User talk:Tonalism

January 2020

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. ...Modernist (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ...Modernist (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tonalism

Stop adding unreferenced material to that article - Tonalism....Your addition is unreferenced; read this: WP:RS and read this as well: WP:NPOV. Your so-called reference is an unreliable source and your addition reads as point of view, not WP:NPOV.Be aware of the issue of copyright infringement as well....Modernist (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The History of American Tonalism is considered the standard text in the field, has been well reviewed widely, and cited by many sources. The points made in the article are spelled out in much detail in the book and elsewhere and are common knowledge in the field.

YOUR EDIT IS PROBLEMATIC WITHOUT REFERENCES!!!! LOOKS LIKE A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION!!!! LEARN HOW TO EDIT!!!! AND SIGN YOUR COMMENTS!!!!....Modernist (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Wikipedia for arbitration. The History of American Tonalism has been critical acclaimed and my post represents a general summary of the books most salient points:

This volume, a landmark of scholarship, has uncovered some treasures and is likely to change our understanding of the development of American art. --The Art Newspaper, No. 222, March 2011

Silver Medal Winner in Art History: Book of the Year Awards, 2010, ForeWord Reviews. --ForeWord Magazine

Cleveland, whose writing is both elegant and accessible, gives the Tonalist discussion a shot of energy...This wonderfully written book will delight general audiences and scholars alike. Summing Up: Highly recommended. CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries.

Winner: Outstanding Academic Title 2011 -- American Library Association

Tonalism (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing history at Tonalism 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. Coldcreation (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Tonalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I may: first of all, you're edit warring, and that's not cool. Second, you sought dispute resolution, but that's what the article talk page is for in the first place. Third, you didn't cite a source: you cited a Choice review, and that is hardly the same thing. I write those reviews for Choice: 170 words, and they are reviews, not the book that you should be citing. Fourth, what you put in there is WAY too long for a lead, even too long for a single paragraph. No one can read this.
So, when this block runs out, consider these points and seek the talk page. It is very likely that the book that this originally came from is a valuable source--but your addition needed to be concise and to the point. Plus, keep in mind that this is a collaborative project. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]