User talk:RandomCanadian

If you have been redirected here from another project or language, please leave the message here to ensure I see it and answer in a timely fashion. Thanks!

Thine be the Glory

High RC. Do you have a source from which you copied the tune? It's a nice (and as far as I can tell accurate) harmonisation, it just needs some sort of attribution. I don't like fly-by tagging with {{cn}}, so I thought a quiet word to you would be more effective. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin of Sheffield: As far as I can tell, it's from "Complete Anglican Hymns Old and New‎"; where the only mention for a composer is Händel himself, and although that hymnal is merely 20 yrs old, I don't think there should be an issue with copyright since when that is the case (ex. Veni, veni Emmanuel then there is a convenient notice to the effect). On a quick look at a vocal score (p. 131 if you're interested) this attribution does appear to be correct as the first 8 bars are exactly the same (once transposed down a fourth to D major) except for some rhythmical adaptations for the German lyrics. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 14:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent, thanks. It means that anyone who doubts yor excellent work can go back and check. :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

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

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

hymn tunes

Welcome, unless we met over hymn tunes before ;) - Today, we have a special case, Seht, er lebt, no Baroque music but a 1973 poem, - I'd normally guess that a melody was copy-righted, but this one seems to be a traditional from Israel. Question is how traditional, and if we may do lilipond of at least part of it, such as the refrain for which the text is quoted. Melody (for different text) is here, third row. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I don't have access to that book preview from Canada :( ... Maybe you can do it yourself (see Help:Score for a basic primer, or if you're more familiar with German here) - it shouldn't be too hard if you can read normal musical notation. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 16:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could try, but the first question is if the melody would be "free" enough to be presented, and I can't tell. It's mentioned with the name "Kol dodi", but I couldn't find a thing. - I changed "de" to "com" in the link above, - can you see that, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Is it this, perhaps? The only change I notice with the .com link is that the text saying the pages (103-104) are not available in the preview is now in English instead of in German... RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 16:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or this (which appears to match the meter of the German text)? RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 16:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

${ \key a \aeolian \time 2/2 \set Score.tempoHideNote = ##t \tempo 2=72 \set Staff.midiInstrument = "english horn" \omit Score.TimeSignature \override Score.BarNumber #'transparent = ##t \relative c'' { a4 a8( g) a2 | a4 a8( g) a4 r4 | a4 b8( c) d4 c8( b) | c4 b a r4 \bar "|." } }$

@Gerda Arendt: The above music matches with an (in-wikitext, linked ) audio I found on the web... I will work up on it to add the lyrics and add it to the article. Shouldn't pose problems copyright wise as it's a short quotation used for demontrative/educational purposes (i.e. fair use). RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 17:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've had a quick look at the Chabad page, and it claims the tune was written by Alter Rebbe. Putting that name into DuckDuckGo and the top three hits refer to a gentleman whose dates were September 4, 1745 - December 15, 1812 O.S. If that's correct he's been dead 208 years and any copyright has long since expired of old age! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin of Sheffield: Thanks, but it's the other tune, which is not ascribed to any author in the source I found... RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 17:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(late to this:) it's the second tune, but (for low-singing congregations) from E. Someone said all these NGL songs are in E minor, and it's not far off ;) - thank you so much! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I compared to the hymnal: they have the second measure exactly like the first, and the last note also a half-note. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: If you think it's better the song can be transposed to e minor using \transpose a e { ... } (and changing the key signature, which is not much trouble). I will change the durations as you describe. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 17:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

done, worked! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motet

What is a motet? Our article doesn't really answer that question. Is Hear My Prayer even a motet? Is Die Sintflut a cantata. In both cases, I think the label is wrong, or at least borderline. I thought a motet is word-driven, and therefore not accompanied, unless colla parte. I thought a cantata is sung but with a substantial independent instrumental part. With these - see Bach - ideas, no to both questions. But If the composer or publisher cals something a cantata it must be a cantata ;) - Who calls Mendelssohn's work a motet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Maybe the proper term could be "anthem"? Anyway, I wasn't making a judgement on the word motet, I was removing the redundant "Christian" right before. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 14:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, anthem seems to be an Anglican term when it comes to church music, an ambiguous one (could be also a national anthem), and I don't know, - I met anthems with organ, which would not be motets as I understand it, but also not cantatas because for those, several movements seem a must. - - So, I call an thing an anthem when a source does, but would not know exactly what might fall under the description without a source. ever for Bach, that is. - Always learning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Not just Anglican, the Methodists certainly use the term and I think the URCs do as well. National- and Pop- anthems are by analogy to this standard Christian usage. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Learning ;) - Can we say English Christian? If that is so, please change the lead of anthem, because there, national comes first, only Anglican is mentioned in the lead. Later it says "essentially English musical form", and claims that it's analogous to Catholic and Lutheran motet, but that seems a misunderstanding what motet means. Shortness seems to be all it takes to be an anthem, while the German motet, as explained above, means a specific way of setting text, not necessarily sacred at all, and some are rather long, see BWV 227). - I would not know a German equivalent to anthem. The German article de:Anthem also only mentions Anglican. The English "national anthem" would be "Nationalhymne" in German, and what English calls a "hymn" (in a "hymnal") would be a Lied (in a Gesangbuch) in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Hymn would be Kirchenlied, no? (i.e. Lieder are also what Schubert wrote, and I doubt those would be performed in church...) "English" is not the same as "Anglican" for this purpose; for example there are Anglicans in the USA and elsewhere (and I assume most of them speak English (language), but they are not all English (i.e. England)). In the case of Mendelssohn, maybe simply "sacred vocal work" would be the most simple, if a bit imprecise, solution. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 19:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This is getting into a bit of a gray area. An article on hymns might mention that they are called Lied in a section on German practice, but they would still be hymns to the English Wikipedia. What Germans call anthems isn't really or relevance (except in passing). As regards the lead to anthem it seems fine to me as it indicates whence the term came. Later the Etymology and History sections expand on this. Just my 2d worth! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec also) Officially, hymn would be Kirchenlied. In real life - at (any) church - nobody says so, just "Wir singen jetzt das Lied ..." - In German, Lied is a very general term for anything sung, - I guess "song" would be an equivalent. Only in English does lied mean "German art song". RC, "sacred vocal work" could be an aria, or a hymn actually, but "motet" (the German meaning) requires a choir. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, if you want me to know that Anthem is not just Anglican, it has to be in the lead of anthem, - you can't expect readers to study the whole article if the lead gives the impression of a summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Well, "song" in English is also very general for anything sung (or, erroneously, for any piece of music...), although in many contexts (such as in a serious academic work) the more precise terms are preferred. "sacred choral work"? Shouldn't we move this discussion to the relevant article talk page? RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 20:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are we now looking for something instead of "anthem", or "motet", or what? A "sacred choral composition" can be a motet, but also an "oratorio", while "motet" is a quite precise description. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? No move to a talk, unless we'd know what to ask. - If anthem has a broader meaning than the lead suggests, just change the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt:the article we've been discussing, Hear My Prayer... Wasn't the whole point of this that "motet" was the wrong term (and the "anthem" is too specific to the Anglicans)? I'm fine with "anthem" as it stands; but I was making suggestions if you think there's a better way to say this than either term, and "sacred choral work" seemed like a specific enough idea (maybe "song" instead of "work", but in any case I don't think there's any possibility of confusion with "oratorio"...) RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 20:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For me, that article was only a reason to find out what a motet is for whom. I have no more time today, but just find these clarifications helpful. - Monteverdi's birthday tomorrow, and I want to get 3 articles in better shape for it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher's method

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

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

[1]

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

If there is contention within the scientific community then, per WP:NPOV; we simply provide both (all) viewpoints without making a judgement on it. @Statsguy123: RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 16:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[2]

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

@Statsguy123: Please sign your comments using ~~~~ (there's even a button for it, Sign your posts on talk pages:) If you think there is a problem with the way that information is covered then try contacting the editor who added it and if that doesn't work go to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 16:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for fighting vandalism! P.S: Did you know that there is an tool called Twinkle? You should try it out ;) TheImaCow (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk:J. B. Hunt request

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

Pending changes reviewer granted

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

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

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Anarchyte (talk • work) 12:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please see the comments I left at WP:PERM/PCR. Anarchyte (talk • work) 12:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Lilypond

Thank you for quality additions of the actual music to articles such as Seht, er lebt and Jesu Leiden, Pein und Tod, picking the setting which is not in the sources, and again about "living now", for thoughts about music constructive genres, for fighting vandalism with good messages, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

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

For Liebster Jesu, the melody in common use is not the one Bach used for his settings, but what you hear in the YT video, actualy more interesting ;) - Could you add that, please? Yes F major. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: gets out notes from theory class: Sounds like this? I'll make something of a 4-part setting so that it doesn't compare too badly with the Bach. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about just the melody, for easier comparison? That's what the typical German hymnal has, anyway. Only with the 2013 edition of Gotteslob, there were few (!) four-part setting, such as Tochter Zion, and the Taizé Veni, Sancte Spiritus, mentioned in the list, with YT. I could make the latter an article, if you want more work ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: When you get too motivated into something and don't notice talk pages messages or time fly by... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely! Can I motivate you to use the words of the second stanza? The one mentioned in the DYK ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should ask no more, but ... could you make - by a repeat after the 1st line - clarify the bar form? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that they don't repeat ... - Good tempo! (Most congrations will go much slower.) - I probably should ask no more, but it's only 2 days from Pentecost, with this List of hymns for Pentecost coming up, and a video supplied for Komm, Schöpfer Geist, kehr bei uns ein (G major in the book).

@Gerda Arendt: I just took the same tempo as for the Bach :) (I believe I originally took this as example - of course not a congregation so they might be singing a tad faster...). Maybe I should have checked on some other website before making a harmonisation; this appears to be the same tune (though, see, they write down the full repeats too...) (check the audio they provide, it's also at about the same tempo I put). I will check on Komm, Schoepfer Geist in due time. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for making me discover this composer; very interesting (although due to copyright can't be included in the article). Though I do have something to work with so I'll see. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The melody should be 1741, out of copyright, no? ... and it's more or less a metrical version of the thousand-years-old chant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Not the melody, the setting. Though of course if its just the melody then it poses no problem, but its more interesting if we can have something more interesting. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know just the setting. Just the melody would be better than nothing, though. I'll expand the article, promised, - same due time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely! Just get it down to G major as said above. I know you told me how to do it, but there's RL (real life) waiting, and I don't remember where it was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted a pending change to May 22 that did not include a direct source.

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

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you and please keep up your good work! Toddst1 (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddst1: I looked up the related articles and the information there seemed to be ok and the sources were given so I AGFed, of course totally unaware of this seemingly WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - WP:V states that the information must be verifiable, not that we need to add a citation for everything (and, in this kind of list article, if the page is linked and the information there is sourced, that's easily verifiable). Is it really absolutely necessary to duplicate the information? That seems to me like a little bit of WP:CREEP... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Days of Years (DOTY) pages were becoming a complete mess with incorrect and unverifiable info so things have changed so that all new entries require a direct source.

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

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

We could use your help in:

Preventing new entries that don't include direct sources and when they occur, either supplement them with a reliable source or reverting them.
Helping us clean up articles. The project members have asked all participants to go through their birthday and clean the entries up by adding reliable sources to each entry, or removing entries where reliable sources aren't readily available.

I hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been seeing your edits around.

Thanks for the good work. And, as Paul Heinreid said to Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, "Welcome to the fight." Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sir!

What a hard challenge. So, thanks for caring. —46.114.111.76 (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-vandalism advice

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

Regarding your revert on List of Philippine National Railways stations

Good day!

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

Cheers! HiwilmsTalk 06:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 08:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wajid Khan (artist)

There is enough on google to suggest that a reliable source exists and that the birth date is probably wrong. But I’m not in a position to add this right now (on mobile). Perhaps you can help those newer editors out? Thanks, Prodego ^talk 03:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Prodego: As I pointed out at the article: "Wajid Khan, of composer duo Sajid-Wajid, dies at 42"... Wrong guy, apparently (this one is only 39). Also he is described as a composer, which this artist apparently is not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks right about it being a different person, if you can help sort it out or let the editors know, much appreciated. :] Prodego ^talk 03:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]