Jump to content

User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2018/Jun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Request for deletion

Please also delete User talk:Ram The Editor, User talk:Misser Boss and User talk:Yisrael Kristal as they also have no meaningful talk page history just like you deleted User talk:Widr farted. Thank you. 122.162.63.88 (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Why does it matter? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm also curious as to why it matters. Unlike Widr farted who had a username block in July 2017, both Ram The Editor and Misser Boss were indeffed with {{Checkuserblock-account}} on 15 September 2017, although their user pages weren't tagged. Yisrael Kristal was indeffed a week later with account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page after this edit. In addition to 122.162.63.88 above, note that several other shifting IPs have been lobbying admins for this since at least 8 May, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. And what did one of the IPs at Worm That Turned's talk page mean by We don't need those pages any more? The IPs all resolve to Airtel in India. Interestingly, so too do the other IPs who had been editing all four of the user talk pages with spurious notices, etc.. The four named accounts and the IPs are all pretty clearly socks of a previously indeffed account. In light of the potential for continuing long-term abuse, their talk pages should definitely not be deleted. Frankly, I'd also undelete User talk:Widr farted. Of all the accounts, Widr farted is the oldest but clearly not the ultimate sockmaster. Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about it, but the page I deleted was a harassment username. Not to be vulgar, but I thought getting rid of that page might help clear the air. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Alas, the whiff in the air remains, only as a bright red link instead of a blue one :). Voceditenore (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
If it's ever actually needed for a real purpose, feel free to restore it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but if it ever becomes relevant admins will be able to see it. So it's not really a problem. However, I was also a bit concerned about granting the request of an IP who is clearly evading a block and wishing to remove the evidence of their misdeeds. Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your edit at Ringo (song)

is so specific that it really should have a reference. Carptrash (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Carptrash: In principle, I agree. I learned the fact myself from a Youtube video of the telecast. Such a video doesn't qualify as an RS, yet it depicts Sherman singing the parody, so he obviously did it and no one could reasonably claim otherwise. I will look around and try to find a more official source. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
There was a reason that I brought this to you rather than reverting it and that reason is that your post seemed very reasonable. I also noticed that none of the parodies are referenced, but I believe that they do belong in the article. Carptrash (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:SOCIALMEDIA allows a link as a reference in some cases. WP:YOUTUBE gives a thoughtful discussion as to when YouTube is allowable under "external links" and I suspect there will sometimes be a stronger case for when it is used as a reference. I used it some years ago at Affair of the Dancing Lamas and the references are still there. Thincat (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Availability note

Due to a family commitment I'll have limited online time from tonight until Monday, June 11. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Enjoy your stay in my ancestral homeland. My uncle used to play bass in a dance combo there. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

I notice that you have automatic talk page archiving. Can you please help me set it up? I tried here but it doesn’t seem to be working. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Thanks for asking, but someone set up the archive-bot for me too, and I'm not familiar with the details of how it operates (or doesn't operate). Can one of my TPWs please help out here? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
​I don't see anything wrong with it. By default there must be a minimum of 2 threads that need archiving and 5 that would remain on the page. You can change those with |minthreadstoarchive= and |minthreadsleft=, respectively. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the info! Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Francis Schonken is edit-warring to remove your thread on Talk:Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142

Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) is edit-warring to remove your thread on Talk:Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I have warned him on his usertalk and he has deleted the warning: [6]. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The repeated removal of a month-old section heading on a talkpage is petty stupidity. The longer-term hostility and conflict between Francis Schonken and Mathsci, however, is of serious concern. My mild suggestion that these two editors need to separate themselves from each other has been disregarded and stronger action may be needed. I will be offline at a meeting for several hours but it would be great if an uninvolved administrator with no prior history with either of these editors were to look into this whole mess. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Brad. I stopped watchlisting that page on 8 March; after you commented on the talk page, I noticed your message and I commented on having stopped watchlisting. Some wikipedians know that I had a stroke on 29–30 December 2017. Apart from damage to the left hemisphere and carotid artery, it manifests itself in expressive dysphasia. It improves fairly quickly over a one month period but then more or less stabilises. I am able to edit in the usual way now, although it takes more time and I can become very tired. Editing in my usual area (Bach organ works) has now become fairly easy. The stroke has not affected my organ playing, except for problems of fatigue. Mathsci (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
The last few days I see hardly another edit by Mathsci than undoing my work, or delivering far-fetched criticisms on it. Mathsci please find something else to do. I usually enjoy working with you, almost always something good comes out of it. It is always better to put two minds together when tackling a complex topic, and you learnt me a lot of things. However, when the criticism has hardly anything to do with the work of other editors it becomes counterproductive. Could you at least consider to stop delivering hardly founded criticisms on, and deletions of, my work for the time being? Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Mathsci, does your reference to "private communications concerning off-wiki problems caused by disruption" anything to do with Francis Schonken? Otherwise it seems very strange to bring this up in a section called "Francis Schonken is ..." as it strngly gives the impression that you mean to say that they are involved with those off-wiki problems.
  • In general, this issue belongs at WP:AN or at WP:ARBCOM, as it is enduring, complicated, concerns two good-faith editors, with accusations back-and-forth which take considerable time to collect and investigate. It looks as if an interaction ban would be the best solution, but that would be hard on both editors as their interests are similar (the soothing world of classical music). But I doubt that discussion between the two editors would solve anything, I also doubt that one party is completely to blame (which doesn't mean that there necessarily is equal blame, but that's what needs to be investigated), so some topic ban and/or interaction ban is needed to acoid the prospect of simply losing either or both editors completely. Perhaps the two of you can, in Arbcom-style, each prepare a short (500 word max) statement about your view of the conflict, the origins behind it, and the most egregious problems you encounter with the other editor, and then both statements can be presented simultaneously at WP:AN to request uninvolved editors to look at it and try to find a solution? Fram (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks Fram, my summary is here, that is, above, my first contribution to this section. I might add I possibly was not always on my best behaviour. Trying to collaborate with Mathsci might, in the long run, turn somewhat WP:IARish, that is, if one wants to see results, protect valid edits against unreasonable deletions and the like. But for now, it costs more than it delivers, see my comment above. I'd prefer not to put any more energy in this, that is as a ANI or whatever dispute. My objective is to contribute to sound encyclopedia content, not to have interminable disputes with apparently unwilling contributors who seem to have more agendas than just contribute constructively to this project. Please protect me from such editors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Francis, if you want to avoid interminable disputes, then it's important to recognize the role that your own behavior plays in them. Specifically, in the past couple of weeks, you've placed more than a dozen generic user-warning templates on Mathsci's talkpage, including 5 in one day:
Given that both you and Mathsci are experienced editors, there is no credible way to interpret this behavior other than as a childish provocation. It's a clear form of harassment, and well beneath the minimal expected standards of behavior here. Moreover, as you are (presumably) an adult, you should be ashamed of stooping to this level of pettiness. I don't doubt that Mathsci's behavior has also contributed to your ongoing dispute, and I don't have the wherewithal to wade deeper into it, but your behavior described above is unacceptable in any context.

Insofar as you're interested in unsolicited advice, I'd suggest that you take whatever time you're planning to spend pleading your case, and instead invest it in considering ways to improve your own conduct. In a best case, that will prompt a virtuous cycle which will lead to the constructive editing environment you ostensibly desire. In a worst case, if your behavior improves and Mathsci's doesn't, the dispute will be more clear-cut in terms of appropriate resolution. MastCell Talk 17:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

MastCell thanks for your message, but I must reject it:
  • for tone while assuming I'd not be prepared to see my errors, posted just after a message where I said I would (did you even read that message?)
  • on content for assuming that these warning messages would not have been justified, or inappropriate to address issues as they presented themselves. They helped containing Mathsci's disruptive behaviour which was far worse than these messages let assume.
Please don't post on my user talk page ever again. And unless you can't contain yourself or have an apology to offer, never again comment on me, that is: nor on-line nor off-site. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: Since you believe that the behavior outlined above was justifiable, and even helpful, I think I know everything I need to know about your level of insight and willingness to acknowledge errors. Per your request, I will not post on your talkpage unless required to do so (i.e. leaving a policy-mandated warning or notifying you of an administrative action). I reserve the options of discussing your behavior in the appropriate venues and of taking administrative action where you are concerned, if warranted. Brad, good luck. MastCell Talk 05:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I have had a private (one-way) discussion with Newyorkbrad involving my health concerns (e.g. CBG3, syncope, stroke) and the off-wiki disruption on 13–16 April. Fram was mentioned, but not as a potential party—quite the contrary. During the crucial first month of stroke recovery, I succeeded in updating a lengthy article, BWV 769. That is the standard way in which I edit and the usual stable content that I create. I found it therapeutic, even if on occasion my vocabulary went haywire. The use of the word "antics" to describe expressive dysphasia does not seem very helpful. On 2–8 February, two blackouts resulted in a spell at A&E/cardio with hypotension followed by extreme hypertension with multiple tests (echo, ct-scan, x-rays, etc). That also complicated matters; possibly they were ignored on wikipedia—apart from the 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch just borrowed from the University Library, I had nothing with me when the ambulance arrived, just before the second blackout when they checked the ECG monitor. There were 2 further incidents at A&E/cardio in the last week of February.

Perhaps there might be a possibility of some kind of limited or restricted arbcom case, not dissimilar to the WP:ARBR&I review, that might include some private discussions (health issues, disability, discrimination). The health concerns are still there: where I would have made contributions to all sorts of topics, that is now much harder because of fatigue, anxiety and frustration resulting from stroke. Aside from mathematics, history, art history, early saints, matters French and European (Aix, Marseille, Europe), etc, for a long period (2008 onwards) a substantial part of my own expertise and article edits has been on baroque organ and keyboard works, broadly construed. There are often large articles that can be extracted from subsections, e.g. BWV 621, BWV 612, BWV 622, BWV 529, BWV 105, BWV 39, BWV 1017, BWV 1019, BWV 680, BWV 682, BWV 686, etc, etc, etc. A solis ortus cardine is another example, involving an English translation from 5th century Latin. Mathsci (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  • @Mathsci: in February 2011 the {{No footnotes}} tag was added to Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. In the mean while it was replaced by {{More footnotes}}, and I'm currently addressing the issues indicated by that tag. This is a complex operation due to many intermediate edits, thus I try to progress with small steps as much as possible. Please don't interrupt by wholesale reverts like you did here. You're welcome to assist, but if you're not interested in tackling that problem then please stay away from the page until the operation is over. Of course you're also welcome to post on the article's talk page if something untoward would have happened or if you have questions or suggestions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Further comments.
  1. At very short notice and prompted by me, I have been told that tomorrow there will be a follow-up from the consultant in the stroke clinic at the hospital. It should have happened 6 weeks after the stroke, i.e. in mid-February. Some formal "apology" was offered for the delay of 10 weeks. Meanwhile my GP has confirmed that for 12 days I have contracted an acute case of gastroenteritis, which further complicates the stroke follow-up.
  2. User:Roger Davies gave a summary in August 2010 from WP:ARBR&I of my main wikipedia interests, emphasising baroque music and mathematics. Roger wrote[7] "I must also add that Mathsci does excellent work, beautiful work, in other areas and they are a much fit for someone of his temperament and many undoubted qualities than this particular battleground." This editing referred to Clavier-Übung III. The only substantial edit the OP has made there was one unexplained blanking[8] which was reverted.[9]
  3. Most of the edits concerning the musical analysis of Clavier-Übung III originated in one source, the encyclopedic volume of 2003 Peter Williams' Organ Music of Bach. The OP has proposed a change to policy against consensus, tailor-made for his personal purpose, to prevent that happening. It is a misrepresentation of policy and an example of the petty and childish edits User:MastCell has described above. The same applies elsewhere.
  4. The article BWV 769 has edits which have not been explained by either the OP or user:Fram. Those edits seem quite out of touch with that type of editing, what has been explained much better and sympathetically by Roger Davies. Similar comments apply to other edits on baroque music, or as I have written "baroque organ and keyboard music, broadly construed."
Mathsci (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Brad. I'm just commenting briefly on the A&E/isolation ward emergency hospitalization on 18–27 May. In private, I will probably give a very short summary of that and its aftermath to Doug Weller or anybody whom you think is appropriate. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Evidence 1, Mathsci: the "updating" in Jan-Mar 2018 of Canonic Variations (2009)

Extracted from wikipedia policy on creating a wikipedia article from scratch from new sources. No consensus was reached on Francis Schonken's proposal for "updating" an established stable article.

I will describe below how in practice Francis Schonken updated BWV 769 in January 2018: he has misrepresented how that "updating" happened; the diffs are clear enough. I will add the diffs, bit by bit. Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Timeline.

  1. Stroke between 20:14–22:24, 29 December 2017.[10] Discussion on BWV 142 and sources (including Buelow & Telemann's entry on Grove Music Online).
  2. Hospitalisation, 30 December 2017–11 January 2018.
  3. 12 January [11]
  4. 22 January [12][13]
  5. 23 January [14][15][16]
  6. 24 January, lecture to Doug Weller.[17][18]
  7. 28 January, "revenge" edits[ on BWV 769. [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]
  8. 28 January, complains about "one source" [30][31][32] (Schonken edits through the {{in-use}} tag) [33][34][35] (removes in-use tag without consensus) [36][37][38][39] (claims trying to create more collaborative environment) [40] (one source again) [41][42][43] (removes in-use tag because of stress)
  9. 29 January, [44][45][46][47][48][49] (removes in-use tag several times) [50][51][52][53][54][55] (edits through in-use tag) [56] (edits through in-use tag) [57] (removes in-use tag) [58] (edits through in-use tag) [59] (while in-use tag is active, Schonken explains how the preview button works) [60] (edits through in-use tag) [61] (edits through in-use tag, claims inaccurary) [62][63][64] (all edits during in-use tag)[65][66] (in-use tag)
  10. Multiple statments by Francis Schonken on WP:OWN assembled into a segment on his user talk page on "ownershop".[67]
  11. Two blackouts, c 18:45, 2–8 February 2018, hospitialisation (cardiology).
  12. Started to add German translation/summary/paraphrase of John Butt's article on BWV 769. The updated content was almost all written by me. It changed from 26,795 bytes to 43,923 bytes, almost doubling the content. Between 9 February and 9 March I made 329 edits.
  13. 9 February, [68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75]
  14. 13 February, [76][77][78][79][80][81][82]
  15. 19 February, [83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90]

Summary. In 2009, during the period of advent, I created the article Canonic Variations. Prior to January 2018, it had been a stable article, similar to the series of articles I have written on Bach's sacred organ works. The same secondary sources and method of editing were used; similarly for Clavier-Übung III.

The previous policy for creating wikipedia articles from scratch makes a lot of sense. However, Francis Schonken's policy to include what he calls "updating" does not make any sense at all: once a roughly stable article has been created, it will evolve through cumulative and serendipitous edits. In the case of a specialist article, from a high-quality encyclopedic source, often one source is sufficient, depending on the context. That was certainly the case here.

Francis Schonken did not even have access to the "updated" source about which he complained (John Butt's German-language chapter on the Canonical Variations from Laaber Verlag.) Similarly his essay on "ownership" in his user talk page was unhelpful. Apart from a few commas and alignments of images, Francis Schonken contributed very little. Indeed his contribution seems on balance to be negative: he had to have it explained in detail why it made no sense to blank the text. That was already apparent in the 2009 article.

His habit of ignoring {{in-use}} tags was just one of several ways of evading WP:consensus. His confusion on the registration of the organ stops (Variatio IV) was not helpful at all. At some stage he decided to explain to an experienced editor how the preview button worked. At no stage did he make any major edits to the article.

This was one example of "updating" a wikipedia article. I think the previous rubric was fine: what Francis Schonken wrote later has no consensus and still makes very little sense after tweaking.

Mathsci (User talk:Mathsci) 12:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad

I was offline for most of the day and have just checked in to find multiple pings in the above thread. As it happens, I will also be mostly offline from tomorrow through Sunday (The Wolfe Pack trip to the Greenbrier). I received an e-mail from Mathsci regarding an issue that is concerning but which I cannot link to Frances Schonken and therefore is irrelevant to this discussion. I have also received e-mails concerning Mathsci's health, which is also a matter of concern although frankly I don't see that posting on-wiki concerning health issues in the level of detail contained above is going to be helpful.

At this point it is obviously necessary that Mathsci and Francis Schonken be separated in some fashion. I have a tentative view as to which of them is more at fault for their problematic interactions, but the case is not so clear that I would feel free to act unilaterally. Unless the two of them find some way to disengage voluntarily, I fear there is no alternative but an imposed remedy, whether via an ANI discussion or arbitration or otherwise. I frankly fear that participating in such a process would be stressful for both of these editors and therefore would not want to suggest it, except that a continuation of the parties' recent behavior might be even more stressful. I appreciate that two uninvolved administrators have posted comments so far aimed at helping to unravel this mess and hope they will continue their efforts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

AN discussion started

I have started a discussion about Francis Schonken and Mathsci at WP:AN#Bach editing. Fram (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

June 20: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (and Pratt Women Wikipedia Design this Saturday June 16)

Wednesday June 20, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.

We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 145 West 14th Street
(note the new address, a couple of doors down from the former Babycastles location)

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. You are also invited to Wikiproject Women Wikipedia Design @ Pratt Institute School of Architecture, Saturday, June 16!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Potential article

I was thinking of creating an article about you but I wanted to know if you would be OK with me linking your real name to your Wikipedia username in that article. If you say no, I may still create it but without your Wikipedia username mentioned; if you say you don't want me to create such an article at all, I won't. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but I neither encourage nor discourage anyone from creating an article on me, nor do I have a position on whether I'm "notable" by wiki standards. If you do go ahead, I've been public about my real name on Wikipedia for years, so feel free to make the connection if you wish. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the answer. I have just created Ira Matetsky since I think you are notable enough (I got the idea from the recent Princeton alumni story about you [91]). Every morning (there's a halo...) 02:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
BTW I'd like to create Ira Brad Matetsky and Newyorkbrad as redirects to this article, but both have been salted so I can't do so. So if you could create them for me or at least unsalt them that'd be great. Every morning (there's a halo...) 02:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not touching them lest someone shriek "COI!" but I don't mind if some other admin wants to. Actually, I usually use my first and middle names ("Ira Brad") so that might be the best article title, if anyone wants to fuss. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I've unsalted both suggested redirects so they're ready for creation. Welcome to the mainspace @Newyorkbrad:. -- Longhair\talk 02:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Fuss  Done. I also think IBM should redirect to your article. You're clearly the primary use; that computer company is nothing. --GRuban (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated Ira Brad Matetsky‎ for deletion, Brad. I assure you, I have no personal animus towards you. I tend to be a deletionist and I don't agree with the community stretching GNG to include just about everyone. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2018/Jun&oldid=999519538"