Jump to content

Talk:Justin Guarini/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Response to vandalism

-Have removed excess info added when swayed to so by above anonymous user... who I now know is a previously Wikipedia-identified vandal. Restored article to the preferred more concise version.

-Verifiable sources and general public knowledge support any statements or adjectives used in the article. Also, common sense can be applied. Article is in line with similar articles.

Bkstone 22:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Praise and adoration

This is an encyclopedia, not a PR tool. All the positive adjectives are opinions, that not everyone agrees with. Please stick to the facts and leave the reviews for the media. -- 69.19.14.30 23:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Really Wikipedia is not allowed to say that his album is praised - we can only reference other sources that say that. This article is so full of smarm that it reads like a Promotional release. Needs some serious NPOV re-write. Citing a positive review is one thing - citing twenty of them is ridiculous. And if they are cited, the reader needs enough information to be able to go FIND that reference. -- 66.82.9.88 11:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


NOTE: Above anonymous user is a previously Wikipedia-identified vandal:

User:69.19.14.30 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

This user is a vandal. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:69.19.14.30"

Anonymous User: 66.82.9.88 is also User:69.19.14.3

That user was me - and I am not a vandal. However users of Satellite modems can not maintain a sign in at Wikipedia - it is a known technical problem. Since the Satellite mechanism assigns a dynamic IP address, every time I sign on I get a different number. And it MAY have been used by a different person who also has edited Wikipedia. The IP address that I am on now has hundreds of edits, none of which was entered by me. I always seem to get a number that starts will 66 or 69. However the current re-write is MUCH better. -- 66.82.9.88 02:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually there are still a few "instantly" and "quickly" and such adjectives that read more like a sensational novel rather than an encyclopedia. Sort of overly dramatic vs encyclopedic. --66.82.9.88 02:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

perference

Bkstone - So why is it that you think that the fan clubs are more important than his music?? I don't get it. And you removed a link to "American Idol (Season 1) that is NOT linked anywhere else on this page. Nope - I just don't get it. -- 66.82.9.62 23:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Response:

-Except for key offical sites, rest of the titles were alphabetized in order to avoid individual judgments on level of importance.

-American Idol (which includes easily located info for all seasons) was linked in the first paragraph.

Bkstone 18:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

AI template

Should the American Idol template, {{American Idol}}, be kept on the bottom of this article, as it is for every other notable contestant, winner, runner-up, and related article... or should we delete it? Please add your opinions here.

  • Keep - Justin wouldn't be publicly known if it wasn't for this show. People know him from the show, and relate him to it. - hmwithtalk 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - What is the point of having the template if they aren't used? The template shows the relationships between past winners and others. Isolated data is not that interesting. Should be a "no-brainer" to keep. Schmiteye 01:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


FYI: This vote was directly solicited by hmwithtalk on Schmiteye talk page, with instructions/commentary on voting.

Here is the exchange: (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Schmiteye ) AI template on Justin Guarini page- I see that you've been interested in the Justin Guarini page. Do you think that the AI template should be used on the page? Vote here (link), so it cannot be deleted again.- hmwithtalk 22:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The template is unwarranted. Guarini's involvement with American Idol is already clearly stated in the article, and relevant mentions are linked within the text. In addition, the template's vaguely-related references do nothing to enhance the personal bio. Not a good precedent to set. Otherwise, there would be justification for other tangential templates for any subject mentioned in a bio. In other words, the generic AI template is superfluous clutter. Bkstone 18:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Comments:
    For the record: I've researched, updated, and maintained this article for over a year. So, this article means something to me. On the other hand, hmwithtalk made a generic template, yet repeatedly insists it be used (while also attacking me on my talk page, btw). Now this campaign. Enough. Bkstone 18:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC) (note: reverted unauthorized format revision of my comments by hmwithtalk Bkstone 13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC) )
EVERYONE: Please note that I did NOT make that template, and I'm not quite sure why Bkstone is blatantly lying to say that I did. Proof? Look at the template's history. Nope. Didn't make it. At all. Regardless of how long you've "researched, updated, and maintained" any article, you may not necessarily be correct. No one is perfect. In my opinion, you're being selfish. You want to be the "owner" of this article, and not acknowledge the fact that no one would know who he was without AI. The template is on every single other person's article. Why the HELL would it not be on his? It doesn't contribute to each article that it's in, but, rather, to the scope of American Idol on Wikipedia, and organization and navigation of related articles. Research the subject. - hmwithtalk 18:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Response: I mistakely assumed you made the template due to your insistence it be used. An honest mistake. Please... 1) Stop personally attacking and insulting me. 2) Do not alter or reformat my comments here again. (Note: My previous comment was reformatted by hmwithtalk ) Thanks.Bkstone 19:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A) You did lie, although it was accidental, but I forgive you. A fact is must different than a personal attack.
B) I insisted on it being used, because I am a Wikipedian, and I strive to better all articles in which I come across.
C) With altering you comment, I apologize. I only did it to make the section more readable and understandable. IN GOOD FAITH, I assure you, I put the vote where the votes go, then moved the comment to a new place for comments, assuming that you would have put it there if the section to make a comment would have been previously available (but I forgot to add it when making this section). I truly, honestly though you'd be thankful for my organizing. I apologize.
D) I don't mean this as anything personal against anyone. I just want to help Wikipedia become easily navigatable and a better place.
- hmwithtalk 19:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. (note: following copied from 'Third Opinion' section, original not removed or altered) I agree with Bkstone. The template really doesn't add anything useful, and is cookie cutter in concept. I fail to see the need to lump everyone who has appeared on a television show together especially after several years. Guarini's stint on AI over four years ago has already been duly noted and relevant items linked. PhilatesPhilates 03:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Guarini"

Third opinion

Responding to request at Third opinions
I am a little bit disappointed to see Wikipedians arguing over something as apparently uncontroversial as a template, but I will give my assessment nonetheless. This is quite clearly less a debate about whether this particular article should carry the template and more about whether the template is itself valid. That should really be a separate issue from this. The template in question seems to me to be useful, relevant and not in anyway counter-productive, so why would you wish to defend so vehemently against its use? We are not writing articles for us; we are writing them for everyone; the mass users of Wikipedia for whom this an information resource and source of interest. If a template helps to tie together related articles, then it benefits the reader, and consistency between articles is an important part of article design. When developing article layout and design elements, it can help to put yourself in the place of a casual reader.

As I can see no reason to block this template's use in this article, I strongly recommend that you include it. Per procedure, this request has now been removed from WP:3O.

On a separate, but related, issue, Bkstone and Hmwith have had a conflict on their talk pages about which I would be willing to comment if either party feels that it would be beneficial, but I think that it might be more productive to focus on positive collaboration from now on. Adrian M. H. 20:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, there are no comments by me on Hmwith's user page, thus no conflict on that page. On my user page, I responded to an insult with a request not to be insulted, expressed my discomfort with the situation, and stated I would not respond to it again in order to avoid "possible irrational discourse". I have not responded to Hmwith's latest comments directed at me or the threat made on the history page (although it is difficult to remain silent). So, I respectfully request it not be suggested here that our conduct has been similar. It hasn't. Thanks. Bkstone 15:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm gong to add in a fourth opinion in agreement with Hmwith. There's absolutely no reason to not have the template. If you hate the template THAT much Bkstone, then put it up on WP:TFD, though it'll probably be kept.--Wizardman 21:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both very much for your opinions. I am trying to figure out why this is an argument as well. It's a template, for God sake! I can't understand why someone would be so against it. It's very odd. After this discussion, I will be putting the template back on. I just hate that it makes me look like I'm a person who has edit wars. - hmwithtalk 21:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bkstone. The template really doesn't add anything useful, and is cookie cutter in concept. I fail to see the need to lump everyone who has appeared on a television show together especially after several years. Guarini's stint on AI over four years ago has already been duly noted and relevant items linked. PhilatesPhilates 03:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

While your opinion is welcome, even as a new user, you have not fully taken into account very much of what I wrote. That the template is used on all other related articles is for a very good reason: Wikipedia's emphasis on consistency. This is why editors such as myself expend time and effort producing templates, in the form of tables and infoboxes, that are to be used across groups of related articles. We also work to standardise layout as much as is reasonably practical. This is not a debate about whether the template should be used in the first place: if it is already used on related articles, then it should be used on this article. Anyone who dislikes the template should use the appropriate channels to debate its existence, for which they would need to justify why it should not be used at all. Third opinion is not a debating system - we have channels for that: it is a means to seek an assessment from an experienced and impartial third party. Adrian M. H. 13:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Philates meant to respond to the AI template section. I copied it there, with a note. He/she has a right to express his/her opinion there, like others have. As for the questionable usefulness of the template, could you direct me to "the appropriate channels to debate its existence"? Thanks. Bkstone 15:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wizardman already provided that: WP:TFD (Templates for deletion), but as he wrote, you will probably find that consensus will opt to keep it. And that is my honest estimate of it based on experience. As an alternative, if you wish to pursue the issue from the perspective of your debate with Hmwith, you could make a request for comment, but bear in mind the fact that you have already received an impartial assessment, even though it was sought be the other party.
And I would advise you not to misread comments, inferring meanings that are not there: I acknowledged that the user's opinion is welcome, even though it does not take account of long-accepted page-layout practices, which I put down to this being his only edit thus far. Adrian M. H. 15:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll consider that option and if I want to pursue it. I have no individual issue w/ Hmwith other his/her uncivil conduct, which I choose to ignore (unless it continues). My primary issue is w/ clutter created by select tangential templates. That simple. Bkstone 16:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That makes me sad. =( There is no need for unjustified insults and put-downs here at Wikipedia. Even though opinions differ, we all have the same goal: to make it a better place for everyone! - hmwithtalk 16:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is not cluttered, in my honest opinion. On the contrary, it is actually quite nicely structured. Adrian M. H. 16:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment, Adrian. I've strived for over a year to write/update/keep the article as concise and clutter-free as possible. Which, I guess is why I'm concerned about the precedent being set by adding a select tangential template. To be honest, I think there's overkill with most AI-related articles. Heads of state and major historical events don't get as much peripheral info thrown on their pages. Sometimes, less is more. Anyway, I'll shut up now. Bkstone 18:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this guy listed under African American musicians?

whats so African American about him? Are we still working under the "one drop" rule? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ason Abdullah (talk • contribs) 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Just because he's not as dark as the midnight sky does not mean he isn't half black american. 76.112.102.98 20:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Response: I didn't add the categories (African/American & Italian/American), but I'll answer. Guarini's father is African/American, his mother Italian/American. I guess whoever added the categories tried to be as all-inclusive as possible. Bkstone 23:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough I wonder if every single entry on a given person will have their ethnic backgrounds. It seems to me only if that persons ethnicity played some integral role in their art/upbringing should it be noted. How laughable would it be to have the Abraham Lincoln entry with a (for example) "English-Irish Politicians" tab?--Ason Abdullah (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: Removed Georgia (state) template. No information was provided for the reasoning and/or it's related purpose. This is not an article about Georgia. Ample info was provided for the two one-word mentions of Georgia locations in connection with Guarini (birthplace and Boys Choir location). This isn't a bio w/ major historical importance, no overkill of information needed. There's plenty to summarize his history. Bkstone 17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

npov

This article completely glosses over the fact that almost all other Idol finalists have gone on to be commercial successes, and that Guarini is widely known as a commercial failure. It sounds a lot like PR. 65.1.158.199 (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)--Super (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This guy has been a huge flop, and his music did not sell. I read this article and learn nothing about him or how he has done. This was written by a PR firm or something. It's BS--72.26.18.21 (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I added 2 more references to my section I added. One from MTV and one from Yahoo Music, I can keep on adding them if you want. I am telling you please do not revert anymore of my edits without talking about it first. The section now has three references, and thats kind of sad because before my addition it only had one for the whole article.--Super (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is bad, bad, bad. It might be in the top 100 worst sourced articles on wiki. There was only when I got here and in the two sentences I added, I added three, bringing the total to four. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aspects you need to learn how to use the talk page. Please do not just remove information from the page before talking about it. Are you happy now, I combined it with some other information about RCA that was already in the article. This thing is nothing but a bunch of PR fluff anyways, is that why you are fighting to keep his album sales numbers out of the article so bad? --Super (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


For the third time, realitytvworld.com is not a reliable source and it should not be used, especially since you provided two other reliable sources. Editors do not have to discuss changes on a talk page before they make a reversion. As per WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle I was reverting your BOLD edit with an explanation in my edit summary which explain why I made the revert. On the other hand, you undid my edits without an edit summary, against what it says when you click "undo", "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." My edits were not vandalism but without using an edit summary, you are calling them vandalism and me a vandal, which you want to be careful of because some editors on Wikipedia do not appreciate being called a vandal. Aspects (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Response: Removed incorrect album sales. Last reported # is 168,000, at end of the six months period it was on shelves. Also removed irrevelant and meaningless comparisons to others, especially in the light of Guarini's widely dissimiliar circumstances. In any case, such random info would be unwarranted for anyone's article. If you want to write about your favorites, you can do it on their pages. 64.91.25.176 (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI about the discography edit.

-Album sales #s listed are either (1)wrong ("Justin Guarini" was last reported at 168,000 after a six month period on shelves) or (2)unknown (and never reported) due to it's independent release by Guarini ("Stranger Things Have Happened").

- Removed "before AI, post AI" album specifics. Guarini doesn't have a high profile album/music history, plus all things don't need to relate to "American Idol". The dates given after each album name are sufficient to pinpoint time frames.64.91.25.176 (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If the current album sales are 168,000 then you need to provide a reliable source to prove this instead of just stating it and removing the sourced 134,0000 sales amount. Your explanation above still fails to express why you deleted the table and turned it into a list format. You really need to look through WP:BRD, you kept reverting without explaining in an edit summary or on the talk page. Then today you made the reverts and added to the talk page after the edits to justify the edits, but since the edits have been challenged you need to discuss and come to a consensus instead of continually making your reverts. Aspects (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism removed: The incorrect information has been repeatedly posted. Album sales for JG in incorrect (just one glance at a google search showed other reported sales #s) and the sales of STHH is unknown as it was released and distributed by Guarini with sales never reported. Also, the info about others' sales is irrelevant. Not to mention AI-type pettiness. Stop. 64.91.25.176 (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to read through vandalism because information based on a reliable source is not vandalism. I asked you before if you have a reliable source for album sales you need to provide that to prove your numbers are correct, you cannot simply remove album sales from a reliable source based just on your say so. If you cannot provide a new reliable source, then you should not delete the current information. Your discography section is not the "correct format" when an artist does not have a separate discography article. Aspects (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect info s/b removed (and is all the time). Period. No other link needed to justify removal of false info. Just do a complete research if it means that much to you, and put up the highest # reported. Last I read reported was 172,000 for JG, and no report for the otjers. I suggest putting it on the album page, and leave the format consistent for the list on the main page. Simple. 64.91.25.176 (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The information is based on a reliable source. You need to provide a link to prove the current information is false. If it the sales information is incorrect, then you should be able to easily prove the number by linking to a reliable source. If you are unable to find this reliable source, then you need to leave the current information in the article. Aspects (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Image in infobox

If there are two equally good, free images of a living person, the more recent one should be used in the infobox and the other image should be used in the timeline when it took place in the article body. I would even argue that the more recent picture is a better image, which would swing even more in favor of using this image in the infobox. Currently the same image is being used in the infobox and the timeline, I am going to revert back to the way it was with the more recent image used in the infobox, which leaves the other image still in the article body. If an even more recent free image is found and is equally good, then that image can be used in the infobox and the other image would need to be moved into the article body. Aspects (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Is that a stated Wiki rule or your justification for changing pic? Pic might be more recent, but also more dated-looking. In any case, he needs an even more updated pic (and more flattering). I'll work on it. Btw, the current pic you want to use is a professional media picture taken at the event. Is that acceptable now? I assume a personally taken/owned pic would be ok. Or one provided directly by Guarini.(Bkstone) Bkstone (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.137.236 (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It is what you will find everywhere on Wikipedia, but the only rule would be that consensus could dictate another picture being in the infobox, but there is no consensus here for that. Both of the pictures used in the article are free images and that is why they are acceptable. A fair use image that is copyrighted is not acceptable for a living person because you could also find a free image. Aspects (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Justin Guarini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Justin Guarini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Justin Guarini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Justin_Guarini/Archive_1&oldid=1136360648"