User talk:MySorAccount

Hello, MySorAccount! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Jujutacular T · C 07:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

IMSLP...

One thing to consider about IMSLP (and probably the others) is that it's not just the original works -- transcriptions and arranagements are also available. Also, those sites have scores that are completely PD or otherwise free (libre), and can be used however anyone wants, which both shares the 'mission' of Wikipedia, and isn't true I'm almost positive of the NMA. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

With the amount of deletionists that I've come across (primarily in the disgusting German-language version of wikipedia - you wouldn't believe what kind of hardhitting, non-compromising people you'd come across!), one could conclude that the 'mission' of wikipedia is "people giving each other a hard time". I'm grateful that the english wikipedia seems a bit more lenient, regarding external links and stuff. (Lets hope this last sentence is really true, and - if so - remains such!) MySorAccount (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

April 2010

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. [1] [2] [3] --Ronz (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, but bibliography items do not fall under "personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product". Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with turning an author's name (which would appear on the page anyway) into a link; since it allows the reader to assess who the author of the bibliography item is. MySorAccount (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"there's nothing wrong with turning an author's name (which would appear on the page anyway) into a link" Consensus is against such links. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You fail to address the aspect of including a bibliography (or "Other sources") - for additional reading - in articles. I'm putting the section back and changing the title to "Other sources". As for your response, about turning an author's name into a link; I'll comply once you provide a proper citation. MySorAccount (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:NOTLINK. WP:EL is the guideline that provides detailed information on appropriate use of external links.

As you can see, I've removed the bibliography section completely as unnecessary and attracting WP:REFSPAM.

If you want to create a Further reading section, go ahead. However, I'd prefer it not contain external links, which would make it redundant with the External links section. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. Regarding REFSPAM in the context of this edit and this edit, let me just say this:

• Thomas Heck's thesis is one of prime importance and has been cited numerous times. His book on Giuliani, is not just a book on a composer, but a detailed analysis of the romantic guitar, from a view of one of the most important composer's of the era (Thomas Heck is a well-respected researcher of the guitar and well known).
• Danielle Ribouillault's thesis - though in the French language - is a similarly important work, with the focus on the guitar technique of the early romantic guitar, but also goes beyond this, into interpretation issues (Danielle Ribouillault is also a respected researcher and editor of "Les Cahiers de la Guitare").
• And Adrian Walter's recent thesis on the 19th century guitar is also an important (very recent) work, which regards interpretative and technical issues of the romantic guitar; and provides them in historical context (Adrian Walter is Dean of Australian National University's School of Music).

Hardly refspam, I my opinion. :) MySorAccount (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Try WP:THIRD. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've wikified it further, following my comments above. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking good! Thanks MySorAccount (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad we're making progress. Thanks for your patience.

If those authors and their works are so important, can they be used to verify information already in the article, or to expand it? --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for loosing my cool;)

Hello again "MySorAccount", and sorry for getting hot tempered in responce to your "criticism";) You had some very good arguments (although a bit harsh?) against the inclusion of my portal as an external link. With limited computer knowledge I am not able to include "peer-review" as an internal part of my site, but I´ve added a wiki that I hope might be able to adress your concerns (See news on classicalguitarist.info). Sincerely, --Svindland (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Svindland, no problem. Thanks for constructive efforts. Concerning your webpage: it's good here International classical guitar competitions; and could be used as a reference in Classical guitar, as a citation to show that there are many different festivals around the world! I'll include it now. MySorAccount (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks...--Svindland (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol I kind of thought so;) - "someone" has been around with his "undo-powers"... Impressed by his effectivity!--Svindland (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Linkspam

They were links intended solely to promote. --Ronz (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Concerning your deletion ref... No, the links were not intended to promote. They were added to show from where the pdfs were actually taken, providing sensible links to other articles that these authors have written and providing links to the authors themselves (because readers have a right to know who the authors are; in order to make a judgment about the article linked). Ronz, if you continue to delete everything, I think I'll go and complain somewhere. If you delete real spam, then its welcome; but if you distrust the judgment of people who actually have an interest in the topic, by continually deleting what they see relevant, then I see it as harassment; and I'll take action. MySorAccount (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope we're clear what I think of your repeated addition of promotional links. If you want to discuss relevant policies and guidelines, do so in the proper venue such as WP:ELN. --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

To clarify further, this is exactly the type of improper external links that we discussed above. --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)