Jump to content

User talk:Perryprog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Perryprog (talk | contribs) at 02:51, 23 March 2023 (→‎Stradella Bass System: Add a minor sentence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Edit Request Tool changes

Hello, I just made some significant changes to User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool. Since you have the tool active, I am informing you of this since it may affect you. To open the tool you will now have to click the "respond" button. The tool will load a similar interface as before. There is now a live preview of the response. These changes might have introduced some bugs so if you have any concerns / suggestions or run into problems please leave a note at User talk:Terasail/Edit Request Tool Thanks, Terasail[✉️] 15:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting an article

This might seem odd to bring up, but a little over two years ago, you reverted the removal of content on a wikipedia page. That page was my old high school, and that content was information I added to it about some controversies.

Without doxxing myself, I was very close to some specific issues at that school. I made those edits to try and save others from the same fate and sort of forgot about them, but now two years later while browsing my previous edits page after getting a notification thanking me for ten edits (I'm pretty new to this, lol) everything that happened came back to me. I have a sneaking suspicion I know who tried removing the information I added, and seeing them finally get their "just desserts" by not being able to sweep something under the rug meant a lot.

What I'm trying to say is, even though what you (and some other users) did was minor, it meant a lot to me. Thank you for that. AquaticOnWiki (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ah, I did not realize this would be public, I thought I was making a direct message. If I've just cluttered up a page, my apologies (I don't see any way to remove it.) Regardless- thank you. AquaticOnWiki (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AquaticOnWiki; thanks for the message! I'll have to partially return some thanks to you for keeping your original addition well-sourced, as otherwise that would've gone a very different way.

Don't worry, you aren't cluttering anything up; this is what talk pages are meant for. If you wish, you can remove the discussion by clicking "edit source" next to the header of this section, and deleting everything in this section. (Or just ask, I can also get it for you.) And just for future reference, you can send private messages to some Wikipedians via the instructions on WP:EMAIL. Perryprog (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stradella Bass System

Dear Perryprog,

I am writing to discuss your recent removal of the external links I added to the Wikipedia page about the Stradella bass system. As you may know, according to the External Links page, acceptable external links include those that contain accurate and on-topic further research, information that couldn't be included in the article due to copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that isn't suitable for inclusion in the article.

I want to emphasize that the links I added fulfill all these criteria. They provide accurate and on-topic information about the Stradella bass system, which couldn't be included in the article due to the amount of detail and the nature of the information. As an expert in this field, I believe that these links are essential for anyone who wants to learn more about the topic.

If you have a different opinion on this matter, I would be happy to have a conversation with you and learn more about your expertise in this field that led you to conclude that the links are not appropriate or of high quality.

I believe that by restoring the links, we can provide valuable information to the readers and uphold the principles of Wikipedia, which encourage the dissemination of accurate and relevant information.

Therefore, I kindly request that you reconsider your decision and restore the links to the Wikipedia page.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards,

Giovanni Lucifero GioLuc76 (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GioLuc76—thanks for going to talk with me instead of just adding back in the links. That's super appreciated. I will note though that this isn't any "decision" in a formal sense; I'm just as much an editor as you are.

Regarding the links: Wikipedia has a pretty stringent policy when it comes to references, and an even stricter one when it comes to external links. While I do appreciate that you certainly have plenty of expertise in this area, you do appear to have a conflict of interest with AccordionChords.com, and it appears to be a financial conflict of interest as well, on account of the site having ads. This has some additional, in some cases legal, implications that I'd recommend reading up on (fully!) at WP:PAID.

Besides the financial conflict of interest policies that you need to abide by when editing about that thing you have a conflict of interest with (here this is really just that website, not accordions in general, generally speaking), there's also extra policy considerations besides the normal external link and reference policies that we have. This generally amounts to "don't", though there are some niche exceptions where it's not expressly not allowed. Here's the relevant documentation:

I appreciate that this is a massive dump of links and each one of those has even more pages of links on thinks relevant, but really the only thing you absolutely read is the first one. I included the rest since you might be curious about the nitty-gritty bits, and it can be tough to dig through the pages of policy we have to find the relevant bits. Finally, to bring this around to the actual problem at hand: considering the conflict of interest at play here, as well as the fact that it's really only been this site that you've been adding references or links to, makes me feel like this is more on the intent-to-promote side of things, so I don't feel comfortable adding back the links. If you want, you can make an edit request. The easiest way to do this is just through the Edit Request Wizard, and then an impartial editor will eventually be able to review the additions and go from there.

Hopefully this helps—this answer quickly became a lot longer than I expected (doesn't help that it's fairly late for me), but hopefully it isn't too overwhelming. I can try to summarize it a bit if it is. Perryprog (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Perryprog&oldid=1146156134"