Talk:John Adams (composer)

Why did you delete my ?

Having dealt with this in the past, please simply look at this part of a previous back-and-forth... http://www.bruceduffie.com/aza24.jpg. You will see that my link is NOT spam. My contributions have been discussed and found (by senior editors) to be worthwhile additions to Wikipedia pages. Kindly put the link back. Thanks so much. Douglasburton (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

That was a very interesting picture. Let me ask you, why did you add your link first? How does it meet the criteria at WP:EL, specifically WP:ELYES:

1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.
2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided criteria apply.
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

? I can see that it might meet item 3, but it feels like it should be used as a reference and not as an EL. Of course, you may have another reason, so I'd like to hear what it is.

Oh, and the discussion with aza24 (talk · contribs) is at User talk:Aza24#Deletion of my interview link, and has no bearing on this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I added the link "first" because the others in that group seemed to be in chronological order. So, being the first date, I thought that was proper. I have no problem with its location, so if you want it last, that's fine with me. As to your other questions, the old discussion is directly on-point, and since the Administrators have deemed the material to be valuable, I just wanted to show that it had been discussed before, and was in the same vein. I own the copyrights to the interviews, so that should not be any problem. In all cases where I've added links, there has been gratitude from the artist and/or the public. These are unique in-person conversations, and directly add to the knowledge and value of the Wikipedia page. I hope you now agree, and will restore the link in whatever position you choose. Thanks so much. Douglasburton (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

If you think it's relevant, link to the archived version of the admin section, don't add screen shots of them. I do not think that it is relevant, because you are assuming that the link was removed because it's of an SPS or something else, but that's not the case. I do not think http://www.bruceduffie.com/johnadams.html offers the readers anything useful. It starts with standard press release content (as can be seen from https://www.hollywoodbowl.com/musicdb/artists/199/john-adams and other locations) and then with the conversation starting with "Do you like ‘run in - run out’ concerts?" and "Does that drive the publisher crazy?" I was immediately concerned about the lack of encyclopedic content. I recognized, after your protest on my talk page and a review of the full web page, that it goes on for a long time, but still think it would be better as a reference than an EL. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Terribly sorry you feel my interview offers nothing useful. Naturally, I begin with a bit of biography, but then his responses are primary source material. There are two conversations, so it is long. Rather than continue to stir up trouble, I will not add anything to this Wikipedia page. Douglasburton (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Wait! What? Your interviews? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Now that I've explained what a conflict of intrest is on your talk page, no, it is absolutely incorrect for you to add your own works to any Wikipedia article. This could be seen as attempting to manipulate search engine optimization. At best, make a request on the subject's talk page and let uninvolved editors determine the merit of the content. I will step back and let other editors determine if and how your interviews can be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I make this response both here and on my talk page.

You say you will let "other editors" make the determination. This has already been done, and is exactly why I referred you to that discussion in the first place.

Briefly, back in March of 2018, a complaint was made, and there was a long discussion on the Wikipedia Administrator's Noticeboard. Several editors got involved, and it was explained who I am and what I was doing. After quite a few comments, the (senior?) editors said things like, "We should be a little more circumspect before jumping to the conclusion that an editor is a spammer or copyright violator. These edits appear to have been made in good faith and the collected interviews are a valuable resource for the various subjects."

Another editor said, "I've checked it out... no ads, no products, no sales. This is OK and I don't see any real promotion or problem. It is an archive of interviews."

Yet another said, "I think these links add value. These interviews are actually quite valuable in my opinion, and to lose them would be a net negative to the project."

A further editor said, "Frankly, this (complaint) should never have been brought here."

Finally, the comment was made, "Since this (discussion) has run its course, I request we close with no action, except perhaps a trout for the filer (complainer, who should send) a brief apology to all concerned. Thanks for sharing your lovely interviews. Cheers!"

Since that time, I have continued exactly as before, so that adjudication should continue to suffice.

I hope that you now understand, and will allow this consensus to remain.

Thanks again.Douglasburton (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. You were taken to WP:ANI and called a prolific spammer. The reporting editor was asked to WP:AGF and discuss with you.

I am not accusing you of being a spammer, I am stating that by promoting your website that you are in a conflict of interest. I added a standard warning template on your talk page that explains what CoI is. It explains that you should declare any potential CoI and avoid editing articles directly. That is what I have suggested here. Feel free to follow that advice or ignore it. For instance, if I worked for a television network, I would be expected to make that clear on my user page. If I were to edit any articles about that network or the shows that appear on it, I would have to make it clear that my editing may be in conflict of interest. Alternately, I could make suggestions via the talk pages of all of those articles and let others add the content or make appropriate changes. It is the same with you and your website. The ANI discussion ended well. I could raise a new one at WP:COIN which would be specific to editors who are presumed to be in a conflict of interest. Most of your edits are of little concern. Only the ones where you added bruceduffie.com as a reference or EL would be. bruceduffie.com    indicates that there are more than 500. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the info. I know you are not accusing me of being a spammer. I only sent you to that discussion because it showed that several (senior?) editors looked at my material very carefully, and made their positive comments about including the links on Wikipedia pages. The idea of COI was raised, and did not seem to be a problem for them. Technically, the links do refer to my site, but I do not receive any remuneration nor compensation. Nothing. Zero. All I get is the occasional "Thank You" from a guest or a reader. Also, while John Adams is very famous, most of my guests are not in that league. Adams really doesn't need my help, but most of my other guests do. All of them are in the Classical Music field, which means their audience is tiny to begin with. My interviews are often the only Outside Links on their pages. In the broadcast field, the links would be considered Public Service Announcements. I truly am a tiny fish in a huge pond. So, I hope you will not waste any more time and effort on me. Douglasburton (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point, but you do not seem to understand mine. I'll raise my concerns at COIN since you do not seem to be willing to follow the standard advice. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

What if I simply put any future links on the talk page, and ask that anyone else move the link to the main page? Will that suffice to eliminate any COI?Douglasburton (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the template on your talk page? It requests five points, and I really only think two are appropriate at this point: propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles and disclose your conflict of interest. You do not seem to want to disclose your CoI. I'm not sure why, but I respect your choice.

Regardless, due to your earlier hesitancy, I had started an entry at COIN as you were writing here. I posted it before I checked recent edits. Feel free to make that suggestion there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Pointless tag

Scope creep has insisted on adding the pointless "Lede needs a rewrite" needs a rewrite tag, without identifying a single issue that needs to be fixed. They have edit warred against my reasonable rejections of said tag (Again, unless a clear issue can be presented, a blanket tag that every single reader and editor will be forced to see is not helpful) with rather nonsensical statements such as It is a maintance so somebody can do the work. Don't remove untils its done. Scope creep, no one knows what the issue is except yourself, you need to either make it clearer or do it yourself. Templating me on my talk page about making "unconstructive edits" is, ironically, unconstructive in itself, and you know better after 16 years here. Aza24 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: I left you a message but you removed it. The lede needs a rewrite. It is unsuitable as it stands. It is a listing of his work. How is that suitable to explain to the reader what he is and what he does and did? That listing can go anywhere in the article. You never see an article of this quality with a listing of work in the lede, anywhere It is not done. Fan pages perhaps. I know you have thing against tags, who doesn't, they are ugly, unconstructive and hugely overused, but that is not an excuse to remove then. They are the standard for communicating quality issues. If you can't do a rewrite to the lede, the copyedit team will do the work. scope_creep^Talk 22:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The message you left me was an autofilled template about "unconstructive editing", and did not include anything explaining your edit. Your comments are appreciated, but they should have come first, rather than a tag that does not explain the issues. Such issues may not be as clear cut as you think; the lead is not great, but is a sufficient overview of compositional career (he is a composer, after all). I have no doubt you're editing in good faith, but please keep in mind that such issues cannot be addressed if not explained. I agree it could include more other aspects, perhaps his education and such, and I will attempt to do so shortly. Aza24 (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Now rewritten Scope creep, thoughts welcome. Aza24 (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bit long but much better. I've taken this article off my watchlist. scope_creep^Talk 10:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead

"Apart from opera, his oeuvre includes": what? are we French? Why such a pretentious phrase? — Iadmc♫^talk  16:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Who says its pretentious? Its used in plenty of composer articles (Mahler, Anthony Payne, Rorem etc.) and is a common word in English. Aza24 (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, see this google search. Plenty of uses on Wikipedia. Lets focus on other things... Aza24 (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)