User talk:JAL78

Your Reference Desk request

I have done a little work on the page to clean up the grammar. I expect other people will come along and change it, this is wikipedia!. Best wishes Richard Avery (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --JAL78 (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gottlieb Ernst Clausen Gad

Please do not add machine translations of foreign language articles to Wikipedia. Due to their poor quality, they are generally not useful and can be very difficult to fix. In the future, please follow the instructions laid out at Wikipedia:Translation.--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Hello JAL78. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Steinway & Sons, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have concluded after seeing you add a Steinway copyrighted image—File:Steinway & Sons concert grand piano, model D-274, manufactured at Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany.png—to piano articles in a score of languages, and after watching your pro-Steinway editing style, that you have a conflict of interest. I suggest that you stop replacing images of other manufacturers' pianos with Steinway ones, and that you stop promoting Steinway on Wikipedia. You can, of course, suggest changes to be made. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it you are the one with a conflict of interest: Talk:Steinway & Sons#NEUTRALITY DISPUTED among others.

Before going any further I need you to show me exact where on Wikipedia you have read that copyrighted images are not allowed on Wikipedia? I think you maybe have misunderstood something. Many images on Wikipedia are not in the public domain, but are copyrighted and can be used under a license. If you think that copyright means "do never use this image" then you have misunderstood the situation. --JAL78 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger problem, of course, is that you replaced piano images from other manufacturers than Steinway, pushing them down to bring Steinway up. You removed images of Bosendorfers and others to replace them with Steinways. This kind of promotion is against Wikipedia policy.

Regarding your empty accusation that I have a conflict of interest, you point to a thread where IP editor 50.131.42.52 is complaining that I am too fond of Steinway! How it is that you think I am conflicted against Steinway I cannot tell. At any rate, here is the full story of me & pianos: I grew up in a home with first an upright piano of very low mark, then a slightly better upright, then finally when I was about 9, a Steinway baby grand which is still my mother's pride and joy. Around 1972 Korla Pandit came to our house and played this Steinway for an audience consisting of our living room jammed with people. From that performance, the fall (the keyboard cover) still holds long scratches from his oversized rings and overstated playing style. During the earlier upright days I learned to play piano with formal lessons for about six months when I was six years old but the instructor could not bear my hyperactivity and she "fired" me as a student, retaining my siblings who all played better than me anyway. That is the extent of my piano connection; I went on to take a B.A. in music electronics, acoustics and psychoacoustics, with a bit of bass clarinet, clarinet and vocals for the performance credits, never pretending to be a pianist. From that time to now I have always been involved in the sound business—copper wiring and audio signal flow—not in piano manufacturing, sales or promotion. So, no, I have no conflict of interest with Steinway. If anything, I have a slight soft spot for the company!

I see you have elected not to address the direct accusation that you have a conflict of interest. I will assume that means "yes", that you do work for Steinway. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was a lot of talking. As said above "Before going any further I need you to show me exact where on Wikipedia you have read that copyrighted images are not allowed on Wikipedia?". I am not going to waste my time on discussing with a person, who make false edits and claims. Therefore, I need to hear if you are right or wrong on your many edits about "No copyrighted images allowed, no images with requirement for copyright notice"??? --JAL78 (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREDITS. "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article." Instead, the copyright notice stays on the Wikimedia Commons image page. The Steinway copyright itself is not relevant to the subject, only to the copyright holder. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the credit does not necessarily need to be on the article page itself - that cannot be required by the copyright holder; having it on the image page is enough by most Wikipedia projects' standards. Again, again "Before going any further I need you to show me exact where on Wikipedia you have read that copyrighted images are not allowed on Wikipedia?" As you probably remember you deleted the image - not only the optional byline - and you wrote that "No copyrighted images allowed" and "... no images with requirement for copyright notice". --JAL78 (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Binksternet's many comments above are all crap and his allegations were rejected by another user/administrator and the case was speedy closed. See Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Copyrighted images and copyright notice not allowed on the English Wikipedia?:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Binksternet and JAL78 have agreed that a copyright notice does not belong in a caption. Their content dispute is beyond the scope of this forum. —teb728 t c 06:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will somebody please have a look at this. I added a picture to an article, but it was removed by the user Binksternet with the reason, that "No copyrighted images allowed, no images with requirement for copyright notice"[1] Is this true? I think Binksternet has misunderstood something. Many images on Wikipedia are not in the public domain, but are copyrighted and can be used under a license. If one think that copyright means "do never use this image" then one have misunderstood the situation. Does the English Wikipedia have a policy saying something like "No copyrighted images allowed, no images with requirement for copyright notice"??? --JAL78 (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do allow copyright images, but the case here is that being a picture of a real-world object that is not a piece of artist work, we can reasonably expect a free replacement can be taken particularly since its used around the world, per WP:NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 03:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he misused "copyrighted" to mean "non-free". Free licensed image are acceptable equally with PD. (Some of the helpers on this forum make the same mistake.) —teb728 t c 03:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see the root of the misunderstanding: You added a photo with a copyright notice in the caption. We put copyright notices on file description pages not in captions. (See WP:CREDITS.) The other user removed the whole image, not just the copyright notice. —teb728 t c 04:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline at WP:CREDITS says that no copyright notice should be placed in the article. The larger issue with the image in question is that it is part of a promotional campaign by JAL78 to replace Bösendorfer, Bechstein and other competitor piano images with an image of a Steinway & Sons piano. ([2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]) I reverted all of the images thus placed because of conflict of interest issues. Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Yes, the credit does not necessarily need to be on the article page itself – that cannot be required by the copyright holder; having it on the image page is enough by most Wikipedia projects' standards. Binksternet said that copyrighted images are not allowed on Wikipedia, which is false. Binksternet deleted the image – not only the optional byline – and he wrote that "No copyrighted images allowed, no images with requirement for copyright notice".

– Binksternet's accuse of my edits being a "... part of a promotional campaign..." is just an attempt of removing the focus from the case about a misguided Binksternet deleting pictures, because he doesn't understand what "copyright" and "license" mean. And yes, I removed some bad pictures, including pictures of Steinway(!) pianos, and replaced them with this extremely good picture. There is nothing wrong or suspicious about that – it's actually pretty normal to replace pictures when better pictures become available; that is a part of making Wikipedia better, which is an ongoing process. And by the way, be aware that other editors revert Binksternet's edits.^{example here} --JAL78 (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You both need to take your edit war to the talk pages of the articles in question and let uninvolved editors decide which (if any) photos to keep. If you don't, you are likely to be blocked for disruption. With the subject edit of the present section, however, I fail to see why Binksternet objects to a photo of a Steinway D-274 on Steinway D-274. —teb728 t c 06:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

--JAL78 (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Piano. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. Sudo Ghost 22:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Piano shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Sudo Ghost 22:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where I made more than three edits in Piano. Thank you. --JAL78 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made identical three edits in the past few hours, one more would be over 3RR. However, as far as general edit warring is concerned, you've made at least 8 identical edits to the article in the past two weeks alone without any sort of discussion whatsoever. Please discuss before continuing. Thank you. - Sudo Ghost 23:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will see your proves for giving me a warning for violating the three-revert rule on Piano.[15] --JAL78 (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the above again: "Your recent editing history at Piano shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule". This is not an accusation of violation of 3RR, but notification that, with another edit, you would have. - Sudo Ghost 23:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Fanoftheworld (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm blocked without given the possibility of telling my own explanations – ridiculous! I'm extremely glad that the judges of the courts never make a decision after hearing only one[16] side of a case. --JAL78 (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to unemployed Binksternet

From Talk:Piano#Steinway conflict of interest:

After examining the editing style of JAL78 on English Wikipedia and also on other language Wikipedias, I have concluded that JAL78 edits here as an agent of Steinway & Sons. Here are the articles in which JAL78 replaced some other piano make with a Steinway:

En: [17]
bg: [18]
Da: [19]
De: [20]
Fi Piano: [21]
Fi Flyygeli: [22]
Fr: [23]
Kk: [24]
Nl: [25]
No: [26]
Ru: [27]
Simple: [28]
Uk: [29]

I notified JAL78 of my conclusion on the editor's own talk page but I did not get a response to confirm or deny. At any rate, I am dealing with this situation as if JAL78 has a conflict of interest. Binksternet (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha putting a featured picture of an object in approximately ten articles and you are suddenly an agent from the company producing the object – ridiculous! User:Binksternet's accusation above is just a repeat of what he already has said here – and that was very soon rejected by another user/administrator, and the case was speedy closed. Maybe User:Binksternet is trying to see if he has any luck on this talk page to convince anybody about his accusation. Actually, User:Binksternet should receive a warning for his comment/accusation on this talk page – read User:TEB728's comments here. By the way, I think it's more likely that User:Binksternet is either just an unemployed (because he not only is always online but also has time to repeat himself) or an agent from a rival company because of his edits: As User:TEB728 said "With the subject edit of the present section, however, I (User:TEB728) fail to see why Binksternet objects to a photo of a Steinway D-274 on Steinway D-274." On my talk page I asked User:Binksternet about why he deleted the photo of a Steinway D-274 on Steinway D-274 – I never got an answer! Clearly he made a mistake, because he isn't able to understand what "license" and "copyright" mean. --JAL78 (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Jersild Live - logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Jersild Live - logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Gads Forlag - Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Gads Forlag - Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Conn-Selmer - Logo 2.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Conn-Selmer - Logo 2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:University of Wisconsin - Green Bay - the seal.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:University of Wisconsin - Green Bay - the seal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Corkythehornetfan 23:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:University of Wisconsin - Green Bay - logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:University of Wisconsin - Green Bay - logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ☔️ Corkythehornetfan 🌺 13:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Leblanc - clarinets - logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Leblanc - clarinets - logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]