Hello, and welcome! just noticed you did some nice edits toCodex Las Huelgas, which I started back in the day. Just wanted to say welcome, and enjoy. I'm not around much, but when I edited here a lot I foundUser:Antandrus to be both very knowledgeable and very friendly, so if you have any questions, you might ask him. I'll leave the welcome "template" below, because it has some useful links on it. Best,Mak(talk)21:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Thoughtfortheday, andwelcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page andHow to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using theArticle Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being aWikipedian! Pleasesign your messages ondiscussion pages using fourtildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check outWikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place{{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!Mak(talk)21:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go tohttp://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or askUser:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are atWP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback atWP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, checkapplications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers,Ocaasi15:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one ofThe Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in thisbrief survey. Thanks and cheers,Ocaasi^{t| c}15:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%

Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC

New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers

Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors

Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration

Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

...Read Books & Bytes!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)17:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Books & Bytes recipients:The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 moreAccount Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week atmy talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, JakeOcaasi viaMediaWiki message delivery (talk)23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikimedians!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of ourPublisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • English signup
  • Deutsch signup
• Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
• Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
• British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
• Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
• Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
• JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contactOcaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via theMass Message tothe Book & Bytes recipient list.

I have given up my JSTOR access via Wikipedia as I have been offered access via my alumni association. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)20:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Were crossing article a fair bit in the last few weeks, so saying hello. Nice work onMarie-Hortense Fiquet andJosé Lázaro Galdiano. I see you are new to en.wiki, any problems or help needed, give me a shout on my talk. Best.21:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I modified some of your text from the Fiquet article in this edit.[1]. I think its allowed, and if you don't mind, thanks, its very relevant to the page.15:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would moved on from the article if not for the back story I saw in her bio. I think I can get a fairly good page here if I stick with it, which is my plan. I want to develop the coverage of their realtionship, and I think this painting is the best place to do it, its very much a physco-drama, that painting. I'm a slow worker though, tend to read a lot of sources before I add, but I'll be swapping info back and forth to the bio once I get going. Its a nice concidence we are both working on a similar thing at the same time.19:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the edits to the Titian series. I need to sort that article out!16:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get around to it this weekend, but will at the next chance.22:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao! Thanks for your help at Merida Theatre... I had given it some attention last year, but honestly I missed to notice how poorly written it was. I tried to cleanup some illiterate parts which were remaining. Let me know if you think it's OK now. Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk)17:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for you words, hope you're to remain. I think there are some difficulties at the beginning to enter into the Wikipedia-mind (for example, having sometimes to cease to a mass of other - often less intelligent - contributors in a dispute due to sheer number), but the pleasure is, 99% of times, greater than the angriness. I usually write stuff about Italian arguments, but recently (since 2010 or so;PS: if you notice this word "recently" in some article, remove it; we should always give some precise reference, and "recently" in 2005 is no more recent in 2011, if no one has erased its content in the meantime) I have switched to Spanish stuff after noticing most of its article are in a rather poor state. I mostly write about monuments or histories, and Spain is second only to Italy in such matters. I thing I've noticed is that most description of southern Spain coastal cities are slanted towards tourism, speaking of how to find a house, the social class of the English who have moved there etc. I tried to removed such useless stuff when not truly relevant, and addingHistory and Main sights using the Spanish original as a base. OK, I stop it here... Let me know if you need any help and have fun!! --'''Attilios''' (talk)17:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like that category! I added HandelsUtrecht Te Deum and Jubilate, because the Jubilate is an elaborate setting of a psalm. But the Te deum is not. How about theBach cantatas which contain (for example) one verse of a psalm as one of six movements? Perhaps the category article might explain? - I'll watch here. --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement to add some more works to the new category "Psalm settings". Yes, I was thinking of adding some Bach, and have now started. However, I don't know the cantatas nearly as well as you. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)12:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the cantatas I encountered with a psalm are listed onPsalms#Psalms set to music, as is other music, I just didn't know if the category applies, because the psalm verse is only a small portion of both the cantata text and the psalm. How about Rutter'sRequiem which contains 2 psalms? Consider to include all vespers, Monteverdi, Mozart ... --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think pieces should be able to qualify even if they fail to set the complete text of a psalm. Even so, perhaps we should limit the cantatas for the time being to the six you mention. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)21:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2]188.227.160.244 (talk)20:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI there is also a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing edit-warring and incivility by IP editor that relates to you.Prioryman (talk)22:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey and thanks for the edits. Just getting my head around the painting for now, and yeah will add a more rounded bio of van der Paele himself. Take care.Ceoil (talk)21:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime when you get a chance, could look atWitches' Sabbath (Goya, 1823). I've been sitting on it for ages, and want to make a push there. Esp can you watch for repition and redundancy. Ta once again.Ceoil (talk)14:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for the edits and help.Ceoil (talk)02:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently editedChristopher Page, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageSociety of Antiquaries (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)18:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I´m not sure...will have another look later

		The Modest Barnstar
		In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately!66.87.0.115 (talk)20:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving. But please find another term for "sacred sibling". I personally think that the average reader can handle the math that 11 is slightly higher than 7 without being told ;) - Wolff thinks that Picander may have been the author also of the sacred cantata BECAUSE he wrote the other,- that's why I didn't mention him earlier. Chronologically, BWV 193a should come first, - but that music is lost. What can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, BWV 119, but generally: cantor in Leipzig meant for the main churches, s. Bach article, "Thomaskantor" is nice but misleading, thanks for fixing that, --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care ofBWV 131, neglected so far ;) - I go by the liturgical calendar - We don't need to link all the locations of the Bach Pilgrimage, the place to do so is onMonteverdi Choir. - It would be nice if that cantata and other "old style" ones followed the standard format, exampleBWV 76, --Gerda Arendt (talk)12:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You find scoring for any given cantata in the sortableList of Bach cantatas, as you probably know, --Gerda Arendt (talk)17:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could keep the discussion this place, I am watching. When I say choir it can be a group of four people. For the Weimar cantatas, that seems most likely, no more room on the organ loft that you see pictured inBWV 172 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)19:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I imagine there can be a problem in trying not to replicate information about, say, the forces available to Bach in Leipzig, across multiple entries.

The place to add things that apply to more than one cantata isBach cantata, --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of libretti, I have amended the article about Ringwaldt, and have assumed the article onWo gehest du hin? 166 is correct in referring to a different chorale from the one used in 131. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)08:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding to the hymn writer! Yes, the hymn for 166 is a different one. The bach-cantatas site has reasoable information for most of them. - The term that I found used for the "Lesungen" is "readings", not lessons, always two: "Epistel" ("epistle", mostly from an apostolic epistle, sometimes Old Testament) and "Evangelium" ("Gospel"). - I was dealing withKonrad Huber today and would like to get him to the Main page as DYK. He will be mentionedwith the cantata but deserves more attention ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining about the readings. I tend to say lessons because I have been exposed to Anglican services, but I appreciate such terminology probably makes the article rather esoteric. It's interesting to read about the DYK. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)22:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept "lessons" as quite understandable if not some 150 of 200 cantatas had "readings", - it serves the reader of several to find the same wording repeated for the same things. Of course this very early cantata is different in many respects, perhaps point out even more that it was very early in his career, --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Inspired by your edit toList of fugal works by Johann Sebastian Bach, I decided to checkCategory:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach to find out what was new, so to speak, and that's how I found your userspace page.Graham8710:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Title of article should be G minor with the m low case, but I haven't got authority to move pages. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)11:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After you expanded the article nicely, I nominated it for DYK, please watch thediscussion and answer, perhaps you can propose a better hook? (I usually wait for a reviewer to say something.) I would like to add the pic of "Young Bach" as in BWV 150 but it needs to be in the article. The church pic is not good. Please add a few more inline citations, they can be doubled by just mentioning their name. Good luck! --Gerda Arendt (talk)09:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I moved the fugue --Gerda Arendt (talk)09:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving the fugure, and particularly for the DYK nomination. I will think about another hook and add some citations.

I would be happy with the pic of the "Young Bach". -Thoughtfortheday (talk)13:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the pic to article and nom. - BWV 244, I see you working on it. I think most of what is now lead should be history, a new lead should just give basics. What do you think? - I will be busy with the next liturgical cantata,BWV 17, - no DYK, too long already - after a musician,Klaus Martin Ziegler, who needs references, --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the lead of 244 has been far too long. Even so, there may be a case for mentioning the work's relationship to the St Matthew Passion in the lead, as for many people this will be important. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)11:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly (better than the time elapsed between death and funeral), sourced in the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the hook, I wonder whether it might be good to say something about the cantata as a taster of future achievements the lines of "Although Bach was in his early twenties when he wrote the cantata, by including fugues and developing a chorale tune, he gave an indication of how he would later make his mark as a composer". -Thoughtfortheday (talk)10:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and say that in a way the general public around the globe might understand. 200 characters is the maximum. Start by explaining your point, followed by ALT2, similar in format to ALT1, --Gerda Arendt (talk)10:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I gave you a bad example, forgot a word and the signature for ALT1 ;) I fixed the missing word, but you will have to sign. (ALT2 looks way too long, but let the reviewer say so.) --Gerda Arendt (talk)12:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, it was useful to see the amendments. I have pruned ALT2. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)12:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, - I linked tochorale fantasia, the article made no sense, so far it only spoke about organ, but we can change that, --Gerda Arendt (talk)12:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New day, ideas: I found this sentence "The chorale is juxtaposed with the words of the psalm (with the chorale sung to long notes)." in the history section. It belongs to music and leaves unclear which cantata is meant. I also don't understand the juxtaposition. Please think about removing the repetition of Psalm 130, supply the source once,Psalms 130, then refer to it by verse number. no translation needed unless its relation to the music is discussed. --Gerda Arendt (talk)10:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda: Yes, I have strayed from text to music in that para. I will have another look at it. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)10:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring: it says one violin part, but not how many players took that part, could have been three, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk)08:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recordings. I think Rifkin recorded the work this century, but I wasn't completely sure of the date. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)20:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took the date - and the other information - from bach-cantatas. Many more performers were interested in this work, see if you want to mention more. Some have pdfs, good for background are Suzuki, Gardiner and Koopman. - Please: no bolding other than redirects, matter of Wikipedia style. --Gerda Arendt (talk)20:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ps: now I see: it was re-issued this century, but the review is dated 1991. bach-cantatas is not always right, but there's no reason not to believe this date --Gerda Arendt (talk)20:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK Gerda, thanks for the information. I think the programme notes I cited rather over-emphasise the cantata's weaknesses. As you say, many performers are interested in it. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)22:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have altered the chorale fantasia article, but feel free to revert. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)14:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedAus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDecca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am not sure what would be the correct way to wl Decca in this case....have linked to Decca Classics for the time being. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)15:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission ofAus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131 at theDid You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneathyour nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!Yazan (talk)11:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need additional refs for the recordings, they are on Bach cantatas. When you are done with referencing, let the reviewer know in the nomination, --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)14:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was already in preparation, but returned, please look at the nomination again, 3 alternatives, two pics, and a sourcing request, --Gerda Arendt (talk)20:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it should be easy enough to establish which psalm Bach was using. I have provided a citation.

I don't know much about the pics. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)00:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that an inline citation was wanted for the place of composition, that should be easy as well. If none of yours does it, look in "Sources", the two universities in the end are best for the purpose. - Don't care about the pics, it's up to the one to build the prep to take one or the other or none, ---Gerda Arendt (talk)05:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't think there is any dispute about the place of composition. I have now cited the Vermont site. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)10:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! --Gerda Arendt (talk)10:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am worrying too much, but the English translation of the title/incipit is slightly different from the version in the Wikipedia article on the psalm. Are the translations of cantata titles from a standard source? -Thoughtfortheday (talk)21:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to passing! - The translations - long discussions already on Project Classical music. In this case I would take the standard (King James) Bible translation, because it is Bible text. In other cases, I check the possibilities (bach-cantatas typically offers at least three different ones, Mincham another, Hofmann another) and take the one I like best ;) - It's Emmanuel more often than any other, but sometimes it's off. The translation is only a translation, a help to understand, never a title, never italic. --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource has Psalm 130, verse 1-6, like this:Psalms 130:1–6, you may want to change, - "Aus der Tiefen": "aus" is closer to "out" than "from", you can't say "Tiefen" is a singular, only "der Tiefen" is singular (while "die Tiefen" would be plural), --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your encouragement. I'd probably better leave the article for a while to see if it attracts attention from anyone else. Thanks for the information about translations....I will try to do some reading on this subject. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)23:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it, but implement the source, better than a second link to the Wikipedia article on the psalm ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)23:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in the King James source, as suggested. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)10:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Fine article! --Gerda Arendt (talk)10:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On23 September 2012,Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articleAus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was... thatJohann Sebastian Bach composed thecantataAus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131, as a young organist atMühlhausen's Divi Blasii church? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,quick check) and it will be added toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on theDid you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk)00:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Bach cantatas
	Thank you for improving Bach cantatas such asBWV 131. dedicated to detail and precision, - you are anawesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk)04:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this article. Great to see this series so well done in WP. (Last night listened to a brilliant live performance of the B Minor Mass and today a live performance of the Allegro of BWV 593.) Keep up the good work!Whiteghost.ink (talk)07:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's now featured onPortal:Germany. If you have more DYK related to Germany feel free to insert it there yourself, --Gerda Arendt (talk)16:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the honours. I will certainly try to produce another DYK in due course. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)21:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your addition to the recordings section ofBWV 4. What do you think of inserting it to the general articleBach cantata, rather than repeating it in every cantata? --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, you could say the same thing about many of the cantatas.

I didn't like the first sentence as it was, so I was really rewording the bit about performance options rather than adding a mention of the topic. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)21:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine there, but consider to add it to the other also, --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start...possibly in the wrong section! -Thoughtfortheday (talk)22:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again: A year ago, you were the 252nd recipient of myPumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk)16:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you! -Thoughtfortheday (talk)19:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creatingWilliam Towers (countertenor), Thoughtfortheday!

Wikipedia editorNiado just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good stub-class article, but some expansion would be nice! :)

To reply, leave a comment on Niado'stalk page.

Learn more aboutpage curation.

Hi Thoughtfortheday, we're looking to finalise numbers and I just wanted to confirm that you're still interested in attending the event on 23-24th February? Thanks,Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk)20:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. As 18 people have registered their interest and there's only space for 12 we're in the process of chasing up who can come and who would need accommodation (arranged by Wikimedia UK). Would you need accommodation?Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk)12:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The details of the venue are now on theUK wiki.Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk)13:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've finalised the list of attendees and you're amongst the 12. See you there!Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk)11:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like your new catCategory:Psalm-related compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. Do you think compositions, which mention only one verse should go there as well?BWV 76? --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I think I had better have another look at the relevant cantatas, as there are bound to be a few grey areas. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)21:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved them to the sub-cat. Bach is more precise than no composer, and psalm-related more precise than setting, which suggests a setting of a complete psalm, --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving the cantatas....looks OK to me. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)23:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan, I've uploaded (via Doug) the disambiguation training material that we developed on the TtT course. If you want it, it's here:[3]. Cheers,Bazonka (talk)21:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	WikiProject Forestry
	Thank you on behalf ofWikiProject Forestry! We appreciate your contribution(s) and invite you tojoin us in further improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related toforestry. Feel free to ask questions or make suggestions on the project'stalk page.

Kind regards,DA Sonnenfeld (talk)13:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedJohn Tavener, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageLiturgy of St John Chrysostom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)21:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment onPrince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn - do you know where there is a pic of it?Victuallers (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC) =- Nice additiohn - which ive added to the crescent article as wellVictuallers (talk)16:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi long time no talk. I'm working upPope Paul III and his Grandsons, and was hoping that you might keep an eye, lend a hand.Ceoil (talk)19:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good call Re Innocent X.[4]Ceoil (talk)20:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping re sources.Ceoil (talk)22:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this might be to you taste; very forlon, very pastoral. Interested?Ceoil (talk)11:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)11:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedPenrith, Cumbria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageALFA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedJohn Wilbye, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCharles Cavendish. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)08:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've just noticed I jumped in while you were still working on this. Please feel free to reverse or alter as you think fit.Bmcln1 (talk)08:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toLas Huelgas Codex may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 18 August 2014 | author=Weber, J F.}} Accessed via [[HighBeam Research]] (subscription required))</ref>.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, followthese opt-out instructions. Thanks,BracketBot (talk)22:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toStile Antico (early music vocal ensemble) may have broken thesyntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• s support for [[OUP]]'s multi-volume publication of Tudor church music in the 1920s.<ref name="">{{cite web | | title=| publisher<ref name="observer">{{cite web | url=url=http://www.theguardian.com/
• * ''Tune Thy Musicke to Thy Hart'' (2012)(Awards: Choc de Classica (mars 2012)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, followthese opt-out instructions. Thanks,BracketBot (talk)18:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toO angenehme Melodei, BWV 210a may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Science and Art), this version is also called "{{lang|de|Sponsorenkantate}}", the sponsors' cantata).<ref name="Paczkowski" />

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, followthese opt-out instructions. Thanks,BracketBot (talk)17:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedAbraham Rawlinson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageHenry Rawlinson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bach cantatas
Thank you for improving Bach cantatas such asBWV 131. dedicated to detail and precision, - you are anawesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk)04:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were the 252nd recipient of myPumpkinSky Prize. Thought of the day: allfeatured andgood articles of the topic have an infobox ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)06:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next thought: AfterBWV 165 was accepted as a FA, I dream of doing something like that forBWV 4, also with a background of history, mentioning the other early cantatas. I hope to do it with you because you know much more about the early ones and their place than I do. --Gerda Arendt (talk)05:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be a good idea to work on BWV 4. Thank you for your kind words about my contributions. They aren't really as good as you suggest, as I lack access to some of the sources for one thing. However, a Christmas deadline sounds realistic. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)10:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, I enjoy this more and more! - How do you like the new link? - Thank you for for expanding the "hour of death". For overcoming that, I look forward toBWV 4 for Easter (why I wrote Christmas I don't know), - it helps my health to have long-term goals, - actually: I'll do a bit towards it today! --Gerda Arendt (talk)09:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't do all I wanted but got a few more refs in, - feel free to use them more. I think we should have first music, then publication and modern performances, - perhaps call "history" "composition history"? - Will look for two more sources, probably tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk)20:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the award. I have enjoyed reading about the other recipients. As to BWV 4, yes I am sure you are right to think about some revisions to the headings/structure of the article. I look forward to following up the new refs in due course. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)21:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four years ago, you were recipient no.252 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk)07:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Six years now ;) - Working onBWV 134a for FAC, if you like to help! --Gerda Arendt (talk)16:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk)16:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing todisambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

Orlando Gibbons

added links pointing toWait andJohn Harper

Thomas Snodham

added a link pointing toJohn Savile

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask me how of why I got there- but I did spend two hours taking photos at a certain museum. There are many more to be uploaded... but I am wrapping it around my 3 yr old grand-daughters play and sleep patterns.--Clem Rutter (talk)10:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikimedians!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of ourPublisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
• Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
• Pelican Books - ebook monographs
• Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed onour partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contactOcaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via theMass Message tool tothe Book & Bytes recipient list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)17:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HelloBooks & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development calledCitoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using aURL orDOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit thetesting page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)23:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thoughtfortheday, did you mean to apply for RIPM on behalf of someone else? If not, could you change the user template to your username? Thanks,Nikkimaria (talk)17:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't mean to apply on behalf of anyone else...my mistake. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)17:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library byMediaWiki message delivery (talk)06:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am organising another Editathon - this time at Clitheroe Castle Museum. The details areWikipedia:GLAM/Clitheroe Castle Museum. I hope you can come.Jhayward001 (talk)15:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, hope all is well with you. I want to do a review of this cantana with Gerda; hoping you might help as you have a knowledge and an interest. If busy, no worries.Ceoil (talk)12:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thoughtfortheday, I'm writing about your latest edit inArmide referring to " a homosexual scandal". Since the source I had cited (Le magazin de l'opéra baroque) makes no mention of a homosexual scandal (however well known Lully's sexual orientation may have been), I was wondering whether you could update sources as well, citing a more appropriate one. Thanks.--Jeanambr (talk)05:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I have found a source for the scandal, which I hope is OK.Le magazin de l'opéra baroque appears to have gone dead, or rather is no longer maintained, and I haven't been able to check what it says about Armide.Thoughtfortheday (talk)07:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. If you want to enterLe magazin de l'opéra baroque (which has no longer been updated since late 2014, but is still fully accessible), you just need to click on the left side of the screen "Les oeuvres : par ordrealphabétique" and choose the opera you like. Cheers.--Jeanambr (talk)15:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continued from above. I converted the recordings to tables and tried to structure a bit. We should now look at each section, make things a bit more logical - it shows that the article grew since 2005, and things were added here and there, some almost contradicting each other. We also need more lead, then we can go for GA. In the next step, I suggest to have more background, about Bach at the time, perhaps also at his colleagues and their works, his models? - and I would like a look at his later cantatas on purely chorale text, - but those steps only after it's GA. Looking for images is another task which can start right now. CompareBWV 165, --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior viaMediaWiki message delivery (talk)16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re BWV 188, I remember to have read (but don't remember where) that Bach named cantata only a work with soloists, note plural. Worth looking for a source. --Gerda Arendt (talk)13:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. However, I don't think he used the term much.Thoughtfortheday (talk)15:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On16 November 2015,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleEdith Villiers, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... that themodel for a Pre-Raphaelite painting(pictured) became theVicereine of India? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Edith Villiers. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,live views,daily totals), and it may be added tothe 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 theDid you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk·contribs)12:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On29 November 2015,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleJosefa Celsa Señaris, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... that theCelsiella, a type ofglass frog, was named afterJosefa Celsa Señaris? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Josefa Celsa Señaris. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,live views,daily totals), and it may be added tothe 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 theDid you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk·contribs)00:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior, viaMediaWiki message delivery (talk)19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and made the GA nomination. Thank you for all you did already, background and recordings developed in a stunning way. Let's not change much right now, more details after GA please ;) - Please watch the review and feel free to make changes and discuss questions! --Gerda Arendt (talk)10:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the nomination and let's see how it goes. --Thoughtfortheday (talk)11:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will have seen that I made a link to the general sections on recordings and removed some things on the cantata, such as that Rilling finished sooner,-feel free to polish. We even found a willing reviewer already! --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were right to remove the mention of Rilling winning the race. --Thoughtfortheday (talk)12:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! Heading for FA: could you write a very first section "Background", a (very brief) summary of Bach's career until he first wrote the work? I will expand the music section and upgrade the references to Harvard. --Gerda Arendt (talk)08:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! I will write something. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)20:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can copy from what you wrote for other early cantatas, - just say you did on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... about where he came from, at the most likely time, - imagine a reader who has no idea who Bach is ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - I think 15 Jan - celebration of 15 years Wikipedia - would be a good day to go for FA. I will try to change more refs to Harvard. Could you point out the relevance of the choral preludes, and date them? Perhaps move it to the section about the hymn, in music? --Gerda Arendt (talk)13:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps also mention BWV 695? --Gerda Arendt (talk)13:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the chorale preludes. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)20:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I plan to improve the other early cantatas, but after the main one. --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard refs established. Do you have access to the Taruskin book and can look up precise page numbers? One more thing needed is alt descriptions of the images. --Gerda Arendt (talk)23:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am in Cumbria and I don't think I can access the book, sorry. Thanks for all the work you have been doing. Is there another article that shows what needs to be done with the images? -Thoughtfortheday (talk)00:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 172,BWV 22,BWV 165, parameter "alt" better has a description of the image for someone who doesn't see it, such as a blind reader. Happy 15 years! With aconductor ofa Bach cantata on the Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)00:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold again:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4/archive1 --Gerda Arendt (talk)09:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My edit on the current FAC resolved a sneaky syntactic ambiguity regarding the referent of the pronoun "he" (i.e., was "he" Bach or was "he" Pachelbel); yours removed content (the fact that JSB & P never met). I'm struggling to think of a congenial way to present this request (given that you can't see my face to know that I'm not being snippy or anything like that), but I think perhaps you should consider self-reverting your edithere. Thanks Lingzhi ♦ (talk)02:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hello. Thank you for raising this. My worry with your edit, and I was possibly being too fussy, is that "the two" potentially introduced another ambiguity, namely that it could be construed as meaning that Pachelbel did not meet the elder of the brothers rather than the correct interpretation that Pachelbel is not known to have met JS. I take your point that my edit removed relevant content, and I have modified it again. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)05:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, looks good. I have no idea whether anyone will slap a "cite needed" on the Thuringia detail, but I doubt. Thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)05:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding but I wouldn't change right now when supports are coming ;) - there was a harv error when I looked last, started on the one below, --Gerda Arendt (talk)23:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the refs and found two not in the style of the others, one is about the doubtful image, and is the same for the other FAs, the other the Grove online ref. I tried formatting:

• Emery, Walter; Wolff, Christoph. "Johann Sebastian Bach – 1. Childhood.". In L. Macy (ed.).Grove Music Online (Special English edition). Subscription required

I looked at our Bach article and found only thereal Grove. How about that? Page number? If we want to use the above, it's missing a year. Delegate said "almost there"! --Gerda Arendt (talk)12:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Grove reference does need attention. Unfortunately I am away from the public library I normally use to access Grove. Instead I have had a look at Wolff's "The learned musician" (corrected edition 2014). On p.37 he mentions that Bach may have met Pachelbel at his brother's wedding, but we don't know whether this was the case, and Wolff isn't aware of other possible occasions. As far as I know, Grove Online covers much the same ground (I'm not sure about the printed version). -Thoughtfortheday (talk)18:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to use Wolff! - Wouldn't surprised if it covers the same, Wolff was one of the authorsfor Grove as well ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)19:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done!Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again, your excellent contributions which helped to improveChrist lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 to FA!

My next idea for a Bach FA isBWV 161 (because it was possibly premiered in 1716), - feel free to be part of that also, - I liked the teamwork! --Gerda Arendt (talk)08:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for geting all that work completed in time for Easter! I will have a look at BWV 161. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)12:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your album:Wikipedia:Main Page history/2016 March 27, with thanks! --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the mood for that one. How would you summarize the text sources (for our table): it's so complex,see? Several bits from the Old Testament, several from the New, additions, several hymns, often a mixture in one movement: so thoughtful! Thought for eternity, --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a think about this. By the way, thanks for all the work you have been doing on BWV 4. I'm somewhat bemused about how complicated the review process has been, but I suppose it reflects that fact that it is quite a difficult work about which to make definite statements. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)15:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't seen me reviewing Wagner ;) (In which context the line "An infobox would damage the article." was coined.) - Actually, so far it's rather straightforward: refs missed, refs supplied, duplication avoided. I hope by changing the order of things I didn't frustrate the reviewers who may have to read again. --Gerda Arendt (talk)16:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Afterlife" is - to my knowledge - not covered in the lyrics added to biblical and chorale, --Gerda Arendt (talk)13:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just noticed the great work you did on this page a while ago and was wondering what you thought this page needed to get to GA status. I know that there's at least two books I could get for additional info, both by David Bordwell (I think). Do you like how the production section is organized? I hadn't done it that way before and was just experimenting.--Deoliveirafan (talk)23:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, please take a look at the article aboutJovan Radomir. Any help is appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk)10:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent contributions to Allonby Bay and the MCZ there. It's great to see the article being developed and updated as new information becomes available!Stcuthbertsport (talk)11:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On18 February 2016,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleJovan Radomir, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... that Swedish television presenterJovan Radomir wrote the English translation of theMarija Šerifović song "Molitva", which went on to win theEurovision Song Contest 2007? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Jovan Radomir. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,daily totals), and it may be added tothe 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 theDid you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk·contribs)12:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of going over the other early cantatas, todayBWV 196. There's this interesting idea that Bach may have composed it for his own wedding, - however, I don't find that in any of the sources I consulted. Did I miss something? --Gerda Arendt (talk)20:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it somewhere. I wish I took better notes, as I will have to do some searching. I don't think the reasoning was complicated - just that the date of Bach's wedding would make it a possibility. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)10:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning coming up more often is for the wedding of the minister who had wedded Bach,a year later. Where was Bach's wedding. One source says Arnstadt, can't find Dornheim, other than for the minister's wedding. --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I seeour article has Dornheim, and it seems so close that it may be regarded as part of Arnstadt. What was her maiden name? Bach,- as his cousin? Wedemann? see[5] --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I foundAbout Bach by George Stauffer, Gregory Butler on a Google search for "Bach's own wedding BWV 196". They suggest that if the cantata was suitable for performance at Dornheim for the minister's wedding, it could have been suitable for Bach's wedding at the same location. I hadn't really thought about Frau Bach's maiden name....I will have to look into this. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)11:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there doesn't seem much doubt her surname was Bach. Opinions vary, however, on why they married in Dornheim rather than Arnstadt. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)19:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She was from there, and the minister. Up to this time, weddings are often the obligation of the bride's family. --Gerda Arendt (talk)19:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)19:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that one, I noticed how often - starting in the lead - it says what it is not, - can you add positively to the lead what it is? Bach's first printed work, as far as I understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk)16:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is held to be his first printed work, and Handel hadn't had anything printed by that date apparently. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)17:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Election" for the council was how? - In Leipzig, there was nothing deserving the term election in a democratic sense, compareBWV 22. --Gerda Arendt (talk)10:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Perhaps inauguration would be a better word. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)22:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inauguration is used for the occasion of the cantata, but it says something like "election the previous day". I suggest to source that, and say very precisely what's meant, or drop that bit,- I don't think it helps our understanding of the music ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)19:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articleThe Organ (pipe organ magazine) has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails Google test.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may bedeleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion. I dream of horses  If you reply here, pleaseping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @00:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a quick note to let you know that the results of the UK wikimeet survey have now been posted on Meta atm:UK Wikimeet survey 2015. Thanks.Mike Peel (talk)21:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For gettingChrist lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 up to FA status with Gerda. Well done! Hope to see more at FAC!♦Dr. Blofeld12:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also for having startedDer Herr denket an uns, BWV 196, now a GA. On Bach's birthday, I would like to nominate one more for GA, thinking of BWV 71. Would you perhaps do BWV 131? --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fond of BWV 131, so I would enjoy doing more work on it. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)12:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely! --Gerda Arendt (talk)13:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that tomorrow I give it a table of the movements, and then YOU nominate it for GA,you did so much more than I did, --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on the table. I will nominate it. Give me a few days, as one of the references (Hill, John. "The Church of Blaise the Divine) has gone dead and I will need to replace it. --Thoughtfortheday (talk)23:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Table is in. I will also format the recordings and get more text and translation in. If you do more lead, it should be fine! Love it! - Suggest to use an interior image of the Marienkirche if there is one. (I prefer the German name, "St" looks so un-German ;) (would be "St.") --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On your main page appearance today.Ceoil (talk)22:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the articleAus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131 you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofJaguar --Jaguar (talk)13:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articleAus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131 you nominated as agood article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting thegood article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. SeeTalk:Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131 for things which need to be addressed.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofJaguar --Jaguar (talk)13:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articleAus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131 you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you cannominate it to appear in Did you know.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofJaguar --Jaguar (talk)21:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jaguar for passing the article and Gerda for your help. I intend to do some more work on the article. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)21:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good plan! Could be FA some day. - Do you want to help with my plan to have a GA for every occasion of the liturgical year? I picked two, for Easter I and Easter II, we have already two for Easter III. Would you like to expand one of theEaster IV choices? Three weeks to go. --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. I'm not sure how much time/stamina I will have this month, but yes, I will have a look at one of them. No preference really...they are more or less new to me. Perhaps you could suggest one. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)15:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no preference. If you feel the same, perhaps take the one on the woman's libretto, the one he struggled with for the end of the second cycle ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)17:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)20:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The repeat performance in Bach's church, - where does that come from, and it should be clarified more if true? Please see the GA review, --Gerda Arendt (talk)09:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the repeat performance is mentioned by a near-contemporary source but not specifically in the context of the Bach work, so we can only assume Bach expected a repeat. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)09:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's that vague, should we mention it at all? - Please feel free to discuss in the review, --Gerda Arendt (talk)09:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was looking at the article for John Dowland's Second book of Songs which is largely your work (for which, thanks). I have been trying to change the page name the title of the book, which does not have an archaic 'e' in the word 'songs' (but is does in 'booke') in the original print. I don't have the editing skills to change that though. Maybe you can.

Here's a link to a jpeg of the original title page so you can check my fact and the original spelling.http://kulturserver-bayern.de/home/harald-lillmeyer/Texte/Downloads/Bilder/Dowland4/DowlandSecond.jpgPreceding unsigned comment added by Je9671111.

I am happy to help. I have the permission necessary for moving a page on my alternative account. There is a complication in that the IMSLP score has "Second Book of Songes" with the title you cite as an alternative[6]. I have left the title as "Second Book of Songs" (modern spelling)for the time being. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)17:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thoughtfortheday.Gott ist mein König, BWV 71, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia'sMain Page as part ofDid you know. You can see the hook and the discussionhere. You are welcome to participate! Thank you.APersonBot (talk!)23:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... should be nominated for GA tomorrow, - will you or should I? --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did it.

Thanks -Thoughtfortheday (talk)17:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Want to pick one for thesixth Sunday, BWV 44 or 183? --Gerda Arendt (talk)13:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to do some work on BWV 183, please. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)17:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, I am happy about less work. If you wanted to nominate BWV 108, I can revert and you do it. I just thought it was written for this Sunday and should receive attention today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)18:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were right to nominate BMV 108, and I don´t think there is any particular point in my nominating it. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)09:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish they'd accept teams. On my user page, I note collaboration, and I enjoy it! --Gerda Arendt (talk)09:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a good idea to encourage collaboration.-Thoughtfortheday (talk)09:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for progress with 183, while I plan to work onBWV 34. - How do you feel about the changes to BWV 4. I have no idea howBWV 4 is better thanBWV 4, - do you? --Gerda Arendt (talk)20:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is scope for improving the BWV 4 article, but too many issues have been raised at once. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)10:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, let's deal with it one by one. Name first: only today did I understand that the ngram used to justify the move doesn't distinguish the cantata title from any other mentioning of the term, in other compositions etc, - which should have no consequences on the spelling on this particular piece, - there's no "incorrect" spelling, but there's good and better. I go for better: as published in the latest critical edition. - Pentecost cantata was reviewed for GA and is nominated for DYK, --Gerda Arendt (talk)13:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For BWV 183, I made the structure a table (missing a few keys and times), also the recordings. Just add to the lead, and perhaps to the individual movements, then it should be ready for GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -Thoughtfortheday (talk)16:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 108 is a GA now, - thank you for your work on it! --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominatedChrist lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 for afeatured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meetsfeatured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process arehere. --Francis Schonken (talk)09:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

open again --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On12 May 2016,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleGott ist mein König, BWV 71, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... thatGott ist mein König, BWV 71, is the only survivingchurch cantata byBach to have been printed during his lifetime? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Gott ist mein König, BWV 71. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,Gott ist mein König, BWV 71), and it may be added tothe 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 theDid you know talk page.

— Maile (talk)00:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On22 May 2016,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleHöchsterwünschtes Freudenfest, BWV 194, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... thatBach used the cantataHöchsterwünschtes Freudenfest, BWV 194, written for the inauguration of the church and organ inStörmthal(pictured), several times forTrinity Sunday? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Höchsterwünschtes Freudenfest, BWV 194. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,Höchsterwünschtes Freudenfest, BWV 194), and it may be added tothe 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 theDid you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk·contribs)00:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pictured, thank you, for this one and many others --Gerda Arendt (talk)12:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may have seen that the Easter cantata is back to a previous state, - please repeat the improvements you made afterwards, --Gerda Arendt (talk)20:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior viaMediaWiki message delivery (talk)02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thoughtfortheday.Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia'sMain Page as part ofDid you know. You can see the hook and the discussionhere. You are welcome to participate! Thank you.APersonBot (talk!)12:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the articleSie werden euch in den Bann tun, BWV 183 you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofCarbrera --Carbrera (talk)02:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articleSie werden euch in den Bann tun, BWV 183 you nominated as agood article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting thegood article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. SeeTalk:Sie werden euch in den Bann tun, BWV 183 for things which need to be addressed.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofCarbrera --Carbrera (talk)04:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On23 June 2016,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleNach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... that some Bach scholars believe thatNach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150, ishis earliest extant church cantata? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150), and it may be added tothe 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 theDid you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk·contribs)12:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articleSie werden euch in den Bann tun, BWV 183 you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Sie werden euch in den Bann tun, BWV 183 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you cannominate it to appear in Did you know.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofCarbrera --Carbrera (talk)03:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! --Gerda Arendt (talk)07:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working on this. Passed by it only this morning.Ceoil (talk)14:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior viaMediaWiki message delivery (talk)23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, great work on the Hertfordshire church pages I've seen you do lately. I just have a request in case you're thinking of it. Please don't write any articles about the churches in Stevenage, because I've been working hard on them in my userspace for a while already (as well as some other historic aspects of the town). I don't know if I'm allowed to request that, but I'm.... nervous! Thanks :-)00:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesu, meine Freude, - I just happened to look, and saw your familiar name among the contributors. I think the termchorale should be reserved to the movements setting the hymn, the others are just choral. Could you clarify? --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing this to my attention. I will check what I wrote, but I probably won't have time today. Feel free to alter anything in the meantime.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also have not much time, - you go first ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the table in question. I am sorry I took so long to complete the task, but after making a few edits earlier I wondered whether other editors might get involved. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)10:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I tried to sort a bit (hymn, tune, scripture), and eventually the article might profit from more detail. - What do you think ofmy open FAC? --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is more to say about the motet. I like the open FAC. -Thoughtfortheday (talk)15:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery (talk)22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

• New and expanded research accounts
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You reported the URLhttp://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio3/earlymusic/earlymusic_20111031-0900a.mp3 as a live URL, but when I checked it, I got a 403 error. Please makes sure the pages you are reporting are actually alive.—CYBERPOWER(Chat)17:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a case of "subscription required". I am replying in more detail on CYPERPOWER's page.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)17:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

• Library card
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
• Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk)02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator:User:Csisc
• Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
• Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk)04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thoughtfortheday. Voting in the2017 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.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding toSt. Michaelis, Lüneburg. Is there any year of the find? I'd think that the detail has more to do with his biography than the church ;) - "recruitment" sounds as if he was chosen, but the source says he wanted to go, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the detail is relevant because it throws light on the importance of the surviving baroque instruments in Lüneburg, but I agree I could make a better job of the wording. I understand that it was a bit of a puzzle why Bach joined this choir when he did, because his voice was probably breaking around that time. --Thoughtfortheday (talk)11:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

• OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
• Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk)17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• New collections
  • Alexander Street (expansion)
  • Cambridge University Press (expansion)
• User Group
• Global branches update
  • Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
• Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk)14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your sandbox suggestion, I'd be more interested in having a look at things once you've produced a few articles this way. Once you've done another half dozen articles, say, give me a ping and I have a look at what shape they were in when you put them into mainspace, and what the community has had to add to it since. That way, I keep a nice high-level overview of what's going on. How does that sound?Schwede6606:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede66, this sounds OK, thanks.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)09:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: I have done about six more articles ("about" in the sense thatHonister Crag was converted from a redirect into two articles, one about the mountain and one about the SSSI). There is some feedback from helpful members of the community on this talk-page, although some of my articles are about rather obscure subjects and do not elicit many views.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)08:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at those and have added detailed edit summaries so that you know what to look for with future articles. Autopatrolled can be granted only when you produce articles that don't need maintenance tags.Honister Crag andHonister Crag SSSI are both too thinly sourced; every paragraph needs at least one reference. You aren't far off, but not quite there yet.Schwede6619:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at the articles.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)06:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's worth adding a subcategory toCategory:Churches in Hertfordshire for churches with a spike?Cabayi (talk)14:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm aNew Page Reviewer. I was going to ask you to clarify your thinking when you created two pages relating toHonister Crag andHonister Crag SSSI, as this wouldn't normally be accepted. However, knowing the area a bit, and having an interest in SSSIs, I looked into it a bit further, and it's clear from the MAGIC website that the SSSI designation incorporates Fleetwith Pike too (seehere). So, I wonder if you could make this distinction clearer on both pages, especially if you want to avoid someone slapping on a merge request, or simply blanking one page and creating a redirect again?

You might also like to take the opportunity to use the SSSI citation to add more background information on the crag and its biodiversityhere; see a site map of the designation (which includes Fleetwith Pike)here and perhaps link to a source on management issueshere and maybe refer to the rock climbs on theHonister Crag pagesee here andhere.

Hope this helps, Regards,Nick Moyes (talk)00:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 28, April – May 2018

• #1Bib1Ref
• New partners
  • Rock's Backpages
  • Invaluable
  • Termsoup
• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
• Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk)19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How are you? ExpandingBWV 157, and happy to see your name in the history. Please watch and help! --Gerda Arendt (talk)13:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am well thank-you and have some free time this week for interesting things like Bach.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)16:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His day of death today, see my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)16:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018

• Library Card translation
• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk)03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping there. Please make sure everything is sourced, and I think the "often recycle" thing - true as it is - is not, - I'm also not sure I like the term "recycle" in the context. Listening to Bach ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)20:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edit about recycling and I will try to put in a couple of references for the other things tomorrow.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)21:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both! --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for reverting some, - I dislike "under the baton" unless its for one of these emperor-like figures ;) - I didn't have the pleasure yet to watch Koopman conduct, but could imagine him not even using a baton, or even conduct from the harpsichord. - Please don't add too much at this point, - it's a GA nomination with a time frame. You can send it to FA afterwards ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)17:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise...you are right about "baton" and I will leave the article in peace. On a general point, I don't know if you are adding the Lutz recordings to discography sections, and if so, whether there is a standard format.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)17:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My standard is different, - this is Nikkimaria's ;) - Yes, I add Lutz, and just today worked onhis teacher. I miss Mathsci, fearing for his health. --Gerda Arendt (talk)19:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that Mathsci had been away from WP for as long as he has. He hope he is feeling better.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)21:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he edited when miserable, so not editing really makes me wonder. - Do you think you could improve the recordings section ofBWV 140. On the day it was first performed, and it rarely happens that we have a 27th Sunday after Trinity. --Gerda Arendt (talk)19:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is worrying about Mathsci.

I will have a look at the cantata.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)21:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NowTönet, ihr Pauken is in prep to be shown on 8 December. Additions of sourced material welcome ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)18:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On8 December 2018,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleTönet, ihr Pauken! Erschallet, Trompeten! BWV 214, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... thatBach composed the cantataTönet, ihr Pauken! Erschallet, Trompeten! to honorMaria Josepha of Saxony(pictured) on her birthday on 8 December 1733? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Tönet, ihr Pauken! Erschallet, Trompeten! BWV 214. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,Tönet, ihr Pauken! Erschallet, Trompeten! BWV 214), and it may be added tothe 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 theDid you know talk page.

Mifter (talk)12:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your part! -They shall do today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the pageMartín Domínguez Esteban, thank you for your correction butCarlos Arniches (architect). was not an architect, he was a Spanish PlaywrightCarlos Arniches.ovA_165443 (talk)17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for any confusion I have caused. My understanding is that the associate of Martín Domínguez Esteban was the son of the playwright and was also called Carlos.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)23:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting a term to the article a reader is most likely to want to see, is not discriminatory. It isWikipedia policy (see alsoWP:TWODABS). Where there is potential ambiguity in a title, or in a term that is redirected to a particular page, but there is an obvious primary topic, then you can place a hatnote on the page to help the small number of readers who wanted to go somewhere else. It isn't clear that this would be useful to direct people to a pointless uncited stub that you just created, but if the stub survives then nobody can really complain about a hatnote. Lastly, the re-targetting of a redirect that is already linked from multiple articles to point to something else breaks all those articles, so that in itself is reason to revert to the original redirect. Please familiarise yourself with these policies before making an even bigger mess.Lithopsian (talk)22:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest that you are personally discriminatory, merely that the invisibility of the girls' school is a problem, even if women's education is only of interest to "a small number of readers" as you appear to posit. Some people are trying to increase the number of articles about women as they represent about half the population. You are welcome to improve the newarticle about the girls' school.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)23:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I of course am inherently discriminatory (male in my case), but this has nothing to do with social engineering, merely about what people are actually interested in looking at when they type "Harrow High School". Wikipedia is not judging, and most especially it isn't trying to influence. There are tools that will show you what articles people are reading. The policies are quite explicit that where the majority of people looking for an ambiguous term want to go to a particular article, they should be sent there and not to a disambiguation page. That is nearly always the case when there are two options, we try to pick the right one and hatnote to the other. It can also be true when there are more than two options, but the guideline is that there should clearly be more readers of one article than all the others combined. Those tools are completely useless in this case because the girls school article was only just created, but since it refers to a school that disappeared completely over 40 years ago, I suspect it isn't going to be the #1 destination. Interesting about Diane Abbott, maybe that link will swing it, check back in a few weeks when there will be better stats. Arguably, it could be said that the boys school also disappeared in 1975, but since it just changed its name (more than once) and still exists on the same site with a similar name, it is a blindingly obvious primary topic at the moment. Hatnote it.

The name itself is an interesting one.Harrow County School never existed, so far as I can tell from my brief researches. That's fine of course, it is only a redirect. However,Harrow County Grammar School for Girls also never existed, at least not under that name, however badly the BBC managed to get it wrong. The title of the article should normally be the title of the institution and so this article should probably be renamed. The fact that it is a grammar school and that people tend to mangle its name (perhaps for their own ideological reasons in this case) just means we have to be especially clear and also add more redirects.Lithopsian (talk)12:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I take your point that I have probably got the name wrong....the official version appears to omit the word "grammar".--Thoughtfortheday (talk)18:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018

• OAWiki
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk)14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your help last year, including Bach's works, not only this TFA! --Gerda Arendt (talk)17:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out "Happy" once more, fora smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding to theChandos Anthems. Please do me a favour: until after DYK don't add anything without a reference. Neither the recording by Trinity is sourced, nor that they are about 40, nor that it was well-received. - I am a bit distracted right know, have a peer review running, and friend is in trouble. Will return. --Gerda Arendt (talk)19:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! You know what I am like.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)19:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

we give thanks

Gratias agimus

No problem, just a DYK-problem (this belief that even the sky is blue needs a ref) ;) - Today there:Psalm 75 and two Bach compositions! Thank you for all the additions! --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• New and expanded partners
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk)03:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beate Heinemann, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed asStart-Class, which is recorded on the article'stalk page. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions toWikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you cancreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please considerleaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Milowent •^hasspoken13:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On10 March 2019,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleChandos Anthems, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... that theChandos Anthems, psalm settings byHandel(pictured) as composer in residence atCannons, were described as a "panorama of the composer's creative output"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Chandos Anthems. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,Chandos Anthems), and it may be added tothe 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 theDid you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk)12:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thoughtfortheday,

Thanks for creatingThe Gordon Monument (Waterloo)! I edit here too, under the usernameGirth Summit and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know thatI have taggedthe page as having some issues to fix, as a part of ourpage curation process and note that:-

I had a look online, and found a few sources that might be useful to expand this and improve the verifiability. I've also moved the article toThe Gordon Monument (Waterloo), because I found quite a few other 'Gordon Monuments' while searching.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with{{Re|Girth Summit}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit theTeahouse.

Delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

GirthSummit _(blether)18:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - well, that search I did for 'Gordon Monuments' led me down an unexpected road... I noticed that you took an interest in the first couple of articles I wrote, so I thought I'd let you know that I have also writtenGordon Chapel - your thoughts would be appreciated! I was wondering whether it might be possible to work that up to GA status - I see you've had a bit of success in that area, so anything you might be able to suggest, if you have time/inclination, would be most welcome. CheersGirthSummit _(blether)17:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that duplicate - I must have hit Ctrl+V by accident when navigating to the right part of the article!GirthSummit _(blether)18:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It is an interesting article.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)18:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April

... withthanks fromQAI

Thanks for watching Christ lag in Todes Banden! - Do you know what the Christoph Wolff 1997 ref is, which is not used? --Gerda Arendt (talk)19:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the 1997 ref is anything I consulted. I wonder how it got there....it hasn't rung a bell so far. I remember reading the other one, of course, the Wolff biography.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)21:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It'sby Mathsci, - we can't ask him. --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Facilities named after David Attenborough, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you.RevelationDirect (talk)00:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

This submission is not adequately supported byreliable sources.Reliable sources are required so that information can beverified. If you need help with referencing, please seeReferencing for beginners andCiting sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not showsignificant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject inpublished,reliable,secondary sources that areindependent of the subject (see theguidelines for academics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (seetechnical help and learn aboutmistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs more sourcing besides its own organizations.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitwhen they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Isabel Hardwich and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go toDraft:Isabel Hardwich, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk, on thereviewer's talk page or useWikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)17:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Thoughtfortheday!Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at theArticles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)17:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response to this resubmission, Angus. Oh dear, I can't claim the excuse of being a new editor, unfortunately. I have had problems finding sources for this article, having tried to help some new editors who started the draft.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)18:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Now in mainspace.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)15:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk)06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely unsourced. Please provide at least a link to a regional cadastral registry or similar. --Elmidae(talk ·contribs)00:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arlanzón (river), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed asC-Class, which is recorded on the article'stalk page. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions toWikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you cancreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please considerleaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk)06:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Christianity Barnstar
		Dear Thoughtfortheday, I award youThe Christianity Barnstar for all your hard work inWikiProject Christianity-related articles, especially your creation ofSanta María de Wamba. Keep up the good work! Your efforts are making a difference here! With regards,AnupamTalk20:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am busy withVespro della Beata Vergine, which has a separateVespro della Beata Vergine discography, and I wonder if you could - as for Bach works - write a short prose summary from the list of recordings for the main article. Heading towards GA and possibly higher. --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. I have just been looking at the discography article in order to familiarise myself with the recordings.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)08:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you did. I boldly nominated for Good article. Can you please get references over from the discography? --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start. Perhaps I am leaning too much on the useful Kemp review of the field.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)07:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review has begun, as you probably noticed. --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Yes, I will keep an eye on the review.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)15:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just read an interesting article about Monteverdi only responsible for ducal chapel music, not the Santa Barbara church. I'm close to removing the pic, - too bad the chapel was remodelled. --Gerda Arendt (talk)10:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very interesting. I haven't read much about how his work was organised at Mantua.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)12:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars disagree on many things regarding the Vespers, but agree on one thing: it was originally just pieces, not "a work". I didn't know - until today - that Monteverdi hadany responsibility for church music in Mantua, but he had, only not at the big church, but the duke's chapels, with 10 singers at his hand. When the big church job, vacant in 1609, was not given to him, he may have decided to search for a different one, and publish the best of the best. --Gerda Arendt (talk)12:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for excellent copyediting! Could we please not end the recordings with one that uses a rather poor (abridged) edition? - Look atour choir in today's paper, with interview of the conductor (in German) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)12:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the discussion regarding Mantua, I think I was wondering about the composer's working life in the palace rather than intending to imply that his vespers were necessarily performed there as a work...that would have been presumption on my part.

I have reworded what was said about choosing one of the magnificats, so the recordings section doesn't finish with Denis Stevens now.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)13:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm browsing whatKurtzman wrote about the Rome episode, - would you have time to look at that more diligently and use for the article? - I will have dress rehearsal soon ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would be pleased to have a look today. I hope the rehearsal goes well.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)11:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rehearsal and concert went well, uplifting!!! Picture and review on my talk, and there to stay for a while. I addeda review of the amarcord recording to the discography page, have not much time right now, - you can do what you like from discarding to quoting and improving its formatting. --Gerda Arendt (talk)16:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad it went well. Thanks for the review of the amarcord recording. I will need to get a machine translation done, as I don't know some of the words, but I see it is positive and also relates to some of the other recordings.--Thoughtfortheday (talk)17:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On27 September 2019,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleVespro della Beata Vergine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... that in September 1610,Monteverdi dedicated toPope Paul V hisVespro della Beata Vergine, a complexvespers composition which included the style of theemerging opera? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Vespro della Beata Vergine. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,Vespro della Beata Vergine), and it may be added tothe 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 theDid you know talk page.

valereee (talk)00:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

• Wikimania
• We're building something great, but..
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• A Wikibrarian's story
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter