User talk:Fiorenza88

Edited France and Germany sections of Romantic Era. Hyperlinks, a visual image and audio files added. Also edited France and Germany sections of 20th century. --Fiorenza88 (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Fiorenza 88 2/21/2020[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Fiorenza88, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed Manual of Style and addressed your concerns. Your comments are too general and I'd appreciate it if you could be more specific. Please do not revert the entire section. You can help by editing or pointing out exactly what issue you have with the parts of the section. --Fiorenza88 (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Fiorenza88[reply]

Fiorenza88, It does not seem to adhere to WP:TONE at all. I'll try and explain section by section.

First, we have the lead, which reads more like it's from a book of funfacts than an encylopedia. Alongside that, this article isn't about Pipe organs, we already have one on pipe organs, so it doesn't need to state facts about pipe organs in the lead at all, nor should it. I recommend looking at the structure and tone of the Pipe organ article's lead for how the Organ repertoire's lead should be structured.

Really, for many of these sections, the biggest most immediate problem I see is tone, and use of peacock / "flowery" language. For example, in the France section, the usage of "flowering", "tremendous outpouring", "fiery", etc. All of this needs to be rewritten to use more neutral and more encylopedically toned language.

The J.S. Bach section needs greatly cleaned, as it's even more peacocky than the France section.

Try and avoid using quotes to complete a sentence in the article, and instead use the quote solely as a source. There's no need for quotes that use both POV and peacock language to be embedded in the article unless absolutely necessary. Please read WP:QUOTES for information on where and how to use them. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about replacing the words with something of your choice, instead of deleting the whole things?? You could've made suggestions instead of going right ahead and reverting back to the original page. By the way, this was a school assignment. Teacher/Professor will be reviewing this page. --Fiorenza88 (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiorenza88, Please direct your teacher to m:Wiki Education Foundation, and have them read my explanation. If your teacher/professor is a long-time editor, they would probably see the exact same issues. I am willing to give students special treatment in draft article space, but the moment a student edits main space, they are handled the same as any other editor, as main space is shown to the entire world, and is immediately visible. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 21:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that this is not high school project. It's grad school. --Fiorenza88 (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 23:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. 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. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. 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. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Organ repertoire shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]