User talk:Aristote33

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Claude Goudimel with this edit do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Harry (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I was trying to complement this article with an external link towards an additional reference which is informative for Wikipedia users, for instance with considering the liner notes attached to the recording (this has nothing to do with search engine rankings). Also, I emulated the syntax used by external links still available on Wikipedia towards websites like Naxos and Decca Classics. I have looked for guidelines on how recordings could be listed at the bottom of articles, alongside bibliographical references, but without success so far. Would you be able to help on that matter? Would it be ok to add a 'Selected recordings' heading to list the details of the recordind there?

==Selected recordings==

Daniel Meylan, organ: Psaumes de la Réforme (Éditions Hortus, HORT064).

In the meantime, I shall discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it, as you suggested. Beyond this specific case, I have not been able to find any information in the Composers Project on how to reference recordings in composers' articles; are only bibliographical references meant to be listed in a composer's article? If so, is it fully logical? Thanks again for your help.--Aristote33 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello, please read up on the conflict of interest guidelines in Wikipedia, before making any more edits here. Wikipedia is not here to promote record companies. I've removed all the external links that you added, but I've kept your edits about recordings in specific composers' articles. Wikipedia's treatment of classical music topics can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Graham87 04:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your message. I acknowledge your point about COI, which I try to address in my user page, following recommendations given in the conflict of interest guidelines in Wikipedia. And thank you for reverting back to my Selected recordings edit in Louis James Alfred Lefébure-Wély. The crux of the question is why so few - if any - recordings are referenced on composers' articles, alongside the section about bibliographical references. And I don't seem able to find any guideline nor formatting guideline on that matter. Most, if not all recordings, also include valuable liner notes written by experts. Thank you again.--Aristote33 (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the belated reply, and thanks for creating your user page. I think you'd best ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, to get the opinions of many Wikipedia editors who are interested in such things. My personal opinion is that a discography can be OK for very obscure composers, where only a few recordings have been made of their work ... but there's a risk that it could get unwieldy. Graham87 14:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please do not add commercial links (as you did at César Franck) or links not directly related to the subject (as you did at harpsichord and lute. The "Witch's Dance" link you added to Robert Johnson (composer) was fine ... though I daresay it's quite a daring performance for a baroque work ... but completely authentic, considering the composer's biography! Graham87 16:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About Éditions Hortus referencing, fr.wp articles

Hi Aristote33, and again welcome to Wikipedia!

Some of the references in Éditions Hortus point to "Article (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)". Did you mean to point them to the recording, the artist, the composer or the work itself?
I've (with the generous assistance of Professeur Google and Professeur Collins Pocket-Dictionnaire) had a bash at translating one of fr:wp links - see Les Éléments. Could you possibly have a look at this?

--Shirt58 (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aristote33... All around our hats?

Hello again, Aristote33. Hello. Hello? While my CD collection includes Messiaen's Quatuor pour la fin du temps, I was quite a fan of Steeleye Span when I was but a wee bairn. Erm. Hello? --Shirt58 (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Aristote33. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. Thanks for disclosing your freelance on your userpage. That is really great, and gets you partway through our conflict management process in Wikipedia. I'd like to walk you through the rest, if I may.

To explain a bit, Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; we get some great contributions from paid editors).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. and you have done that. The second step is what I call "peer review". This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and viola there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no editors (in the real-world sense of that term).

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft, disclose your COI on the Talk page using the appropriate template, and then submit the draft article through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. And with regard to what you have been doing, people will be much less alarmed by your work.

We get some great contributions that way, especially when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (which I can tell you more about, if you want).

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, especially with regard to adding these links and references? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, thank you for the explanation. It does make sense. Will have a look at Talk pages for relevant articles to propose external links to the community. --Aristote33 (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Let me know if I can be of help. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]