User talk:Peoplefromarizona

Addings to the article "Steinway D-274" from the German article

Okay, I just posted a 2nd revision on the talk page there. It's tricky editing a piece like this when I don't really understand all the physical details, but I hope this is helpful. Textorus (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very very much! I have made my small comment on the talk/discussion page, see Now in the article. (To make it easier to navigate, all the chapters and revisions are now in the same section called Addings to the English article from the German article). --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say Thank you! for your cooperation on Steinway D-274 . -- AxelKingg (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... BTW there is some new DE stuff on Theodore S., 2nd CEO. I also intend to expand the description iof the gorgeous life of his younger brother William, Steinway's 3rd CEO, head of commercials and marketing genius. Would you eventually be interested in some other friendly "takeovers"? -- AxelKingg (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If interested - here we go again.. ;-) THX in advance. -- AxelKingg (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

– And thank you very much for your history about the D-274 piano.

– Regarding Steinway, my interests are mostly the company and the company's pianos, not very much the Steinway family. But of cource I also find some interest in editing articles about the Steinway family sometimes. But I see, that you, User:Ehrenkater and User:Textorus already are working on Talk:Christian Friedrich Theodor Steinweg – great.

– Remember, that you of cource are very welcome to contribute with more about D-274 here on the English Wikipedia. I see, that the German D-274 contains some information, that would be nice to have in the English article about D-274 too. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addings to the article "Christian Friedrich Theodor Steinweg" / "C.F. Theodore Steinway" from the German article

1st talk

Hey, Ehrenkater and I both contributed a revision of this German article posted by AK this morning - Ehrenkater on the talk page, while I was BOLD and put my version on the article page. Since you apparently can read German, which I can't, would you care to give the article a glance and see how it looks to you; it may be that some of Ehrenkater's revision should be incorporated, especially on the technical details, which I am unfamiliar with. Thanks.

Also, as I noted on the talk page there, I really should have named the article with the anglicized version of his name, which he used while living in New York. But I don't really know how to do that renaming and redirecting stuff - do you? Textorus (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be sure I understand you 100% correct: You world like the article "Christian Friedrich Theodor Steinweg" to get renamed "C.F. Theodore Steinway"? --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which I see you've already done. Now the article title is in line with those of the rest of the Steinways listed on the disambiguation page. Good job, thanks much. Textorus (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd talk

The new material is not my initiative, I just volunteered some help with the translation, so it's not for me to add it in to the article. Ehrenkater (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but AxelKingg asks for help at the bottom of the talk/discussion page: "Also the modified wordings of Ehrenkater look very OK for me. Please Textorus & Ehrenkater feel free to choose, according to your understanding of "good sounding english" - I cannot decide this, I regret, I only could find no errors in both versions."[1] --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally I consider my version to be a lot better English, but I am definitely not an expert on the subject so I shall leave someone else to update the page. - Ehrenkater (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Homofuerst" in the Reference desk/Language

Say buddy, could you possibly comment on the discussion here? Thanks. Textorus (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a German native speaker, but I can speak German. I do not know the word "Homofuerst/Homofürst" – and neither do my German dictionary – but I think, it is negative slang. (I see, that a user called Hans Urian, claiming he is a German native speaker, has made a comment, which I think, sounds correct).[2] I think, that "Homofuerst/Homofürst" should be removed from the article Guido Westerwelle. I hope, this helped a little. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. The sentence has been deleted and re-inserted 4 times already, so somebody seems determined to insert this homophobic remark in the article. Textorus (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steinway's logo in the article "Steinway & Sons"

Hi Peoplefromarizona!

Why exactly did you remove the SVG logo from Steinway & Sons? Morn (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morn, the File:Steinway-logo 4.jpg is the correct version of the logo, and the version that Steinway prefer and uses on their pianos, magazines etc. Furthermore, the File:Steinway and Sons Logo.svg is not the right Steinway logo, but one of the many edited versions of the logo – the lyre is too big.

P.S.: Why did you change "(1797-1871)" to "(1797–1871)"?[3][4] --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the lyre smaller in the SVG, using your JPG as a reference, and removed the trademark sign. You might have to press something like Shift + Reload in your browser (to bypass the browser cache) to see the updated image in the article.

And that dash is an en dash and should be used in date ranges instead of a hyphen. See also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dashes. Morn (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've just noticed that the German Wikipedia also has an SVG logo for Steinway: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Steinway_and_Sons_logo.svg

The main difference is that the font is slightly different—there are serifs, especially visible on the "W" and "Y". (Click on the 2000px version if your browser does not support SVG rendering.)

Both images are based on PDFs from S&S's site, so the question is, which one is better? Perhaps my serif-less version is a subtle redesign of the logo. Your JPG does not have enough resolution to decide between the two. If I went with the German version, I'd also remove the "®" of course. Morn (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logo, that Steinway uses the most, and that Steinway uses on their pianos and on their stationery, are the one with serifs but without the "®": http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Steinway_and_Sons_logo.svg. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've replaced it with the German version, sans the "®". Usually I always check out the German article when vector logos are needed, but in this case I must have forgot. Damn you, Steinway, for your logo inconsistency!

Morn (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Morn. It looks very fine now. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vegaswikian's incorrect edit

Notice: My question was asked at User:Vegaswikian's talk page (see User talk:Vegaswikian#Incorrect edid):
Why did you write, that Steinway & Sons is a company based in Connecticut?[5] --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly read WP:AGF before you label a bad copy and paste as VANDALISM. That was clearly uncalled for. I'll note that you clearly can make errors since you misspelled edit on my talk page. In any case you seem to have posted the note on my talk page AFTER the correct category was added. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

– I see on your talk page (including the discussions you have deleted from your talk page), that you have made bad edits before.

– The Steinway & Sons article says very clearly, that Steinway is based in New York City and Hamburg. The names of the two cities are written several times in the article. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to assume good faith, cf. WP:AGF.

– "I'll note that you clearly can make errors since you misspelled edit on my talk page.", (said by User:Vegaswikian). Misspelling of one single word on a user's talk page can never be assumed as vandalism. That you mention the misspelling of "edit/edid" is just ridicules. Come again...

– "In any case you seem to have posted the note on my talk page AFTER the correct category was added.", (said by User:Vegaswikian). Completely irrelevant – a user can ask another user a question, whenever he/she likes. Come again...

(– I hope, that you saw, that I did not use the word "vandalism" on your talk page.)

– I have noticed, that you do not answer the question – Why did you write, that Steinway & Sons is a company based in Connecticut?[6]. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I really need to explain a bad copy and paste? Your charge of vandalism is clearly still in the edit summary for anyone to see. As so having to explain errors, I guess you are perfect and never make a mistake. While I do make errors, they are a small percentage of my total number of edits. And again, you really do need to read [WP:AGF]]. Also please stop with the lies. I have not deleted any thing from my talk page of late. Archiving is done automatically and it is rather different then deleting. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

– "Do I really need to explain a bad copy and paste?". Yes, why do you think I asked?

– "Your charge of vandalism is clearly still in the edit summary for anyone to see." Perfect, that anyone can see your edit, that was extremely wrong, as I have written here above.

– The other irrelevant stuff you have written is waste of time, so I don't want to comment on that.

– I have noticed, that you still do not answer my very simple question above, which is written in an objective way. But you have written a lot of irrelevant stuff instead. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my final response since I have real work to do. A copy and paste error was made and corrected. That is not vandalism and you would see that if read WP:VANDAL You refuse to read or understand WP:AGF. You have accused me of deleting material from my talk page which is false. Since you are seem to have an agenda and don't acknowledge my real factual concerns I'm not going to address anything since the charge is not valid. I made a mistake and it was fixed, end of story. You seem to have some kind of an agenda that I don't understand. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

– I am sure, that everybody can see, that you are trying to give the impression, that I made a big mistake.

– You wrote a completely wrong thing about Steinway by adding Connecticut (and removing the United States). I corrected your mistake for you.[7] You are welcome. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steinway / Samick

You appear to have taken a parental interest in the Steinway articles, so I thought it appropriate to toss this to you: According to the form 4/A filed with the SEC on 6/27/11, Samick Musical Instruments now owns over 31% of Steinway Musical Instruments. It remains to be seen what impact this will have, but as Samick has placed other old & respected piano names on instruments made cheaply in the pacific basin by questionably skilled labor out of various materials and in a fraction of the time required for quality instrument manufacture, it does not bode well for Steinway pianos or any of the "American" band instrument companies under the Conn-Selmer umbrella within SMI. I thought perhaps something, non-predictive, would be approipriate at this point in both articles as relates to recent history, but will leave that to you to wordsmith.--Rwberndt (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have read about it, but it is still a new trade. Therefore, I think it will be best to wait a little and see if Steinway and Samick will make some press releases about what will happen (if anything at all) to the production. I will also look for some independent newspaper articles about this. I will look into it. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:Binksternet added an extensive comment on Samick to the Steinway article, which you reverted. I have to agree that it seemed excessive and not entirely relevant in its depth. However, the change in beneficial ownership is a merger and should be noted minimally. might I propose that "31.5% of said stock being acquired by Korean piano and guitar maker Samick Music Corporation in 2011". referencing the SEC 4A filed June 26th be added to the sentence ending in LVB ?--Rwberndt (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notice above. I have written a comment on Talk:Steinway & Sons#Samick in article [8] and here. I don't know if User:Binksternet is trying to discredit Steinway & Sons by writing about Samick, who is an investor of Steinway Musical Instruments. If User:Binksternet is trying to get it to sound like that Steinway and Steinway pianos is not quality pianos anymore, he should write that – and add a reference about that! And why doesn't he write anything about who was the largest shareholder before Samick??... --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added comment at Talk:Steinway & Sons#Samick in article as I do feel there is relevance to the significant change in corporate direction - but question the appropriateness of the entire "Acquisitions" section based on your reasoning. I believe further edit is required.--Rwberndt (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not engage in edit warring to remove cited text about Samick from the article. Editors are not allowed more than three reverts in 24 hours, yet fewer reverts can be interpreted as edit warring, with serious consequences. Edit warriors may be blocked. Please read WP:3RR and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.
It's now clear to me from reading your entries above that you think Samick is being brought into the article to make Steinway sound bad. Where do you get that? Jong S. Kim is one of the most skilled corporate leaders in Korea, and Samick's great growth after near bankruptcy reflects his talent. Why would you think a link to Samick is bad? Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your text about Samick 3 times and added explanations. You have added Samick to the article 3 times without explanations and without reading the talk page. Maybe you should read WP:3RR and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing yourself instead of telling my about 3RR and edit wars.

I am glad that you read my entries above. Regarding your question "Why would you think a link to Samick is bad?" you should read what I have tried to explain you on the talk page for the Steinway & Sons article! Regarding your question "It's now clear to me from reading your entries above that you think Samick is being brought into the article to make Steinway sound bad. Where do you get that?" because I asked you why you suddenly think it is relavant for the article to mention the largest shareholder, but you can not give any reason. You just keep saying it is relevant, and not why it is relevant.

I am just guessing that you by some reason are trying to discredit Steinway & Sons and that you think it can be done by the mentioning of Samick in the Steinway & Sons article. Why else do you write "The Korean piano and guitar maker Samick Music Corporation..." instead of just "Samick Music Corporation". At Wikipedia you just click on "Samick Music Corporation" and then you can read about the subject. Also, do you never say or write "Barack Obama" – do you always say/write "President of the United States of America Barack Obama"? --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Webster University

While I do not know who added it to the section on All Steinway Schools, I am baffled as to why you sumarily reverted the IP's edit. Webster is, as demonstrated by its article Webster University, within the scope of "notable" in Wikipedia terms. Further, it declares its participation in the All Steinway program on its webpage which not all do. It seems a proper inclusion in the section, and the kind of edit that should be encouraged to further the stated goal of increasing participation in this free and open projectcalled wikipedia.--Rwberndt (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than 125 All-Steinway Schools. The section All-Steinway Schools contains just eight examples of All-Steinway Schools. Why do you think, that Webster University is notable for the section and make this university worth to mention and not the over 100 other All-Steinway Schools, that also have articles on Wikipedia? There should be a reason for adding an example and not just the reason that a new random IP added it – (maybe just because he/she is/was a student at the Webster University).

(If one do not remove the examples that some times are added, then the section All-Steinway Schools would perhaps soon contain all the over 125 All-Steinway Schools and the section Steinway Artists would perhaps soon contain all the over 1,600 Steinway Artists). --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Warrants template

Your experimental template, being built in userspace, describing Steinway's royal warrants, is lacking in references. If you take it live without references, into Wikipedia space, I will nominate it for deletion. It needs references for every royal name. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny to see that you are spying on me.[9] I was actually a little curious about how eager you were about commenting on the template, and if you really would comment on an unfinished template on a user's personal page. And yes, I know there have to be references. And yes, I know that you are trying to remove a lot of things from the Steinway article, which isn't negative about Steinway.

I am still waiting for your very own result on Talk:Steinway & Sons#Close paraphrasing tag. Considering your comment above about edits on a personal user's page it seems you have plenty of time. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken article request

Regarding your kind words on ACJensen's request on my talk page, I've replied on ACJensen's talk page. Thank you! Rob T Firefly (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rating of an article

Hello, Peoplefromarizona. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chzz ► 16:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest on piano topics

I reverted a change you made to Wm. Knabe & Co., a piano manufacturer. Because of your extensive promotion of Steinway & Sons, I believe you are an employee of Steinway. I do not think you should edit the articles of Steinway competitors such as Knabe, Bösendorfer, C. Bechstein Pianofortefabrik, Blüthner, Fazioli and others. Please read WP:Conflict of interest to see how your connection to Steinway limits your editing practice at Wikipedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Because of your extensive promotion of Steinway & Sons..." – where?

"I believe you are an employee of Steinway" – just because I write a lot about Steinway?

PS: What about Talk:Steinway & Sons#Close paraphrasing tag. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fanoftheworld for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. TJRC (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked shortly after so it is impossible for me to finish what I was writing. Here is my draft --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC):[reply]

I see that there before has been sockpuppet-talking about User:Fanoftheworld. It has been said that User:Fanoftheworld and Steve... should be the same person because when S stopped contributing to Wikipedia
WP:SPA
WP:OWN
User:TJRC says that I am "dedicated to promoting Steinway & Sons". I am writing about Steinway & Sons which is a renowned piano company. Of course I can not write some negative things about Steinway if I don't know any negative things about Steinway. To write neutral or positive things about Steinway is not the same as promoting Steinway. When I write about Steinway I do never use "weasel words" and I always try to have a "neutral point of view"; that is one of the reasons that I have used a lot of time to find and add secondary references in the introduction and infobox of the article. (As I see it, if I should be promoting Steinway my contributions would include "weasel words" and my contributions would conflict with "neutral point of view").

August 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Steinway & Sons. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"attack other editors"? Are you refering to the headline? --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. TJRC (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The headline was a question ("Disruptive behaviour again?") and it did not mention other users. So the headline is not a personal attack. Please, be careful when interpreting the Wikipedia guidelines. Do you think that the headline "Sockpuppetry case" also is a personal attack, because it portray me in a negative way? --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have 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 you are not a sock puppet, and 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?!)} 00:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Peoplefromarizona (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I can read that one user has accused me for being a so-called sockpuppet. It is very difficult for me to know what to do, because there are just some guessings and assumptions and no specific proves written by User:TJRC on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fanoftheworld and there is no reason written here. Doesn't Wikipedia normally write a reason for blocking a user and what about "innocent until proven guilty"... --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I concur with the conclusions of the sockpuppet report. This account has too many connections to the prior blocked account User:Fanoftheworld to be operated by a different person. If you wish to be unblocked, you need to log in to your first account and request an unblock there. Jayron32 01:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Peoplefromarizona (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I asked "Doesn't Wikipedia normally write a reason for blocking a user and what about 'innocent until proven guilty'"?? I am a little shocked that a user's guessings and assumptions (and no specific proves) can bring to a block of a user. And that a user can be blocked after few minutes and therefore doesn't have time to defend himself. Is the reason for blocking me nothing else than an administrators guessings and assumptions after having read one user's guessings and assumptions??

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. You might have a leg to stand on if you didn't also have several other accounts (now blocked). --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Peoplefromarizona (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

- What did "Checkuser" said - please give me a reason for the block.?
- "You might have a leg to stand on..." - sorry but I don't know what that means.?
- Why is this block "... necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia"?[10] Peoplefromarizona (talk) 9:53 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Your original account, Fanoftheworld (talk · contribs) is blocked. You cannot evade that block by creating other accounts. Period. TN X Man 02:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.