Phillipwserna

Please remove and do not add links to your own website

Welcome to Wikipedia! Please have a look at the policies regarding conflict of interest and external links. It is not acceptable to link or promote anything you are personally associated with. Such suggestions can always be brought up on article talk pages, and editors who have a track record of not being affiliated can consider such additions.

If you believe you meet the notability requirements, you could start a discussion towards having a Wikipedia article about you (there is another self-promotion minefield here, so better not to do it oneself); that could be appropriately linked where an external link is not acceptable. Wareh (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please pardon the infraction, they have all been removed, so you need not hunt them as I have remedied the issue completely. After your helpful message, & your helpful lead to the policies and issues entailed...although to be honest, I am not sure if I am responding the right way here as I am still getting used to how things are working on here. phillipwserna (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Phillipwserna (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's extremely helpful of you. I hope you don't find this unwelcoming at all; Wikipedia is not usually an unreasonably "policed" environment, but understanding its norms and principles can be a bit of a learning process. (Let me know if you have any questions or if I can help.) I have every reason to assume that you are a well-intentioned editor bringing improvement to the encyclopedia! My post at the noticeboard was motivated by the belief that the job of finding and taking out all the links might be bigger than you or I wanted to take on, & that others could help, but you proved me wrong! Cheers, Wareh (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of External links noticeboard discussion

Hello, Phillipwserna. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wareh (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

May 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fantasia (music). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. intforce (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback on your edits to Fantasia (music), but was rather taken aback - an admittedly kneejerk reaction - by what was perceived initially as a hostile deletion (i.e. "Far too overblown; keep recordings to a reasonable number of recordings representative of fantasias of all periods"). While I agree that the number of recordings is likely too much considering the very skeletal state of the article, I cannot be expected to create recordings of 18th, 19th & 20th century fantasias, that is completely outside what I have time or energy to contribute. The assertion that "None of the composers or works are mentioned in the article" is completely fair, but Byrd, Jenkins & Purcell (whose articles I have contributed recordings to) are an infinitesimally small representation of the Pre-Baroque literature of the Fantasia - the Oxford article includes a great deal more depth. The suggestion that I should include "Fantasias by Bach, Telemann, Mozart and other more notable compositions" again is beyond my remit to contribute, although I may be able to contribute one of Telemann's recently discovered viol fantasias over the next year as I record all of them. I would think it fair that the description 'More notable' is arbitrarily subjective as Coprario, Ferrabosco, & Gibbons's fantasias are among many significant late 16th/ early 17th-century composers noted in articles on Wikipedia & in Grove Dictionary of Music & Musicians/ Oxford University Press (& Online). Nonetheless, I do not want to be engaged in an edit war with you, let alone extensive & tiring arguments. I would much rather start over with a greater deal of courtesy towards each other - on both our parts. Now, as I have not been engaged in lots of these sorts of discussions on here, I hope I have done this right and please forgive my etiquette on reverting the edits as I would rather have an open dialogue. I hope I have responded appropriately, but this is my 1st lengthy response & 1st since 2012, so please be patient with me. Phillipwserna (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC).

The way to resolve disputes is not through reverting, but by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. This allows other editors to weigh in on the discussion. intforce (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's just be clear that I contributed, was minding my own business and you removed all of my recordings without any discussion. Please don't lecture me on discussion. It's condescending at best, rude at worst.Phillipwserna (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC) intforce, it has been 15 days since the last interaction. I am waiting for a reasonable discussion here. I am keenly interested in working this out through collaboration as I stated before, but there has clearly been no further discussion. Phillipwserna (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems that you think this is a personal dispute between you and me: it is not. If you want something included, you ought to follow the consensus process like everybody else. The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is the way Wikipedia operates. As I've said, if you want to propose changes, take it to the talk page of the respective articles. intforce (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Please cater your choices more

Hi Phillipwserna. First I'd like to thank you for your additions of many valuable audio recordings to Renaissance and Baroque composers. However, I really think you should be more careful in your additions. These are biographic and analysis articles—all media is really secondary. I think that anything more than 2–3 audio recordings of a single genre of music is really not essential. This being said, I'd highly recommend you adjust the William Byrd article so that there is no more than 2–3 (really two is ideal). Otherwise, they will all likely be removed. Similarly, for articles like John Jenkins, these files should be in the "music" sections, not at the top.

To be honest, this is the kind of situation I imagine quickly getting out of control. As such, I'm hoping to approach you here more cordially. Best – Aza24 (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No. 2023 is a big year for William Byrd (the 400tth anniversary of his passing) and entirely appropriate. What has removed limits the varieties of genres and wholly inappropriate. Phillipwserna (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at John Ward (composer), 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. Dl2000 (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It is the soruce of the recording I submitted. It is verified from the Viola da Gamba Society UK's thematic index, the best source for this at https://vdgs.org.uk/thematic/. Feel free to add the source as I am an authoritty on the subjectt. Phillipwserna (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)