of directly interacting before. I am writing with concerns over your administrative actions at AfD. Third relists should be rare and so this should have been closed as no consensus rather than pinging participants. I don't know what's up with this fourth relist not closed by. The fact that it went to DRV and your reaction was to just relist it does not mitigate my concern. Both of these seem to be WP:RELISTBIAS in action but at minimum suggest enough of a lack of familiarity with our policies, guidelines, and procedures at AfD to mean that you probably should not be relisting, let alone closing AfDs at this time. While I am a sysop now, I do feel it important to note that I have had concerns about non-sysops working AfD since well before I gained the toolset. You can read more about that here. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe, from what I can make of the AfD history, RandomCanadian closed the AfD (correctly) as No Consensus, someone complained and instead of telling the person complaining to go away, which should have been done, they reverted their closure of the AfD (incorrectly), re-listed it (incorrectly) and closed the DRV (incorrectly, and massive inappropriately, given the monumental scale of WP:INVOLVED). I believe the word clusterfuck is applicable here. Nick (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , that matches my understanding. But that is probably not an AfD a NAC should be closing in the first place. And the lack of experience to know how to handle that situation making several mistakes along the way does not change my assessment. And something I had meant to note, is that I haven't really looked through their AfD closes. Those are just actions on two AfDs I had previously considered closing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, there is the possibility to speedy close a DRV by reverting your closure; which is what I did. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed my concerns at all. Because you are working in an explicitly administrative area you have a responsibility to justify your actions now that I have requested it. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * When there's no clear consensus and arguments on both sides are not particularly stronger than each other (if I judge one side is stronger then I'll leave the controversial close to an admin) and there have been multiple relists I tend to close as no consensus (which is frequently done by many other non-admins, so rather non-controversial). Though yeah I probably should have stood up and not speedily overturned my close, but obviously instructions at AfD are that if its controversial then non-admins should stay away from it and well since somebody was serious enough about their complaint to bring it to DRV then obviously its controversial. I don't see why User:Nick is describing this using the words he is, but obviously if he feels it is such a major incident that's ok. What would have helped is if the person complaining followed the proper steps and instead of going to DRV immediately at least contacted me here (as suggested at DRV - note that this also happened the other time I was brought to DRV, when my close was unanimously endorsed), which might have avoided this whole situation. I'm aware of RELISTBIAS. I've been here also much longer than this account so don't worry, I know some (or at least a few) things about this. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  17:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how long you've been on Wikipedia. My concern was spurred by you being a non-administrator operating in ways that are not consistent with how we do it and seemingly unaware that they're doing it wrong. What I read you as saying is that if you judge there to be a consensus you leave it for a sysop to close. I will suggest that is the wrong standard to be applying. I would suggest that you instead apply a standard of only closing uncontroversial discussions. Arguably Articles for deletion/James Bodenstedt was such an uncontroversial close. But because you you backed down when confronted it was perhaps not a good one to be closing either. And the way you backed down was itself troubling. Fourth relists should basically not exist. Third relists should be rare, and need some justification better than "I'll ping the two active people in this discussion" as you did in the example above. While first and second relists are relatively common and uncontroversial there are even times when it would be inappropriate for a NAC to do a first relist, e.g. in the case of something eligible for WP:SOFTDELETE. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll try with being more decisive in the future. I understand your concerns about relists but the fact is that there is no hard guideline on this (though I would fully agree with making more explicit the current unwritten practice of not relisting more than thrice unless there's good reason to do so) and my personal take was that there's no harm in relisting in the hope that more people will get involved (especially if there's only two persons who contributed substantial comments). My general approach (AfD or elsewhere) is trying to avoid drama (as much as coherently possible, and so long the other editor(s) aren't suggesting something clearly inconsistent with policy) so I might have to change that a bit. Regarding what I said, what I meant is that if, after prolonged discussion, there's more than a few !votes on both sides and they both have some strength, I'll avoid closing it even if I think some of them are more convincing since clearly the close is controversial since I have to reject good arguments (unlike, say, if one side consists mostly of weak arguments, or if there is minimal participation). Re. the specific case of a soft delete, if the AfD is eligible for that then it would be best for everyone if somebody WP:BOLDLY did delete it (despite the fact that they dont't always do so...) so I tend not to relist those too much, unless the arguments aren't very persuasive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * there are guidelines on relists. They can be found at WP:RELIST. In bold it is emphasized that third relists should not, in general, happen. I think that bold was an attempt to make it explicit. As for SOFTDELETE, if it is relisted a sysop is unlikely to find it to do that which is why I pointed it out as a potential issue even for a first or second relist. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well those guidelines don't seem to be followed very often (from a look through the AfD logs of the past few days), and sometimes they lead to somewhat silly continuations (i.e. I'd say that the newest !vote there is a (quite probably non-intentional) copy-paste from WP:ASSERTN...). Maybe there should be mention of WP:RELIST at WP:NAC because it's not there. Anyway I'm not too worried about the whole DRV debacle, hopefully I'll learn from this mistake and it won't happen again. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

robots
Hi RandomCanadian,

Nice name :)

Please see my answer at the end of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.41.158 (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

August
A first for me today: a featured list (= a featured topic in this case) on the Main page, see Main Page history/2020 August 21, an initiative by Aza24 in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back, happy 2021! Melodies and setting could be added to several songs of January (see user page), in case you still like such things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Herzlichen danken! The score extension appears to be temporarily disabled (since well, I think, just after this whole situation began) so that will be on hold for the time being; and of course 6 months of doing something else while waiting for ArbCom to save the day means there are plenty of other, real life projects to worry about. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Herzlichen Dank für das Lebenszeichen - sign of life! Not that I'd understand any of the "situation", but Arbcom and I are two worlds. Some scores are there if you comment out "vorbis", but it's a mystery to me as well. Could you write a score here, teaching purpose? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes : if you just want an example you can look further up the page, but if you have a specific request go ahead. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nun laßt uns Gott dem Herren if possible, same melody as Nun lasst uns gehn und treten, the footballer song, on the Mai page --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Lasst uns Gott, dem Herrn, lobsingen, - not exactly what Bach set --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Given how this went (I just copied the score from here to there), and given that if I just copy it here, it gives this:


 * I think that it's not worth the effort until lilypond is fully operational again. Do tell, if you have any suggestions for recording some or some other hymn tune. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I see that. A short thing that would be nice to have - but only if you are in the mood - is the motif in BWV 159#4 on "Es ist vollbracht", see Dürr/Jones. I got a ping, but was first absent, and now am busy with a soprano who died yesterday, to be followed by a dressage rider, same. - Editor formatting above is ruined by the c'' in the music table, btw, - no idea if that plays any role. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It works fine at Ye Choirs of New Jerusalem, so don't see why it would not work here. Obviously I haven't kept track of the issue so I'll take a look at that, but I think we'll have to be patient for a while. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Permissions restored
Whatever that was. Per Special:Permalink/1001814559, welcome back. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Abuzar Aydamirov
Hello. Unfortunately, all the sources known to me are in Russian. The Chechen topic does not seem to be researched well in the English media; maybe there is special literature, but it is beyond my main area of interest. --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Kevin Trudeau

Random I wasn’t sure how to cite when I changed the Kevin Trudeau page Please go to https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ type in his name and see he has been released from prison and is home confinement. This has been done for many inmates early because of the Covid 19 epidemic. I attach the link from the AG on Home confinement. https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/docs/bop_memo_home_confinement.pdf. Can you please help me make these corrections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.183.8 (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Dylanport1
He just vandalized your user page. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RandomCanadian&diff=next&oldid=1001450937 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RandomCanadian&diff=next&oldid=1002546227 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.33.64.228 (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

What is?
Sorry I must have fallen asleep. What is an "Extended-confirmed-protected edit" ? Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See CAT:EEP. Which page exactly prompted you to post here? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for directing me to the oversight page!

Alpha aquarii (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Alpha aquarii (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Alpha aquarii (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello RandomCanadian I am trying to say Thank you very much to you. I want leave it here to show all user this wikipedia Fom Timmey2001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmys 2001 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hello, when you first mentioned the Edit Requested Closer script, you mentioned that no scripts currently could manage COI requests. I have just made a new script COI Request Closer.js which has a similar interface (They are different scripts since the tables work differently). This is just a notification incase you were interested.. There may be issues (Or spelling mistakes) since I did just finish it. Terasail &#91;✉&#93; 14:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems to work like a charm (I haven't tested for spelling mistakes), although there is a red link so you should probably created a subpage for it like for the other one (or add a section for the COI closer and link to there). Thanks for the effort! RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

2021
Have a good new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

How about the final movement of BWV 1? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * On my to-do list; which given that I'm relatively busy IRL might take some time; also given that lilypond playback is disabled that's mildly annoying because I can't check for errors (not strictly necessary, but hearing the end result was always a small part of the enjoyement) in that way on-wiki (I have lilypond downloaded on my computer so I can do it there - as I said, when I get around to it, unless you tell me its for something like an FA review or the like, in which case I'll expedite it). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a FA review, but it's no prerequisite, and what's not there (yet) doesn't get discussed. Best wishes for RL! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Request edit closure
Hi, I noticed on Jan. 25 you marked the request edit template on Talk:Annual Reviews (publisher) but the request was not completed. Since the article was removed from the queue, I forgot about this request and other editors did not know about this. Is it possible to only mark reviews as "answered" when the request is complete? Thanks for your help, and I hope you'll continue to help us clear the request edit backlog! Z1720 (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looked like you were busy dealing with it, so since there was already somebody on the request, I marked it as "answered" per my edit summary. Won't do in the future if its not helpful. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi RC, sometimes users only work on part of a request, so they leave it open for other editors to complete. In this case, others had started the review but I was going to continue it. It's easier for reviewers like me if requests are marked as "answered" when they are done, not in the middle of the process. Thanks for your understanding. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)