This is an archive of past discussions with User:DanCherek. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Dan - I only just noticed you had been assigned my mentor. Thanks for the note! I am more of technological guru (in the video space) but in my spare time i like to write film scripts.
Hey Mark, nice to meet you! Interesting stuff. Feel free to stop by here any time you have any questions about editing Wikipedia. DanCherek (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I have question, I put hours of time and resources into fixing an old article up and someone keeps changing it based on their personal opinion and beliefs. I cite info and they remove it. What is the correct way to deal with this? --Dr.Decapod (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi there. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution has more information about the best ways to deal with a situation like this. Essentially, discussing it with the other editor on the talk page of the article is best, and trying to reach a consensus that way. If there continues to be disagreements, then there are more ways to resolve content disputes (such as requesting a third opinion or trying the dispute resolution noticeboard), but these will typically require that a discussion has taken place on the talk page first. DanCherek (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
Hello @DanCherek! I am experiencing an issue on Queen of Sheba page. I have invested significant time and effort in improving the article, providing substantial citations and engaging in respectful discussions. One editor keeps reverting changes based on their personal opinion, without offering valid reasons or engaging in constructive dialogue. They are private messaging me threats, which is unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia.
I believe my edits are in line with Wikipedia's guidelines and contribute to overall quality of the article. I am open to discussing different perspectives and finding common ground, but I am concerned that this editor is unwilling to engage in a productive conversation. What is the correct way to deal with this?
Thank you so much! It's always the same site, you need the BWV no. (4 digits, leading zeros) and the movement number (and for most it should by now be among the external links. I corrected the German in the penultimate word, "ß".--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! - Today's story has 3 composers, I couldn't decide for the one on the Main page or the one who didn't make it on his bicentenary, so took both, and the pic has a third. Listen if you have a bit of time. The music, played by the Kyiv Symphony Orchestra in Germany in April 2022 impressed me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Happy because my story today is about a Czech mezzo soprano who is mentioned on the Main page on her birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk)
Happier about Bach's cantata on the Main page on its 300th birthday (per calendar), my story (again)! ... with you Lilypond, also in the new article about the hymn ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Great! If you have time for only one until Sunday, I'd prefer BWV 8, - the other can wait until Tuesday, calendar date of it's first performance - while Bach and I go by liturgy ;) - always 9 days off this anniversary year --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I can't tell if the little notes are supposed to be regular notes (bass, measure 4?), grace notes (soprano, measure 12?), or ossia (bass, measure 5?) DanCherek (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! I added a bit speed. Can the last note somehow sound a bit longer? - I'll move, prepare some food and be back for the other. One thing upfront: have text only for the soprano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I looked at that score. I was prepared by reading some of the article for a new kind of melody, in a setting that Bach took from some Mr. Vetter. I haven't listened, so don't know if the small notes in the bass are perhaps instrumental music of interludes. I'd ignore them. The little soprano thingy looks like a grace not, - take if not too complicated. IMSLP has a (19th-century) score that could be consulted. The article has a manuscript of what Bach took it from, File:Daniel Vetter Liebster Gott 91-92 1713.jpeg, but Bach changed, I read. No little notes in the bass. The soprano is different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh how lovely and different! Is there a way od making that grace note a long one (half the length of the note it precedes), as usual in Baroque and Classic? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, by creating separate scores for the layout and for the MIDI playback. See the new version above. (This is also how we could tell it to actually play back the repeated part, let me know if you want that.) DanCherek (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Good to know! Yes please for repeat. - I am happy to have brought a choral conductor to DYK! Good video about his work for La Juive on my talk, - best announcemen: "Everybody as soft as possible". It's so nice to see the singers actually look at him (or the camera). That's what we should do tonight in concert ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with music from Moses und Aron, and with two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday, which made me happy then and now again. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you, taken with one added letter for the German. - My story is about a composer and choir conductor, listen to his Lamento. - My story on 13 October was about a Bach cantata. As this place works, it's on the Main page now because of the date (but Bach wrote it for the 20th Sunday, not the Tuesday after the 21st Sunday after Trinity). I sort of like it because today is the birth date of my grandfather who loved and grew dahlias like those pictured. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
Hi Dan - I'd like to publish information about the desktop published zine I used to sell in the 1990's. The 10 issues of Dragazine were released from 1991-1997. They have recently been accepted by the Library of Congress. Is there an easy way to publish information about this subject? --Lois Commondenominator (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi Lois Commondenominator, sorry for the delayed response! Primarily there are two things to consider. The first is conflict of interest (COI), since you are/were affiliated with the subject. You can read about Wikipedia's COI guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which has important information about how to properly disclose that connection before making any edits related to the zine. The second is notability, which is basically the standard by which we determine what topics get articles, and it's something that everyone has to think about before they create a draft or article. Essentially, trying to make sure that a particular subject has received enough coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources (such as an independent review) to warrant an individual Wikipedia article. More information at Wikipedia:Notability and possibly Wikipedia:Notability (books) (I know it's not a book, but some of the guidance at that page might still apply).Once you have thought about these two things, if you think it meets the notability guidelines and you have disclosed the COI, see Help:Your first article for information about creating a draft that can be submitted for review. DanCherek (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi Reading Beans, sorry for the late reply. Looks like Voorts took care of adding the required attribution for the public domain source, so it should be all good now. In general, official works of the U.S. federal government like the Federal Register are in the public domain so it just needs attribution. DanCherek (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research
Hello,
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello Dan. You may or may not remember but back in June you kindly helped with an issue regarding Jersey Women's Cricket biographies. As such I wanted to let you know I have reverted one of the redirects (Charlie Miles) to a full page as I have gathered further content and, most importantly, references that I believe will satisfy even the most zealous of page reviewer. This includes one online newspaper article which features the player heavily including in the main headline and a second online newspaper article which includes an interview with her. I just felt it courteous to let you know in case you saw the revert. Best wishes. Shrug02 (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Women in Religion have a monthly virtual edit-a-thon and the next session is December 2nd 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. CST. For Zoom meeting details, contact Dzingle1 or RosPost. Women in Red members are welcome to join the Zoom Meeting here
Tip of the month:
Think of rewarding contributors, especially newcomers, with a barnstar.
For a surprise, a Bach cantata is on the Main page today, where it was last year for the 300th anniversary, and they were too lazy to find something new ;) - It has lilypond of the beginning of the closing chorale. Look at my story, and listen to the 3 whole-tone steps and the dialogues of Fear and Hope. - An open letter open to be signed (more info on the talk), - I haven't checked if you did, please ignore then. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Late reply... yes I signed the open letter, thank you for spreading the word because it is so important and concerning. Back soon with more chorale scores, btw. DanCherek (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
Hi! I'm relatively new to editing on Wikipedia and I was wondering: what kinds of edits would warrant asking permission on the article's Talk Page beforehand? I assume minor copy edits are okay without asking, but I've noticed other users asking permission to edit seemingly small issues. What's generally the norm / where is the line? Thank you! --Chargoe (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi Chargoe, typically everyone is encouraged to just be bold (see WP:BEBOLD) and go ahead and make the changes directly to the article. Some cases where it would be better to discuss on the talk page first might be if the editor has a conflict of interest regarding the subject (like if someone is a friend of the article's subject or an employee of a company), if the change seems particularly controversial and they anticipate that it might result in disagreement anyway, or if it has been previously discussed with no consensus to include, so a new discussion is needed. Hope that helps! DanCherek (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like you're right. I've removed the synopsis, revdel'd, and left a message on the user's talk page. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Today's story comes from a DYK about a concert that fascinated me, and you can listen! For my taste, the hook has too little music - I miss the unusual scoring and the specific dedication - but it comes instead with a name good for viewcount. BWV 62? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Today it's another great woman, soprano Sigrid Kehl, and I found a 1963 Christmas Oratorio detail. 10 years earlier than that cycle, Bach wrote seven cantatas for the 1724 season, based on seven songs, - my focus this year. Expect three stories for the three days they celebrated in Leipzig ;) - Enjoy the season! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
Hi, Jen. I want your opinion on something. I was thinking about creating a re-direct page for rothbardianism, but I don't know what it should re-direct to. I thought about re-directing it to anarcho-capitalism, but rothbardianism is defined by wikionary as Murray Rothbard's philosophy, and Wikiquote re-directs Rothbardism to a page of Murray Rothbard quotes, so maybe it should re-direct to his Wikipedia page. I want this re-direct to be consistent with Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, so I'm asking for your input and opinion on this. Sorry for writing this long paragraph. --HaveYouHeardAboutTheBird (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi HaveYouHeardAboutTheBird, that's a good question! Ultimately it'll be up to you as the initial redirect creator (and anyone can edit or participate in further discussions after that if they feel differently), but if I had to pick I would probably go with Murray Rothbard as the target. Just because it seems like a good target page to send anyone who searches for "Rothbardianism" and encounters the redirect – the Murray Rothbard is full of information about him and his views – whereas anarcho-capitalism could make sense but I think it'd get a bit murkier in the case that anyone has an interpretation of anarcho-capitalism that differs from what Rothbard espoused. DanCherek (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
