User talk:Francis Schonken/Archive 06

Proposed deletion of The righteous perishes

Hello, Francis Schonken. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, The righteous perishes, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheLongTone (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jesus Christus nostra salus

On 2 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jesus Christus nostra salus, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Luther thought the communion hymn "Jesus Christus nostra salus" by Jan of Jenštejn (pictured), archbishop of Prague, was actually by martyr Jan Hus? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jesus Christus nostra salus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tristis est anima mea (attributed to Kuhnau)

On 2 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tristis est anima mea (attributed to Kuhnau), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in a motet for Maundy Thursday, Tristis est anima mea, Jesus says in Gethsemane (pictured) "Sad is my soul even unto death"? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt

On 2 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that "Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt", Luther's hymn for the Eucharist based on a Latin model, includes thoughts from his sermons during Lent of 1524? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tenebrae, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Miserere and Our Father. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gaius Julius Caesar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pliny. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Collier (reformer) changed to John Collier (sociologist)

Hello, Francis Schonken! I guess you read my comment on John Collier's talk page about John Collier (reformer)? I'm happy someone else wants to think about this. After more thought, I think your edit is good! FYI, I also tried to ask for guidance on this page Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persondata removal, data preservation

Hi, Francis. I saw your comment on the persondata-bot-removal discussion page. The removal of the persondata templates is going to happen, whether it happens today, tomorrow or next month. My only concern at this point is that as much of the accurate persondata information be preserved and transferred to the Wikidata profiles as possible. I have taken the liberty to notify a number of the WikiProjects with which I have an association regarding the pending persondata removal, and urging concerned editors to manually transfer accurate persondata to Wikidata. I would be grateful if you would do the same. Here's an example of a notice I left earlier today: [1]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CFD closure

Can you get me a list of what needs and doesn't need to be done? When the nominator says "(i.e. for all genetic language groups)" but doesn't bother to post a single notice anywhere nor inform anyone, it's a puzzle as to what was actually intended. I'm leaning towards reversing the whole mess and re-listing it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology arbitration amendment request archived

The Scientology arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of String Trio, D 581 (Schubert)

Hello Francis Schonken,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged String Trio, D 581 (Schubert) for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Whalestate (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a new option

Hello! Sorry to bother you, I have a quick question if you don't mind:
I noticed you added another option to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification. I was considering doing this to another discussion. I was wondering if there was a guideline or anything special I needed to do or be aware of concerning this practice.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender and MOS discretionary sanctions notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: red links in navboxes

Francis, would you accept a revised red link guideline that requires a minimum of three blue links in a navbox to existing stand-alone articles or lists, with at least 50% of all included links within the navbox being blue, coupled with a very explicit clarification of the existing "succession" and "complete set" exceptions for navboxes? Personally, I think that would be an extremely reasonable compromise. If I can get 10 committed supporters, I'm ready to start lobbying previous !voters (not a violation of WP:CANVASS) in favor of compromise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions on "Emperor" page

Would you mind explaining your reasoning against my revision on the page more clearly? What exactly are you asking me to explain? BlackRanger88 (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

The only "involved" parties in Handpolk's petition to reduce his topic ban are Handpolk and Euryalus, the admin who imposed the topic ban. Everyone else commenting is just offering their opinion on whether this action should be taken, that is, they are uninvolved in the administration of the topic ban.
The case wasn't properly formatted when it was initially posted and I'm sure leaving these extra sections in was an oversight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just thought I would introduce myself. I am impressed that you, in Belgium, know more about Piper than me; I (in New York) never heard of him until his "death". Interesting. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, ik begrijp niet waarom je lijkt te vijandigheid hebben tegenover mij. (Hope I composed it correctly.) Quis separabit? 16:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Magnificat (Bach)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Magnificat (Bach) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Magnificat (Bach)

The article Magnificat (Bach) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Magnificat (Bach) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St Matthew Passion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Continuo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Magnificat (Bach)

The article Magnificat (Bach) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Magnificat (Bach) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. see WP:ANI#User:Francis Schonken is edit warring -- PBS (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Discography of Bach's Magnificat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Visitation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty

---I asked for the George Terry writings to deleted a long time ago Even though it was true I have no intent to bash him on Wikipedia I will do it in my book It is just the truth! I have been trying to establish content related to me only Any help to make that George Terry stuff and throw it away would be great They bring it up every time It is getting old. I really want a good profile of my life and work I don't understand how the links work What is acceptable and what isn't. Thanks for responding. I have been to the Tea House Party Room e anyone y oh have I feel like a ping ball being hit around. Kitty Terry aka Kitty Woodson Terry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.183.66 (talk • contribs)

Radical Faeries?

Why are radical faeries specified but not non-binary or genderqueer? Seems quite an odd boundary? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Category talk:LGBT people#Radical Faeries --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN close

Hi Francis,

Can you take another look at your BLPN close here? I think if you look closely you'll find that the discussion at RSN is actually about a different source and different content (it's about a specific source, used in a different paragraph of the article) than the discussion at BLPN (which is specifically about whether the ADL's opinion of the article subject is notable). The two conversations are (as far as I'm aware), unrelated. We were all rather hoping that the close at BLPN would assess the consensus on the ADL point (if there is one). Thanks! Fyddlestix (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've updated the close, thanks very much! Fyddlestix (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Brands

Just wanted to check-in on if you were still going to look into this? CorporateM (Talk) 16:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I lost interest, seems a lot of work for an uncertain and probably not more than marginal improvement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket reverts

I'm making an honest effort to avoid conflicts with you (and we have a long history of them). Your firehose-like use of reversion of all changes made in an edit or series of edits, instead of reversing the one particular thing you're objecting to, has a lot to do with why these conflicts arise, and we've been over this many times before (for several years now). Please change your approach to this. It's annoying to other editors, and comes across as combative. It is clearly counterproductive to revert basic typo fixing and other copyedits in the course of getting at a specific unrelated issue, as in this case. You eliminated the addition of a syntactically required comma while reversing an unrelated wording change, which you could have undone simply by editing the page and changing the words back without eliminating the comma. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: On a re-read, this comes across as more "fist-shaking" than I intended, even after editing it not sound fist-shaking. My point is to try to open a compromise dialogue about approach, not to berate you. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite reference?

Can you please cite the reference that allows you to censor talk page response to your comments whether or not the related section of the thread has been collapsed? Greg Kaye 19:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Online music community

Should this article be tagged somehow to inform readers of its relation to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music community discussion? I'm on the fence and don't feel strongly either way, but it might be helpful and/or invite others to participate in the discussion(s). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Francis Schonken/List of borderline fictional characters

User:Francis Schonken/List of borderline fictional characters, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Francis Schonken/List of borderline fictional characters and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Francis Schonken/List of borderline fictional characters during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Francis Schonken/List of real-life characters

User:Francis Schonken/List of real-life characters, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Francis Schonken/List of real-life characters and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Francis Schonken/List of real-life characters during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Francis Schonken/List of fictional rulers

User:Francis Schonken/List of fictional rulers, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Francis Schonken/List of fictional rulers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Francis Schonken/List of fictional rulers during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Do not edit or move my talk page comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Passion (music), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leçons de Ténèbres. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Bloom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages WYBC and Eugene Cook. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of my entry

Perhaps others can provide better documentation. My problem now is that my name appears with an immediate link to your deletion discussion which is so damaging as to do me serious harm. Judgments made are unquestionably subjective...as in ooments about my past Suffolk County and present Volusia County service as laureate, or my single fulbright (when I have 3 which were each unique). Please do not link me to these damaging, disrepectful remarks. If you are deleting me, do so completely. i assume when someone creates a new entry...if that happens...you will allow it to be judged on whatever new information is provided. This should not be an argument. i respect the service you provide. Axelrodthepoet (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever comes on your talk page, you can delete it. I've reverted my edit to your talk page, only saying you could have done so yourself while its your talk page, no hard feelings either way I hope. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

spirals

At WP:AN/I:

...nothing of the conflict here (which I was completely unaware about) perspired in that thread....

Hmmm ... "transpired", perhaps? -- Hoary (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I said I would do this

		The Newyorkbrad Dispute Resolution Barnstar
		Thank you for having taken the time and, honestly, serious effort to go through the recent ANI discussion and having come to a reasonable conclusion. As someone who took part in that discussion, and I know I did not at all reveal my best side there, assuming I have one of course, I know that there were any number of points when one could, reasonably, have just thrown up one's hands in exasperation. There are a lot of discussions at ANI like that, and, sometimes, they aren't really "closed" and the matters allowed to fester, which can sometimes make existing disputes worse than they otherwise would have been. Thankless efforts like yours here, where an individual is forced to spend a good deal of time doing something time consuming and sometimes extremely unpleasant, but which seems to be required for the better good of the project, are one of the things we need a lot of, and thank you for having been willing to give up a good deal of your time on this. I know you could easily think of a 100 more pleasant and more interesting things to have spent that time on. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I completely agree with the close, but that isn't necessary as I still respect it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll somewhat echo Dennis, but mostly per John Carter in that your close is a reasonable compromise and is eminently sensible. My thinking tends to lead towards more draconian measures (which is why I wouldn't make a good admin). Many thanks Blackmane (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any explanation to justify unarchiving

I see no good reason why that should waste space on the BOTREQ page. It is closed and should remain archived. The link you pointed me too doesn't explain anything.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 04:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music community

I have restored this article to the last stable version. I have no idea why User:Hollenderek put back the pre-AfD version. You were right to revert that. But to wipe out most of the content without talk page discussion, then flag what was left as DICDEF, was incorrect. If you feel that the article should be deleted, you may nominate it for AfD. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Johann Sebastian Bach: His Life, Art, and Work

Hi, I'm Musa Raza. Francis Schonken, thanks for creating Johann Sebastian Bach: His Life, Art, and Work!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. No other pages link to this page.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Musa Talk 11:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missa Inventionis S. Crucis

Thoughts after singing (parts of) it, composed by Johann Caspar Ferdinand Fischer:

What would be a good translation of the title to English.
The Kyrie (and Agnus Dei) has a motif all over the place which I have heard named Kreuzmotiv in German. What would that be in English?
It's a motif of four notes which, if you connect 1 to 4 and 2 to 3, you get two lines which cross, first example in that mass (more or less in today's D minor): B-flat - E - A - D, second: D - G-sharp - C - F-sharp (note two cross incidentals and tritone intervals).
The same thing occurs in works by Bach, such as Et incarnatus ist (pictured).
Is it a standard Baroque feature, used by other composers?
Are you tempted to write an article on it? (as we have B-A-C-H motif)

Thank you for the Spitta Bach bio! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Symphony No. 6 (Tchaikovsky)#Dedication and suggested programs, Cruciform#Cruciform melody and Cross motif (that last one would be the translation of "Kreuzmotiv").

Afaik Inventio S. Crucis refers to the Invention of the True Cross, a.k.a. Finding of the Holy Cross, a Christian feast from Byzantian times. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See de:Kreuzauffindung. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and de:Kreuzauffindungskapelle; True Cross#Finding the True Cross; Church of the Holy Sepulchre#Construction; Helena (empress)#Relic discoveries; etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Fischer's day a Missa inventionis Sanctae Crucis would be composed for May 3, when the feast was held in the Catholic church. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all helpful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music Community |(2)

I have again restored the article to a stable version. Please desist from wiping out all the content without discussion on the talk page. Again, if you feel the article should be deleted, you may nominate it for deletion. Arbitrarily blanking the page is not an acceptable approach and may be considered disruptive. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Sebastian Bach

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Well, that was all much more unpleasant than it needed to be. — $Llywelyn II$ 14:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live naming of Caitlyn Jenner on 1976 Summer Olympics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. If you have questions, please contact me:

Checkingfax (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile visibility

Please note that I did not remove the template. Both of your reverts were unjustified. Thanks for initiating a discussion though. This matter should be sorted out at "global" level. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karl Richter. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Also Creates an Equally Beautiful Picture': Color Music and Walt Disney's Fantasia" p. 183 ff. in [https://books.google.be/books?id=VoKROBFWuvoC ''Lowering the Boom: Critical Studies in Film Sound''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach may have broken the syntax by modifying 5 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Concentration camps

Category:Concentration camps, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rick Alan Ross. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about article titles

There is a dispute here about whether it is appropriate to add the gamer ID in quotation marks to the titles of video game players. According to this edit you were the editor who inserted the instructions to specifically avoid using quotation marks, so I'm wondering if you could possibly explain what the reasoning behind this rule is. Thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Alan Ross (consultant) bio

I want to thank you personally for your kind patience with me. Please know that per your suggestion I have spent some time reading the Wikipedia rules. In fact I printed them out and studied them carefully, noting them as I have gone along. This included disruptive editing, tendentious editing, civility, personal attacks, bullying, conflict of interest, other stuff exists, single purpose account, manual of style words to watch, neutral point of view, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, dispute resolution, weasel word and identifying reliable sources. These are all areas that at one time you and others have touched upon in comments at the Talk page of my bio. After reading this material I have a much more informed understanding of the Wikipedia editing process. My cynical attitude regarding my bio developed and has been nurtured for years by various disruptive and tendentious editors that often personally attacked and bullied me. But it's time to step back, take a deep breath and start fresh. My attitude now is to accept each editor on good faith and focus on content, reliable sources and the Wikipedia guidelines rather than needless and pointless bickering. Again, thank you for remaining calm, civil and reasonable and gently pushing me in the right direction towards a learning process.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Alan Ross (consultant) bio

Is it OK to start posting suggestions at the Talk page of my bio again?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emeco

The article currently has a dedicated section for a particular lawsuit. Myself and the other editor seem to have very different interpretations of how WP:CRITS would apply and I believe you had a strong interest/familiarity with that guideline, so I was hoping you might take a look. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 20:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esports and the NCP board

I think it's pretty clear that this issue will need to be brought to the NCP board if we try to change these conventions, which I'm not saying consensus is really saying we need to do. What do you think? Are you going to bring it there? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 07:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As said (if you read my comments) I'm fine with it staying off that board, so to me, if I read my own comments, it seems like I'm not going to bring it there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I needed to go through the discussion twice, as there's a lot being said. Honestly, we shouldn't need to bring it there, as it seems like the consensus has been leaning towards First Name "Pseudonym" Surname. Sorry if my lacking attention to what you said bothered you. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 07:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johann Sebastian Bach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BWV 1068. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BWV 247. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited La tempesta di mare (flute concerto), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chamber concerto. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AT

I knew it was a mistake to use the specific pro gaming example on the WP:AT talk page... Anyways I'd like to ask you specifically since I didn't get an answer over there. So is there a preference, either by policy or concensus on other articles for a name in English sources.

Navboxes

This is a daring close. :^) --Izno (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Gender identity in the MoS". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 December 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 06:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Gender identity in the MoS, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Thank you

I appreciate your closing this. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of chorale harmonisations by Johann Sebastian Bach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Sanford Terry. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vox Christi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evangelist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music

Women in Music
	10 to 31 January 2016 Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emeco

I seem to remember you had an interest in WP:CRITS. This page has a dedicated section called "Restoration Hardware Lawsuit," which is also mentioned on a related page.[2] I have suggested that we trim the section and its weaker sources, integrate it into the article and choose just one article to include the lawsuit in. There is a related discussion on Talk with the editor that created a dedicated section for it, but it has gone quiet for over a month. Was hoping you could take a look. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 22:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be trying to force a close of an RfC which you are participating in

You appear to be forcing a close of the Bach RfC again RfC guidelines and policy which requires that an uninvolved editor or admin do the close. Please stop trying to force your edit into the article against Wikipedia policy and follow the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You now appear to have lost count of your reverts on the Bach Talk page and your next revert will be your third revert in case you have lost count during the edit discussion. Established policy for closing RfC is plainly stated by Wikipedia policy and guidelines: 'Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.' Please follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines. You should be made aware that under no circumstances should you be making a third revert. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renotification of your edit warring and that the RfC is still open. The matter has been placed on the appropriate administrator noticeboard. You have already received notice from User:Softlavender below. You have been informed previously that the RfC for this issue on Bach is still open and that the Wikipedia guidelines and policies are to be observed. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines and make consensus on the Talk page prior to forcing your edits into the article before consensus for the open RfC is established. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, Francis, you are neither uninvolved nor an administrator, and should not be closing that RfC or making edits to the article as if it were closed. It is listed on the WP:Administrators Noticeboard [3], and an uninvolved admin should close the RfC. There is a backlog, but there is no rush on Wikipedia; it will get done. Softlavender (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wer ist der, so von Edom kömmt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brunswick. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution noticeboard

As part of this process editor Robert Mcclenon has, only now, closed the RfC in Talk:JSB Marlindale (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

FYI

Removed deranged language: there were no threats issued to any professor on any talk page or anywhere else or to anyone else. Adam (Wiki Ed) has far outstayed his welcome to this talk page. If anything needs to be said regarding Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina School of the Arts/History of Musical Styles I and II (Fall 2015, Spring 2016) please do so at Wikipedia talk:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina School of the Arts/History of Musical Styles I and II (Fall 2015, Spring 2016)

The following discussion has been closed by Francis Schonken. Please do not modify it.

...

Let's go easy with the epithets, hmmm?

Since you're not a native English speaker, I 'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you can't read the text of WP:NOT with full understanding. If that's the case, though, you might want to be careful about tossing around epithets; calling someone "clueless" is an insult, and it's especially annoying to see someone doing it because they, themselves, lack the acuity to understand what's being discussed. You might want to go easy on that sort of thing in future. Herostratus (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Johann Agricola. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New DRN on JSB

Hi Francis,

I posted on DRN a request for closure of the latest RfC. Marlindale (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach RfC closed Feb. 22, now what?

See the new section I just added with about that title to Talk:JSB. Marlindale (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hassan bio

I have entered a few edit suggestions at the Steve Hassan bio [4] regarding self-published sources, original research and claims made without reliable sources. Would you please look them over. IMO there should be consistent standards for all the BLPs.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please review points at the talk page at the Steve Hassan bio? IMO it's important that same Wikipedia standards applied at my bio be applied at Mr. Hassan's bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the Wikipedia process regarding COI and requested two edits at the Steve Hassan bio. One regarding a claim that is not reliably sourced according to Wikipedia standards and another concerning self-published books not identified as self-published. Would you please consider following through on these needed edits?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Alan Ross

The content of the Rick Alan Ross article is now the subject of a Dispute Resolution notice.Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Description lists

What's the issue with the ; and : description/definition/association list markup? I'm trying to repair two things at once:

It can't have blank lines in it, or it barfs up the markup sent to the user agent, generating wholly separate <dl>...</dl> lists that do not relate the <dt> and <dd> items to each other, making it semantically worthless and an accessibility problem. I've documented this in detail at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/dl tests, though it's been noted elsewhere before.
It's hard to parse the code correctly, without unnecessary puzzling, when it's given in the form:

;term:definition1
:definition2

instead of:

;term
:definition1
:definition2

Some might argue that our use of this markup at all in that instance isn't really what association lists are for, anyway. If we want to continue using that HTML there, we might switch to template-structures glossary markup:

Extended content

Gender identity

Shortcuts

Main biographical article on a person whose gender might be questioned: Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article.; Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary).
Referring to the person in other articles: Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. The MoS does not have specific rules stipulating when to give both names, which name to use first, or how that name should be written.

The templates vertically kern the block spacing a little with CSS, and also give some additional anchor points.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about my unuseful revert, I had misread H:DL, thought the colon needed to be on the same line – can we close the incident? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. On the upside, the test page I generated for that is compact enough it may come in useful; I posted a link to it at WT:ACCESSIBILITY, and will try to remember to work something about this into H:DL itself. I really wish they'd improve the parser to be less bone-headed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improper RfC notifications and edit warring

You appear to be involved in improper RfC editing and edit warring on the Bach Page. Please follow Wikipedia policy to the RfC process and editing. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oboe Concerto (Marcello)

Hi Francis.

We say in the lede that the work is "attrributed to Marcello", yet you say "there's no doubt the concerto was composed by Marcello". Both of these cannot be right. Do you have a source for your belief? If it's definitely known Marcello was the author, we have to remove the statement about it being attributed and instead say it was written by him.

Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attributed to Alessandro Marcello (first print of the early 1700s, almost all 18th-century manuscripts)
Attributed to Benedetto Marcello (one single 18th-century manuscript, but that attribution was taken for granted for some decades in the 20th century)

What we know for sure: composed by "Marcello" --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo your closure

Francis, when I said that the result of the RfC on A Free Ride would provide guidance for Debbie Does Dallas I didn't mean that the two situations were the same. They are quite similar, however, and what is done in one will (and should) be considered when discussing the other. Without commenting on your conclusion, would you mind undoing your closure? Debbie Does Dallas is likely to be more contentious and I would prefer to see an admin closure to avoid any unecessary future squabbling. Thanks. Right Hand Drive (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think my closure was a correct assessment of the talk page discussion. In other words, I see no reason for undoing it, nor for alleviating the "influence on Debbie" part.

I could have given elaboration to borderline WP:POINTy/WP:FORUMSHOP/WP:CANVAS/... aspects around the setup of the RfC. I didn't. Consider that giving you some slack.

If there are particular points about the closure you'd like me to clarify, per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures, just ask the question. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further, if there was a lesson learnt from this RfC for the Debbie case, that lesson would probably be something in the vein of "this kind of RfC is unlikely to lead to a clear consensus" – as I thought that stating something like that would rather be an impediment than help for argumentation in the Debbie case, I thought it wiser not to mention. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your earlier comments on Jimbo's talk page make you a less than ideal person to close this particular RfC and I was surprised to see you do it. As I said, I am not commenting on the closure itself, just asking that it be closed by an admin. This is appears to be a contentious issue for some editors and whichever way this turns out it would be best if everything was done as routinely as possible to avoid later argument. If you are unwilling to undo your closure, I will ask for an admin to do so and reclose it. Thanks. Right Hand Drive (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request at WP:AN. Right Hand Drive (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chorale cantata (Bach)

Hi, I've reverted your move of Chorale cantata (Bach) and subsequent revisions as I do not see a consensus for such changes on the talk page. I think such major changes would definitely need a firm consensus developed over a reasonable period, rather that just a brief couple of suggestions that are only days old. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making moves of this article without first getting a consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You made the changes and they were reverted, and the onus is now on you to get a consensus for your changes - see WP:BRD for advice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I will keep out of the content dispute myself, but I think others are entitled to revert your undiscussed changes - as it is the initial edit that requires the discussion, not the revert. But I will act if I see any further edit warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, I do this with a heavy heart, for your edit warring on Johann Sebastian Bach--and it is in part because you have been edit warring the last few days at a few other articles. Your block log indicates that you engage too frequently in edit warring. With my apologies, Drmies (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short questions and answers to Chorale cantata

Francis, I took the two suggestions to the article. Please think about having a much simpler article under that title, and your detailed work as something like Comparison of Bachs second cantata cycle and his chorale cantatas, for readers who want to know more than the basics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tx for implementing. I'd like to keep a copy of the lean table here while revamping the bullet list (see start ~~below~~ above), avoids switching pages while doing so.

Re. pages and their contents: for content, I'd have two pages:

one on the chorale cantatas (only a short summary of the history, no need to expand on the cycles, but maybe somewhat more on the cantata–hymn links, and on the three or four chorale cantatas that can't be linked very well to a cycle)
one on the cycles: the "second cycle" and the "chorale cantata cycle" are like siamese twins, you can't talk about one without talking about the other (compare the content of this section: Bach cantata#Second cantata cycle). Please consider that these "siamese twins" have about 80% overlap.

Re. page titles:

The page on the chorale cantatas (first bullet above) would be "List of chorale cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach" with "Chorale cantata (Bach)" redirecting to it, alternatively it could be "Chorale cantata (Bach)" with the "List..." title redirecting to it.
For the page on the cycles, I suppose "Chorale cantata cycle (Bach)" would do ("chorale cantata cycle" is indeed probably rather the common name for the cycle)

Re. Comparison of Bachs second cantata cycle and his chorale cantatas – I'd think that a horror, but don't want to get boring explaining why: the list of objections would be very long. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC) (moved and updated 11:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, I get lost in a flood of comments and tables. Move this where you like, but keep one separate section to discuss, - not 18th century ;)

I will ask short questions (a few at a time, as they come to my mind) and pray for short answers.

The lead is long and with many historic details, but doesn't tell the reader something basic: that the texts for the center of the cycle (1724/25) use only the first and last stanza of the hymn, while the themes of the inner stanzas are paraphrased by a contemporary poet. It's so different from the normally expected "per omnes versus" when setting hymns, that some don't even recognize that the texts of the inner movements are related to the hymn. Can you word that?

I believe that the article name Chorale cantata (Bach) is well established in four years and should not be changed. A list could actually be a different article, as List of Bach cantatas is different from Bach cantata (List of Bach's chorale cantatas might be "my" second article). For "your" second article you envision above, how about Cantata cycles (Bach)?

(after edit conflict) I fail to see how a bulleted list is better than a table which I can sort for occasion, for chronology, - that seems more useful to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First bullet: for the chorale cantata (or: chorale cantata list) article.

Second bullet: no, e.g. Bach's first cantata cycle would best be on a separate page.

Third bullet: I'd try to give any list that is suitable for a table also in a bullet list format. The reason is as well smartphone view as Wikipedia's PDF export function (that doesn't export tables). Currently, afaik, there's only one list of Bach compositions not conforming to that principle (the chorale harmonisations page). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Francis, your talk page is not your talk page, as a place for you to continue working while being blocked. Doing that, while you are blocked, is an abuse of the privilege. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about rules, but I know that the above table with links is much better than the previous one with "naked" BWV numbers,- I took it to the article, and it saved me much work. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a policy forbidding collaborative use of one's own talk page during a block? His block is for edit warring, not something more pernicious, and allowing him to make content suggestions that must be cleared through other contributors seems like a fitting punishment—not an evasion.

As for his saving drafts here for his own use when his block ends, I'm surprised he doesn't just preview them in his sandbox and save them on his machine. Rebb ing 14:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Talk_page_editing_while_blocked. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken: The consensus at ANI is that you're allowed to interact with other editors and work from your talk page during your block as you have been. Thank you for your work. Drmies, thank you for having the humility to raise this at ANI. Cheers! Rebb ing 23:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tx for notifying. Didn't want to take admin time by filing unblock requests and the like (make myself useful instead). Boy, did this turn out differently, admins wanting to take some time for this anyhow. Happily it was soon settled. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis

@Gerda Arendt: Re. ps – be assured, I recently came to agree with you that Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis is better in English Wikipedia. I'd explain why, which is a rather technical explanation, but fear there might be objections to me using my talk page for such extended content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oratorios

Please see The New Bach Edition – Series II: Masses, Passions, Oratorios; In English the plural is indeed "Oratorios" not "Oratoria", as confirmed by OED, Webster's, wiktionary:oratorio. @Gerda Arendt: in matters pertaining to the English language please defer more easily to native English speakers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, - I was the one who wanted "oratorios". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, probably misread this reply, the first part of which seemed a reply to the first paragraph of the section. If the reply is only about the Christmas Oratorio (or: set of cantatas):

This is the way I handled it in the BWV list: List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Christmas Oratorio
... and on the bullet list page: List of masses, passions and oratorios by Johann Sebastian Bach#Oratorios and associated cantatas
It is both a set of six cantatas and an Oratorio. The assembling of the cantatas into an Oratorio is found in Bach's handwriting (e.g. his original "Oratorium – Pars I" cover, currently p. 5 of the "Titelblatt" of D-B Mus. ms. Bach St 112I, Faszikel 1), and in the contemporary printing of the Oratorio's libretto. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is both an oratorio and a set of six cantatas. Nobody I know ever questioned that it is an oratorio. Wikiwal and others, however, question that a single part is a cantata, for many reasons, including that Bach's title says Parte (part). Dürr calls each part a cantata, and we agree. (Bach wrote Cantata on very few works, anyway.) The arguments filled pages. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. There is some popularizing literature that the Oratorio was only assembled in the 19th century, which is true for Bach's autograph score (Die buchbinderische Zusammenfassung der sechs Teile erfolgte erst im 19. Jh.) – AFAIK that is the confusion more often encountered.

Anyhow I don't think referring to an overdone discussion on German Wikipedia was of much help here: in English Wikipedia a reference to a reliable source (like Dürr) is what counts, not the opinion of whatever editor in whatever language Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a ref if the current three refs for the "six cantatas" sentence in the JSB article wouldn't be sufficient:
Chester L. Alwes. A History of Western Choral Music, Volume 1. Oxford University Press, 2015. ISBN 9780190457723, p. 293

(contains "...the Christmas Oratorio (Weihnachts-Oratorium), consists of six cantatas...") --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock extending expired block

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Francis Schonken (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Francis Schonken". The reason given for Francis Schonken's block is: "Edit warring".

Blocking administrator: Drmies (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: Done. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block expired since 15:43, 28 March 2016
Autoblock extended that to 04:50, 29 March 2016

Can an admin address this, tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]