User talk:Mathsci/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

The blocking administrator has given only vague reasons for the block which include copyvio issues and borderline personal attacks. I would like my request to be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. Copyvio issues concerning user translations on article talk pages were resolved over a week ago with the help of Dougweller, Moonriddengirl and Diannaa. When asked, like me, Dougweller was not certain about how to proceed in describing a foreign language source on an article talk page. Diannaa explained that it could be done either through a brief straight translation, as permitted by copyright; or by a translated paraphrase, as if for a wikipedia article. I have apologised to Timothyjosephwood several times for the comments I made during discussions of foreign language sources and translations from a foreign language. I regret if I caused him any distress and unequivocally retract any personal statements I might have made about him. I have no history of making copvios or personal attacks. This is the first time I have edited an article on a news-related event as it unfolded. At ANI I also voluntarily committed myself to ceasing editing 2016 Nice attack or its talk page indefinitely; the advantages of my knowledge of France and the French language at this point are outweighed by the disadvantages, including my emotional investment in the subject matter itself (a little too close to home). I am making this unblock request so that I can resume my pre-Bastille-Day parallel editing of articles on baroque music (Orgelbüchlein and multiple related articles on Latin and German hymnology) and mathematics (Uniformization theorem, Planar Riemann surface, Differential forms on a Riemann surface).

Accept reason:

Unblocked per the conditions outlined and agreed to below.[1] Bishonen | talk 16:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC).

The blocking admin provided a response at ANI here. Note that the voluntary cessation of editing was just above, approximately a half hour prior. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I'm an uninvolved admin. Hi, Mathsci. It seems the Nice attack was an issue that touched you deeply; you had a lot of knowledge about it, but also perhaps too much investment in it to discuss calmly. Well, you say so yourself above. To not edit the article going forward seems a good solution to that particular issue. But you have been in trouble before for the way you interact with other editors. Some of those were indeed cases where you were right about the underlying issues, as proven by your opponents since being indeffed. But having been on Wikipedia so long as you have, I'm sure you're painfully aware of how highly the system values civility. So what would you do differently if you were unblocked? Are you thinking of sticking to uncontroversial articles altogether? Obviously we would be very glad to still have your editing on baroque music and mathematics. Mind you, if I sound like I personally advise avoiding all subjects that can be argued about, I don't; I think it would be a loss to Wikipedia. But you know yourself a lot better than I do; what are your thoughts on editing controversial articles going forward? Do you think you'd be able to avoid getting in the same trouble? Bishonen | talk 08:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC).
  • User:Bishonen, thanks for the reply. I apologise in advance for giving a detailed and unfortunately lengthy reply.

ARBR&I: The only problems with articles were in 2010 on Race and intelligence and the associated article I created, "History of the race and intelligence controversy", on the suggestion of Steve Rubenstein (stable since its creation): those edits were made from April-July 2010. There have been no problems on other articles or their talk pages; and my meticulous editing was mentioned by arbitrators in WP:ARBR&I. In the ARBR&I case itself, after discussions with User:Newyorkbrad, I voluntarily withdrew from editing anything related to R&I and have stuck to that ever since. Sanctions were lifted in December 2010. They were reimposed after a wikipedia email from Courcelles for unknown reasons. There have been plenty of problems related to meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry following WP:ARBR&I. Having been given the green light by arbitrators, I have consistently helped arbitrators/checkusers identify sockpuppets, even while blocked. Mainly that involved possible Mikemikev socks: generally I can tell whether they are socks or not, from their talk page language and topic fixations.

Echigo mole: Since 2009 there was intensive hounding by User:Echigo mole and his 300 odd sockpuppets which lasted until May 2013, when he tired of his hounding and declared a partial list (100+) of undisclosed/unused sock accounts. His editing affected almost every article I wrote, because he trolled there. He also trolled on arbcom pages and a motion about restoring his edits was passed by arbcom in 2012. Echigo mole/A.K.Nole's intention was to create as many problems for me as possible: he posted on WikiProject Mathematics and anywhere else he could stir up trouble by trolling (Reginald of Durham was an example, when I was writing content related to St Cuthbert and early Christian saints in Britain; he stayed away from Godric of Finchale and Guthlac of Crowland).

Apart from the R&I case and Echigo mole-generated disruption, there has been no prior history of editing problems on articles or article talk pages.

Nice attack: In the case of 2016 Nice attack, French editors were active on fr.wikipedia.org not on en.wikipedia.org. That is completely understandable. A news article about confused events where sources are only corrected a week or two after the event is tricky to write. Those corrections and clarifications have only appeared when the people involved were interviewed or made announcements (witnesses, heroes who engaged with the driver, national police officers who "neutralised" him, the police officer in charge of CCTV footage, the French prosecutor). Mostly that has been in French sources, since these reports are not considered newsworthy outside France beyond brief comments. I was the main editor who detected those problems and took a lot of time finding sources that were reliable. I just looked at fr:Attentat du 14 juillet 2016 à Nice and noticed a huge divergence between the content written by French editors and the article here. No POV or BATTLEGROUND about that; just a statement about how some things can go wrong on en.wikipedia.org in cases like this. I was the only person to notice the problems and nobody has disagreed. I have pinpointed how the problem arose from whether news sources were updated/corrected or not.

Sorry for this long reply, but you mentioned my editing history. The arbcom ban was solely due to an inappropriate captioned image on my user page. (I have been informed that any confusion about that is being discussed by arbitrators at the moment.) I have also been subject to off-wiki harassment; the arbitration committee was fully aware of that since it was all outlined briefly in my unban request in March 2016. My ban could have been appealed in April 2014. Personal circumstances, including ongoing health problems, intervened in the interim. Thanks again for commenting, Mathsci (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci, you have given a history that would probably be useful in some circumstances, but not really in response to my post, which I suppose you realise was an implicit offer to unblock iff you gave me some undertakings. ("I'm an uninvolved admin" is the code.) You haven't addressed my questions nor my observations at all. You changed the subject, and at the same time gave a bit of an impression you'll never let that stuff go. :-( You may be right in every single instance, but that's not the point. Please address what I asked. Personal suggestion: please don't be in a hurry, take a walk or sleep on it or something first. Bishonen | talk 10:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC).

• Response to specific questions of User:Bishonen.

Q: I'm sure you're painfully aware of how highly the system values civility. So what would you do differently if you were unblocked?

A: I would be far more careful not to overreact. I would state problems with edits dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments about editors. I would be careful to show that my edits on talk pages are there to help other editors as much as to discuss improvements to the article. I would strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors with different skills.

Q: Are you thinking of sticking to uncontroversial articles altogether?

A: Yes, of course. I have up until now avoided unfolding current events, as I have done in the past. They are not encyclopedic content (perhaps in 5 years times, when experts have written about them, they might be). I edited this one first of all because I could help with images and maps, given my knowledge of the region. This was not a controversial article, however, just an article that was hard to source (for the reasons I've explained above). Almost exclusively I have edited or created neutral and anodyne articles where no other editors are active. For a long time I watched (and still watch) Europe, Marseille and Aix-en-Provence. I don't foresee editing articles on current events again. The mismatch with the French article was unfortunate but not of my creation.

Q: But you know yourself a lot better than I do; what are your thoughts on editing controversial articles going forward? Do you think you'd be able to avoid getting in the same trouble?

A: This was not a controversial article, just one with language problems. The sources were also upsetting—listening to interviews with French people as they recounted their harrowing experiences; these people could have been my neighbours. As I say I don't edit articles on controversial topics. When there are content problems that require expertise (knowledge of mathematics, knowledge of organ playing, knowledge of French) I would be careful to speak dispassionately about the problems and strenuously avoid belittling other editors. I would step away from the computer rather than post a hasty reply. Here is an example of a mathematical discussion from 2008 where I had different expertise from another editor and where this was resolved through civil discussion.Talk:Restricted_representation#Clifford_theory I normally am careful to remain civil and not loose my cool. I will take even more care in future. User:Pincrete's comments about my overreaction here are quite correct. I have taken on board his comments as to what was wrong with my interactions on the talk page of the article: less is more; and there is no need to belittle other editors.

I hope this answers all your questions, particularly the ones on civility issues. Thanks again for clarifying things, Mathsci (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is an example of editors trying to write content using amateur cell phone videos as WP:RS. As explained above, perfectly good written sources exist which would avoid this WP:OR. That's the problem with the article: poor sourcing. Where's the "rolls eyes" icon? Mathsci (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I guess one wouldn't call the subject of 2016 Nice attack controversial, but a controversy about sourcing nevertheless developed. Theoretically, I suppose that could happen wrt baroque music as well, but it's far more likely with unfolding current events, naturally. You say you normally don't edit those, so I conclude you edited the Nice article precisely because you had strong feelings about it. I think you can see where I'm going: if you're impelled to edit a current events article, it's likely that you do feel strongly about it. So I suggest you consider simply staying away from them altogether. I know you say you don't "foresee" editing them, but something might turn up that you think is urgent. I'm not setting a voluntary self-ban from current events as a condition for unblocking; I don't think that would be fair; but please consider the risks. People will be watching you, some of them from pure motives. But you clearly have enemies as well, so please don't give them a handle.

Anyway, considering what you say in your first answer above ("I would be far more careful not to overreact," etc), I'm now going to have a word with Fram. (Please stop talking about 2016 Nice attack, in any venue. Look at Begoon's post. That's the impression it makes when you do. Impressions are important!) Bishonen | talk 14:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC).

Point taken. Je me tais. Thank you again for your help and sorry that I did not answer your questions when you first asked them. I do appreciate your help. I initially edited this article to help with the images and that led me to look at the French article. I add images quite a lot; recently Richard III, Henry VI, Lady Margaret Beaufort, Eleanor Cobham, Duke Humfrey of Gloucester, Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset, Christ's College, Cambridge, St John's College, Cambridge, Hobson's Brook, René of Anjou, Walter of Durham, Painted Chamber, A solis ortus cardine, Talbot Shrewsbury Book, Elizabeth of York, Margaret of Anjou, etc. Mathsci (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking through my email archive, I found one from Iridescent sent on 6 July 2009 about postings of Grep on Wikipedia Review. It's easy to see now that Grep was A.K.Nole/Echigo mole (e.g. he drew attention to hoax articles on Letchworth and Spirella). Something I hadn't realised before, but obvious once noticed.Mathsci (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Conditions for unblock

Fram has now replied, saying that he still has concerns but also that if I feel your reassurances are reasonable enough to give you another chance, then I'm free to do so.[2] That, together with the discussion of my unblock proposal on ANI, is enough backing for me. I will unblock if you explicitly undertake to live up to your own statement higher up on this page about what you'd do if you were unblocked: "I would be far more careful not to overreact. I would state problems with edits dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments about editors. I would be careful to show that my edits on talk pages are there to help other editors as much as to discuss improvements to the article. I would strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors with different skills." Also, please read the ANI unblocking discussion I have linked to and be aware that if there's a next block, it's highly likely to be a permanent community ban. If you agree to these conditions, please indicate it below. Bishonen | talk 15:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC).

Yes, I reiterate everything in my unblock request, in particular the section in green that you have just quoted and highlighted, which was the most significant portion. As I also wrote in the request, I will not edit the 2016 Nice attack article and its talk page. Thanks again for your help and guidance. Mathsci (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll unblock in a minute. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC).

• Glad that worked out Mathsci. If you ever need a friendly sanity check on editing, feel free to drop me a note. I may not appear to be around but am definitely lurking! --regentspark (comment) 23:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It would not have helped here.[3][4] Mathsci (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  Perhaps. But I would certainly recommend against this. Though that remark is not particularly problematic for most editors, unfortunately, because you've had an arbcom judgement against you, you're on thinner ice then most and it may not be a bad idea to recognize that reality and exercise some restraint. I've seen too many otherwise great editors get caught up in this 'death spiral'. Probably bad for the wiki in the long run but that's what we have to live with. --regentspark (comment) 02:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  Agreed. That sort of thing was previously dealt with at WP:WQA. It was an overreaction on my part, but an isolated incident. As for the thinner ice, there are some issues with one arbcom page which have been or are being discussed on arbcom-l. Mathsci (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Herzlich tut mich verlangen

Herzlich tut mich verlangen, - I have to interrupt for the day, translation and more to text and use in music missing. In case you can add, you are most welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Christian Jacobi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Nitschmann. 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) 10:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Image?

Could you help to any image of the music of Der 100. Psalm? I know there's a postcard of the composer and the beginning of the words with music in his handwriting, because it's in the Dr. J Butz publication. Some more music would be even better, like his Requiem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The music is out of copyright and a facsimile of the 1909 score of the Peter's edition is in this pdf file on IMSLP. You can extract a jpeg (or png) image of the page. There is a low resolution png image of the first page already on the IMSLP site here but it's too poor quality for wikipedia. I'm not sure about autograph scores. Mathsci (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The original composition manuscript (skizzen) with Reger's name on the first page is on the digital document provider of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek here. Mathsci (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for finding them! I guess the last one is interesting, but very pale, - it could be linked. My experience with images from documents is zero, - would you do the conversion of the first for me, please? - See us pictured before singing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I have converted the first page of the pdf file to jpeg and mailed it to you. I am very busy creating the lilypond and audio files for the 3rd section of BWV 39/i. It is quite difficult, but in the process I discovered how to make permanent forms of audio files that do not rely on readers' software and how to simulate solo voices and choirs. That applies in particular to organ music, but needs a lot of work for each individual piece. Mathsci (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Next wish: Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80. Something relevant to the work, not some stained-glass imagination of Luther inspiring Bach ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Next wish: music for Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Francis Schonken (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Audio files

Hello, no worries that article had been sorely missing for years! . I can't think of anything to add to it at the moment (I don't know much about the trio sonatas myself), but if I do, I'll add it to the new article. I agree re the audio file; it's rather nice for a MIDI and is reasonable for demonstrating the work. I don't hear the click in Winamp, but another way to remove it may be to use Audacity to find Zero crossings (the function is in the edit menu in Windows) and then save the remaining audio, which will be automatically selected for you. Graham87 09:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback. The tip is also very helpful. I have been using audacity but didn't know it had that extra function. I'll try it right away. Thanks again, Mathsci (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Score images

Yo, noticed that your score images are often JPEG files. Please also or instead upload SVG versions; JPEG is very much the wrong file format for that kind of content. Thanks! :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 18:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been adding scores for years as png or jpeg because Mutopia presents their miniscores in png, eg here (reproduced in Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes). I am only adding extracts, so that is convenient. Available outputs from lilypond are ps and pdf (both automatic); and png, eps and svg (as options). I use the pdf file and linux software to create a png or jpeg image with the resolution that suits me. Can you give me an example of a complicated score on wikipedia in svg format? What purpose would it serve if it's only an extract? Mathsci (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what your problem is with using SVG. The benefit is that the files do not become blurry when zoomed in: JPEG files look ugly, for instance, when using a high-DPI monitor. If your problem is you don't know how to make SVG extracts from Mutopia PDFs, it's trivial: say you want page 4, system 2 of BWV651:

1. $ wget http://www.mutopiaproject.org/ftp/BachJS/BWV651/bwv651/bwv651-let.pdf
2. $ pdf2svg ./bwv651-let.pdf ./BWV651-Mutopia-p4-s2.svg
3. $ inkscape ./BWV651-Mutopia-p4-s2.svg
4. Right click document -> Ungroup
5. Drag box around page number and top system, press backspace
6. Drag box around bottom system, press backspace
7. File -> Document Properties -> Resize page to content...
8. (Fill in your desired margin values, e.g. 50, 50, 50, 50)
9. Click the "Resize page to drawing or selection" button
10. Close the "Document Properties" window
11. File -> Save
12. File -> Quit
13. Upload the resulting file "BWV651-Mutopia-p4-s2.svg" to Commons
14. Result:

BWV651-Mutopia-p4-s2

—{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 20:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I can read the lilypond manual without your help if I wanted to produce svg output.[5] But I asked you a question. Where on wikipedia has anybody used an svg file for the miniscore extracts I'm using, They are high resolution because that's how I created them. They are extracts not scores of a whole piece. So what examples are you thinking of that are currently used on wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is my high resolution jpeg file.

Although I would still like you to answer my question, what is the problem with the resolution of this image in its largest version on commons? Mathsci (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know of examples of score extracts as SVG, and I don't care to look for them, since your question about them is irrelevant to my point: JPEG is intended for photographic images, while SVG is intended for images consisting of solid-colour shapes. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 11:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes these extracts are created with images from a photographed score which is not necessarily of high quality. Are you saying the images are problematic at 800px or is there some zoom feature you're talking about? Why not produce screenshots to show me what you mean? Mathsci (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

My point isn't about photographs. JPEG is perfect for photographs of scores. My point is about score images that are non-photographic in origin: they should be SVG. Please have a look over at Wikimedia Commons's page on file types if you have any questions about why SVG is better for this use case. Thanks. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 14:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The commons pages don't help very much. All they tell me is that svg is used for maps and diagrams. Musical scores are not remotely related to things like that. If you think that the rendered files create problems, please show me how—with a screenshot—so I can see what you mean. In any case the extracts I produce are not raw pdf files. They are always cropped from a high rsolution image (using gimp). But if you show me the problems that arise by providing a screenshot, that would help. If somebody sees the score on a page, they have to click for more detail. That takes them to the file page on commons and they can choose their own resolution. Unless I see what the problem might be with jpeg, I won't even think of using svg. If you really want to persuade me, you'll have to provide a screenshot. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Mathsci. But your "high-res" score, which is actually 1,308 × 330 pixels large, looks horrible lo-res and blurry on my screen that's in 3,840 x 2,160 resolution. This brings about the value of SVGs: they are much more future-proof than "high-res" JPEGS. Ahyangyi (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Without a screenshot, I have no idea what you are talking about. So screenshots please. Also I wll not do anything at all until somebody gives another example of a musical score of similar complexity that uses svg. Here is another file produced from a nineteenth century score (i.e.not using lilypond). It could not be produced in svg.

So screenshots please. I have no idea what kind of computers you are using. For that matter, I don't know whether either of you can read music. Mathsci (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I cannot see any difference with the rendering of the previous score in svg (produced directly with pdf2svg without using inkscape).

I am using a very inexpensive kind of computer. So some kind of screenshot please so that I can have some idea what the problem is. Now that you have an svg file to compare with a jpeg file, it's easier to produce the screenshot. Mathsci (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Equally well Goldenshimmer 's"trivial method" is not a very good method in inkscape as it does not allow the choice of a rectangle except by indirect trial and error. Inkscape is obviously not intended for editing music scores. However a reasonable method of cropping to a rectangle is to choose "no paint" at the bottom; choose the rectangle tool and adjust the rectangle to cover the desired area. Then mark that rectangular area using the selection tool. The image can be cropped to the area selected by going, as in Goldenshimmer's method, to document properties and using the button "resize page to drawing or selection". A cumbersome process. Here is the result. I see no advantage so far. Please could we have some screen shots?

svg image

jpeg image

Looking at this, I cannot really see any difference between the two (initially I thought I could). Neither is 100% perfect at this resolution. What does it look like on another computer? Mathsci (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sonatas for viola da gamba and harpsichord (Bach), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Urtext. 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) 09:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39 page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flute Sonata in E major, BWV 1035, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Malcolm. 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) 12:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hospital

1 hour after a check up, I collapsed again and am back in hospital. Not really serious, but everything is on hold. Mathsci (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope you get well soon. Keep up the spirits.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Magnus. I am out of hospital now, although not everything has been resolved. Mathsci (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

More good wishes for health and spirits, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

For your work on Giulio Cesare! Smeat75 (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It's temporarily on pause, but I will resume adding content from Dean & Knapp when I have finished the current mathematics content. Mathsci (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Improper page moves and misleading templates

Hello, I generally can't stand conflict (and don't handle it very well) and for some reason I could sense that the page for BWV 525–530 would be the centre of it, so I took it off my watchlist, just intending to check it out from time to time (what you've done on the page so far is great!). Re the page move, I'm not sure what I think of the capitalisation but a page mover is very much allowed to assess consensus in that case. The redirect templates they added were fine; the CD/DVD text is a reference to the Wikipedia 1.0 project. Graham87 00:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing someone else's survey submission in an ongoing WP:RM?

In this edit you removed someone else's !vote in the open WP:RM at Talk:Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (Bach)#Requested move 18 October 2016. I'm not sure it was an oversight or that perhaps the other editor was disqualified from contributing to such survey for one reason or another (there was no edit summary to clarify one way or another)? Could you explain, or reinsert the other editor's !vote if it was a simple oversight. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see it. Presumably an edit conflict. Easy enough to put back. Please do it yourself without chnaging my edits and read what I have written elsewhere about my health problems, which you are exacerbating. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

One of my last interactions with Bishonen was about how much fun we had editing Wikipedia this month twelve years ago. The best way to retain a health benefit from Wikipedia involvement is to keep it fun and relaxing imho, and that's what works for me up to the present day.

Here's where Wikipedia involvement can become a net health negative: the WP:OWN policy is clear that content can't be owned. Now there are some who think that ownership is the way to go nonetheless, as long as one can keep it under the WP:OWN policy radar. Then a lot of convoluted mechanisms enter the arena to make that ownership stick without being blunt about it. Keeping such mechanisms operational and at the same time covert is exhausting (again, the Wikipedia editing environment wasn't designed to work that way): in short, such proceedings can exacerbate health problems.

So here's my health wish for you: keep your involvement with Wikipedia breezy – find that relaxing nerve of Wikipedia editing where co-editors are collaborators rather than competitors. The scenarios when you're unsuccessful to tap that health-beneficial nerve are but too predictable: your health is more important than what resides on a web server some place far away. Ultimately your co-editors may need to step in to prevent you from endangering your own health. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You have both pinged me, but I feel I'm overly threaded through the running feud between you, and would rather you asked someone else to adjudicate if you must escalate this, or for instance everyone else (=at ANI). And, Mathsci, please do take it easy and rest up until you're quite well, I'm concerned about you. Letting Wikipedia get you stressed out is a mug's game. Bishonen | talk 10:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC).

Removing someone else's comment in a discussion

You have now twice removed my comment "for clarity: nobody doubts the reliability of the source, this is about whether the content of the source is rendered correctly in the Wikipedia article" (and some other content) from WP:RSN (diff 1 diff 2), and accused me also (in the edit summaries of those diffs) twice of moving your comments – I did not move anyone else's comments, and surely not yours. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not read your comments carefully enough. I had written something similar elsewhere. You can add back that new content where you wish but please do not start a new section. The reliability of the 2004 Urtext Barenreiter edition is not under discussion; andWP:RSN is not the place for to make nit-picking comments about my edits which are still in process. A fourth person has now questioned your sourcing. Mathsci (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleting content and references at Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach

With this edit you deleted...

• , with the addition of a second violino di ripieno part,

References

• Dietrich Kilian (editor). Vol. 3: Concertos for Violin, for two Violins, for Harpsichord, Flute and Violin, Score of Series VII: Orchestral Works of the New Bach Edition. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1986.
• Dietrich Kilian. Vol. 3: Concertos for Violin, for two Violins, for Harpsichord, Flute and Violin, Critical Commentary of Series VII: Orchestral Works of the New Bach Edition. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1989.
• Wilhelm Rust (editor). Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe, Volume XVII: Kammermusik. Band 2. Breitkopf & Härtel, 1869.
• David Schulenberg. The Keyboard Music of J.S. Bach. Taylor & Francis, 2006. ISBN 9780415974004

...from Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. With any other editor I would have reverted such deletions as vandalism. Is there any reason why your deletions should not be regarded as such? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You copied over the tags and have been copying content from one page to another recently. I would normally call that "obnosious trolling". Perhaps in your case it's different. You have shown no sign of using the references properly, so I am rewriting the original content (not due to yopu) properly. I have obvious skills that you don't have. I go to libraries and find books and articles. I read them and check them. I also play most of the pieces in the articles thart I edit. My ability to create musical score and audio files is an added skill, which is spin-off of my training as a musician. I play the transverse flute (nobody would call it a traverso in English), the recorder (alto, sopranino), piano, harpsichord and organ; I have performed some of these works in public. So I am in a very good position to improve the original content. You didn't make use any proper use of the new sources, that I found. You turned your nose up at the main ones, in you own inimitable way. The above message is unduly aggressive. Besides I provide the references to Schulenberg (three pages). There's no need to be a hypocrite as well as a bully. Mathsci (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

None of your defense disqualifies the removals listed above as obvious vandalism. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Obviously not vandalism, since I am obviously improving the content at the moment and have a reputation as an expert editor with experience in producing high quality content on Bach's keyboard music. Why did you copy over the tags from another article? Tags are added to individual articles. That was disruptive editing. I think your incipits in German were poor for this article: I can produce some myself as time permits. It could take a day or two. Your responses seem quite aggressive. Calling my edits "vandalism" was quite an obnoxious thing to do. Mathsci (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I only described the deletions listed above as vandalism. Yo::u're obviously not wanting to restore them, and can not give a reasonable explanation as to why this content and these references were removed in the first ::@::place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Content and references as listed above restored ([6]) – none of this impedes a further development of the article, improve sourcing etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You made those edits when two "in use" tags were up and where new content is obviously being created. I do not intend to use Kilian at the moment. Can you please stop editing so disruptively? Just because you use sources poorly (as orthers have said on WP:RSN), please don't bully other editors into using your poor standards of sourcing. Judging from your edits to BWV 1044, it seems unlikely you have read Kilian's commentary. I don't know whether any of it is useful at this stage: I will look in the Cambridge UL tomorrow where it is only available in the reference section (2 copies, the second donated by Christopher Cartwright). That is how we edit wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Putting up a {{in use}} is a lame excuse for covering up vandalistic deletions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is of much interest to go into great lengths about the history of the manuscripts: that is not done for any of the other works, which in some cases (e.g. the reworking of Brandenburg Concerto No. 4) have as complicated a history; and I believe that this is of no interest to the reader beyond a brief summary. I will prepare my own excerpts for BWV 1044 in lilypond as a short excerpt can be created quite quickly (at most 2 or 3 days). I will also look for the Wollny article tomorrow. Looking at the sources before rewriting the content seems like a good idea. I have played all of these pieces myself: BWV 894 on the harpsichord; and BWV 527/2 on the organ. I have also incidentally performed the harpsichord version of Brandenburg 4, 2nd and 3rd movements, and in fact created lilypond files for these. As it happens, for almost all the articles I am currently editing, I have played the music at some time or other (most recently selections from BWV 1014–1019 with a 1st violin from the Boston Symphony Orchestra). At the moment I am preparing the articulation and ornamentation for the audio file for BWV 529/1 which mostly involves inserting micro-rests. Mathsci (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated to the topic at hand: none of the reported deletions involved the "history of the manuscripts", music performances, the Wollny source, micro-rests or whatever else you're writing about in the above paragraph. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read what I've written. I do not believe you have looked at Kilian (in a major university library it is only a reference volume). I am going to look at it on Monday to see whether it has any relevance. I cannot imagine at the moment how it could be useful for creating any useful content since the Introduction to Bach studies does not recommend it. I have not seen a paraphrase by you of any content created from that source. Before my trip to the UL tomorrow, why don't you give me some examples of sentences on BWV 1044 that you've read in Kilian that might be relevant. Just copy the German verbatim. Take as long as you want. There is no rush. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mathsci. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Mathsci. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

YohanN7 (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Editing through "in use" template

Please discontinue editing through the {{in use}} template at List of solo keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach ([7], [8]), as I asked you at the talk page ([9]). Your suggestions are welcome at Talk:List of solo keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You are reproducing a list and have been told not to on the talk page, The fact that you ignore other editors does not justify you forcing your list back on wikipedia with an "in use" tag. It is another disruptive ploy by you. Please use the talk ogae instead of creating disruptuve content that pushes your own point of view. Mathsci (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to persist editing thus disruptively through the {{in use}} at List of solo keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

On the article talk page, you said your intention was to write an article about the concerto transcriptions. That does not seem to be happening. Instead you have cherry-picked one sentence which you wish to place in the lede to justify your own personal feeling that the Italian concerto belongs to the same musical genre as the transcriptions. That is not born out by the literature. Obviously you think that your view is correct and you want to make a big issue of it in a wikipedia article, to the point that you scream it out in the lede. But evidently that is an example of WP:UNDUE. It is disruptive tendentious editing.

I've already told you several time that I reject an umbrella list article containing the concerto transcriptions and the two much later works, entirely composed by Bach. If you want to write an article on the transcriptions, that is easy enough. But why try to force you own ideas on readers? It is misleading, confusing and unhelpful. I think you are misrepresenting secondary sources at the moment. The Italian Concerto and the Overture in French style are mature works which belong together and had the same purpose, quite different from the concerto transcriptions. The transcriptions were written as part of Bach's reception of the concertos of his contemporaries (particularly Vivaldi) and probably at the request of his employer. The transcriptions are related to all his subsequent concertos regardless of instrument. So why pick two at random with one that only marginally fits your description (the two harpsichord concerto)? I think you're being very disruptive at the moment and you have misled me on the talk page about your intentions. Mathsci (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, could you please answer the question whether you'll continue to edit through an "in use" template with sweeping changes at the List page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:IDHT has been your response for a while. You want to restore the list article with your own WP:OR ideas in it and I've told you cannot do that. I have written rather clear reasons which seem supported by all the literature I've seen. Putting the "in use" tag up in your case is just a way of locking the article in a state which has no agreement on the talk page. It is tendentious and disruptive editing. I've said that if you want to write an article on the concerto transcriptions, you can go ahead and do it. But you somehow want to make some point about other compositions that comes from your own imaginings, i.e. WP:OR.

Up until now you have said one thing on the talk page (that you are going to write an article on concerto transcriptions); but then you proceed to do something completely different on the article page. In so doing, you are misrepresenting yourself. Your true intentions are borne out by your proposed new lede, one sentence long, which cherry-picks a sentence out of context to justify one of your own WP:OR ideas. You want to edit disruptively and ignore any points I want to make. But everything I have said is supported by the literature; your point of view is not.

If I put up the "in use" tag, it means I am working on difficult content. At the moment I am preparing content on BWV 1055/2, a movement which has been analysed over 3 pages by Dominik Sackmann in a book which fortunately is available in my university library. That is an appropriate use of the "in use" tag. I am adding detailed content in a way which I hope will help the reader. But creating content about musical structure requires reading the sources (often technical), understanding them (requires musical training) and then translating that into non-technical terms that hopefully are of assistance to the reader.

If you want to create a new article on "concerto transcriptions", I don't see the problem. But you obviously want an article where you can very firmly make the point that the concerto transcriptions and the Italian concerto are generally regarded as belonging to the same musical genre. Mathsci (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

2016 Nice attack

Hi, Mathsci. I see you have recently edited 2016 Nice attack and its talkpage, something you explicitly undertook not to do in August 2016.[10] I have no criticism of your edits as such, but have you forgotten, or changed your mind, about completely staying away from that article? I didn't specifically put that into my unblock conditions, but, you know, it was sur le tapis. You'd be wise to take the article off your watchlist, IMO. And a happy new year to you! Bishonen | talk 17:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC).

remettre sur le tapis ? Je vous souhaite une bonne année. Mathsci (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Mathsci, I also read "Je me tais" as an agreement with Bishonen to not edit that article anymore, and the subsequent "I will not edit the 2016 Nice attack article and its talk page" was pretty clear. But I see that you've been on a Bach trip since then, so I assume this is all water under the bridge. Water on or under the tapis is probably a sign you need to take the dog for a walk. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I am now worried that if I lift up my floor covering I will find a menagerie swimming around in a pool. Meanwhile I will cross that bridge when I come to it and let sleeping dogs lie. It is true that strange things have been found near here, e.g. an anglo-saxon bed grave. Mathsci (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The short update on Nice was exceptional, but uncontroversial and designed to be helpful to readers. I haven't followed editing on the article. I should add that, since 2010 I have made no edits related to articles on race and intelligence, apart from pointing out sockpuppetry by email to a checkuser (almost always the same banned user). As far as Bach edits are concerned, for several months I have been followed around wikipedia by Francis Schonken. Others have noticed this.[11] Mathsci (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

DRN

Please do not remove dispute resolution noticeboard filings from the dispute resolution noticeboard as a way of declining to participate in them. The proper way to decline to participate in moderated discussion is to reply to the filing by stating that one does not want to participate, since participation is voluntary. I have commented at the dispute resolution noticeboard talk page as to next steps, which may include a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend

The hymn has been started, but the author is not really that sure ;) - more to come, later. Good enough to link to, I'd say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! You already have one image and I can add another. Mathsci (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Circular re-directs

Just noticed... Your recent edits have resulted in Weimar concerto transcription (Bach) re-directing to Concerto transcriptions (Bach) and vice-versa. —Patrug (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustBerry (talk • contribs) 02:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was unbanned in April 2016 under the condition that he refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This restriction is now rescinded. The interaction bans to which Mathsci is a party remain in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence

DYK for Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend

On 27 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bach composed five organ settings of the hymn "Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend", which was translated by Catherine Winkworth for communion as "Lord Jesus Christ, be present now!"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend), 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.

Harrias ^talk 12:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Schwarz triangle function page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

References

"how this is done" - about the titles of references: it is done differently. I do it like this: Notes (with a notelist) contains (only) footnotes, Bibliography contains cited books and sources, References (with a reflist) cites these books and sources (names-year-pages), External links has other sources. You can do it differently, but I see no reason to edit war over it. The compositions by Reger have it as described above, which includes FA Requiem, for Notes compare Komm, du süße Todesstunde, BWV 161. Can we please keep the Reger works consistent? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this really an issue? I used the same kind of format as I did for Walter of Durham or The Four Seasons (Poussin).

I removed content that you had included about Catholicism that did not march the source. Where did it come from? (I don't doubt that some general statement like that is true.)

As far as the image in the infobox is concerned, the original cover of one of the three volumes digitised here might be preferable.

Since you're here, could I ask you to comment on my suggestions on the DYK template for Was Gott tut? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It seemed an issue for you, changing and reverting. I have seen it, and other again different versions, but would still like the compositions by Reger look similar. This was a brandnew article, - I confess I hadn't even sorted cited books and others yet. The fact that he was raised Catholic but was fascinated by Protestant hymns (even before he married a Protestant which got him excommunicated) has been cited elsewhere, - I may find it. The main objective in creating at least a stub on this Op. was to get the 52 pieces off the works list. Any image more related to the piece instead of the man is most welcome. Commenting the Was Gott tut hooks is more up to the reviewer than to me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sieben Stücke, Op. 145 has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Mathsci. Sieben Stücke, Op. 145, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Sieben Stücke, Op. 145

On 4 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sieben Stücke, Op. 145, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in seven last pieces for organ, Sieben Stücke, Op. 145, Max Reger quotes Lutheran chorales and a patriotic anthem? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sieben Stücke, Op. 145. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sieben Stücke, Op. 145), 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.

Mifter (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for 52 Chorale Preludes, Op. 67

On 16 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 52 Chorale Preludes, Op. 67, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Max Reger recorded some of his 52 Chorale Preludes, Op. 67, on the Welte Philharmonic organ? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 52 Chorale Preludes, Op. 67), 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.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In case you didn't see this: thank you for writing the bulk of that article, and very well! - Can you fix the citation errors I see for the Naxos liner notes ("not used"), by either moving them to further reading, or using them? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan

On 20 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 17th-century German hymn "Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan" has been described as "one of the most exquisite strains of pious resignation ever written"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I just received the note that a cousin died. RIP. Any images to be added for BWV 56? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your loss. I have added an image for BWV 56. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

See also this broadcast on BBC Radio 4 about "Ich habe genug," BWV 82. (Oboist George Caird recalls playing Ich Habe Genug at his father's funeral; theologian Paula Gooder recalls the effect of putting her new born baby into the arms of an elderly relative; Danish music therapist Lars Ole Bonde tells how this music provided vital solace for him as a teenager growing up with a father suffering from depression; American Susan Dray remembers how the Cantata helped her when she was grieving for her baby; and tenor Ian Bostridge wonders why we never feel that we have "enough".) Mathsci (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the image, and for sharing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Precious six years, on Bach's birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you add the US license to the manuscript image, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Eight years precious, and I miss you! Expanding Jesu, meine Freude, in honour of Bach's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hyperbolic metric space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mikhael Gromov. 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) 09:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Bach's Triple Concerto

Hi Mathsci... regarding my edit and your revert at Template:Chamber music, Orchestral works and Transcriptions by Johann Sebastian Bach, I changed the entry "Triple Concerto, BWV 1044" to point at Triple Concerto, BWV 1044 because I thought targeting to a section of a broader article was likely left over from a time pre-dating the creation of the stand-alone article. The broader article, Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach, has keyboard concerti as its subject, which was also a surprise to me as I was reading after seeing an amazing performance of the D Major Concerto (BWV 1064R) for Three Violins (which I would call a triple concerto, and so I was expecting to find it following a "triple concerto" link, though I did not check the BWV). I thought this was a simple case of targeting which was inconsistent with the principle of least surprise. I did notice that the stand-alone had lots of tags and needed work, but thought that it would benefit from more eyes and that it would be an expansion of the original section. I also thought it odd on the template when the keyboard concerti article already had its own entry. I have now looked much more closely and read talk:Triple Concerto, BWV 1044, and see that the situation is much more Schoenberg than it is Bach (dissonant and unsatisfying), so I am glad that you made the revert – thank you – as the section gives much better coverage of the triple concerto. I acted too quickly in changing the template, for which I want to apologise.

I am now wondering what to do about the stand-alone article, which has sat basically untouched since November last year. It is not attracting much traffic and has only one incoming link from article space (from Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis) and so is effectively orphaned. Can it be deleted without prohibiting recreation of a properly comprehensive stand-alone article at some point in the future, if that is seen as desirable? I realise you probably don't want further conflict with the editor who created it, beyond what I already see on the talk page and with a hatting war at WP:RSN etc, but leaving it to just sit seems undesirable too. Could it be changed to a redirect to the section, or do you think that would be provocative? Any advice? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this message. I think it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. The differences between the forked content and the main content are quite clear, in terms of information and sourcing. I think things are OK at the moment: a properly written account is available in the main article on the keyboard concertos and it is not too hard to find. Mathsci (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mathsci. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Francis Schonken

Hi. I have no idea what your dispute is about but per WP:OWNTALK, don't we generally let editors remove messages as they see fit? Your insistence on re-posting your messages looks like WP:IDHT and WP:EW. Maybe you ought to just let the issue drop or seek help at a drama board. If Francis doesn't want you posting there, I see no point in forcing the issue. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have read what User:Doug Weller and User:Newyorkbrad have mentioned. You seem to have ignored the ongoing problem of my stroke: you seem to have acted in a matter-of-fact fashion, as if you didn't care about it. Please could you be more careful next time. When I was informed about the status of my stroke, I did not expect an editor (Francis Schonken) to add the comment "rvv". That was not vandalism in any way. Mathsci (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Mathsci, please add some link to where Francis Schonken added the comment "rvv", as I can't find it, and as it stands am very close to blocking you for harassment of Francis Schonken instead (your antics at his talk page, following him to other discussions here). Fram (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It was an error or oversight that I wrote "rvv" instead of "rv". Sorry about that. I have still a few verbally difficulties with the stroke.

Doug Weller has explained the stroke status. I have also explained in User:Newyorkbrad and User:MastCell. Doug Weller wrote,

"Please step back and disengage yourself from the talk page. I should have responded here earlier but by the time I saw the messages the discussion had stopped. Mathsci told me about his stroke when he got out of hospital, and he not surprisingly isn’t fully recovered. However right you may think you are, it simply isn’t important enough. I’m off to bed now. Doug Weller talk 22:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)"

I am not sure I can explain anything more about that. Shortly after being discharged (my stroke resulted in my computer being damaged—it is now on a temporary new laptop, with a live kubuntu usb), Doug Weller contacted me by email on my status stroke fairly shortly after that. He is the best person to contact me about User:Doug Weller. Mathsci (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You still haven't given any link to the "rv" edit you are apparently upset about. Without that link, it is impossible to see whether you violated user talk page rules and so on but were clearly baited or otherwise provoked, or whether your actions were unprovoked or totally disproportional. As it stands, it is impossible to follow what you are talking about, and all we see are your actions, and not the edit(s) which caused these. Fram (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's what happens with a stroke. Often I can only stutter, because of the mismatch between left and right hemispheres. I am sorry about that. Here is the diff [12] and my apology about the error. I have removed all the comments now. Please see what Doug Weller has written. Mathsci (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That "rv" came "after" you repeatedly reverted him, so it can't explain why you started reverting his removals on his own talk page. Fram (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Is this about Talk:Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142? Some section was automatically archived during your hospitalisation, FrancisSchonken said "sory to hear about your health problems", and for some reasons you remove posts by Schonken with unreasonable reason "Unless my health problem are addressed, there will be no further replies to messages", you then remove some text you added with the edit summary "stray text - no need for trolling by Francis Schonken" which is not an acceptable edit summary. I do see a "rvv" edit summary on that page,here, but that was Francis Schonken reverting an IP which attacked you, an edit which was later revision deleted by Doug Weller as "grossly insulting".

If that last edit is the one you are so upset about, then it looks to me as if you totally misread the situation. Francis Schonken never made fun or misused your stroke, and actually reverted as vandalism an anonymous editor who did just that. All your upset edits against him (like the examples I just highlighted, or your reversions on his user talk page) seem to start from this misunderstanding. If this is a correct reading of the situation, then please take a step back and stop treating Francis Schonken like some insensitive bastard, which he doesn't seem to deserve at all. You two don't agree on content issues, fine, but the personal animosity you display seems totally undeserved here. Fram (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that rev/del, unfortunately. It would have helped if you'd thanked Francis Schonken about that, no matter how you feel about him. I also think it's in your own best interest to drop this now. As I told Francis Schonken, it simply isn't important enough. And yes, I saw his response, but that's immaterial. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw this several hours ago and assumed Mathsci had misinterpreted this fast removal ("rv") as "rvv". However, that would not excuse the restoration of text a user had removed from their talk page (WP:OWNTALK). Mathsci is great on developing properly referenced, high quality encyclopedic content, and I have seen Mathsci interact well with other users, even when there is a disagreement. However, once a problem reaches a certain point, Mathsci can switch and adopt an inappropriate approach which involves total annihilation. The solution is to never refer to an editor in an edit summary or heading (except at ANI/Arbcom). Give how far this has gone, Mathsci should never refer to FS at all (except at ANI/Arbcom). Instead, provide a dispassionate explanation of the perceived problem, focusing on content and never on contributors. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the BWV 142 article, I'd like to restore this three-paragraph version of the text of the lead section, and what has been removed here. If that needs further discussion, I suppose it is best to have that discussion at Talk:Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142. Unfortunately, that talk page and its edit summaries contain several off-topic comments. Some of these are experienced as quite offensive by me, which I tend to ignore per the recommendations given at WP:NPA#Recurring attacks ("In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and focus on content ..."). So, I'd like to proceed with on-topic discussion only at that talk page. If it helps to remove some of the previous off-topicness I'd support that, but the main focus should imho be that future discussion would be on-topic only. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Major edits

Were you still planning any major edits on the Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" article in the next few hours? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Obviously. I've told you explicitly—several times— that for the next one or two days I want to concentrate on Breig's commentary and how it fits into Butler's explanation. Please be more patient. There is no need for urgency at the moment. That means allowing some space to create content. Mathsci (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I asked about the next few hours, not the next few days. The {{in use}} tag is obviously causing a lot of distress (call it time pressure or whatever). So, removing the tag for now will alleviate time pressure, and you can place it back during active editing sessions.

What I'm seeing now is the panic of someone who fears losing WP:OWNership of a page. See also what I wrote above more than a year ago. Wikipedia doesn't allow such ownership, and it causes stress for those who try to acquire it nonetheless. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's easy to understand this: I am the principal creator of this article, which was written in 2009. After 2010 I decided to upgrade part of the commentary, in particular the long pdf files of Werner Breig from 2010. I used Breig's edition when I purchased it in Cambridge. I havealso been intermittently performed the organ from that score. At the moment I am using essentially 5 densely pages on Breig's commentary to give a revised and clarified versions of Bulter's long essay. It involves the engravings and the autograph manuscripts, and how they all fit in. What is the problem? Mathsci (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course it's easy to understand. It's called WP:OWN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. You are presumably of the 2010 Breitkopf edition including in the 2 pdf files. I have been reading the file and I have been updating it steadily: it's easy to check as I edit. I have been quite surprised by your reaction. Mathsci (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Please give up your pretended ownership of the Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" article. It is against policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The pdf files of Werner Breig are very detailed. The Introduction elaborates on Butler's explanation of the order or possible order of the 5 variations. The explanation is complex. The edits have been continuing fairly steadily. Mathsci (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you been reading Werner Breig's files? There is no policy on updating secondary sources like this. In footnote 40 of Breig's introduction, he writes, "In the following account, we base ourselves on the closing chapter (Companion Study) of Butler 1990as well as on Butler’s essay Bachs Kanonische Veränderungen über “Vom Himmel hoch” (BWV 769) – Ein Schlußstrich unter die Debatte um die Frage der “Fassung lezter Hand”, in: Bach-Jahrbuch 2000, pp. 9–34." That's how wikipedians create content. It's part of the five pillars of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Why do you keep imagining that you should, by some dogmatic necessity, be the one summarizing Breig? For starters, Breig isn't as complex as you pretend it is: at least I had no trouble reading and understanding it. The problem is and remains pretence of ownership, and using the {{in use}} tag to implement/acquire that ownership in an attempt to keep it under the radar of the WP:OWN policy. Your repetition of "I am reading Breig" (as if nobody else could) makes it too obvious what is going on. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Try to remember we are talking about Breitkopf & Härtel's commentary on Vol. 6 of the urtext version. We have 5 variations and have to work out the order or the possible order. Apparently Hans Klutz in the 1957 critical commentary NBA is not reliable, etc, etc. That is how content is edited. You have made a number of odd statements; but that does not change how the editing of Werner Breig's proceeds. We continue the standard method of summarising and paraphrasing on wikipedia using secondary sources. Those are the five pillars of wikipedia. Breig's content is new content, so is obviously not covered by your odd interpretation of WP:OWN. Mathsci (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense, of course it is part of WP:OWN, each time you say "we" as a pluralis maiestatis. Again, you don't want anyone else to read & understand Breig (while I obviously do), because you want to be the sole editor of the Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" article, and thus WP:OWN it. That's the single reason you use the {{in use}} template, to prevent others from editing, so that you can always claim you are the sole editor of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I am continuing editing as I already said. Probably quite a lot of Breig's commentary will be added; partly some of it will be merged. As I said it is fairly complex content. You have been discussing about Breig's secondaty sources and content for quite a long time. I am quite tired at the moment, so could you please stop on Talk:Mathsci. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw, you claimed ownership again, again deleting my edits for no good reason, again introducing errors such as "Johann Sebastian Bach: his work and influence on the music of Germany, Page 221, Vol. III, 1880" – again: there was no Vol. III of that book in 1880. All of this amounts to deteriorating Wikipedia, for which no sound excuse has been given. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week

YOu have three times removed the same section with questions from Talk:Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her"[13][14][15], and haven't responded to questions about it from me (before the third such revert) and from Francis Schonken (after the third revert), despite answering everything else. This coupled with your blind reversion of every edit they make, even the most obvious improvements[16], and the previous section on this talk page about you two where you also didn't reply to requests for explanations and links or to the explanation of what you probably misinterpreted. Having a content dispute or not liking another editor are not excuses to ignore all policies and to e.g. remove talk page sections with factual questions (no matter if you believe them to be misguided or not) with "rvv".

I have blocked you for a week now. Fram (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I will respond later. That might take quite some time, because of my circumstances. Please be patient.

• User:Doug Weller has already spoken to me several times in private about my own health problems and his genuine concerns (my stroke on 29 January 2017, reported in A&E at Addenbrookes Hospital in 30 December and discharged on 11 January 2018. On wikipedia, two other wikipedians have been sympathetic, User:Johnuniq and User:Gerda Arendt. On a wikipedia email at User:Softlavender, I had given a lengthy account. I found it only on 31 January that Softlavender had very kindly responded to me, to which she later referred: "part of the stress was FS's hounding of you." In my wikipedia email I wrote:

You might have heard from Doug Weller and others that on 29 December 2017 in the late evening I had a stroke. That unfortunately was only detected 12 or more hours later. I was unable to speak except in a jumble and one person living at home with me did not know what was going on. Fortunately she eventually contacted the paramedics who worked fairly quickly out that I had had a stroke. I was sent to Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, in A&E (999), very close to where I lived. I was then later sent to the acute stroke ward. I was discharged on 11 January 2018. Before that I was aided by a friend [ ... ], and later by my eldest brother [ ... ].

[ ... ] have kindly arranged for a period of convalescence at [ ... ]; it is continuing here. Yesterday one of the consultants in Addenbrookes by serendipity happened to be investigating another matter unrelated to the stroke incident (syncope). Because of that coincidence, she was able to give me over an hour of her time to explain what had happened and how my heath problems could be remedied. Although impaired, my speech has returned and for example I can still play the organ. However, the stroke initially resulted in my vision being limited and one of the two carotid arteries was damaged by 50% of one of them.

In a less detailed description than I wrote privately to Doug Weller over a week ago, Doug has suggested that you could be of great help. I apologise that this has happened in this way, but you have been kind and considerate to me. If you are willing to discuss these matters with Doug Weller, either in private and/or in wikipedia, that might be a way of improving matters.

I have removed some personal identifiers (a Cambridge College). I have also removed three paragraphs from the account. This is a preliminary statement, mostly concerning my current health. After my health concerns, I will respond directly to User:Fram. Please be patient. Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

On my restored talk page (28 January, User talk:Mathsci#Major edits), there was some kind of incident. It seems that I was not permitted to edit in a normal way. Mathsci (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

My major content editing of BWV 769 on Werner Brieg's Introduction continued, without sleeping, until 7 a.m. on 29 January. Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Fram, without looking into details (no time, really): I know that both Mathsci and Francis Schonken are experts on the topics, but even experts sometimes disagree. Block both, or none, see also another view. I'd prefer none, but don't know how to make them realize that life is too short for edit warring. How about avoiding articles where the other one is a major contributor, or at least go to the talk page right away. Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I have not blocked for content issues, but for conduct issues. Mathsci had been edit warring on FS' user talk page last week, plus was accusing him of things which were clearly false, but has not made any attempt to rectify this or indication that he understood the problem. Since the, he has edit warred on the article talk page to remove a section of factual questions (I don't know and care whether they are in any way correct questions, and Mathsci is not required to answer them if he feels he has answered these things before; but he doesn't have the right to remove them, he certainly doesn't have the right to remove them with "rvv", and he continued to remove them even after I asked about it, and didn't reinstate them after he was given the easy way out with suggestions that it was a "mistake"). Fram (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I speak about conduct. It takes two two edit war. I usually go away. (BWV 4, BWV 10, Der Messias). ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I haven't blocked for the edit war on the article, I protected it. But edit warring to remove text which is perfectly acceptable on a talk page, with false claims of vandalism, and continuing after you have been asked to justify the previous removal and edit summary? That's not a case of "it takes two to tango", that's a case of one person blatantly ignoring multiple policies, and this less than a week after they had a similar "edit war" on that other user's talk page, then to reinstall text FS didn't want on his user talk page (which, again, is perfectly within policy for FS and clearly against policy for Mathsci). That you need two persons (or more) to edit war doesn't mean that both are right or both are wrong. Fram (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Direct response

• User:Fram has three times raised "multiple issues", so I will give an explanation. (The earlier issue of User talk:Mathsci#Major edits seems to have involvement in harassment.)

• On 29 January I borrowed Butt, John (2008), "Canonische Verängerungen über "Vom Himmel hoch"", in Rampe, Siegbert (ed.), Bachs Klavier- und Orgelwerke, Das Bach-Handbuch (in German), Laaber–Verlag, pp. 949–961, ISBN 9783890074597 from the University Library and added commentary on John Butt on the "muical analysis" of Peter Williams.[17] That addressed Francis Schoonken's that I had a second secondary source for the section on 'Musical structure" (apart from Peter Williams). That objection of FS persisted on 1 February three days after the new source was added.
• "Same section fails the WP:NOTLYRICS policy." No idea what that is supposed to mean: the article BWV 606 (from Orgelbüchlein) uses the same text and translation, without any obection. Similarly the article Vom Himmel hoch uses the same text and translation without the objection "fails the WP:NOTLYRICS policy." I have no idea what FS was objecting to.
• "Same section fails layout guidance, in particular MOS:SANDWICHING" No idea what this means. It doesn't sound like any standard wikipedia policy.
• "Insufficient inline citations (most prominently in the Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her"#Musical structure section), failing the WP:INCITE guidance" There are copious notes and reference in this article, careflly annotated notes in {{harvnb}}. There are far more than citations than usual in fact.
• "Contains typos and other errors, requiring application of the WP:COPYEDIT guidance." There is no policy on correcting small copy-edits on article pages.

These objections were reported three times. The reference on Laaber-Verlag, unearthed by me, was added in the article on 29 January. On 1 February, three days later, all of those invalid objections ("multiple issues") persisted. I am not sure User:Fram has looked particularly carefully at the objections.

On the other hand I completely agree with User:Fram that I should not have reverted those postings, no matter what had been written. It was poor judgement on my part and I apologise without reservations for that. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no interest in the content issues. If people post things on the talk page which you believe you have already answered, you are free to reply "already answered" or to simply ignore the questions. You are not allowed to revert them, you are even less allowed to revert them with "rvv", and you have removed them three times, once after I asked about this, and haven't reinstated them after you were asked to. If you feel FS is harassing you or otherwise is making it impossible for you to edit normally by some unreasonable behaviour, you need to seek dispute resolution, e.g. an interaction ban. If the dispute is content-based, you can look for a neutral third opinion. But the way you acted is unacceptable, and considering that your actions had been criticized last week, that I again asked you about these new things on the article talk page, and that I had to protect the article for the actions of both of you, it is clear that you had plenty of warnings and simply continued with the same behaviour. The only reasons I didn't reinstated the indef ban was because more than a year had passed since your last block, and because FS isn't blameless in this sorry episode either (though his actions didn't rise to a clearly blockable level). Fram (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Addenbrookes Hospital, 2–8 February

There was an emergency incident in the evening of 2 February. I was out of contact from then until the evening of 8 February. These started with two episodes of syncope. After roughly twenty minutes of unconsciousness, I was accompanied by paramedics, where there was a second shorter spell of syncope.There they recorded an ECG and blood pressure. After admission to A&E Addenbrookes Hospital, further measurements were made of CE scans, X-rays and echocardiograms. I was transferred to cardiology early on 3 February after blood pressure first continued to drop. After 2 or 3 days, this resulted in hypertension which failed to stabilise. Having consulted the local GP and hospital cardiologists, the previous medication was restored so that normal blood pressure could be regained on 6–8 February. Mathsci (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

PS. I had an implantable loop recorder installed by Addenbrookes Hospital on 7 February. Mathsci (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her", you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Addenbrookes Hospital 23–24 February (A&E), 25–27 February (MSEU ward)

There have been two further emergency periods at Addenbrookes connected with cardiac problems; following the second sets of tests (ECG, X-ray and elevated troponin levels), these have so far been resolved without incident. Mathsci (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

UC Berkeley

I reported that IP user here already. UCaetano (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Update on 18-27 May 2018 hospitalisation

Still in isolation ward N2 following CT scan & colonoscopy. Mathsci (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

2nd stool test also came out negative on Thurs. Now starting 6th week without food. Feeling very weak. The troll/revenge editor who tampered with my personal IP in Newnham, Cambridge, has resulted in my emergency phone (for hospital purposes) now almost running out. This might give a wry smile of satisfaction to the troll/revenge editor, but, like Suppenkaspar/Augustus from Struwwelpeter, this is not really a joking matter. I had 2 hypertensive emergencies last weekend. In a hospital ward, contacting relevant consultants (in this case for stroke follow up) is not straightforward. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The gastrointestinal problem has now been resolved (an expert radiologist had a closer look at the CT scan). Why it happened after 5 weeks is probably unanswerable: the secrets of the Cambridge Whitefriars. Mathsci (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately not resolved ... Mathsci (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• The above edits were all made at the hospital, prior to discharge. One month ago, free internet facilities became available there for the first time: the resource is at the moment quite primitive and prone to crash; it involved pointing very carefully one key at a time on the virtual keyboard. Mathsci (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Take care, thinking of you, and WP is nothing compared to well-being! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Would you know what de:Orgelsachverständiger would be in English, or is it just organ expert? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I was very lucky that today at noon the stroke consultant created a new slot for me and I was discharged. I will not give a direct answer to the second question, but it involves royalty and organists. In July 2016 I made edits to the article William Henry Harris, along with its image and caption. Princesses, madrigals and Argentinian honey are mentioned. And don't forget the December 1944 Christmas pantomime, "Old Mother Red Riding Boots." [18][19] Mathsci (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A report has been filed

Please be informed: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_banned_user_commenting_on_topic_ban_violation_on_said_topic Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Certainly a moot point, as the topic ban in question was lifted five months ago: [20]. (Credit to Johnuniq for flagging this at AN/I.) Even if the topic ban were still in force, the report seems to be a veeeeery big stretch, even for "broadly construed". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to a community editing restriction

Per this discussion, you are indefinitely banned from interacting with Frances Schonken, subject to the usual exceptions. See WP:IBAN for details of what edits this restricts. GoldenRing (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for An Wasserflüssen Babylon

On 3 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article An Wasserflüssen Babylon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the hymn tune of the 16th-century "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" ("By the rivers of Babylon") was largely popularized with the text of a 17th-century Passion hymn? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/An Wasserflüssen Babylon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, An Wasserflüssen Babylon), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank for all the work you put into it! Best wishes for your health! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I was reviewing some of your edits and activities and saw that a few months ago you talked about your health troubles. I am writing to say that I wish you good health and thanks for editing Wikipedia's math articles. A new user was asking about your work. I was thinking to send this person to you, and I will, but I also wanted to say thanks in general and good health. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Puzzling step in Gauss's construction of isothermal coordinates

Update on September 22: By going back to Volume IV of Spivak, I have figured out how Gauss's construction works, and I have rewritten Section 2 of Beltrami equation to present that technique as I understand it. If there are ideas in your 2012 version of Section 2 that shouldn't be lost and that are not incorporated in my new version, please let me know.

LyleRamshaw (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I have a Riemannian 2-manifold with an explicit real-analytic metric for which I would like to numerically compute isothermal coordinates. In 2012, you extensively edited the page for "Beltrami equation", adding a cookbook presentation of Gauss's construction for this case. I was very happy to see your cookbook, since I find the presentation of Gauss's technique in Volume IV of Spivak a bit too abstract for me. I find most modern research in this area even less helpful; they prove the local existence of solutions under weaker and weaker assumptions, but at the price of more and more complex arguments and with little apparent interest in actually computing those solutions.

Unfortunately, I also don't understand the last few steps in your cookbook. Perhaps z and w got swapped in some of your formulas, or something like that? In June, I added a "Talk" section to the "Beltrami equation" page explaining where I get confused. If you have a chance to look over the issue, I would be delighted for any suggestions.

LyleRamshaw (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mathsci. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Bach and Bach - miss you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Adagio-BWV-1017-positive-organ.ogg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Adagio-BWV-1017-positive-organ.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. CptViraj (📧) 13:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

We miss you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Lovely to see your name on the watchlist again! How are you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hi! Remember you from when I was still an IP (though probably didn't interact too much). In any case, welcome back! RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, you are the IP editor who's expert on lilypond (putting four-part choruses correctly on staves). I was impressed by your coding! Mathsci (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, well, I always try to use the most simple and readable (i.e. WP:KISS) option (I think I figured the << { voice one } \\ { voice two } >> option somewhere here - oddly enough, a hymnal where most of the writing is in the not quite so neat form - a while back). The lilypond documentation suggests a much more "verbose" code for the same thing (and this has some minor improvements on that), but those are not necessary, even if I want to enforce repeats (which can be achieved using \repeat unfold 2 (instead of \repeat volta 2). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, I've added quite a few hymns (which are in the proper format, the musical editor of that volume being Ralph Vaughan Williams) at wikisource:Index:The English hymnal (1906).djvu so if you notice some which are not in articles here (which I forgot), feel free... Again, thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 18th-century prints of Bach's four-part chorales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Sanford Terry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Organ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Herr, gehe nicht ins Gericht mit deinem Knecht, BWV 105, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Daniel Taylor and James Gilchrist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Behaviour at SPI

• Please don't mess with another editor's comments. No matter how poorly they're making a defence it's their defence, not yours. This could be in the scope of a {{uw-tpv2}} warning.
• Please don't alter your comments after another editor has responded. It makes coherent discussion harder - and this case is bad enough already.

-- Cabayi (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry about the confusion I caused when you merged the two SPIs. I was not aware of how rapidly things were happening: again I apologise.

I understand now that no interference should have happened: another editor might have collapsed a post, but that was no reason for me to do the same. It is up to admins, clerks and checkusers to sort out matters. And as you write, editors must be allowed to make their defence completely unhindered.

When there were two SPI requests, I shortened the comment for the QuantumTHEO SPI case. The shortened post, following the merge, resulted in an edit-conflict as can be seen from the edit summary.[21] I apologise for the confusion. Mathsci (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. Cabayi (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Closed and exact differential forms

added a link pointing to Cartan formula

Herr, gehe nicht ins Gericht mit deinem Knecht, BWV 105

added a link pointing to Cornetto

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Symmetry of second derivatives, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clairaut.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Liverpool

I see from a comment that you were at Liverpool. I was there too in the early 90's perhaps our paths crossed? I work with Pater Giblin and wrote the LSMP which was used for a number of years there. --Salix alba (talk): 14:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I was in Liverpool from 1983 until 1989, appointed at the same time as Mary Rees. I knew the singularity crowd; also Michael Butler & Sheila Brenner, Hugh Morton and Peter Scott. I played piano duets with Peter Giblin several times at his home. It is possible that we met when you were there, although I left in 1989 for Oxford and then Cambridge.

I know that Peter Giblin and Ian Porteous were involved in teaching in the Liverpool area. Since you wrote that message, I have been trying to remember how curves and surfaces were taught in Liverpool in the 1980s and 1990s. Mathsci (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes we met while we were in Liverpool. Mathsci (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed we must have met as I did my PhD there from 87 to 90. Still can't figure out who you were. --Salix alba (talk): 17:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I was on leave in Berkeley during 1986-1988. Just after that I arranged for R.e.b. to give a colloquium, so normally you would have been there. Vaughan Jones too. Mathsci (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Your major edit

About when do you anticipate your major edit on Differential geometry of surfaces to be over? Gumshoe2 (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Not so long, but please be patient. You made radical changes half an hour after my edits. Your changes are too rapid for me, particularly if I'm chasing references. The results on connections and covariant derivatives have been treated in Riemannian connection on a surface, with all the references (do Carmo's book on Riemannian geometry, Helgason, etc). Boothby's book has been good this particular example: that's what I'm following at the moment. (I have also lecture notes that I gave on the Atiyah-Singer index theorem in the 1990s when I treated the general case.) The treatment of Hitchin and Boothby needs some TLC. Mathsci (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

What is Riemannian geometry of surfaces? It doesn't link anywhere Gumshoe2 (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You are editing too fast even to proof-read what I'm writing. That is not helpful. Please slow down. The article is Riemannian connection on a surface (see above). Mathsci (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I have not made any edits since you added the "major edit" tag. We can discuss material when your major edit is over, presumably within a couple hours? Gumshoe2 (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Please fix the math-mode typo on your new comment on the talk page there, it's messed up the page and if I fix it your comment will be attributed to me Gumshoe2 (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' Noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Gumshoe2 (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Riemannian connection on a surface, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Curvature tensor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. At the moment I'd like this to focus more on a possible process to follow rather than the actual dispute. --Salix alba (talk): 16:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Planar Riemann surface, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liouville's theorem.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polish space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Open mapping theorem.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing cites in Riemann mapping theorem

The article cites "Grunsky (1979)" and "Schober 1973" but no such sources are listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Or are these typos? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

In Plancherel theorem for spherical functions, there is also missing "Bruhat (1957)" and #33 cites "Helgason, p. 447" which is unclear whether it should be the work from 1984 or 1978. I also added "Helgason 1978" based on a cite in different article as it was missing. Renata (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frauenkirche.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Schoenflies problem

Hi. Thanks for your enlightening contribution to the "Schoenflies problem" article in 2016 which I just found and am in the process of reading. I am puzzled with one point of detail in the way the Jordan curve theorem is deduced from the polygonal Schoenflies theorem, more precisely the existence of the bounded component: when you take an ε approximation of the curve by a polygonal arc A, how do you prove that the polygon bounded by A has at least one point at distance from A bigger than ε? --Arnaud Chéritat (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The Jordan curve theorem needed here is summarised in Lecture 35 of Katok's AMS book on "Lectures on Surfaces." This was Chapter 36 of a preprint, available here (note that Katok died in 2018). Otherwise the source for Schoenflies' theorem was Bing's 1983 book. Mathsci (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fantasia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (User talk:Francis Schonken) for edit warring on the talk page of an editor you have an interaction ban with. This does not imply further sanctions should, or should not, be given to you or to the other editor for other interactions, that discussion is ongoing. But this was way over the top..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, for now this is a partial block only from that one page. i wish the block template looked different for partial and full blocks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Per the discussion at ANI, while you are still not allowed to edit their user talk page, you've promised to refrain, so I'm undoing the block. Breaking or forgetting this promise could result in a site-wide block, so please remember you've agreed to this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for altering the settings and clarifying the terms above, with my promise never to edit that user talk page. I understand that if I break or forget that promise, it will result in a site-wide block. Thanks again, Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating your interaction ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Hi, I have a question related to the current block, which I have not appealed. Most of the recent edits to Liebster Gott, wenn werd ich sterben? BWV 8 have been by me, including adding digitised sources for period manuscripts and finding English translations for German text by John Troutbeck and J. Michael Diack. A while back I already started adding content from William G. Whittaker's 1978 book on cantatas; and I have acquired the Eulenberg study score with Arnold Schering's English preface for more material. Yesterday I added three further sources: the entry for the cantata by Nicholas Anderson from the 2016 Oxford Companion; Lynn Butler's chapter on the Paulinerkirche, Leipzig, with an image related to J. S. Bach and Vetter; and Robin Leaver's chapter on chronology used to clarify the lead. Edits to Talk:Liebster Gott, wenn werd ich sterben? BWV 8 last happened on 24 September and resumed today. For future reference, could you or another administrator please explain how the WP:IBAN functions? It seems confusing. Mathsci (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You are prohibited from interacting with Francis Schonken. If you mention Francis Schonken's name, complain about Francis Schonken's edits (whether explicitly or obliquely), revert an edit by Francis Schonken, or post to Francis Schonken's talk page, you will be blocked. If you find it confusing, you should probably find a different article (or even a different topic) to edit once you see that name pop up in the article history. If Francis Schonken does something wrong, you're not allowed to fix it, ask anyone else to fix it, or even to point it out. If you think this is unfair, you can appeal the interaction ban at WP:AN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for responding. Yes, I see that the instructions are clear: "A two-way interaction ban forbids both users from interacting with each other. Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other." So editing the same page is permitted (I have made about 250 edits to BWV 8 and there is still quite a lot of material that has not been covered). There is a clear proviso that the two editors avoid each other and do not interact. Perhaps from the warnings of Floquenbeam (that I read in early July on ANI or AN) I had not fully understood that the IBAN does not permit me to

1. edit each other's user and user talk pages;
2. reply to each other in discussions;
3. make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
4. undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
5. use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.

I never use the thanks extension, so (5) is not a problem. For (4), edits to an existing page (e.g. BWV 8, BWV 543) are fine provided nothing is undone in any way and there is no commentary anywhere. The single edit to Daniel Vetter was an infringement of (4) and therefore why I was blocked. (1) resulted in the first block by Floquenbeam. (2) and (3) are what Floquenbeam described as borderline infringement of the report on ANI—warnings by Floquenbeam. Reading the IBAN was helpful. Obviously I had to take more care. Mathsci (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

St John the Evangelist,Hortulus animae, Lucas Cranach, woodcut

Sterben. This entry in the 2017 German lexicon on Martin Luther, page 266 of Martin Luthers theologische Grundbegriffe: Von "Abendmahl" bis "Zweifel" by Reinhold Rieger, is a transcript of Luther's creed on Gestorben und begraben ("death and burial"). It is taken from Georg Rhau's 1548 Hortulus animae. Lustgarten der Seelen ("Pleasure Gardens of the Soul"), illustrated by Lucas Cranach the Elder. The transcript of Luther's German text accompanying the depiction of St John reads: "Jesus Christus. Ich glaube dass er gestorben und begraben ist, meine Sünde und aller seiner Gläubigen ganz zu töten und zu begraben, darzu den lieblichen Tod erwürzgt und ganz uns unschädlich, nützlich, heilsam gemacht hat."

The illustration shows St John the Evangelist and Apostle. Unlike the other Apostles, he was not martyred. According to legend, as a result of old age and infirmity, he participated in a final mass and then descended into a prepared grave, remaining to await the second coming. St John is depicted descending the steps from the altar as the last candle is extinguished and the congregation kneels in prayer. The words "gestorben and begraben"—death and burial—are appropriate for the theme of Cantata No 8, particularly the last four lines: "Help me to have an honest grave Near faithful Christian kin, Again at last within the earth, And never more with shame." (The German text "Neben frommen Christen hab" is translated into rhyming English as "with the saints of earth may have" by J. Michael Diack.) Mathsci (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: In the edits of 14:32, 13 November 2020 (see above), I added a Cranach-Luther illustration about "death and burial." I paraphrased a quotation from William G. Whittaker's 1978 book on cantatas, writing, "Help me to have an honest grave Near faithful Christian kin, Again at last within the earth, And never more with shame." This was part of an entire quotation-paraphrase from the article BWV 8 from 15 October.[22] The last part of it read:

The final stanza translates literally as, "Ruler over death and life, Let my end one day be good, Teach me to yield the spirit, With courage sure and firm. Help me to have an honest grave Near faithful Christian kin, Again at last within the earth, And never more with shame."

The edit above by me has just been deleted today on wikipedia from the article BWV 8.[23]

In an extract frpm the actual material, Whittaker writes:

... the basses have a splendid phrase sinking from upper C to lower E. The flute is instructed to double the melody ottava. The text is "Lord over death and life, Make for once my ending good, Teach my spirit to yield up With right well-held courage. Help, that I an honourable grave Near pious Christians may have And also in the earth Nevermore to shame come."

As you can see, the two paraphrases of the stanza are different. The six pages of Whittaker's book concern only musical analysis of cantata No. 8 which is still {{under-construction}}. (I've previously used the same approach for BWV 39 and BWV 105, which I acquired and used in July 2020.) Mathsci (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You two really shouldn't be editing the same articles if you get this worked up over each other's edits. The whole point of the interaction ban is that the rest of the encyclopedia doesn't have to deal with this, including hearing your complaints about Francis Schonken's edits. If he reverts you, that's an obvious interaction ban violation. My advice is to let the little things go, but there's always WP:ANI if you insist on dragging this stuff out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(ec - will reply to NRP in next edit)

First oboe d'amore part of Cantata No.8

In October I wrote a preparatory paragraph on BWV 8/1 for the section "Music" using my newly purchased copy of Whittaker's book. I wrote:

The cantata O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort, BWV 20, composed in June 1724, has a funereal theme similar to that of BWV 8; but the spirit of the two cantatas is quite different. In BWV 20, its biblical references are to the Raising of Lazarus and its tortured mood resonates with boiling cauldrons, devils and hellfire of the Early Netherlandish morality paintings by Hieronymous Bosch and his contemporaries. Instead of instilling fear, as in BWV 22, Cantata No.8 presents a vision where, despite his unworthiness, the penitential sinner can be saved by God's mercy and be rewarded in heaven.

Although there is no direct reference to the Miracle of the Raising of the Son of the Widow of Nain from the Gospel of Luke, Neumann's hymn creates a similar atmosphere. The opening chorale fantasia sets the first stanza of his hymn, which translates literally as, "Dearest God, when will I die? My time runs ever on, And Adam's old heirs, Of whom I am also one, Have this as a legacy, They have but a short time, Poor and wretched, on earth, Then become earth themselves."

A recent edit[24] modified and relocated the first paragraph above. Here is how Whittaker starts his account of Cantata No. 8:

Liebster Gott, wann werd'ich sterben? (When will God recall my spirit? N[ovello], Gracious God, when call Thou me? B[reitkopf]) also deals with the summons of death, but how differently! In No.20 death is a terrifying ordeal, medieval visions of damnation and torture fill the heart with dread, one is reminded of those Dutch and Flemish paintings in which the artists delight in obscene monsters rending and devouring the evil-doers, crooked devils with prongs, cauldrons of boiling oil and furnaces at white heat. The church tried to secure its adherents by fear and not through love. In No.8 is to be found the true Christian doctrine, Christ the all-merciful One, death a release and call to a life of bliss. There is fear, to be sure, but it is more at the thought of the penitent's unworthiness than any anticipation of relentless persecution beyond the vale. It is strange that Bach should have given us such different concepts of death, as contrasted as are the conceptions of Berlioz and Franck.

My second paragraph above would continue with a description of the ritornello of the opening chorale fantasia. The two oboe d'amore parts intertwine in an "endless melody," and do on. Whittaker gives musical quotations: the standard way to illustrate that on WP is using a high resolution manuscript of the whole score (when available).

This is typical of the way in which Whittaker writes. Mathsci (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate: On 24 September 2020 I concocted my own literal translation of the first and fifth verses of the hymn for BWV 8.[25] In that section with header "Text" I wrote: "The first and last verses of Caspar Neumann's hymn correspond to the first and final movements of the cantata, both of them chorales. The English translation is a non-metrical literal translation which has similarities with many other such translations." My literal English version was:

Ruler over death and life,

Let my end one day be good,

Teach me to yield the spirit,

With courage sure and firm.

Help me to have an honest grave

Near faithful Christian kin,

Again at last within the earth

And never more ashamed.

So a translation due to me, User:Mathsci, but with similarities to many other literal translations. The literal translation of Whittaker is the following:

Lord over death and life,

Make for once my ending good,

Teach my spirit to yield up

With right well-held courage.

Help, that I an honourable grave

Near pious Christians may have

And also in the earth

Nevermore to shame come.

It can be found on page 490 of his 1978 book. The diff[26] credits my literal translation to Whittaker. But that translation is by me, not Whittaker.

In fact, having purchased the Eulenburg study score, I found that it came with one stenographed page containing the libretto by John Troutbeck. In the wikipedia article, I therefore substituted Troutbeck's translation for mine on 25 September 2020. [27] I added the whole libretto on 5 October 2020.[28] Having created the article on J. Michael Diack and received the Breitkopf vocal score, I wrote a parenthetic comment about Diack's 1931 translation on 14 October 2020[29] adding the first verse as a footnote.[30] My Mathsci paraphrase is currently recorded as being by Whittaker. When I edited BWV 39 using Whittaker's book in 2016, it was complicated finding (a) musical quotations (I had to use lilypond) and (b) creating audio ogg files for movements. There were similar problems creating lilypond and audio files for BWV 1017, BWV 529, BWV 1055/2 or BWV 621. Mathsci (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Similarly my literal translation of the first verse on 24 September was:

Dearest God, when will I die?

My time runs ever on,

And Adam's old heirs,

Of whom I am also one,

Have this as a legacy,

They have but a short time,

Poor and wretched, on earth,

Then become earth themselves.

Whittaker's literal translation is the following from page 489 of his book:

Beloved God, when shall I die?

My time runs ever hence,

And old Adam's heirs,

Among whom I also am,

Have this for patrimony

That they a little while

Poor and wretched are on earth

And then themselves earth become.

My translation is similar but not the same as Whittaker's. At the moment my translation is being labelled as due to Whittaker.

The first movement of the cantata, a chorale fantasia, is complex. It is described in great detail in Whittaker (2 pages), Schering (1 page) and Anderson (1 page). A glance at articles on other cantatas shows that even very well known ones, such as BWV 78 or BWV 82, get a rough deal on WP. Even the cantata BWV 140 is not particularly well described: the terse account of of Dürr & Jones is very accurate but possibly too concise. Whittaker's account goes on for 12 pages. He is quoted indirectly by John Eliot Gardiner on WP. The complete quote is, "It is a cantata without weaknesses, without a dull bar, technically, emotionally and spiritually of the highest order, its sheer perfection and its boundless imagination rouse one's wonder time and time again." The people running the bach-cantatas website are very reliable and thorough, with knowledge of all the current literature, even for books that are hard to find. Mathsci (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Missing cite in Ergodic flow

The article cites "Ambrose 1931" but no such work is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? (once your ban expires, of course). And please do install the script. Thank you, Renata (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adam Zamoyski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Portrait Gallery.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Scherzos

The Library of Congress uses "scherzos" for the plural form of a scherzo. References to "scherzi" redirect to "scherzos." - kosboot (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Happy New Year when it arrives (in the Big Apple?). Mathsci (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year and greetings

Hi Mathsci, I'm a relative new comer to WP and thought I was familiar with all of the active classical music editors, but seem to have never met yourself. I figured I may as well introduce myself and say hello, as I have a feeling we will certainly cross paths in the future. I work a lot in the early music part of classical music (Medieval to Renaissance, with some Baroque), mainly because of how underdeveloped it is proportionately, though my favorite composers will always be the late romantics, Wagner, R. Strauss, Mahler etc. I hope this message finds you well and happy new year! Best - Aza24 (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and Happy New Year to you also! Mathsci (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scherzos (Chopin), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sforzando.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

WP 20

Kaiserschmarrn at the Café Central

Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Today: blue Vision pictured (not by me), with Arik Brauer in the news, so art in Vienna twice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. For Talk:Europe, I compiled a gallery of images for "Culture of Europe". It contained a picture of two Polish goats with a village woman and an image of the Café Central in Vienna. I toyed with adding a picture of Kaiserschmarrn from there. In RL I ate Martinigansl there in 2008 and later Kaisersschmarrn on the scenic Arlberg railway from Vienna to Zurich. Mathsci (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Delicious culture! A family member - sadly living far away, remember the 2016 Munich shooting when I was worried? - is a specialist in Kaiserschmarrn ;) - I think I'll split the recordings sometime next week, - with enough prose they could make a 25 March DYK, but they won't hold for more than 6 weeks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for help with the Jerome Kohl article, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harpsichord Concerto in A major, BWV 1055, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decca.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for an interaction ban violation, still. That's number three in the last year. Noting that risking a 4th one would be at your own great peril. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 15:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

User:El_C has kindly and patiently explained the reason for the IBAN block. I believe I have understood the problem with my edits and will explain how to prevent such problems arising again.

One of the main rules for a 2-way IBAN is that users may not undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means. In removing In use tags from an article I broke that rule. In addition it is prohibited to mention in edit-summaries (running) commentaries about "in use" tags.

On 10 January I briefly mentioned on User talk:Nikkimaria more WP:RS not so far used for BWV 53, a spurious one-movement cantata. Much of the short article was already created by Nikkimaria and Gerda Arendt in 2014. Using the experience of these two editors, Nikkimaria devised a new way of organising the article. keeping it concise. Very little is known with any certainty about the cantata, which makes it hard to write anything encyclopedic. Despite discussions on the talk page, my removal of In use tags and the edit-summaries concerning the removal were both prohibited under the terms of the 2-way IBAN. I acknowledge those errors and apologize.

Gerda Arendt and I probably agree that spurious or doubtful Bach compositions take up too much time on wikipedia, when serious articles or sub-articles genuinely by Bach still remain to be written.

Postings on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music about the sexuality of Chopin have prompted discussion at Talk:Frédéric Chopin, WP:DRN and then an RfC due to be closed. These activities have been coordinated by Robert McClenon. Before the RfC was closed, a new article Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin was created. That article has been changed to a redirect pending the closure of the RfC. Robert McClenon has briefly commented here.

Although there were two discussions on WP:ANI about , for Eight Short Preludes and Fugues and Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543, these had no relevance. Mathsci (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

(1) As several others have said below, it is difficult to understand what you are trying to convey, both in this unblock request and in the follow-up below. However, insofar as it is possible to make any sense out of what you say, it appears to consist of obfuscating the point by extended rambling attempts to justify yourself, which you do by going on at length about things other than the reason for your block. To quote just one of the comments already made by other administrators below, "I don't understand why you consider it of relevance to discuss the finer points of tag placement. This was about an WP:IBAN violation on your part." You scarcely touch on the reasons for the block, and I see nothing whatever to indicate that you accept or understand the reason for the block or that you undertake not to do the same again. (2) Six times in the past you have been blocked and have then had the block curtailed by making promises that you won't do the same again. It is, perhaps, time for you to learn that you can't just keep doing things that will lead to a block and then get out of it by saying you will do better in future: you need to not do the things leading to the block in the first place. That applies even more so as this is your third block for violations of the same interaction ban. JBW (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mathsci, in answer to your query, I found the mid-Jan edits to Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 way too interact-y on your part. I don't know why you thought it would be okay to involve yourself in an edit war with the user with whom you are banned from interacting, not to mention reverting them outright, but to me, that is rather sketchy behaviour as far as such a restriction is concerned. El_C 18:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there—thanks for responding so promptly. I was the main person adding content for BWV 53, namely the 2006 book on cantatas of Alfred Dürr and Richard D. P. Jones; actually the one-page Appendix listing doubtful and spurious cantatas, where only one line matters. I also added English translations of the text by Lucy Broadwood; and content on music scoring from my copy of the 1978 book on the cantatas by W. Gillies Whittaker. User:Nikkimaria and I agreed that listing all possible recordings was not usual; it doesn't happen for other cantatas. For BWV 53 I did not remove any edits as far as I'm aware. At one stage Nikkimaria did delete a lot of material (nothing I wrote). It's easy to check the edit history. Much content has been added several times in a duplicated form by "commenting out" material. The high resolution images were introduced by me using dezoomify and GIMP sofware—see Commons. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Mathsci, basically, per Fram. In more detail: before the (2021) latest, the last meaningful edit was by Francis Schonken almost a year before (on Jan 12 2020). Then, on Jan 9 2021, he makes a considerable addition, with the in-use tag attached (diff). This is reverted by Nikkimaria 7 minutes later (diff). About 20 minutes later, Francis Schonken re-adds the in-use tag and continues with his series of additions (diff). Then, less than a day later, you revert him by removing the in-use tag, with the edit summary: in-use tag for such a long period not permitted (diff) — but I submit to you that what wasn't permitted was, in fact, for you to have made that reversion of Francis Schonken's edit, per the longstanding IBAN. An IBAN which, I'm sorry to say, you seem to be in the habit of contravening lately. El_C 00:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Responding to El_C below

I'm not sure that is a correct account of what happened on BWV 53. In 2014 a short article on a short one-movement cantata was written, mostly by User:Gerda Arendt and User:Nikkimaria.[31] Gerda's native language is German so she used the 1981 German book on cantatas of Alfred Dürr. She used the phrase "mit Wahrscheinlichkeit". The main change a year ago were when was the removal of an infobox.[32] There was then an RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music about citation style, here Talk:Schlage_doch,_gewünschte_Stunde,_BWV_53#RfC:_referencing that started on 11 January 2021. At that point I noticed that several references has been omitted (the 2006 book of Dürr & Jones, the 1978 book of Whittaker, the English text of the short German aria by Lucy Broadwood). I also added a high resolution image for the article, the sort of thing I've done many times on request. Following the cantata pattern of Gerda Arendt & Nikkimaria, I added content about "Notable performances", about the contemporary dance "Beautiful Day", a pas de deux with choreography by Mark Morris. At that stage, on 16 January, the article looked like this.[33] On 29 January it looked like this.[34] Later on 29 January it looked like this.[35] (The images do not match up to the text.) Nikkimaria restored a version that conformed to the agreed plan.[36] Mathsci (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Mathsci, honestly, I'm just not sure how events going all the way back to 2014, ultimately, are that pertinent, seeing as the ban itself wasn't imposed until 2018. Your comment otherwise involves a level of complexity which I am finding difficult to parse — possibly, whichever admin reviews the unblock request will succeed where I failed, though...? Note that some editors questioned the contemporaneous nature (or lack thereof, rather) of the block action. A matter which I have attempted to address on my talk page, here. El_C 03:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Hi. Ah, now I see. Apologies for taking so long to twig on—it's about {{in use}} tags. (As others have pointed out here and at ANI.)

Nikkimaria's username has been on my watchlist. On 9 January, there was a series of postings on her user talk page, including a 3RR warning: [37], [38], [39][40], [41], [42], [43]. On 9–10 January, Nikkimaria wrote on her user talk page, As I've said, the onus is on you to seek consensus for the changes you want to make. And also as I've said , the {{in use}} tag is not intended to be used that way, but only when you are actively editing the article for a short period to prevent edit-conflicts. If your intended changes will take more time and you want to avoid others editing it during that time, I would suggest you use a sandbox for drafting. There were similar comments later here. Standard practice is for {{in use}} tags to be replaced by {{under construction}} if there are long periods of inactivity, as Nikkimaria comments. If there is inactivity for long periods, can {{in use}} be changed to <!--{{in use}}-->? Can editors "comment out" tags like {{example farm|section}} as has happened several times in BWV 53? I now understand that you objected to the removal of the in-use tag (possibly other things also?), so many thinks for clarifying that and sorry again at my slowness at twigging on. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Mathsci, I don't understand why you consider it of relevance to discuss the finer points of tag placement. This was about an WP:IBAN violation on your part. Regardless, of whether a tag was employed in/correctly, that isn't something which can serve as some sort of an IBAN exemption for you. Also, you bold a piped link just to the article talk page itself — why? What am I supposed to infer from that? I'm sorry, but it still doesn't appear like you're cognizant of the actual limitations imposed by the ban, even after having violated it 3 times recently. Is there something in my explanation that is unclear, because I'm at a bit of a loss here. El_C 12:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Hi again. I'm not sure whether this is allowed, but I have redrafted the unblock request. I hope that is OK. Mainly I tried to acknowledge the problems and the IBAN errors that you pointed out, which as you've said were probably too interact-y in a broad sense. Anyway thanks for your help and your patience. I apologize if the redraft was not permitted. Mathsci (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Mathsci, certainly, you may redraft your unblock request as you see fit. My problem with your assurances is that this has all been explained to you by the last blocking admin (NinjaRobotPirate) back in Nov, who wrote: You are prohibited from interacting with Francis Schonken. If you mention Francis Schonken's name, complain about Francis Schonken's edits (whether explicitly or obliquely), revert an edit by Francis Schonken, or post to Francis Schonken's talk page, you will be blocked (bold is my emphasis). So, how will this time be any different, then, if the reasoning is basically the same? El_C 14:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I have been thinking about making a second unblock request, and I am still contemplating it. I am now worried by what's happening to the article Clavier-Übung III. It was created by me in June 2010 and has been stable for 11 years. Almost all of the 1090 edits were made by me in 2010, at the same time as the arbcom case WP:ARBR&I. The main editors helping with the article have been User:Graham87 (around 90 edits) and User:Gerda Arendt (around 30 edits). Other users have assisted with a small number of edits. Roger Davies, the coordinator of the case, made positive comments about the article during the proposed decision then.[44] He wrote that my writing was "excellent work, beautiful work". Now large parts of the section Clavier-Übung III#Reception and influence have been copy-pasted to create a forked article, derived from the lengthy section here. It was originally created after the arbcom case between 10 September and 20 October 2010, with roughly 450 edits including images (on en.wikipedia.org). In the forked article the celebrated prelude and fugue BWV 552 of Clavier-Übung III—the "St Anne" or triple prelude and fugue—is mentioned 13 times. The monumental Clavier-Übung III is one of the most profound works of Bach's sacred organ music: the triple refers to the Trinity, and the stile antico chorale preludes hark back to the old masters. The opening and closing prelude and fugue frame the "German Organ Mass" of Clavier-Übung III. As Gerda Arendt has pointed out, the section on reception is intimately related to the music. The original section Clavier-Übung III#Reception and influence ftrom 2010 was clearly written, with carefully chosen images that matched up with the content: in the forked content the same images have been piled up higgledy-piggledy; similarly for the text and references. Mathsci (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, (despite my previous run-ins with FS not having been too much more pleasant, I guess, than yours), he appears to be right on this one. Whether that constitutes an IBAN interaction (he probably should know that it is a page which you put a lot of work into, even if we for a moment disregard WP:OWN) is above my pay grade, though. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Mathsci, even if I were to possess the background and expertise to tell whether the merger detracts from your work so as to constitute a violation to the spirit of the IBAN, I simply do not have the stamina to attend to any manner of this dispute at this time. So, I'm gonna leave all of that to other admins. Including the matter of lifting your block — said reviewing admin should not feel obligated to consult with or notify me in any way about taking any action they see fit (whatsoever). Outstanding work, by the way, rarely am I that impressed with the quality of articles. So, kudos to you, Mathsci, for having produced work of such high caliber! El_C 20:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

So the forked article Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music seems to have a single editor, Francis Schonken, the one you have an interaction ban with. I'm finding it hard to imagine how unblocking you would not lead to an edit war with FS, and quite likely yet more blocks. Do you have a proposal for how the issue could be resolved without violating the IBAN or creating an edit war? --Salix alba (talk): 22:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

In spring 2018 there were email discussions with arbitrators because of post-stroke health concerns. Off-wiki email discussions with editors and administrators are often a way of resolving matters; that happened for WP:ARBR&I in 2010, in discussions with arbitrators; and that has also happened recently. There are very few administators who edit in classical music. Nikkimaria used to be one until she voluntarily gave it up in 2014. Graham87 is another; over the years, he has been very helpful with Bach organ music. Mathsci (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Salix alba: That's a good question but it would also be good for us to consider what should be done in response to the way Mathsci is being screwed. While I would agree that many of the problems are due to Mathsci's inability to function in the way his opponent can, the situation is dreadful. Years ago, Mathsci wrote a large amount of high quality text with excellent references and illustrations and FS would very much be aware that the text he copied without attribution was Mathsci's work. That's a brilliant strategy but combined with earlier examples of the same (for example, Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography is a copy of Mathsci's work from Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53) shows a systematic procedure to screw Mathsci. That might be shrugged off with talk about ownership and "irrevocably agree to release your contribution", but there should be a response to pointy unattributed copying and blatant violations of the spirit of an IBAN. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Salix alba, the problem is this: seems to have a single editor, Francis Schonken. seems. If you look a bit closer, most of the content - some 56k of prose and carefully selected images and the sources - is taken from Mathsci's Clavier-Übung III#Reception and influence. I think, intended or not, such a thing is a provocation anytime, but worse while Mathsci is blocked. Imagine you created a precious painting, and someone took it, modernized it, and made it seem his creation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I will note that FS's circumvention of WP process is not new—especially in view of copying or deleting mass content. BWV 53 is already mentioned; just last week he added an entire list that had just been deleted—where the consensus was against him—to a discography. Another: a discussion began at Template talk:Musical repertoire#Removing "By composer" and FS removed an entire section that was under discussion. Aza24 (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the relevant policies. WP:SPINOFF seems to cover most of what FS has done. His first edit summary is

Merging in content from Johann Sebastian Bach#Reception, Clavier-Übung III#Reception and influence, and sources lists from both pages

Which is what is advised there and conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which permit modification and reuse but require attribution of the content contributors. The {{copied}} tag has now been added by Gerda and myself. When we edit wikipedia we do so with full knowledge that our content may be modified or copied to other articles, it can be hard seeing your well crafted content modified. I've seen it myself, some pieces I've been particularly proud of have been weakened with numerious edits, others still stand in almost their orgininal form. I suspect most FA writers see the same. We have specific policies WP:OWN which covers some aspect of this.

I know nothing of FS history. Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music seems like a valid Wikipedia article, probably on the side of a WP:SPINOFF rather than a WP:CONTENTFORK. I supose this could be tested at AFD.--Salix alba (talk): 12:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with an article about Bach reception, and even link to it in BWV 1 which is up as FAC. I still believe it's a provocation to use exactly the content that Mathsci created, intended or unintended as a provocation. I have been requested many times to respect the wishes of authors for their "beautifully crafted articles" (wording from Talk:The Rite of Spring/Archive 3, and I mostly oblige, simply for peace among editors. There's probably nothing that admins, looking at licensing requirements, can do about more respect for the work of others, and due credit. I see Intellectual property protected too little if attribution can be just a link (not even a diff, so going to something that can change) in an edit summary (which almost nobody will ever see, and even when looking will still not see the enormous amount of copied information in this particular case). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure why Salix alba is commenting again. His personal edit history shows no prior expertise on baroque music, or in particular Clavier-Übung III. Bishonen already gave SA advice on 4 Feb 2021. Similarly Johnuniq gave SA advice today. Doug Weller, an arbitrator when these matters were first discussed in early 2018, is aware of current matters, which are being discussed off-wiki at the moment. As pointed above by Aza24, BWV 53, its POVFORK & AfD have already been discussed on WP:AN. There are also reports on the instability on Frédéric Chopin, a featured article under threat. Johnuniq referred to Clavier-Übung III#Reception and influence, using the word "dreadful". Doug Weller and Johnuniq are worried. Other editors and administrators are also worried. Mathsci (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments to Salix alba

Reading the section on ANI one of the reasons for the block was the removal of the {{in use}} template placed by Francis Schonken. This is a direct violation with the interaction ban. Whether Schonken should have placed the template in the first place is another issue, but not one for you to decide. You also contributed to the ANI discussion about Francis Schonken, another pretty clear violation of the ban. Your unblock request seems quite tangential to the reasons of the ban. If you want to get unblocked you need to focus on how you intend to uphold the interaction ban in the future. From you recent block log you were blocked on the 6th November 2020, and 9th November 2020 for other violation of the ban, which gives is little confidence you will abide by the ban. --Salix alba (talk): 06:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here Nikkimaria wrote: Mathsci indicated below he agreed with mine, and disagreed with yours. A reminder that {{in use}} is not meant to be used to reserve articles for long periods. On the talk page, there was WP:consensus that there would be (a) incremental editing (b) if {{in use}} was needed, it should be used on sections and only for short periods (c) {{under construction}} would would apply in the usual way (if needed). The main editors guiding the article have historically been Nikkimaria and Gerda Arendt. There were no substantial edits since early January, when WP:CITEVAR arguments started on the talk page of BWV 53. A (public) RfC was initiated there. Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

So we have competing policies WP:IBAN includes: undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means; it does not matter if the edit was in good faith or not, you do not undo the edit. I've included the full text of the policy below. Any breach of this ban can lead to a block. Repeated breaches of the ban result in longer blocks. Until it clear you understand the policy this block will not be lifted. Arguing that some other policy gives you the right to ignore the iban further convinces admins of your unwillingness to abide by the iban. --Salix alba (talk): 10:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Restatement of the IBAN

WP:IBAN The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals. A one-way interaction ban forbids one user from interacting with another user. A two-way interaction ban forbids both users from interacting with each other. Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other. Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: edit each other's user and user talk pages; reply to each other in discussions; make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly; undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means; use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits. A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption.

Comments to Nil Einne

Mathsci, I'm not an admin but like El C, don't really understand you defence. However as I said at ANI and I'll repeat here because my reply was very long, if you're trying to argue that Francis Schonken was damaging the work of Gerda Arendt & Nikkimaria and you were just trying to stop this then sorry but this isn't an excuse. Once you have the iban, you're not supposed to be taking any action again Francis Schonken's edits except reporting them to a noticeboard if they violate the iban. Whatever harm you may think Francis Schonken is doing is zero concern of yours. Gerda Arendt & Nikkimaria or someone else without an iban are the ones who need to deal with any of these alleged problems. Likewise if you're on Wikipedia friends with Gerda Arendt & Nikkimaria, this doesn't mean you have some right over articles they create and substantially edit. Both you and Francis Schonken are free to edit any article (barring any other sanction) in accordance with our policies and guidelines but if you're both editing the same article and especially at about the same time, the onus is on both of you to respect the iban. Since Francis Schonken was the first of you two to substantially edit the article, it's far more likely that any edits you make will be reverting or changing edits they just made which is when we have a problem hence why the onus fell far more on you in this instance. Possibly some of your edits on that article are within the bounds of the iban, but quite a few don't seem to be including that dumb edit war over the in use tag. Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:: As explained above, here, User:Nikkimaria wrote: Mathsci indicated below he agreed with mine, and disagreed with yours. A reminder that {{in use}} is not meant to be used to reserve articles for long periods. If, after the event, users are deciding that the use of the {{in use}} template warranted a one month block, that does not seem to be reasonable. It has not been given as reason so far by the blocking administrator (as far as I am aware). Nikkimaria explained several times on the talk page of BWV 53 about the misuse of in-use tags. In principle the {{in use}} tags could be "commented out" using <!--{{in use}}-->, but would that be reasonable? The tag {{example farm|section}} has been "commented out" several times (not by me). Is that reasonable? Does that warrant a block? Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Fram

I have no idea why Mathsci thinks my behaviour is relevant here, but as he included it in his unblock request:

• I invite every admin who comes here to decide on the unblock to read[45] and see whether the problem is with me or with Mathsci
• "I have taken part in discussions on Talk:Frédéric Chopin, at WP:DRN and during the RfC. In general I have agreed with regular editors who have preserved the article as a WP:FA. Fram has essentially no experience with edits to classical music articles, but has nevertheless given his views."? Diffs please, or else retract this claim. As far as I remember, I have not edited that article, the DRN or the RFC, nor anything about the FA (review, ...). I have no idea what you are talking about here.

The remainder of the unblock request doesn't seem to address the actual block reason at all, and contains some statements which seem to diverge from the truth. E.g. "Eight Short preludes" wasn't a sub stub when your recent edits started, but looked like this. "The audio files for Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543 were added similarly, although it required some tweaking with with {{authority control}} mentioned on WP:ANI." seems extremely dubious, there is not really any indication why authority control would have anything to do with the audio files at all, and I see no indication that the AC has been changed in any way there. Fram (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I first edited Eight Short Preludes and Fugues in November 2008. Formerly there was unsourced content on pedal clavichords. I added considerable content on clavichord in November 2008 and also on Orgelbüchlein. (For Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, for Clavier-Übung III and for BWV 769, that material has been used for writing content and media on Lutheran chorales.) Apart from the bare list of keys of the little preludes and fugues, BWV 553–560, most of the content was unsourced. There was nothing at all "disruptive" in creating the new content. Wikidata on BWV 543 was manually added by me using musicbrainz and VAIF.

User:Robert McClenon coordinated the WP:DRN on "Chopin and sexuality". It terminated on 25 December 2020 as the RfC was announced.[46] Today my classical music edits on wikipedia have been misrepresented on wikipedia. On WP:ANI, I have no idea what prompted Fram to write "I have no interest in starting again with pointless sideshows". Mathsci (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The irrelevant or very hard to parse statements in your unblock request and in the following comments are the kind of "pointless sideshow" I was talking about. For example, you make comments about me in your unblock request, but they are not only hardly relevant for the block/unblock, but are false as well. You won't even allow me to address these in the same section, and your reply completely ignores these points. You then start about other articles which have nothing do with either the block or the discussion at hand, adn finally talk about Wikidata, which I suppose is intended as a reply about the claim that adding the audio files (which were already there in the first place) required tweaking the authority control, but doesn't answer the question in any way (which is logical, as the only answer you could give is "I was wrong"). You edited Wikidata for that article on 2 February, i.e. even after the ANi discussion started. How is that at all relevant for the unblock request, and what could it possibly have to do with the equally unrelated and irrelevant (for the block/unblock) audiofiles? Don't bother answering, like I said, it is a pointless sideshow. Please just address the points about me, or strike them from your unblock request. Fram (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment The wikidata for BWV 543 was updated by me here.[47] For BWV 553–560 the {{authority control}} was already up to date. On Commons the audio files for BWV 543 and BWV 553–560 were uploaded by me here on Commons. Mathsci (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

So once again confirming that these comments, which had nothing to do with the unblock request in the first place, weren't correct either: and once again ignoring the incorrect statements you made about me. Which means that you are making personal attacks in your unblock statement, never a wise move. Fram (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Robert McClenon

I have been pinged in both WP:ANI, but in a closed thread, and here, and so I will comment briefly. My involvement, as noted, is that I put together an RFC on the sexuality of Chopin. I have very little knowledge of the circumstances of the block of User:Mathsci. I had no knowledge of the details of the interaction, and resulting interaction ban, between Mathsci and User:Francis Schonken. I have been aware that editing in the area of classical music is often intense with conflicts, and that one of the reasons is simply that many of the editors are passionate in their love of a great art which reflects the passions of its composers, and they allow their passions to dominate their reason. (Sometimes, when the editors become angry, they ought to put on one of their favorite recordings and read a novel, another great art, rather than editing.) I tried to provide a calming environment.

The editor whom I thought engaged in what I observed as disruptive conduct was not Mathsci but Francis Schonken, who created a sub-article on the sexuality of Chopin immediately after the RFC began waiting for closure. However, I did not observe a violation by either editor of the interaction ban.

I have no opinion as to whether Mathsci should have been blocked or whether Mathsci should be unblocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Question

Nevermind the trigger happy admins, I have a question about BWV 8 - I removed the Whittaker text because it apparently does not meet criteria for fair-use, and it was published in 1978 (which is way too recent for it to be PD). Were you the one that added it, and if so why? Cheers, and stay well, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right. The literal translations of WGG are stilted and not particularly useful. I helped write W. Gillies Whittaker because I was born in Jesmond. I also wrote J. Michael Diack: the translation is unedifying. Sometimes less is more. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hymn tune

I'm trying to say more about the hymn in BWV 1, as a reviewer wished. I grew up thinking that Nicolai composed the melody, this one. The article says that Terry investigated and found the tune was from 60 years earlier, but I have no access to what he wrote.´This says Nicolai derived his melody from a certain other, which makes sense. this seems to support it. Bach Digital has only 1599. Carus has a melody with more rhythm but also says 1599. Liederkunde says Nikolai's melody has "Anklänge" of a 1538 melody, how would I translate that? My translator is helpless. "sounds somewhat similar" seems too colloquial, "is reminiscent" may work? Help? - Summary: what the article says now - and not by me - seems too simple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Dürr & Jones is fine, giving 1599. Gilles Cantagrel writes: "Ce cantique en sept strophes, dont la musique et les paroles, d’après saint Bernard, sont dues à Philipp Nicolai, qui a utilisé une vieille mélodie strasbourgeoise. Il avait été publié en 1599 avec le titre suivant : « Un cantique spirituel de la fiancée des âmes croyantes, de Jésus-Christ, leur fiancé céleste, fondé sur le Psaume 45 du prophète David »." Mathsci (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt I saw your message on your user talk page with the edit summary confession of being too lazy to help a friend. Mathsci (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned the diff on ANI. Thank you for your help here, and before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: The discography of BWV 1 is still a good idea, but one which can wait—there is no hurry. The guidelines for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#Recordings are clearly written and require no rewriting. For BWV 4 and Mass in B minor, the discography is fine. On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music, you mentioned Historical Instrument Practice and how edits evolved since 2011. In BWV 1, apart from tags (or "tag-bombing" as Voceditenore has called it in the past), things are under control. Nikkimaria has already reported that she does not support proposed changes to BWV 53: the tag {{example farm}} was added by her for the recordings table; the guidelines above explicitly advise against supplementary lengthy prose descriptions. Mathsci (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, agree, I'll first look at the hymn (tomorrow), and then at the discography. - I just found more detail for the soprano I was working on yesterday, - a pleasure to add puzzle pieces to a biography, Libuše Domanínská. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Gerda Arendt: Here is the Gallica/BnF link for the 1952 record with Fritz Lehmann, dated 10 June 1952. It was also reissued on 3 CDs here in 2018 (same box set as spotify). Mathsci (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you, helpful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Gerda Arendt: A source for recordings is here in the Gramophone "Classical good CD guide : 2003". On Page 59, it mentions that Leusink's Netherlands Bach Collegium was a 'period band'. That seems a good source for other CDs. For the featured article BWV 125, there were no HIP tags. Mathsci (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I don't know whether you have ever used the original 1971 version of Alfred Dürr's Die Kantaten. The archive.org only covers Vol. 2 and a 1981 edition.

You probably know the Hans-Joachim Schulze's book on cantatas from his weekly broadcasts. These refs describe the neglect of Bach cantatas in performance/recording history together with its revival. The figure Aschenputtel/Cinderalla seems appropriate. BTW, Helmut Rilling's recordings have always been on modern instruments not HIP. Mathsci (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:PROXYING discussion

Look, you two, I hate to be that jerkface, but WP:PROXYING isn't allowed. I've given both of you a lot of leeway to engage in this (just to wrap up anything outstanding), mostly because I'm not a robot and Gerda is beloved, but I'm sorry to say (truly), the latest should really be the end of that... El_C 15:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, pause that. I just re-read PROXYING and am rather surprised by the full sentence. Consulting AN. Will report back. El_C 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that proxy editing is: I make edits a blocked editor would have made but can't. (I did that for FS at a time, because I stood behind the edits he suggested.) Supplying sources seems a completely different field. I'll remove the quotes, as possibly a copyvio problem. I have the book, I just don't normally use it as a ref because offline and in German (and I misplaced it). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wait,_do_we_allow_PROXYING? Interested in the thoughts of participants there. Gerda, even beyond PROXYING, I generally don't allow blocked users to use their talk page for anything but appealing the block and discussing matters pertaining to that appeal. That has, generally, been my modus operandi for years and years. My sense has always been of this being the prevailing view among admins. El_C 15:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C, you are quite right. On my current user talk page, warnings about WP:PROXYING were made by User:EdJohnston and then by User:Spartaz on 10 February 2014. My talk page access was blocked on 10 February and then unblocked a day afterwards. Spartaz also explained the difference between a block and a ban.[48] In that particular case it was an WP:ARBR&I ban in October 2013, that could have been appealed after 6 months. EdJohnston wrote that for BANs the user talk page could only be used for making an unblock request. I made an unblock request by email through arbcom after 2 1/2 years.

As a result of ARBR&I, there are six or seven IBANs where I am named, none of which have been problematic. Right at the beginning of this user talk page, there is a deleted message from a South Korean IP, certainly a sockpuppet of User:Mikemikev: the edit summary from WP:AN was not deleted. Mathsci (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Note This user talk page starts on 13 September 2013. Some of the archives are thus duplicated, so the TOC might be confusing. The first item concerns the 2016 Nice attack (14 July 2016) and an unblock request in August 2016. Mathsci (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Just confirming that I will continue to prohibit PROXYING with all of my own enforcement actions. Sorry for the bother. Best wishes to all, El_C 15:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Advice from a wiser friend

Crostau in Saxony

Silbermann organ, 1728

Mathsci, I learned a lot - and some too late - from a friend whom I quote in my edit notice. I learned 10 rules (and per rule 2, I didn't look at BWV 53, and will not look), and the ultimate guide to arbitration, which can be applied to noticeboard discussions: User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/A pocket guide to Arbitration, - just reading the nutshell opened a world of understanding for me. Perhaps explore. Practical advice: admit that you failed to observe your i-ban - which I had completely forgotten, my bad - and promise that in the next conflict over facts with Francis Schonken - which will come - you will contact one of the admins who commented here and seek help, instead of interacting directly. - I have an article to expand today (another Recent death, Libuše Domanínská), and will take care of the hymn article over the weekend, - I like to deal with hymns on Sundays :) - The quoted line from my edit notice: "go on with life, have a laugh, don't get too upset" - a good reminder to self, anytime --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC) happy Valentine's! - enjoyed BWV 159 and BWV 200 today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help sort this out: Auf meinen lieben Gott vs. Wo soll ich fliehen hin, the former seems where the melody was used sooner, and it's hymnary.org's name for the tune. Would you agree? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Next: How to link to the tune from Clavier-Übung III where Buxtehude's work of the same name is mentioned? Best would probably be to have an article on the Buxtehude dances. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You know this isn't possible at the moment, as El C has explained. However, recently I wrote one sentence describing the special status of BuxWV 179 in Dieterich Buxtehude#Chorale settings, using Markus Rathey as a source. The music is also in the appendix of Vol IV of Buxtehude's collected organ works. There is a beautiful YouTube recording on a positive organ. Mathsci (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Using information from the Bach-Cantata website, I checked that the recordings of the six sonatas BWV 525-530 were in the public domain. This is the Vivace of BWV 530. Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking forward to that! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

More Bach offerings from former East Germany, this time BWV 526 from the village church in Fraureuth. Mathsci (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Further music of Bach, this time from the village church of Großhartmannsdorf in Saxony. Mathsci (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Last Bach contribution from the former GDR, this time for BWV 528. Awaiting covid vaccination in 24 hours. Mathsci (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Today I successfully downloaded a German-language ebook on Late Schubert piano music by Renate Wieland and Jürgen Uhde from Bärenreiter Verlag. The actual paperbook is out of print so had to be ordered as an ebook from buecher.de. It was complicated because of EU restrictions, but the staff at Bärenreiter were very helpful. Mathsci (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The preface of Pages XII-XVI in Volume 3 of the Bärenreiter edition of the piano duets—works from 1828—is another source for late Schubert. These include the "sublime works"—the Fantasie in F minor, D 940, the Lebensstürme and the Rondo in A major. In the ebook mentioned above, the specific entry for D 940 was written by Jürgen Uhde, the entry for Drei Klavierstücke D 946 by Renate Wieland. There are also several doctoral theses on the late Schubert piano repertoire: one for example contains Schenkerian technical analysis that lies outside the scope of a general encyclopedia. However, the musical descriptions of Uhde, Wieland, Charles Rosen and William Kinderman give detailed musical analysis at a level accessible to laymen. In particular Uhde emphasises the connection with Schubert's Lieder. Mathsci (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:IBAN violation

Mathsci, as you are of course aware, you are subject to an interaction ban with Francis Schonken. You have been blocked three times for violating this iban, most recently for a month. Any blocks that should happen due to violating this iban in the future will likely be of considerable duration.

I bring your attention to the third bullet point of WP:IBAN, in which it states: "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;" Despite this, today you made a comment on an edit of Francis Schonken's with this edit. This edit of yours makes direct reference to this edit by Francis Schonken. This is a clear, unequivocal violation of your IBAN with Francis.

There are admins who would block you for this. I am not going to do that. Instead, I am going to make what I hope is a clear, unequivocal warning to you regarding this behavior. Though I am loathe to apply a block, I will most certainly do so if the situation warrants it. A topic ban is something that might be considered in other cases. This would seem to be an option here as the locus of your never ending dispute with Francis is in classical music. However, it isn't an option since you seem quite willing to ignore the requirements of WP:IBAN. I have no faith that you would take a topic ban seriously since you have not taken the IBAN seriously. A topic ban simply isn't a reasonable solution. The only other option available is a block.

The point of the IBAN is to stop the conflict between the two of you. If one or both parties refuse to adhere to the IBAN then stricter measures must be applied. Thrice now in just the last five months you've been blocked for violating this IBAN. Despite this, you continue to ignore the requirements of IBAN and proceed ahead with your edits commenting on what Francis has done. There is no wiggle room on this. There is no justification. There is no quoting some policy, guideline, or essay and making this go away. It doesn't matter if Francis violated the IBAN and you are responding to that. The IBAN policy makes no allowances for that, only allowances to discuss the IBAN itself, which is not what happened here. Therefore;

If you violate the IBAN you have with Francis Schonken again, I will block you for a minimum of three months. This must be considered a final warning. There will be no additional warnings before the block is applied. Should this come to pass, I will start a thread at WP:AN regarding the situation after I have applied the block. You have been here for 15 years now, with 60k+ edits. You are on a very slippery slope. You know better. You've been warned, sanctioned, blocked, blocked, and blocked again. Tolerance is gone at this point. If any of this is even slightly unclear to you, then ask me. Proceeding ahead as you have been doing is completely unacceptable. This ends. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Thanks for your warning and being so explicit about what I did wrong. I have previously asked for advice by email from administrators whom I know, some of whom have expressed exasperation. Do you mind if I ask you a few brief questions in private by wikipedia email, as there are a few things that are unclear? Clavier-Übung III is an example. Mathsci (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would be happy to answer questions you may have via e-mail. However, a word of concern (not caution); while I have considerable training and expertise in classical music and performance thereof, I have zero desire to get embroiled in the content details of this dispute. I have intentionally avoided getting too far down in the weeds on this. I feel my best role is in ending this dispute, rather than trying to untangle subjective analysis of content. Further, my getting involved in the content aspects of this could readily result in my becoming WP:INVOLVED and thus unable to act. I respect and honor the contributions both you and Francis have made to this project. I do not want to see either of you be forced off this project. This is why I have taken the above action to warn you and have done similar with Francis. Given the above, if you still wish to contact me via email, my email link is enabled. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Nice to know that you are an experienced classical musician. However, none of the administrators that I've emailed have been music editors, and music plays no role. My questions are all procedural, some of which you have answered elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Fair enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Is this one of those cases where Mathsci wrote an article and FS is copying the content to a fork? If so, there needs to be a way to stop that method of backdoor poking. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Mathsci, please do not comment in response to this (to Johnuniq or me); it would be interpreted as an IBAN violation. Johnuniq; have a look at this edit. I gave a very strongly worded warning to FS regarding this and other issues at User_talk:Francis_Schonken#Your_IBAN_with_MathSci. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Good, thanks. However, it looks like that warning was on 25 February 2021 and the edit discussed here was 17 March 2021. My eyes glaze over in disputes like this but it would be nice to know if the March edit is a continuation of what I would call inappropriate gaming coming from someone with an iban. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think it best to not go further into this on Mathsci's talk page. Feel free to discuss it with me on my talk page or ping me to yours if you like. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of three months for an interaction ban violation. At 04:25 today, FS made this edit, which you effectively reverted less than an hour later with this edit that commented out the {{nowrap}}s that had been placed by FS. As noted in the above final warning, the next violation would result in a three month block. This is the application of that final warning due to your violation of the WP:IBAN with FS. I deeply regret having to take this action.

Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--Hammersoft (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• As I noted above, I have started a discussion at WP:AN regarding this block. See discussion. If you have any comments you would like to make at that thread, you can post them here and I will copy them there (or another watcher of your talk page may do so). I am very sorry to have had to take this action. As I noted before, I respect and honor your contributions here, but you are not adhering to the IBAN. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Hammersoft: I must respectfully point out the blatant injustice here, and ask you to reconsider your action. The text in question was added by Mathsci, here. FS had absolutely ZERO business touching that, per the same IBAN; and yet he's the one that somehow miraculously has avoided any enforcement for all of this... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• RandomCanadian, an IBAN violation does not make any statement supporting Mathsci's actions here. FS took an action which Mathsci undid. It does not matter if Mathsci added the text and FS modified it. This does not provide an excuse on which Mathsci can act without violating the IBAN. FS' actions are independent of Mathsci's. I will raise the issue you note with FS. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

To be continued without interruptions. An edit-conflict resulted in my response being obliterated. Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Is this an issue of "commenting out"? Thus the code

{google}

is replaced by

<!--{-->google<!--}-->

(a) BWV 53: In this stable article, a large amount of "new" content was added early on the morning of 17 March 2021.[49] This compares with the stable article.[50] You have been following some of this editing; what happened here was that content from the discography article (and elsewhere) was copied into the main short article and the previous content "commented out". Later the stable article was restored by "commenting out" the new content. That is its current state.

(b) BWV 1: Between 15 and 20 March I created a completely new version of the section on Movement 1, Wie_schön_leuchtet_der_Morgenstern,_BWV_1#1, in roughly 60 edits. The process of creating the content started with dezoomifying images from the Bach Archive on 18 January. Content for the First Movement was discussed at User_talk:Gerda_Arendt#BWV_1,_concertante_violin_1. I used 4 WP:RSs not so far exploited. The soprano image for the cantus firmus was important and than the parallel translation of the hymn, a composite from the Lyra Davidica, the Psalmodia Germanica and a hymnal of M. Woolsey Stryker. The material was complex and nobody had edited content of this kind for a while, except to vet previous content for the FAC. User:Gog the Mild was coordinator and my changes were being approved a FAC. Everybody on that page was aware what was happening—that edits were being made and checked. On 20 March at 05:03 I saw that the hymn had changed, so, hoping that Gerda Arendt would help with the format, I just commented out the "wrap" format.[51] I had been proof-reading on 03:03. I was editing the article Johann Sebastian Bach, to modify the recording of BWV 543 for a performance of Robert Köbler on a Silbermann organ in the village church at Großhartmannsdorf in Saxony at 04:48. The hymn had already changed at 04:25. Gerda User:Mirokado and I cooperated on proof-reading. The timetable for the FAC was clear and I was fairly speedy in preparing the content for Movement 1. I feel very uncomfortable that it is hard to edit Johann Sebastian Bach. The attempted splitting of Clavier-Übung III#Reception and influences is an example.

The formatting of the parallel-translation for a hymn was a completely minor issue. Some coding was "commented out" but within minutes I contacted the responsible FAC editor, Gerda Arendt, on her user talk page and by email to iron matters out. For BWV 53, POVFORK content was imported and prior content "commented out" to produce a completely different article.

So I do not understand how "commenting out" in fine in one context but not in another.

Hammersoft, please could you explain? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that you shouldn't have touched anything Francis did, even if he did break the IBAN himself (he seems to not have been blocked for it before, call it "[bad]-luck" or "technicalities" or however you want). Would have been better to tell Gerda or somebody [...] else first so that an independent set of eyes can check the edit. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

There is stray Gerda in the message here. I sent a message to Gerda on her user talk page.[52] I also left a message to her on the FAC page.[53] I sent an email to Gerda at 7 am. From my point of view, we have Gerda and have plenty of assessors for the FAC processs. I have spoken with some of them and know them from days of yore (e.g. the Doncram arbcom case). I still have no idea about "commenting out": I'm not sure whether it was mentioned with User:El C. I had no stronger feelings about the parallel-translation, except for being slightly worried at it "polishing" it. You already commented to Gerda that the English translation (probably made by German-speakers) was very close to German, and that was the intention. It was hard to find a rhyme for Graben, but "wonder" is a bit German. It was a relief to have Mirokado assisting. The POVFORK of 17 March relied on "commenting out".[54] Mathsci (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The crux of my comment was "We're better using non-poetic but literal translations for critical commentary"; the comment about the English translation was and should have been interpreted as a simple comment (see Obiter dictum). Appreciate your efforts (I have previously, for my own IRL purposes, translated this from English to French, so I'm fully aware of the difficulties of the process), but that has very little to do with the disruption that is sadly happening between you and FS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'll be happy to explain. I'm not examining these edits in the context of edits on any other article. I am looking at this edit by FS which you effectively reverted 38 minutes later with this edit. Do you dispute that FS made that first edit? Do you dispute that you made the second edit? I fail to see how you could, as they are both clearly marked as to who did them. Your edit effectively reverted FS' edit. Do you dispute that your edit effectively reverted FS' edit? The fourth bullet point WP:IBAN says "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;". Do you dispute that it says this? I know I'm asking rhetorical questions here, but I fail to see how these facts could be disputed. Given that these facts seem indisputable, this is a clear, bright line, unequivocal violation of your WP:IBAN with FS. If I'm wrong, show me how. I'm all ears. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: I think that possibly for this IBAN, two different standards are being applied. I don't think that is the fault of any particular administrator. It's just that a strict adherence to the IBAN has not been applied systematically for "commenting out".

Yesterday what you wrote about "commenting out" in the circumstances of an IBAN seemed fine with me. It was to be regarded as a revert. It concerned one single edit while I was involved in an FAC review for Movement 1 of BWV 1. So, from what you say, "commenting out" by the mechanism <!--{--> counts as a revert in the IBAN setting. As far as the coordinator, assessors and Gerda Arendt are concerned, no problem had been caused; no disruption.

If "commenting out" counts as an IBAN interaction, there are unfortunately problems. Here are two consecutive diffs involving two users subject to an IBAN.

• [55]
• [56]

In the first diff, only the {{in use}} was removed. In the second diff, a large amount of content changed. That was all achieved by "commenting out" content. Looking at the two pages, it's clear that they are completely different. Radical changes to the content, a referencing scheme which does not conform to the RfC, etc, etc. But from the actual source, it's not hard to see that the changes to the two pages result from "commenting out". In this case there was an IBAN in place, so that kind of edit was not permitted (according to what you've written). I am not aware that I have ever created POVFORK content. Mathsci (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• It does appear at first look that this is indeed another IBAN violation. However, please understand that inaction on an IBAN violation in one case does not provide justification for the same person or another person to commit an IBAN violation in another place. Wikipedia is imperfect and always will be. Those who have been trying to enforce these restrictions are not a paid police force. We can not be expected to enforce all laws all the time. In reality, even the police can't do that. The lack of enforcement doesn't mean it isn't valid. You are expected to scrupulously adhere to your IBAN with FS. That did not happen in this case.
• I really did not want to apply a block. I was hoping to not have to do so. I tried very hard to avoid this circumstance, which is why I placed the long, personally written warning at the top of this section. The IBAN is serious. The dispute between the two of you has been going on for years. There is at least one other administrator who is suggesting an indefinite ban might be the appropriate action. This dispute must end. I tried explaining this above, apparently to no avail. I spent hours working on this dispute yesterday. I've spent a considerable sum of hours on various other days, trying to educate myself about the particulars of the dispute and prepare for what I hoped would not happen. I should never have had to do this in the first place. The burden lies squarely on yours and FS' shoulders to end this dispute. But, the actions of both of you are causing that burden to shift to other people, like me, who have to spend considerable effort to properly handle administration of sanctions. I don't want to do this. I'd much rather be doing something else. But, somebody has to do it since you and FS won't. Even today, I'm having to spend the better part of an hour crafting this response to you. (written after I've written all the below) This is my time I'm having to spend that I never should have had to spend in this way. Yes, I volunteered to do it by applying this block and doing all the work beforehand to make sure it was done appropriately. But, it never should have been necessary for anyone to do it.
• As I noted at WP:AN, you and FS are dancing on the same floor in close proximity to each other. Both of you are deeply involved in classical music topics, much to the benefit of this project. But, you keep on bumping into each other and in some cases stepping on each other's toes (or worse). Neither of you appears to be making any effort whatsoever to avoid the other. This means the bumping into each other is going to happen, and its likely to get worse, not better.
• I've had disputes with people on this project. Some of them have extended across years. One of them is still ongoing. I have worked very hard to disengage. I've asked the editor on multiple occasions to stop mentioning me or referring to me. I've banned them from my talk page. I haven't said anything to or about this editor in at least three years now. Yet, this editor still continues to ping me, mention me, and refer to me. He can't stop. As annoying as it is, the dispute is having no effect on the project because I have refused to engage. I avoid editing anything he edits, and I look carefully, every time I consider editing an article. If I comment on a discussion thread, I go to great lengths to ensure that none of what I say could be interpreted to be a comment on him or his actions. This is my burden and mine alone since the other editor refuses to disengage. This is what you should be doing, but are not.
• Neither you nor FS appears willing to disengage. When does it end? Will it take an indefinite ban before it ends? Is that what you want? If you're not willing to take on the burden of scrupulously avoiding FS at all costs, this is where this is headed. I can't stop that. The only person you can count on to stop it is you. This burden is yours. Either you can accept it or the community will eventually indefinitely ban you. The one month long ban should have been enough on its own to make it clear how you were in the wrong. It wasn't. The long final warning I gave you above should be been enough on its own. It wasn't. I hold out hope that this three month ban is enough, but honestly I have my doubts. PLEASE prove me wrong.
• You are standing on the edge of a Wikipedia cliff with a thousand meter drop. The edge of the cliff is crumbling under your feet. The tiniest indiscretion is going to cause you to get banned from the project. This three month block should make it absolutely crystal clear where you are standing. I can't help where you are standing. Only you can. I can help you to visualize where you are standing, which I hope I have done.
• At the WP:AN thread User:Andrew Davidson suggested another alternative; partial blocks. To continue the dancing analogy; myself (and perhaps other admins) could act as a chaperone such that whenever you dance close to FS, you will be blocked from that page. To put a precise point on it; it could read like this: "Mathsci will be blocked via partial block from any mainspace page or its talk page whenever they make an edit to such a page within a month of any edit FS has made to the same page" This creates burden on other people to keep watching everything you do, and monitoring whether FS has been on the page too. We shouldn't have to carry this burden. As I mentioned above, this is your burden...not ours. Given the recent track record, there's a high chance this will result in a very long block record for you. I'd be willing to go along with this, but understand that this sort of an arrangement is likely to make thing worse for you, not better. It could even worsen your case to avoid being indefinitely banned from the project. The only way it wouldn't be is if you took on this burden yourself and avoided editing anything FS has been editing and had a crystal clean block record while under this sanction. I also would not want this to be indefinite. So far as I'm aware, this sort of a sanction is unprecedented. The closest example I can think of is a mentoring requirement, which traditionally have failed. I would want a six month cap on it. Understand; this isn't a fully crafted offer at this point, but a suggested possible alternative. If such an arrangement is amenable to you, I would propose it in a sub-thread of the current AN thread and see what the community thinks. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Block expiration and your future here

With your three month block about to expire, I am laying out a few things that you need to consider;

While you were blocked for violating your interaction ban with Francis Schonken, you are still subject to six interaction bans. Those are with Ferahgo the Assassin (FtA), The Devil's Advocate, Cla68, Captain Occam, SightWatcher, and of course FS. Of those interaction bans, only FtA is not banned from the project or not inactive. Given the extremely slippery slope upon which you stand, any breach of these interaction bans, even with long inactive/banned users, could possibly lead to an extended block or outright ban from the project. The point of an interaction ban is to eliminate disruption caused by the interaction of two editors. So, how could a breach of an interaction ban with someone who is banned or long term inactive break the spirit of an interaction ban? Well, I wouldn't block for it, but there are other administrators who might. You need to be careful not to breach any of your interaction bans.

I think you should consider appealing to have the interaction bans with The Devil's Advocate, Cla68, and Captain Occam removed as they have been banned indefinitely from the project and have been so for a long time. You might also consider appealing the interaction ban with SightWatcher as they have been inactive on the project for eight years. It might seem meaningless to appeal such interaction bans, but there are benefits I think in doing so to help claw your way back up the slippery slope.

There are multiple people who have expressed that the three month long block should have been a site ban. You have been repeatedly blocked for violating interaction bans. Given that the community has on six different occasions felt it necessary to apply an interaction ban, and given how many times you've been blocked for violating an interaction ban, it seems unlikely that any future overtures to reduce disruption by getting yet another interaction ban will very likely not be entertained. Further, breaking any of your interaction bans even in the slightest way could lead to you being banned from the site. As I mentioned above, the various times you have been blocked for breaching a topic ban should have been enough to get the message home to you that there is no tolerance for such behavior. You absolutely must consider that any future breaches of your interaction bans likely means a ban from the project.

You have to decide whether you want to be here on this project. If you decide you want to be here, then you need to lay out for yourself in precise terms what you can not do, and make sure you follow it every time you make an edit here. The interaction bans are a good starting point, but they are only a starting point. I think its patently obvious how important your contributions here are, and I am very far from a lone voice in hoping you will return to productive editing here.

Welcome back! I hope your return is a productive and happy one! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32