User talk:69.165.196.103

This user lives in Quebec.

This user is a recent changes patroller.

Hello, 69.165.196.103, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to

I'd send you a thank-you-click but it works only for registered users. They get more respect, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the translation bit, and other improvements on related articles! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might say that you will change the tables as in the model in a week, if nobody protests. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Recent changes with own preferences

• Melody used for the last stanza in the closing chorale of Bach's cantata Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen, BWV 12.

• Melody from BWV 244 mvt 54, for the
  article
  on the hymn

• For removing deprecated template IMSLP2 - [1] Maybe not?

• For making table on
  BWV 125
  - copied list to start with, commented it so that I can edit here without it taking too much space  Done

• For making table on St John Passion structure article - copied part of example table to start

First part

(N.B. Basso continuo omitted)

Second part

Better uw-vandal messages

Sorry, I think I was still thinking "au point". Ich weiß, completely different, auf meiner Tastatur. Please check out the structure articles, St John Passion structure etc, for bad English, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done If I may say it like that, "Es ist vollbracht!". Small other issues which I noticed: the details specific to each version would require inline citations (ex: "There are no extant Flute parts for this version, so the movements that normally require them have violins instead"); and the tables could require some minor reworking. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk and raise it there, I didn't bring in the large tables about the versions, but gave up arguing sigh. - next St Matthew Passion structure? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done That one was much shorter. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you can have it longer, just wait 10 years, - or go to Mass in B minor structure ;) - thank you, btw, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for tackling that as well, and well! "parodies neater": please find a better expression than "more plausible" for that a parody typically looks neat, while a new composition shows mistakes, corrected mistakes etc, as signs of a work in progress, while when copying from a basis, these signs are less frequent, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Refined" maybe. Now let's see, is there a similar structure article for the Weihnachts Oratorio? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. No. But without structure: an open FAC with prose complaints:

4 actually), and the only other was (but I merged it to the main article) The Creation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I like most of your changes, but chorale cantatas on hymns for the occasions could make readers think of several hymns in one cantata. Any way of saying that one chorale was based on one hymn? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for the other cantatas on hymns by Luther, that was a table, which I found more Übersichtlich, but I feel I have to compromise with my defenders on the FAC, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should access to the score be external links? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that would be WP:CONSISTENCY (that does refer to article titles but the spirit of the rule is that articles on similar subjects shouldn't be too different), ex Mass in B minor structure#External links, Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4, and pretty much every piece of music. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: many of the "external links" are sources, the score certainly is, - give me some time please (like a few years), for example look at Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem Wort, BWV 126 now, External links, and before, Sources, just not yet formatted for inline citation but now. All these university sites are accepted as RS, so please, until formatted, leave Sources. Don't tell me about consistency, or I might think of the inconsistency among Gounod operas, just because the early ones were written by editors who dislike the style of the newer ones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But current "sources" sections on many bach cantatas are really just links to other websites. If they are sources, they should appear as refs in the text somewhere. Also,

WP:ELYES. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Replied above, didn't realize how fast you were, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I'll keep changing the deprecated templates, but I'll leave sources. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ;) - model articles are the FAs, such as O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165, - too bad that most articles are not there yet ;) - My goal for 2017 (reformation): the chorale cantatas on Luther hymns to GA (see the above, that one was composed for next Sunday, I better get it done), one more of them FA (BWV 10 is on my mind), and have an article however small on each of Luther's hymns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated: found more people interested in Bach cantatas on Luther hymns --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

table: good idea! was bulleted list once. Luther's day of death tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of death - definitely one of Bach's best cantatas: [2]. I'd go ahead and make the BWV 125 cantata list into a table - with title "Cantatas based on Luther's hymns" and columns BWV/Title/Liturgical occasion/Performance Date. However, I quite like the bulleted list idea (and that's simpler formatting as well); also it doesn't distract the viewer's attention too much. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do nothing right now, see the FAC. We have tables in the 1715 and the 1716 cantatas. - The change of the deprecated templates is something a bot could do, no? - One of Bach's best cantatas, I agree, performed last year, then des Schlafes Bruder, when we all stood up and sang together. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's only about 2500 occurrences of it (slightly less) - A sort of long term project (given it's mostly just removing "2" and "cname=..."). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep going, you might add state=expanded to the close-by Bach cantatas template, as it is already on the better ones, mainly to have the footer open ;) - merci, - talked yesterday about Le Petit Prince with another of that tongue, - he translated all Bach cantatas to French, and now we do things like Liberté, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry, read that wrong. Edit: now  Done up to BWV 120 (first two rows of the cantatas template). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the table! - Reading again, you replaced chorale cantata format by structure. I wish we had a different word, because we so far used structure for the organization in movements. Bach's chorale cantatas differ from those of others by making them similar to his "normal" cantatas with their recitatives and arias. Ideas how to word that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Structure - referring to how it's organized - id est, the way movements are planned/their texts writen - which fits perfectly with the following explanatory text. For the second idea, if we add it as the second-to-last sentence of the current section, it could go somehow like this "Thus, Bach's chorale cantatas differ from those of his contemporaries, since they share some features (for example, the combination of arias and recitatives) with his other cantatas not directly based on chorales." 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, will think, - need sleep first. Needs a ref. - We take BWV 4 from 1707, but then probably also 80 (date uncertain) and 14. - For now, I made the table 2nd cycle only, makes the two later ones (well, one has one later movement only) stand out more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good night (I suppose it's midnight in Europe!). I've copied the above sentence, with corrections (which I've copied back here); into the article. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commented it out there. Nothing should be in a featured article candidate that is not sourced ;) - (especially when the stability of that FAC is questioned.) I guess it should go to Chorale cantata (Bach) because it's general. OR: nobody wrote chorale cantatas at Bach's time, - he structured them like the other fashionable ones to make them palatable, and succeeded because the chorale cantatas were liked, - their scores where all that Leipzig wanted to keep after he died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Thus, Bach's chorale cantatas share many features with his other cantatas not directly based on chorales." Does that still convey what you wanted to say? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

other

Michael reverted (today, check his contribs, not 27 pages of archive) the change "to-do", saying the template is not deprecated but a working redirect, so nothing needs to be done. Off to singing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing the default for the Bach cantatas template to "expanded"? Would save much work ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Also, having 2 templates that do the exact same thing looks unnecessary to me - why not just change all instances of the redirect to the newer one? It's not like I will be breaking anything. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The older one has a tradition of ten years or so, readers are used to it, and it has the cantatas that are not church. If you ask me, we don't need the new one, because we have the links to all the articles about them in the footer. I forgot which cantata, possibly BWV 80, where it was discussed and the church cantatas removed. But I don't have the heart to remove it. - Singing was great, that 8-part-mass, with two cornets, four baroque trombones, dulcian, baroque bassoon, strings, two organs and regal! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I expect international readers to rather know a BWV number, than some German title, or whether it's church or secular, or what cycle. I'd rather go for categories such as Category:Bach cantata from the first Leipzig cycle, to have those together. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was talking about IMSLP and IMSLP2 - slight misunderstanding. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And while I'm doing it: removing the unecessary cname parameter on many of Bach's cantatas is still a valid reason to actually go change the templates - will keep doing. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the NPOV template on

Thank you for your interest in the choir. They have sung three times a week, probably before Biller, and after him. We'll visit in June (singing in Propsteikirche), I can check then ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody that has an interest for Baroque music (and/or Bach) eventually hears of the Thomaners. As for the three times a week, the website ([3]) indeed has them still singing dreimal jeder Woche. So the present tense is correct. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for assessments: I don't care. - German is difficult. "jede Woche drei Mal " or "dreimal in jeder Woche" but more common "dreimal pro Woche". Did you see the previous discussion, from 2010? (The article had been moved to something like "St. Thomas's boys choir", and I joked about "Die Käfer von Liverpool".) They came to sing in Wiesbaden last year, with Schwarz replacing the announced Biller. I was happy that he succeeded, not some outsider. We heard them in Leipzig (three times, Friday - Saturday - Sunday) in 2008. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the assessment - this video (see comment ) has one boy saying that it is "einer der bekannteste Chor in der Welt" (if I heard that correctly, at around the 1:40 mark). That solves the issue if there ever was one, given what the announcer is saying, anyway (now, are TV announcers a reliable source?). Und, ja, dass ich hab' gelesen und denke, es ist blöd - der rechte name ist und immer war "Thomanerchor". I totally understand your joke - translations can be misleading or, as in this case, lack precision - given that most sources refer to the choir as the Thomanerchor, and that it's not the only choir with such a name... (as somebody who speaks French and English (and Spanish, though a bit worse than those 2), I do know that translation isn't really an exact science). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

einer der bekannteste Chor in der Welt, - I guess einer der bekanntesten Chöre der Welt, is probably true, 800+ years of getting famous ;) - Many people will still not know it, but they won't know

OREYA (I took the picture) or one of "mine" either, - or the Monteverdi Choir. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

My bad (transcribed it rapidly) - understanding German is already hard enough when it's written. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"my bad" is a very strange phrase, - nothing bad at all, just could still get better. Friends in the US asked me if they should correct me or not, - I said: depends. When I want to get an urgent message across, please don't , but normally, yes please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Informal non-standard English - "bad" in this case is equivalent to "mistake". 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Now let's see if I can convince the French wiki. They have Bach named as "Jean-Sébastien" so very unlikely, but let's give it a chance. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 10

Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10 is my next project, in case of interest ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		In recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service, you have been awarded the Barnstar of Diligence. Keep up the good work! Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball 02:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, are these articles notable? Start scrutinizing the whole Wikipedia, you may find more users to frustrate.

Please

WP:AGF - I'm only tagging the articles for cleanup (id est, I wrote "if you have sources, then cite them"). The first three articles you mentioned don't seem to be notable either. I only contested the one we're having a conflict about because it somehow turned out in Special:RecentChanges Special:NewPagesFeed... The mere existence of some place does not instantly make it notable. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

for Template:Did you know nominations/Violin Sonata (Poulenc), namely: check the translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

music in French collaboration

Thank you for beginning the article about an important hymn, Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, for making an "übersichtliche" table, for helpful assistance in translated articles per "french idiom - this somehow looks better in english", - encore: you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 1613 of Precious, a prize of QAI - miss you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you saw this, but the

@MordeKyle:Thanks. This isn't the first time somebody with a differing opinion has made such a claim. As for "similar topics", I'm mostly involved in music related things. Now, American politics popped up because of an RfC which I happened to participate in, and the Düsseldorf attack thing because I happened to see it in the news so... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for all you do. L3X1 (distant write) 02:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You've been active on wikipedia since August 23, 2016 with ~900 edits. I think you should create an account. but it is upto you afterall. :)
Also, you should see this. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I think the anons actually get treated better than the logged-in users, although of course you forfeit the benefits of being able to create accounts, move pages, etc. From the beginning, Jimbo has always said that anons will always be allowed to edit here, and I think anons get a certain amount of extra deference and tolerance due to the plausible deniability about who is editing under the IP, and how long their tenure has been (since some people change IPs). In other words, anons get some of the benefits of both being a newbie and being a longtimer.

(Switching subjects) One thing about Wikipedia culture I don't like, is that people tend to be pretty condescending. Any dispute on Wikipedia will eventually tend to go in that direction, with people basically saying, "I'm smarter than you," or "I have better judgment than you," or "I'm more knowledgeable than you," or "I have better understanding of how Wikipedia works than you do," etc. Also, one runs into this problem a lot. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've already had the (mis-)fortune to get in a dispute with somebody - sad thing is that when that happens, people are just usually taking this too seriously. Which is why I find other things to do; and when long enough passes I usually forget about WP all along and then eventually get back and it keeps going as if nothing happened - no grudge or anything. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a culture clash between people who create articles and people who patrol for articles to delete. The former have usually rarely been in the trenches of new page patrol to see the flood of bad new articles. The latter have usually rarely seen how easy it is for a good new article to get mistaken for a bad one and deleted. Content creators see the deletion processes as more of a threat; the quality control people see the deletion processes as more of a useful tool, like a garden hoe, and wish they had even more powerful tools (i.e. more latitude to delete). As it is, they tend to stretch their latitude as far as they can get away with, which is pretty far.

Another problem (and this happens not just on WP, but everywhere), is that people will tend to make assumptions and inferences about what your agenda might be. I'm not sure why they do that, but maybe it helps distract from what their agenda might be. Or it could just be that humans have evolved to err on the side of paranoia. In reality, I do sometimes have an agenda, but it's not always what people think it is, and sometimes I have no agenda at all but people see one that isn't there. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your good work on Spanish ship Nuestra Señora de la Santísima Trinidad and this discussion. The overwhelming majority of edits I see from anons are, alas, vandalism or drive-by nonsense, and so any edit from an anon I find I have to check more closely. Of course it is up to you what you do but pure selfishness on my part makes me support the suggestion above. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

François Bott needs better sourcing, I found this, it looks useful, but I can't read it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and another --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Will check, got a lot of things to do this evening - the first link I can't tell you much about since I didn't take the time to read it, the second is - going through it quite fast - criticism (positive) of the author, describing his style and such. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added four more finds here, - is anything useful? - Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, - I think that should do, very helpful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Plase look there for the details of the question - conversion problem with old weight units. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No idea but I've slightly cheekily made the heading a link in the hope of aiding the task of someone who does know the answer. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answered. Huon (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So...who's the master? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Never mind--I'm looking at the SPI. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at the cantata? There's peer review, if the tags are not enough ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]