User talk:Pedro alberto ramirez

September 2024

Hello, I'm DM5Pedia. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Power chord, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DM5 Pedia 05:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Power chord, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Chord (music), you may be blocked from editing.
Please do not delete references and then edit contrary to what the references state - Arjayay (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solamente quiero actualizar la definición correcta y la que es la aceptada por los expertos en música de lo que en realidad es un acorde Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to update the correct definition and the one accepted by music experts of what a chord actually is: a chord is a set of three or more notes, not two or more notes. Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Chord (music). Remsense ‥ 论 01:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to update the correct definition and the one accepted by music experts of what a chord actually is: a chord is a set of three or more notes, not two or more notes. Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As has been communicated to you several times: we have the definition we do for a reason based on a number of sources. Further discussion happens on the talk page—where you can also peruse the previous discussions that got us to this point—but what you don't do is try to change it to your own version over and over after multiple editors have reverted you. Remsense ‥ 论 02:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But those same definitions from those sources contrast too much with the one that is here on the wiki, it is better that they try to fix that. I am a musician and I have been making music for 6 years. Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then discuss it on the talk page instead of edit warring, please. Remsense ‥ 论 02:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that you don't know about music and I'm sorry for you but it's better that they change that definition. Simply because Karolyi defines a chord as a set of two or more notes does not mean that other experts professionally qualify it that way, I am writing to you here because it is in vain that I start writing in the discussions section, after all They are not going to change that definition Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my job here to divulge what I know and don't know. In fact, I know perfectly well why you are as frustrated as you are thinking it should say three or more, but I'm also saying we've had this conversation before and it is the way it is for a reason. That's why I'm trying desperately to explain to you that if you want to improve Wikipedia, when disputes arise you have discussions to establish consensus based on sources. If I didn't care about new editors, I would let you revert again and get blocked, but I want to include people who care about this stuff, alright? Remsense ‥ 论 02:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I'll do that but I want you to take me into account and reconfigure this definition so that it is correct. Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We will do what we always do, which is evaluate and print what is best attested in reliable sources. I appreciate that. Remsense ‥ 论 03:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brother, but look at that and fix it, that is outrageous, at the end of the day you will realize that it is as I told you, I tell you with humility. Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply ASAP. Thanks for playing ball, I do appreciate it. Remsense ‥ 论 03:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

look remsense this was what I published in the discussion section please keep me in mind, it's serious this can confuse those who are just starting out.

Unfortunately I see that many people confuse harmony with chords, harmony is produced when two or more sounds are played simultaneously, while chords are three or more different notes played simultaneously, a chord must necessarily have harmony for it to sound good and coherent. . and the melodies have to be in harmony with the chords (and vice versa) and with the bass etc. Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hence the combination of two notes is called harmonic intervals Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you take me into account and can modify this definition to that a chord is the combination of three or more different notes or tones. Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and also the majority of expert composers who contrasted the definition of karolyi are more and the definitions they give are more coherent. Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You editors here at Wikipedia are treated by people who don't know musical theory deeply and I don't blame you but you are also very incoherent. Why don't they verify the sources, and why do they realize that this definition of a chord does not work? Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]