Contrappunto71
Welcome
edit
 Getting Started Getting help
 The Commmunity |
 Policies and Guidelines
 Things to do | |
Bob Pritchard
editI've changed the redirect Bob Pritchard to a disambiguation page listing both of them. NtheP (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious why the "Career" section of |James Harley| was removed, while that of |Keith Hamel| remained.
In both cases, the information presented is factual, and available for many years via various dependable sources, such as the Canadian Music Centre. Thanks, Contrappunto71
- The sections in James Harley were a copyright violation (virtually a straight copy/paste), and frankly, various parts of Keith Hamel are so closely paraphrased that they need to be re-written too. There is more at Talk:James Harley. Please also read WP:Close paraphrasing for guidance. Voceditenore (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for creating these much needed articles. But please see Talk:Keith Hamel and Talk:James Harley. I had to remove considerable amounts of copyright copypasted text from them. The talk pages have links with more information and guidance about this issue. Note that even when permission has been docucumented to use copyright text (as at Paul Steenhuisen), such text often needs to be edited to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style and to remove inappropriately promotional language. Another problem is that several the articles you have created/edited are all for artists with Art Music Promotion. If you are at all affiliated with this organization, you need to read Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guidelines make sure you follow them scrupulously. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you are connected with AMP, you certainly should not be making multiple edits such as this one which links to AMP's website. Propose them on the talk page for other neutral editors to add, if appropriate. You might find it helpful to check out WikiProject Composers. On their talk page, you can ask questions, get help and exchange ideas with other editors in the area. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
November 2010
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Howard Bashaw. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. E Wing (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gordon Fitzell, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. E Wing (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
This is your only warning. If you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at James Harley, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. E Wing (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Contrappunto71, a little explanation about those maintenance tags. They need copyediting because the format does not conform to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. This includes the formatting of the works lists, the formatting of the Further Reading, the order of the sections, the use of external links within the body of the text, etc. That tag alerts wikipedians who specialize in copyediting to come 'round and fix it. The wikify tag is likewise there if the article has large bodies of text without appropriate links to other articles within it. Again, you can address this yourself or someone else eventually will, but you shouldn't remove the tags unless the problem has been rememdied and you have stated so in the edit summary. Note that another editor may disagree with you that it has been remedied and may restore the tag.
Note re final warning, it's possible that these were done in rapid succession without having seen the warnings. Nevertheless, Contrappunto71, don't ignore the orange bar that tells you "you have messages" — the contents may save you from getting into further difficulties with the articles you're editing. Voceditenore (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Contrappunto71, a little explanation about those maintenance tags. They need copyediting because the format does not conform to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. This includes the formatting of the works lists, the formatting of the Further Reading, the order of the sections, the use of external links within the body of the text, etc. That tag alerts wikipedians who specialize in copyediting to come 'round and fix it. The wikify tag is likewise there if the article has large bodies of text without appropriate links to other articles within it. Again, you can address this yourself or someone else eventually will, but you shouldn't remove the tags unless the problem has been rememdied and you have stated so in the edit summary. Note that another editor may disagree with you that it has been remedied and may restore the tag.