Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! — Gor1995 𝄞 07:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, is there a way I can add a summary after I made the edit? Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i know, you can't. But don't worry, it's not a big deal, your edits were ok. It would just be great if you could do that from now on. Thanks! — Gor1995 𝄞 20:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too, also, do you think we should raise the bar and remove more than a few composers on here? People seeing this may get overwhelmed, and it'll be difficult to add more composers with this many in already Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that some time ago someone did a cleanup, discussed here:Talk:List of classical music composers by era#Overview

In my opinion, in general it's fine as it is now, although I also agree that some could be deleted from the Overview section, such as Luis de Milán, Scott Joplin or less relevant ones from the 20th century. — Gor1995 𝄞 21:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed de Milan.

I don't think Joplin should be removed as he has popular pieces (such as the entertainer and maple leaf rag), was the most important ragtime composer, and was one of the biggest black composers which is important to many people.

As for 20th century composers, do you think Varese should be removed? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying Joplin is not relevant (he definitely is a huge figure), it's just that his primary contributions and influence lie in the genre of ragtime, distinct from what is traditionally defined as classical music. It's a list of (western) classical music composers after all, Joplin is not one that comes to mind when you list classical music composers.

I think Varese belongs in the list, just a personal opinion. I was thinking maybe removing names such as Alex North, Harrison Birtwistle, or other ones that almost exclusively composed film music such as Howard Shore. — Gor1995 𝄞 07:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that Joplin would be hard to decide, however I'd argue that he does belong on this list. His form is similar to that of Classical music. He considered himself to be a classical musician and wrote an Opera called Treemonisha. Also, He may have influenced other composers such as Debussy and Stravinsky. However, if you still think he isn't one maybe we should go to the main talk page and see what others think.

As for the other ones you listed, I'm reading into composers on this list, so I'll probably need a couple of days or weeks until I get to these composers. In the meantime if you're sure we should remove them then you can go ahead, and I'll probably check on these composers in the future. Wikieditor662 (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok for Joplin, seems fine to keep it.

As for the others, i'm not saying that for sure we have to remove something. I was just suggesting some names if we were to remove some names from the Overview section, leaving it for the most relevant figures. But it's fine either way, i don't have strong opinions about it. Thanks for improving these articles! Cheers — Gor1995 𝄞 12:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, and thanks to you too for your assistance! Let me know if you need anything else. Wikieditor662 (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I reverted you twice and thought the edit summary was clear enough. Monteverdi: when a common word - such as "composer" is not linked in the first sentence, there's no need to link it later one. Wikipedia has problems, but this is not one of them. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word that was linked was not "composer", but "composers", which links to a timeline of composers. Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's useless too, especially where you put it in the François Couperin article. Graham87 (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And It turns out that the "Composers" redirect was something you just recently added changed ... it's counter-intuitive; the singular and plural of an article title always redirect to the same place. Also, have you previously had an account here? Your editing pattern is ... interesting; let's leave it at that. Graham87 (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Composers" is the multiple of a "composer", so directing multiple composers as one wouldn't make any sense.

And, yes, this is my first and only account on here. As for my editing patterns being "interesting" (whatever that means), I would like to remind you to assume good faith. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Returning after a day out: I'm disappointed. What in the simple sentence "Composer is a common word" remained unclear? The word - singular or plural - doesn't need any link. Please don't create extra work for several editors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it should only be about how common a word is, if it has useful information I think it should still be linked Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every article has useful information, otherwise it would be deleted. I've gone through your edits and I'm struggling to think of a reason why you should be allowed to continue editing here; you've spent too much of your time creating work for other editors and wasting their time. Graham87 (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a ton of useful edits for wikipedia, including adding sources and information to many articles about composers (and if you actually looked at everything I did you would know that) and people would agree I have improved multiple articles.

Even if you don't agree that composers should be linked, suggesting I should be banned for it because you would need to revert a few times is completely ridiculous. If you banned everyone you disagreed with there would be a ton of bans.

I suggest looking at the Wikipedia:Harassment page, as I'm fairly certain telling someone they should be banned over a disagreement is not okay, especially if you're making a threat. Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be seeking an administrator so that they can deal with this accordingly. I don't want to fight with you, I want this to be resolved peacefully. Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ban threats from User talk:Graham87. I've responded there. Graham87 (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

anks, now we just wait for the administrators to respond.h Wikieditor662 (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can respond to a thread on the administrators' noticeboards, not just admins. Can I ask one more question ... all I'd need or want is a yes or no answer: would the guidance for younger editors apply to you? Graham87 (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you would mean by younger. I'm not comfortable sharing my age online. However, if this applies to newer editors then the answer would be a yes, I would appreciate it.

I am flattered that you think that some of my edits make you think I'm not new here. Before creating this account and editing on wikipedia, I've done a lot of reading on articles so perhaps that would explain it. I've also read a little about classes since I find that to be interesting. Wikieditor662 (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant age (as in if you're are under 18). Graham87 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't want to share my age (and funny thing even the article you showed me said to not share personal information), and I don't think it matters anyway. Wikieditor662 (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WE, I restored the lead image of Richard Strauss. You should perhaps talk about major edits before making them, or live with being reverted. Please read the edit summary, per "View history". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind being reverted, but on Mozart's page it was decided that the more historically accurate image should take priority, as opposed to the more popular one. Why should it be any different here? Wikieditor662 (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Please note that blank lines between posts confuse the editor program.) For Mozart - if I remember it right - there was first a discussion. Also I don't believe that the photo of an aging man which shows more a garden than his face, is a "better" portrait of him, historical or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there was a discussion first for Mozart, the former portrait is far more well known and a much "better" portrait (the one that was decidedly used was a zoom in on his phase from a portrait with his family). Shouldn't we stay consistent across policies we put fourth? Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't believe in consistency. Just compare Mozart, Debussy and Wolfgang Rihm. Articles reflect the preferences of the authors, - that seems to be the price for free information. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is it okay with you if I host a vote on the page of Richard Strauss? Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but don't call it "vote" but "discussion". The concept is "consensus", looking at arguments and not just numbers of support and oppose. If there's no clear consensus to change it remains as it is. See Talk:Claude Debussy/Archive 5. (You don't need a formal RfC - Request for Comment.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be precise and at least link to the two portraits in question, or - perhaps better - show a thumb in the discussion, calling them A and B, or other names, to ease discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

regarding your question if the Strauss discussion should remain with those watching the article: I think that we should ask the readers more than the article authors, and would reach more of those if we had a broader discussion. I don't recommend a formal RfC because it would attract commenters who are unfamiliar with the subject, - but projects: why not? Your choice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will ask in project composers. I don't think asking the readers is the best idea: while we should value their thoughts, they will usually will pick based on conveniency rather than accuracy. Also, any reader is welcome to join the discussion and edit unless they are banned. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Wikieditor662! Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Happy editing! Cheers, Isaidnoway (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Looking at the responses from the older members there is clearly still much for me to learn here. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I didn't want you to feel unwelcome here, considering some of the comments above. There's a reason we have this behavioral guideline: please do not bite the newcomers. You can also visit the help desk where you can ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia, there are a lot of experienced editors there willing to assist you who "don't bite". Cheers! Isaidnoway (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to refresh my watchlist and saw your filing at the top of it (ArbCom, as is AN/I, are highly watch-listed pages), so forgive the otherwise-unsolicited advice. I'm not sure that the greatest response to being called a "timesink" is to cause people to spend further time than they have already at ANI with ArbCom, which is rightly a "last resort" option because of how tedious and time-consuming the process is. I have no opinion on the dispute itself, but I would highly recommend withdrawing the ArbCom case and letting the ANI thread run its course. Cases usually get brought to ANI (or other relevant noticeboards) several times before ArbCom is invoked. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll echo what GhostOfDanGurney said. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You've got an active AN/I thread that started three days ago, and you're warp speeding on to ArbCom before the AN/I thread has resolved, and before any other dispute resolution methods have been tried. The ArbCom request isn't an issue of maybe it will get accepted. It will get rejected, even if just procedurally. There's nothing for ArbCom to do here, and your filing looks like forum shopping. Also; on multiple occasions you've insisted that Wikipedia suggest people need to talk with you before reverting your edits. This just isn't the case. Please review this essay on reverting. As Gerda Arendt noted in the AN/I thread, an edit summary that explains the reversion is a perfectly acceptable way of communicating about why the edit was reverted. Please, withdraw the ArbCom case. It will just waste time if you don't. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostOfDanGurney @Hammersoft Thank you for your suggestions.

I don't think people understand this but the false accusations are causing me perhaps even an extreme amount of emotional distress. I've spent hours and hours making edits trying to make articles better, and I'm being told that I'm wasting everyone's time, that my edits are useless, and that I should be banned, and it continues even after I tried dispute resolution. I truly do not believe any of the accusations have any good reason to them; I'm not always perfect but I do try to learn from my mistakes. I'm sorry if it takes up some of people's time but I genuinely believe that the last resort is the appropriate option here. I do not want this drama at all, I just want to make edits in peace and for everyone to get along, but I've already seen dispute resolution wouldn't solve that.

About the need to ask before reverting, I thought I read that somewhere, but usedtobecool explained to me that it isn't required, and since then I believe I stopped saying this.

Thanks again. Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this isn't just about me. It's safe to say there are a lot of people new to Wikipedia; while some or even most of them may show they're new, there will likely be others who may come off more like an experienced user even though they're not. Knowing how horrible I feel about these accusations, I don't want anyone else in a similar situation to have to go through the same thing. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution doesn't have two steps, that of go to AN/I and while the discussion is going on there start a request for arbitration (RFAR). The RFAR is dramatically premature. There is absolutely ZERO chance it will be accepted because it is so dramatically premature. I'm sorry your experiencing emotional distress from this. Really, I am. I think your best course of action is to withdraw the RFAR, and then just step back for a while, maybe not edit for a few days. Nothing will happen that needs your attention right away. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing will happen that needs your attention right away."

I'm not sure about that, since more than one member has called for me to be blocked from editing. Wikieditor662 (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping away for a few days isn't going to change that if it happens. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so there is no point in doing so. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

I am sorry that you feel stressed and that I seem to have contributed to that. I don't go to arbitration. Period. (Hammersoft knows why.) But I am willing to listen to you here. I hope I'll find you also willing to listen. English is not my first language which may be in the way of our communication. Let's try, and be patient, and not expect help from others. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am also indeed willing to listen (even though I may not agree on everything). For example, I agree that when you confronted me about linking the word "composers" after redirecting the link, I should've stopped until I resolved the issue with you. To be honest, I'm not even sure why I continued to edit, perhaps I didn't think it was that serious of an issue. Wikieditor662 (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Little lesson on the side: don't put blank lines in discussions. The program that reads to people with impaired vision is confused by blank lines.) I don't want to appear like a teacher, but share experiences that might help. I don't remember having "confronted" you (in the sense I understand that word). I saw you doing something that contradicted a guideline (linking a common word, WP:OVERLINK), I tried the usual information in the edit summary of my revert (as Hammersoft also explained), but you kept doing the same thing, which made me come to this talk page, see above. There's nothing confrontational in the process that I see. Can we agree this far, or what do I miss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I used the word "confront", I did not intend to mean hostile, although that word can be used to mean that. I meant to say you asked me to not do that, and I wasn't sure what word would be best. Usedtobecool used the word "warned", but I don't think that applies either. I apologize for the confusion. Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we can learn. Do you understand now what I tried to explain days ago: that we don't normally link common words, such as composer, and that we have a guideline saying so? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the word "composer" itself is a common word and should not be linked most of the time. And if you and Graham87 say the rules say that you shouldn't link "composers" to a timeline of composers, then I will probably believe you as you are far more experienced than I am. I will say as a matter of personal opinion I think that linking "composers" to a timeline of composers could be a useful tool to show the person when the people talked about were/are alive. Again, I still follow the wikipedia rules even if I don't agree with them, which (if I recall correctly) is why I stopped when I Graham87 explained why the rules say that "composers" may need to be linked to "composer" instead. Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds to me as if we agree that when there are guidelines it makes sense to follow even if we don't personally agree with them. There's another guideline WP:EASTEREGG, in a nutshell: a link should go to something that explains what it says, in this specific case (if we wanted to link) explaining what a composer is, not a timeline of them, which would not help someone who doesn't know what a composer is. String quartet should go to an explanation what that is, not to a List of string quartets. Can we agree? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the part where you should follow the rules even if you don't agree with them. There does seem to be some confusion between the word composer and composers with an s at the end. I do see an argument to linking "composers" to composer instead of a timeline, although in most cases the reader already knows what a composer is, but not when they all lived. Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not together there yet, but let's take a break to Monday. I am busy today with two compositions, the 2017 Reminiszenz and the 1724 Nimm von uns, Herr, du treuer Gott, BWV 101, which will turn 300 years tomorrow (not by calendar date but by liturgy), and I want it in better shape. (I was the one who created it, in 2011, but it looked rather poor yesterday. - I try not to work on Sundays ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]