Talk:Daniel Lorenzetti

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

(Some unconfirmed) not Dubious sources

This article has "sources" that don't pan out. See the "sources" themselves, and the SGML comments within the WP article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. I am not the author of this page but I am the subject, Daniel Lorenzetti. I have tried to provide corrections and sources when they are available. Everything in this entry is true to the best of my knowledge and the knowledge of the author (I am not the author). Not all of it can be referenced as some of these things go back many years. For example, how on earth are you supposed to prove your are in the permanent collection of a museum. They don't publish their collections online. I have a letter from most musuems...You want to see them? Some things are always going to be unconfirmed and should you wish to mark them as such fine but don't call them "dubious" unless you know they are not true. Daniellorenzetti (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, it doesn't matter if something is true; if it can't be verified, it doesn't belong here. A minority of museums do list all their holdings. As for the majority that do not, we can cite published claims by disinterested third parties about presence in permanent collections. (For example, if a newspaper article says that the works of artist X are in museum Y, we can cite the article.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a bit about Hoary from other users so you get an idea of this person's credibility.

Hoary is:

the personification of everything that is wrong with wiki and the internet in general, one person who has a bee in his bonnet about something and won't listen to consenus [sic] and people with more experience and knowledge-- as divulged by Brettr on 2 April 2007.

Hoary also instigated a "shameful thread" — according to Scott MacDonald, the "worst example of myopia, and process related, drama-mongering I've seen" (as of 15 December 2009).

im sory hoary, but it seems as though you are not a casual reader, you use the word bane, and imply, evasion, and much more, you sound like a prude. It's pre-grads like you that want to sound fancy and therefore destroy the quality of wikipedia because nobody can actually connect to what is on the site. Wikipedia is useless thanks to pricks like you. Thanks. (wrote some IP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.62.58 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, why copy stuff from my user page when you could instead have pointed people to my user page where they'd have read this and more? -- Hoary (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write the majority of the information on this page, not even close, and making a statement like that is not only untrue it damages all of the wikipedia community. I made only a few minor changes to assure accuracy.Dlorenzetti (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]