174.28.21.86

June 2024

Hello, I'm Ternera. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Quiet Now—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Ternera (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I was in the process of putting the Bill Evans albums in chronological order by when they were actually recorded rather than released. The links for these pages were inconsistent, some one way, most the other. I thought it made sense to put them in the order in which they appear on the "Bill Evans discography" page. That way, when you move from album to album it has artistic significance, showing how the pianist himself actually developed (instead of just when record companies got around to releasing his recordings).

P.S. I have made quite a few substantial improvements lately to album (and song) pages related to this artist, as well as to his own page.

P.P.S. I initially responded by editing this page a while back but now see I should hit the "reply" button. 174.28.21.86 (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome!

Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you make an account to gain a bunch of privileges. Happy editing! C F A 💬 02:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your note and your response to "Jarrod Quigley," whose behavior was certainly not appropriate. I have had multiple difficulties with editors around here, including "CurryTime," whom I believe removed some decent work of mine without sufficient cause (based on what is found on many similar Wikipedia pages about pieces of classical music that have lists of notable recordings). It's very frustrating to spend time making a contribution and then just to have someone arbitrarily remove it. Because of past bad experiences here (which go way beyond what I just mentioned), I am not inclined to create an account at the present time. It seems that my contributions to jazz pages have been accepted, and they certainly represent substantial improvements, so I shall probably continue making those from time to time. Thanks again. 174.28.21.86 (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Shostakovich Op. 57 discography

I'm not against having a discography as such, but there needs to objective parameters that determines why some are included and others not. How are the recordings you propose to include "notable"? Are they "notable" according to you or to some verifiable source?

Perhaps an easier and more useful discography could be one that lists "firsts" (i.e. the first ever commercial recording, the first recording not made by the composer or Soviet musicians, the first stereo and digital recordings, etc.). To get an idea of what I'm talking about, see the "Recordings" section in the article for The Firebird. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I still disagree with your removal of my work. As I say, there are plenty of precedents elsewhere on pages about classical works for that kind of a section. Also, there are a very finite number of recordings of this piece. I included what seemed to me the most important ones from a historical perspective and based on the prestige of the performers and labels. Including Shostakovich himself, Gould, Lupu, Richter, etc. should really be a no-brainer. Yes, it involves judgment calls, but so does basically everything around here. I think the approach you suggest would miss too many historically and aesthetically important recordings by major performers. If you want to do it that way (which is also certainly arbitrary), you need to do it yourself. In the meantime, you've robbed readers of information about recordings that might be interesting and useful to them. The page is less valuable and more barren as a result. 174.28.21.86 (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Montreux III, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jarrod Quigley (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jarrod Quigley — I'm replying to this because this page is on my watchlist. The edits 174.28.21.86 made to Montreux III were constructive and certainly made in good faith. They were absolutely not vandalism. Even they were, you should not go straight to the 4im warning after one contested level one warning 3 weeks ago. If you disagree with their changes, discuss them, don't label them as vandalism and threaten the editor with a block to get your way. This is a WP:AGF violation; please do not do it again. Thanks, C F A 💬 16:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you owe me an apology for a hasty misjudgment. I greatly improved this page, as I have done for many related pages. Maybe you could say "thanks" instead of threatening to kick me out for FIXING something. 174.28.21.86 (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

Hello, I'm Graham87. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks from Django (composition). Redlinks are useful and can often be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" link (in the tools listed at the left in desktop view) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Please only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! Graham87 (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your other edits there and elsewhere though; they're great! Graham87 (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that info (which I totally didn't realize--I had thought those attempts at links were just mistakes, as in someone thought there would be a page for that topic when there isn't really one; I've done that myself) ... and for the kind words! Appreciated. 174.28.21.86 (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

---