Jump to content

User talk:Piano non troppo/Archive:HowGreenwasMyArchive

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


Hot sauce changes

Hello:

You wrote:

"Hi. The changes you are making to "See also" is not what that section is for. "See also" is used to link to other related information on the same subject. It is not an opportunity to WP:LINKSPAM Wiki articles with every brand of hot sauce. The only links that should be added should relate directly to the article topic. Not to a similar product. Thanks, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)"

You are incorrect in misreferring to the addition of internal links as spam WP:LINKSPAM. Spam refers only to External link spamming; there is no internal link spamming, and Wikifying articles with high relevance links to article topics is never spamming. Per Wikipedia guidelines "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."

Per the See also section guidelines located at Wikipedia Layout, "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Wikipedia is about knowledge and learning; a learning resource, and not about the prevention of learning. Section titles such as "Related products", "competitors" and "additional brands" are very common in many, many articles, and as such, inclusion of additional related products in the See also section is absolutely valid, absolutely relevant and vital for the completeness of the online encyclopedia.

68.116.43.92 (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

By "linkspamming", I was referring broadly to any gratuitous list of companies, products, rock bands, etc., which are not integrated into the article text. "See also" is meant to provide a limited number of links to articles which treat the topic in more detail (or are more general). So the link you were adding to Scoville scale, was appropriate, since it helped understand the topic of the article itself: a brand of hot sauce.
But the other sauces are not appropriate. By your logic, any fan could insert their favorite rock group as a "See also" indiscriminately into literally thousands of articles. And rock star articles would have thousands of "See also" links. That wouldn't be to anyone's benefit.
In my local stores, there are literally scores of commercial hot sauces. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a "collection of internal links" [1].
Listing some sauces as "Competitors" as you did here [2] implies that Wikipedia does not regard other sauces as competitors.
The place for an exhaustive list of hot sauces would be an article called "List of hot sauces". (Which actually sounds like a good idea, btw.)
Piano non troppo (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

An example (Hot sauce continued)

Here is part of the text from the article Laundry detergent. Per what you wrote above, this data should (erroneously) be omitted. It is better to include data for users. Per the See also section guidelines located at Wikipedia Layout, "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question."

Brands of laundry detergent

Worldview and perspective is very important.68.116.43.92 (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a couple things going on here. The more I consider, the better I like the idea of creating a new page List of hot sauces. It would have a sortable table with these items: Sauce name, Sauce ingredients, Sauce taste, Scoville scale, Country of manufacture, bottle type. This would be helpful for those going to a store and thinking "I wonder what this is like?" (I have a "Eaton's Jamaican Scotch Bonnet Pepper Sauce" which I bought and tasted. It's fantastic, but it's the hottest sauce I have ever tasted, and I'm afraid to use it.)
Next. Wading through the endless Wiki guidelines often isn't as time-effective as finding a good example article and copying what it does. This technique runs into difficulty when the article that's copied itself has problems. If a method appears in a "Featured Article", then there's a strong chance it follows all the rules. Laundry detergent is not a Featured Article. In fact, looking at the discussion page, it's never been given a classification, and the comments come from anonymous editors. No working group claims it. The article has five requests for citation. So, it's about as far from a Featured Article -- in terms of being reviewed -- as it gets. It's better to talk straight to the Wikipedia rules, policies and guidelines ... but in lieu of that, a high quality article.
Aaaaannnnddd next. The list in Laundry detergent has almost no citations. Some of the products have no Wiki links either. That means they are possibly non-notable, unencyclopedic. Speaking as an editor who emphasizes anti-vandalism, this detergent list has warning signs written all over it. If a vandal added "Piano non troppo's Super Soap" ... how would other editors ever figure out it was wrong? (Note that "Clear Spring Laundry Liquid" has taken the opportunity to describe their detergent in detail, and to give a generic external link to their website. That's spamming.)
If you are any kind of authority in hot sauces, I'd encourage you to start the List of hot sauces article. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have followed my own suggestion and created the page List of hot sauces. If it's agreeable, then it would seem appropriate at this point to remove the incomplete lists from individual products? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


re User:Kateshortforbob#Where to take a dispute

Hi Piano non troppo - Regarding the dispute you are having, I'm not sure how useful I will be, but I'll give it a go anyway! Without getting into the content issue for the moment, I think arbitration would not be useful at this stage. Arbitration is, as I understand it, the final step in dispute resolution. From what I have read, the Arbitration Committee doesn't like to take on cases unless and until other efforts have been made first. Also, arbitration cases seem to be large, lengthy, complicated, and often messy, so it might be best to go for a more lightweight process first.

I see that the editor with whom you are in disagreement is currently the subject of a WP:ANI report (1) which appears not unrelated to this. User:Neutralhomer has also announced his/her retirement. I would agree with some of the editors there that reverts made due to content issues should probably not be labelled as vandalism, but if the editor has retired, that is no longer the immediate problem.

While mediation may not be necessary or possible at this point, I would suggest one of the dispute resolution mechanisms, such as a Request for comment or third opinion would be helpful to gain consensus on the talk page of one of the articles concerned. Once consensus has been tested on the first article, I imagine it would make it easier to gain consensus on other articles, perhaps through the TV stations Wikiproject. If you or other editors are concerned about the how the project deals with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then I would bring it up on the Wikiproject's talk page for discussion first of all (if this hasn't been done already), and if that doesn't get anywhere, the content noticeboard or one of it's sub-noticeboards, depending on the specific issue concerned. --Kateshortforbob talk 13:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a star coming your way, as soon as I can figure out which to give you. I had no idea anything was going on in ANI, thank you. I particularly appreciate your research and clarification. I got involved in this after making changes to a few articles which (I imagined) removed non-notable bio material. When it seemed to spiral out of control, I had no clear concept how to proceed at various points, or whether to do anything at all. You provided much-needed timely advice. With Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, I've alerted WP:TVS of possible pending changes.[6] I'm hoping that will foster some minimal agreement along the lines of the RfA. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


WBAL/WMAR

You know it is really sad when I am pulled out of retirement by concerned users and have to come back to fix your vandalism....continued vandalism. Your ideas were immediately shot down in RFA, ANI, TVS, and mediation just plain wasn't needed, but you seem to think that you have the approval to go and delete things you don't. You can't quote policy cause there is none about this topic, you can't cite any post where there is consensus with you cause there is none, it takes concerned users emailing me and me coming out of retirement to address this. This is sad.

Now you have one of two options...1) stop or 2) be blocked. I will no deal with your overriding the system, blatantly lying, and blatant vandalism, especially when it brings me back to a place I left and feel happy about leaving. So, you have your choices. I would pick number 1 if I were you. - Neutralhomer (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been identified as a sockpuppet.[7] [8]. You have been blocked for disruptive editing. Your use of editing tools has been removed. You make random, unfounded accusations. What I don't understand is why you haven't been permanently blocked. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You dig something up, that everyone knows from 2008 that has nothing to do with your blatant vandalism of numerous pages in numerous areas of Wikipedia including Rachael Ray, which I took the liberty of reverting. You will be blocked soon enough for your actions, even if it is just 24 hours for 3RR. Ya see, I have nothing to lose. I don't care about Wikipedia or what goes on here. If I did, I wouldn't have retired in disgust at people like you. Stop, or be blocked. The choice is yours. - Neutralhomer (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
What you are is an editor who believes that by abuse and intimidation, you will be allowed to add material that is contrary to Wiki guidelines. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Still, has nothing to do with your blatant vandalism....and isn't true. Also, what Wiki guidelines? You can't cite any, because they don't exist. I pray for you, I really do, cause you need it. - Neutralhomer (talk)
You continue your vandalism, do you want to be blocked? You are a clear vandal with nothing better to do than edit war. You will be blocked. - Neutralhomer (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


Band official sites as spam

Hi, you've been deleting external links to official band sites from the articles of musicians who are members of those bands. I see that removal may be appropriate, but I don't agree with you're rational; it should be WP:ELNO (item#13 specifically), not WP:SPAMLINK. Here is why: these types of external links are not advertising for unrelated parties, they are actually related to the musician's direct and substantial musical efforts AND they are offical sites. It is not "SPAM", it merely "ELNO". Per ELNO item #13 if the official band site has a page about the musician it could be externally "deep" linked. BTW, here are is another article you may consider: Jon_Bon_Jovi which has an external link to the band site Bon Jovi. - Steve3849 18:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but you did the same with Miley Cyrus pages. It seems fair remove an artist's official website but not a song's lyrics. I think that is not any violation since the ones that were on those pages were licensed by MTV. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, two types of issues:

Issue A: removing external links to sites with copyrighted lyrics. Strictly following international law as stated by the Berne Convention, Wikipedia should not reference an external link where copyright has not been explicitly proved. Effectively, for example, that means all current English language "lyrics only type sites".[9] There are musical groups that do not own the publishing rights to their own songs, so, being very strict and careful, even lyric links to a group's official site are not allowed in their own Wiki article. (I think that's going too far, and I never delete those ... since ... after all ... who loses? The group? The copyright holder? Aren't they likely to have similar financial interests? Is anybody *really* going to complain about the free publicity? Let alone sue Wikipedia? Unlikely.)

However MTV, like YouTube, is not necessarily connected to the artists and copyright holders. What I found suspicious was, for example, on Ready, Set, Don't Go, the external link page didn't actually have any lyrics, but "Apologies! We're now working on getting lyrics from another provider onto MTV.com. Please check back soon." A day after our discussion, going back to check the exact wording for our discussion, I found the page has now been entirely removed by MTV.[10]. At the moment, three days later, the "apology message" is back. (But not the lyrics.)

Maybe we might wait to see what reappears on the MTV site, when that happens?

Issue B: Picking the correct rational for link removals. You're right Steve3849, that WP:ELNO might be a better choice for an explanation, and I'll probably change that in the future.

It's been quite a long time since I changed my "basic" set of justifications. Early on, I learned which Wiki guidelines were complicated and ambiguous for the new anon IP editors that I often meet with Mike's Wiki Tool. A couple Wiki guidelines, as I recall, were instant kindling for a flame war. So I just avoided them. The open question is: What purpose does the edit justification serve? And, of course, its serves many purposes. The one I choose to emphasize is giving a simple answer to new editors that is likely to be readily comprehended without ruffling feathers. But, since you found it disconcerting, I'll shift to an explanation that more solid grounding for experienced editors. Regards to you both, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

O.K. I see your point but I think that MTV is licensed since it is a channel and it lists Hollywood Records as the label, well at least before the lyrics went missing. I'll check back with you if they have re-appeared. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

::I found a copy of a version of that page *before* the one we've been talking about, reading "We are looking for a source". That the page that was removed had lyrics, and read "©LAVENDER ZOO MUSIC", "Lyrics provided by Gracenote". The company MTV was working with appears to infringe artistic copyright "Much of the information in the Gracenote Music Recognition Service (originally known as CDDB) was initially submitted by users ". I.e., they appear not to have checked copyright status before they used material. In fact, they don't mention the word "copyright" anywhere on their FAQ page.[11] Regards, (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For those of you following this, I got an opinion from the admin who often deals with copyright violation that MTV and Gracenote *both* were probably acting properly, etc. (The same admin suggests in passing that it might be best, as Ipodnano05 and I were agreeing, to leave the links out until they have valid information.) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
On reflection, another postscript (for Steve3849). There's a certain question of intent, with these external links. Were they placed by a marketing department or advertising agency representative? Then probably they are WP:SPAM, i.e., the intent was not to contribute helpful encyclopedic information, but to insert external links to commercial sites. Are we always likely to be able to reasonably determine the intent? Probably not. But a fan who places exactly the same link on a dozen Wiki pages can be assumed not to be making a thoughtful contribution, either. True, their motivation isn't commercial, but it too is WP:SPAM, likely being promotion. On the whole, I'm inclined to stick with WP:SPAM. It deals with motive, rather than forcing later editors to constantly review external links to ascertain whether the content is still sufficiently on-target. "Motive" works for me personally, because a large proportion of my edits are anti-vandalism — new anon IPs, where I can discern quite regular patterns. Examining the history of named editors, it's often true that they work in patterns as well. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


Ga review of Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)

It does not seem to be appropriate for you to undertake this review as you have been involved in disputes about it. I am asking you to withdraw, and I undertake to conduct the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I had only questioned external links:
1) Whether an lyrics link site was in violation of international law,
2) Whether it is appropriate to add an external link to a Web page that does not mention the song.
I addressed external links first, because they are the least subjective. The article as a whole has significant problems, which I started to address in the review. The body of the text is 3700 words long, only 64 of which discuss the composition, instruments, production of the song. ("The song has a moderate electro-synth groove and it is composed in the key of C minor with a tempo of 116 beats per minute.[8] The song is set in common time, and Gaga's vocal range spans from the high-note of G3 to the lower base of E♭5.[8] The song has the following chord progression, Ab–Cm–Fm–Db–Ab–Cm–Fm–Db–Db.") Only Lady Gaga is mentioned as having any significant artistic role, i.e., it's a PR piece for Lady Gaga.
It is so long and excessively detailed, it's unlikely that more than 1 in 50 readers would read the entire thing. That is, it is an example of one of the least useful song articles that I am aware of in Wikipedia. It is bloated with critical reviews, inexplicable and unexplained details about dozens of remixes, and other intricate detail that would not appear in a full-length published biography of Lady Gaga. It is unencyclopedic and unuseful.
I'm a professional editor, and have no difficulty separating editing guidelines from my personal taste. If Lady Gaga were paying me to write the article, I would make the same comments. This article is no service to her, or to readers, the existing material needs to be trimmed by about 75%, and the article expanded to include central issues of song production. Your request is refused. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Well in that case continue. Your review will be (is being) watched closely by other GA reviewers. Pyrotec (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
There is an interesting option, it may not be practical, but ... contact Lady Gaga's agent, or get her opinion, directly. I sincerely don't believe the current article is to well-suited to the benefit of Wikipedia, its readers, or to the artist. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
One contact that may not be directly involved with fan mail: "Phone: (310) 235-4700 Fax: (310) 235-4900 Contact: SONGS OF UNIVERSAL INC. ATTN: COPYRIGHT MANAGER 2440 SEPULVEDA BLVD STE 100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90064-1712" Piano non troppo (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The opinions of Lady GaGa's agent don't mean a thing here, but the opinions of other GA reviewers who are watching this review do. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

An interesting aspect of being a professional editor in a large company is that the opinions of other professional editors are often quite similar. This article fails the basic purpose of writing it: to be readable. Check with another professional editor at a major publishing house, or a Fortune 500 company, if you will. I suggested that if professional editorial judgment doesn't suit you, you consult with the artist's representative. You apparently decline to do this, also.

Given that you, Jezhotwells, decline either professional editorial standards or the wishes of the artist, and that it's unlikely that most readers will read more than a small part of the article, I honestly wonder what it is you think this article accomplishes. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent what I said. I suggest that you review the article against the criteria at WP:WIAGA. I look dforward to reading your review when you get around to it. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I read it, and reread it, before adding my comment. Only 2% of the article describes the song itself, and there is almost no mention of instruments, artists, equipment or process of making the song or video. It is wildly unbalanced. That is in the criteria. It fails criterion 3, under "What is a good article?".
You are walking down a established and dead-end road. That you can demonstrate an article follows "criteria" doesn't mean it's readable or interesting. Do a survey, not of your group of reviewers, but of random people who have read the article. I will bet you hard cash that less than 10% read the whole thing. What is the purpose of an article that is not read? Piano non troppo (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
And I absolutely decline your review and your biased attitude and comments. I request you to step down from reviewing the article again becuase this matter and your biased attitude as a fellow editor has been notified to GAR. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I have not shown bias. I'm a professional editor, I have professional standards, and I use them. That you *perceive* bias in constructive comments, and even in objective statements of fact indicates that I can't work with you. I'll leave you with this: The writing for which you pat yourself on the back[12] (videos) is fair at best, and in the article in question is weak, and shows a superficial understanding of the topic that is gleaned from fan and public relation sources. When my many acquaintances in the academic community scorn Wikipedia content, rest assured, they are referring to unprofessional work such as yours which admits of no professional criticism. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
"... unprofessional work such as yours ..." What? So you're saying that 33 Good Articles, 1 FA and 2 FL's is not good enough? Correct me if I'm wrong but you have none of the above to your credit and say your criticism is "professional". Please tread water more carefully. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What Piano non troppo says about the article is true of many articles. However, this article was being considered for GA, not FA. It is a work in progress, and GA criteria are far below professional work. Piano non troppo is entitled to dislike anything here, but not entitled to lay blame for it on any one editor. As a contributor to the article and its talk page, Piano non troppo bears a share of responsibility for whatever quality the article has. Finally, calls for Piano non troppo to step aside are out of order; they amount to ownership. --Una Smith (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Piano non troppo. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SpitfireTally-ho! 11:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Piano non troppo. Looking into the WQA, I feel I must say to you that "pulling rank" by referring to any status or position you may have outside Wikipedia will intimidate some editors, but also will tend to antagonize many more. Some editors here may well have far greater status than you do. Also, that in some cases you may be dealing with children. Please, refrain from personal comments. --Una Smith (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Una Smith. I'm sensitive to the several points you made. In Wikipedia, editorial status is based on ... I'm not quite sure. Social jockeying? That has no interest for me. Wikipedia has a deep flaw allowing social cliques to dictate terms contrary to the core values. I "pulled rank", but as an experiment to see whether there was any way to stop a headlong rush into accepting marketing publicity as encyclopedic. I want to be clear. I am not only an editor, but I have peer-reviewed articles in professional and academic publications. When I say that the article in question does not meet standards, I mean that no one I worked for would accept it for publication. Wikipedia has a fundamental dilemma: How to allow contributions from non-professionals without causing the result to be unprofessional. In the case of articles for rock stars, the situation is out of control. Anything written by a publicist or reviewer becomes practically incontestable. As a result, 3700 word articles that simply parrot popular culture. Wide-eyed idolatry for a single star. Or to put it in the word of a Wiki editor some years ago, "Hagiography". Not a reflection on religious saints, but those who imagine that media stars are. The article topic is a song, not "Every Wonderful Precious Moment of Lady Gaga On Stage". Somehow what I find most unpalatable? A GA social clique in dazed tunnel vision. They aren't, or aren't representing, professional musicians, or sound engineers, or video engineers. There's no recognition for the substantial contributions many artists made to the song's success. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I do understand. Many articles about pop culture are written by consumers of pop culture, not creators, and not academics who study pop culture. This creates significant POV problems in many articles and it is an uphill battle to be the minority voice for another POV. One of the hallmarks of POV is that those who hold the local majority POV often cannot see their own POV. There are ways to handle a content dispute, but pulling rank is not one of them. At least not pulling rank from outside Wikipedia. What matters to many editors here is the number of edits, articles worked on that have met DYK, GA, FA. Number of friends made by trading favors, if you are into that. Number of people impressed by your poise, good sense, good work. Sound familiar? In some projects there is a tendency for editors to declare credentials, and for editors with declared credentials to close ranks against others. I have been told anyone who doesn't declare credentials doesn't have any. Yeah, right. To handle a content dispute you can use any noticeboard devoted to content issues, you can use mediation, you can use tact and clear writing to persuade others of your point of view. Most of all, you can provide sources. For articles about popular culture, behind the scene sources are particularly scarce. Many Wikipedia editors seem unaware that trade magazines even exist. The bottom line is that unless someone brings those sources to the discussion, pop culture articles necessarily are limited to what consumers see and hear. --Una Smith (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Stanwyck image

Thanks for offering clarification, but it's not necessary. The images do not both meet guidelines or image use policy. The unfree image fails Wikipedia:NFCC#1. There are 35 images of Stanwyck on Commons. Most are of poor quality and I would not suggest using most of them unless there was absolutely no choice. Some of them are suitable. The Lady of Burlesque image serves the basic encyclopedic purpose of showing what Stanwyck looked like and by the image use policy is satisfactory. A non-free replacement is therefore not acceptable. Rossrs (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. There are several problems with your position.
1) Many of the Creative Commons are of too poor quality to publish. I.e., they do NOT meet Wikipedia:NFCC#1 "quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose", because they are mostly, in fact, not of professional standard.
2) Of those that are, there's reason to question that they were taken from a legitimate source. I.e., it's no more proper to use an image from a trailer that was copied from a VHS tape than it is to copy from a Laserdisc cover. (Of those that I checked, none actually specified the source as being a physical piece of film that lacked copyright. We have only contributor Thirdship's word for this, and you'll notice that contributor has been repeatedly warned about copyright violation.[13]) Oppositely, I can say exactly where my scan came from (and in fact, I did, in the justification for the scan).
3) The image I published shows Stanwyck in higher resolution, and with better tonal quality, than any of the images I saw in the Creative Commons. If I were Stanwyck's agent or her family, or the Turner Corporation there's little question which represents her in a better light. I wonder what "greater good" is served by a poor representation of Stanwyck?
There is no other image in that Creative Commons set -- that I noticed -- that definitely does satisfy copyright and quality standards. Therefore, you have no argument. Piano non troppo (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
You do realize that you are accusing Rossrs of violating copyright law here? He is the one who uploaded the screenshot, not someone named Thirdship. The image you insist on removing is licensed as a free use image in the public domain. The one you uploaded is not free use, and you inappropriately claim on the image use rationale that there are no free equivalent images, which is not true. Please stop trying to replace free use images with those that are non-free. The point is that are many free-use images on Commons and inserting a non-free image violates all sorts of Wikipedia guidelines and policies for image use. There is no point in trying to argue "But my image is better". There are sufficient free use images available to work here. There is no need for the one you uploaded. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not accusing Rossrs of wrongdoing — That would imply that he is violating copyright *intentionally*. I don't believe he (was) doing that. He has made a reasonable, honest error.
I *am* saying that Thirdship has made a mistake in uploading the images to the Commons. My guess is that Thirdship didn't understand the law (or didn't care about it, judging from the number of copyright violation notices on their talk page).
I believe that the images mentioned in the Creative Commons for Stanwyck are: 1) Not in the public domain and 2) Improperly licensed. From the image quality, it appears that contributor Thirdship took the images from videotape sources. Trying to get to the "quick" of this discussion: Somewhere between film stock (that was most certainly copyrighted by Hollywood studios) and the Creative Commons, the proper copyright license was — improperly — removed. The fact that it was improperly removed does NOT mean that the images are now in the public domain. It means that every copy made after the copyright notice was removed is illegal. Where was the error made? That's the other part of my point. Contributor Thirdship left so little information about the source, it's impossible to determine whether and how this happened. The burden of proof is on him, he can't just wave his hands and say that his source was a "trailer". Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) We seem to be disagreeing at the most fundamental level, so to comment on your comments :

1. There is nothing at Wikipedia:NFCC#1 to say that a "professional" quality is required, but rather a "quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose". We disagree over what constitutes "sufficient". As Stanwyck can be clearly seen and identified by the lower quality image, I believe that is "sufficient". If you look at Jessica Lange you'll see an image that is generally accepted as "sufficient". I believe it's hideous and if I was Jessica Lange, I'd be donating a good quality free image as a matter or urgency. I don't consider the Lange image to be a benchmark, but there's no denying the Stanwyck image is better than that. "Sufficient" is clearly a word with a range of interpretations.

We have a similar sentiment, if I was Lange's representative, I'd proffer a better image. In fact, it's unclear why this is not already being done on a regular basis by Hollywood and Bollywood agents. This needs to be investigated — what can stars lose by contributing a single high quality photo to the Commons? I must be missing something, it seems as though everybody would "win".
The issue which of Stanwyck image is more photogenic ... is interesting, and I do have a suggestion ... but as you point out, there are more central issues. Let's leave that aside.
It may be as simple as nobody thinking to ask for one. Some of the best free images of living celebrities are currently coming to us via dedicated photographers who attend film premieres and awards shows, and a large number have also been obtained via FlickR thanks to several people releasing them under a free licence. Considering the number of good quality images that have found their way here, I suppose the Jessica photo can be tolerated, and if she's lucky enough to step on the red carpet at exactly the right moment, we may yet have a lovely photograph of her.

2. I'm very familiar with Thirdship, and he is a topic for discussion at another time and place. I have also raised this point a couple of times at Commons as I've uploaded a number of images, and I would like a clear decision. It's never been forthcoming, and perhaps it should be raised again. Images such as these have been subject to deletion discussions at Commons on a case by case basis, and some have been deleted but most have been retained. There does not seem to be a consistent approach or an approach that deals with all images of a particular type. Even so, if there is a question regarding their legitimacy, the discussion should take place there. As long as the images are retained there, users of other projects should be able to trust that they are acceptable and in line with our image use policy, and they should be the first images used. Doubting the legitimacy of the status of these images does not justify the use of an unfree image in their place.

It's a source of frustration that it's difficult in Wiki to collect a group of informed opinions within a reasonable period. I know almost nothing of Thirdship's history. I'm of the opinion — giving only the Stanwyck images and his talk page as support — that Thirdship is involved in only in copyright violation images. One gets in trouble for speculating an editor's motivation, but it seems possible that Thirdship simply saw an opportunity to upload many images from a source, perhaps his own library. His personal justification might have been straightforward: "I had a videotape source, and there was no copyright notice on it, so the Commons can use it." The suspicion falls on those videotape sources. Probably either: they are illegal or Thirdship's copying of them is illegal.
Well, exactly. Very frustrating. I found someone who seemed fairly knowledgeable and helpful at Commons who suggested he get legal advice on the matter, but he never got back to me. I reminded him, he said "oops I forgot", promised again, and then it just died. When I attempted general discussion, it petered out very quickly. Too hard maybe? Thirdship. A few years ago, several editors started uploading images from film trailers, and I thought it looked good (and it seemed to have support) so I started uploading them too. Thirdship, with whom I'd already had some conflict, starting adding them soon after. When he was challenged on it, he threw it back on me and said it was all my fault because he was only copying me. I would have backed him up if he'd shown the tiniest bit of gumption or responsibility, but he didn't and I didn't. I did begin to question if I was on a slippery slope and eventually stopped uploading trailer images, although I've added some film images that meet the criteria, at least to the standard Commons expects/accepts. So that puts Thirdship and myself both into perspective. His motivations are a complete mystery to me. The bottom line is that there are a large number of images on Commons with my name on them as the uploader, nothing clear cut in terms of either policy or practice, and when I've asked for opinions at Commons it becomes a ghost town.
In any event, I would be glad to contribute to a Commons discussion.
I'll remember that, and I'll let you know if it takes place.

3. The aim is not to portray Stanwyck in a flattering light, or to please her estate or Turner Corporation. Our only consideration should be our image use policy.

A highly complicated question, which (as above) isn't central, here. I should mention that I am no fan of Stanwyck personally or of her acting. My intention was simply to raise the article to a higher standard.

4. Films and their trailers do sometimes fall legitimately into the public domain as a result of their copyrights not being renewed. Commons has generally accepted the industry "standard" (for want of a better word) and often it's based on the information conveyed at [14]. As I said, it may be valuable to raise the discussion at Commons, but I've tried more than once, and I'm not trying again. It would be even better if a copyright lawyer could offer an opinion, and get it dealt with once and for all. I don't suppose you know one? I don't - I wish I did. Rossrs (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I do business with a patent lawyer, and have another who is a neighbor. I have a friend and associate who specializes in intellectual property law — but, ahem, he's not the sort who donates time for nothing.
I have at times been a professional systems analyst, if you have not had luck in Commons discussion previously? ... it's been my observation that such impasses are the result of entrenched positions facing off. Let's deal with some problem where we can make progress? I'm not really all that concerned with the 20 minutes I invested posting the Stanwyck image. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Some time ago, perhaps even as long as three years ago, there was an editor here who said he was a copyright lawyer, and I think he was an admin. Can I remember his name? Not if my life depended on it. He may not even be active any longer. Sometimes we do need an expert opinion. There's too much that relies on people making interpretations of policies and then dealing with the issue by consensus. Not every decision should be democratic. I'll wager you didn't expect such a lengthy discussion when you uploaded that image. I've found it interesting. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

a minor mistake

hello Piano non troppo,

I am sorry but you have got the wrong guy. I did not edit Jean-Baptiste Maunier. your dealing with a hacker here. the only page I would ever edit is Leo Deutsch. and that's only because he is my great, grand, grandfather's brother. I am sorry to bother you. I just wanted to let you know.

your friend, --75.18.198.98 (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Babene

Hi, thanks for the message. You're probably referring in part to this edit [15].
An advantage to getting a Wikipedia account (even for a few edits) is that your work can't be mistaken for someone else using the same IP address. Depending on where you live, your IP address might change monthly or yearly ... and there's no telling when.
As for Leo Deusch, if you could add a reliable reference or two, that might be useful and interesting.... Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

hello Piano non troppo, that might be difficult because this information is family knowledge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.198.98 (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

hello Piano non troppo, that might be difficult because this information is family knowledge

your friend,--75.18.198.98 (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Babene

In that case, I'd be tempted to add at least a mention of it to the article's discussion page (but you didn't hear that from me)! One possible value is that a scholar conceivably would want to contact you. Don't leave your email address, of course, unless you want it to be spammed. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In universe

I saw you retagged Honor Harrington with the {{In-universe}} tag. Since the lead of the article is quite encyclopedical (IMHO), perhaps you could tag the problematic section with {{In-universe|section}} instead of the article as a whole? Debresser (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. When I quickly skimmed your message the first time, I misread you as, "The article is quite unencyclopedic" and I was going to agree!
(My original purpose, btw, was simply to replace a removed tag shown to me by an anti-vandalism tool. That is, no deep attention was paid to the article as a whole.)
On inspection, the article is terrible, with 3035 words of original research before the first reference. Only the first sentence is encyclopedic, the rest is not just in-universe, but starting with the second sentence "bears a striking professional resemblance to both real-life..." is unfounded speculation. I'm more inclined to mark the entire article as needing a rewrite, truthfully. With Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations

Sure Happy to help. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Lauren Luke

I did not add any links to the article i checked it using Checklinks and the bot automatically created the title for the article. So if the link was already some sort of spam link the bot just added a title to it, i have not added or removed any links or content from the article except for the non-free picture. Cheers Kyle1278 03:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note

Note that I am trying to revert the vandalism of an Australian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.166.133 (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC) You are welcome to revert the vandalism of 144.132.129.198 yourself.

Np. It took me awhile to find an earlier version w/o vandalism. Cheers. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Issue

I was unaware of the discussion at the time of the modifications. I just thought it was the opinion of an editor or two to do all of that. Sorry about all of the hubbub. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Lol. I was hoping you'd see my message before you were jumped on. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I actually just realized that I replied on your userpage with this: "No, I wasn't aware of that. Feel free to revert them as my class begins in a few minutes. The incentive is there, but only the top 20 editors in the number of edits list seem to be likely to reach the quota. Besides, Rich Farmborough is the only one who will reach the million mark in a few more months," about an hour and a half ago. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
My use of the award was largely to avoid getting nastygrams, particularly from my anti-vandalism with anon IPs; I wanted casual editors to recognize that there's some chance I'm editing reasonably.
It's interesting how big the Wiki community is, even of established editors. I know Rich Farmborough's name, but I don't believe I've written directly to him. Maybe that's another good reason for the award ... "I've never met you, but I recognize you have a similar commitment" type of thing. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a good story concerning his edits. When we last updated the list, he was brought to AN/I for virtually running a bot, by using AWB to do a majority of his edits. It's not like he did over 100,000 edits in December. The issue was resolved, but I do agree that it is weird how big the established community is here. He is the all-time leader of edits so far, outranking at least the bottom 50 percent of the list. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Article commentary

Hi Piano, I noticed that you warned this IP User talk:72.204.67.199 last week about leaving commentary in the article Byzantium . . . but then you did not actually delete the commentary. Why? I'll assume that you just forgot to delete it, so this is just a reminder to make sure to actually fix improper edits after warning those who make them. I've now deleted the IP's commentary. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I left a custom message, rather than a template, probably with some abstract visionary concept that it might encourage that new editor to investigate the ways of Wikipedia — as opposed to using the stock templates, which seem to be effective in quelling response, but at the expense of discouraging new contributors. My experience, now considerable after a year on anti-vandalism patrol, is that Wiki isn't being effective drawing anon IPs into ongoing contributions.
Anyhow, it was just a passing whim. Nothing I do on a regular basis. Regards to you, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


Re: Well-informed versus encyclopedic

Hi thanks for the advice. I can see that those kind of claims need to be sourced, or written in a non-peacock way. The reason I felt they should be added is to indicate that some of these guys are huge figures in dance, even though they have smaller wiki articles than very minor people working in other fields (in academia for example). Obviously the real solution is to expand the articles, but there seems to be lack of editors writing on the dance articles. But the resulting discrepancy between fields is crazy: e.g. someone like Mircea Eliade was far less influential in his discipline than Vaganova was in hers, yet compare their articles. 86.26.0.25 (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You've put your finger on a significant problem with Wikipedia: In a commercial encyclopedia, article length is strongly tied to subject importance. I.e., readers pay experts to emphasize what the readers should know, in the same way that teachers and professors select information. Here in Wikipedia, the emphasis is on what enthusiasts have time to write about, according to the light of what Wikipedia finds acceptable sourcing. Since online sources are easiest, subjects that aren't heavily digitized are under-represented. This drives me to distraction, for example in the Wikipedia sailing articles. It's readily discernible how poor the majority of the articles are. I've begged experts for years to improve them. Instead, I find myself grudgingly contributing from a few hardcopy sources I happen to own. I want experts guiding me ... not me in the role of the blind leading the blind! Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Using store websites such as Amazon are not "spam" when they are used as references. They are used in every featured article on television subjects, which strictly follow wiki guidelines. Ωphois 00:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The "spam" that you keep removing are references about the DVD releases. Removing them makes the information unsourced. Ωphois 00:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Those pages, which you obviously did not check, since you reverted several articles in a few minutes (where I did, in fact make checks), linked to sales pages with no information beyond what the article already contained. You did not just revert TV articles, you reverted record, manga and TV articles.
Contrary to your statement, these FA articles that I just checked have no Amazon links, "Making Waves" [16], "The Simpsons" [17], Yes, Minister, Doctor Who missing episodes
One had links added after the FA assessement, "Aquaman".[18]
"Smallville" had a single set of links at FA, not a link to every episode date ... which is what I was deleting.[19]
"Supernatural" and "Lost (TV series)" did have links at FA.[20]
In conclusion, contrary to your statement, most TV series articles did not have Amazon.com links. Certainly not at FA, and linking to every episode date.
As for the rest of the bulk reverts you did on edits for non-TV articles — you seem to have done them without considering the content at all.
Piano non troppo (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The ones without links to stores are ones generally not requiring references for DVD's. Ωphois 03:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
And in response to your comments on the manga, yes you do need refs for the dates, regardless of whether anyone disputes them or not. That is the basis of wikipedia. Ωphois 03:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it may seem like a sudden change to the article List of Smallville episodes that you've been working on. But my purpose in removing Amazon.com links from several articles was very simply to systematically remove WP:SPAM. That it can be promotion is easily seen in my edits to Rodger Kamenetz[21] and Stephanie Losee [22]. Since those articles are largely edited by a contributor who has almost no other Wikipedia edits, it's easy to see what's going on.
You might ask, "Well, what's the harm?" A couple things. It has to do with the commercial, rather than encyclopedic purpose. First, Amazon.com is not the only place in the world to buy DVDs, CDs and books. So why have Amazon, instead of a hundred other online sites that would like to sell stuff? Second,[23]] not[24] everything[25] needs[26] a[27] reference.[28]
When to quote? WP:REF reads "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." Some things in Wiki articles, such as ratings and reviews, are targets for misleading information, outright lies, or vandalism. Such statements need citations, somebody who hates or loves a show will want proof that someone said something they don't agree with. But facts such as episode name, air date, stars, and synopsis aren't all that controversial.
So now you're thinking, "Ok, it's not completely necessary, but it doesn't seem harmful to reference the show air dates." The problem isn't with them, but with the marketing departments trying to use Wiki to promote their product. Every extra link they get in (they think) gets them more business. I have been the webmaster for two large public knowledgebases, and I can tell you that's how the marketing departments think. It takes a lot to convince a marketing manager that a link does not = free advertising space. (Because most of the time, readers ignore them. True!) This misconception really works against Wikipedia, because people who want to promote something imagine that Wiki links are free advertising. So, once we let Amazon insert references for statements that really nobody questions much, there's nothing stopping their competitors from doing exactly the same thing, and adding hundreds of extra links to articles. One rule applies to them all: There's no reason for a footnote for something that isn't open to question and where the external link doesn't add any substantial encyclopedic material beyond the Wiki article. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Amazon.com is used because it's considered a reliable above the other online sites. And yes, even airdates are often challenged in articles such as for Featured Article nominations, so a reference is needed. That also goes for DVD releases, which Amazon.com is often used as a reference for. Sorry, but if you continue, I will report you to administrators. Ωphois 06:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Not much I can add except a request to stop such edits. While Amazon may be a sales site, it's an important source of reliable information about release dates and other publishing details. Alternatives should be used where available but this is not always the case. And dates and publishing details should always be sourced, so labelling them as unencyclopedic is very wide of the mark. You can't argue that Amazon shouldn't be used because its a commercial site as you used the same reasoning to remove references for the publishers own site!!! A site having a commerical basis does not affect it's ability to be a source. Many websites operate as businesses, so such a suggestion would make many noted and respected sites suddenly unusable. Further removal of the valid and legitimate references on List of Love Hina chapters without adequate discussion on the talk page (or preferably WT:Anime given the scope of your arguement) will be viewed as vandalism, whatever your intentions are as it is destroying the integrity of verifiable claims. If you can replace the amazon links with a reliable source that does the same job then by all means do so. But don't remove the links as spam without replacing them with suitable replacements. This isn't a small editing preference, your viewpoint would effect many, many more articles then the ones you have done this on already.Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
To Dandy Sephy: I'm sorry, but almost every chain in your reasoning is incorrect, or not to the point. An air date for a show that happened five years ago is unlikely to be changed in good faith. In my experience with 10,000 of anonymous IP edits, they are almost never vandalized.
To Ophois: You incorrectly claimed that FA articles always have references on air dates. In fact the article that you are so heavily involved with is almost a unique exception. I gave evidence above, looking at many of the FA articles. You gave no evidence. I will remove cites from articles with dozens of Amazon.com past airdates, and since I have given very specific information about how it is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and examples which you have ignored, I have no problem discussing it with administrators.Piano non troppo (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Alfred Brendel discography

I realise that you are deleting my references to Amazon.com on Alfred Brendel's discography because this is not recommended on Wikipedia. I will slowly add the references back in to a more appropriate site (most likely allmusic) but I would like to revert your edits and do it from there as retaining the code would make this easier. I hope that you approve of me reverting the edits and I vow that I shall change them. I shall revert the edits tomorrow if you don't reply. please leave a talkback on my user talkpage is you answer to this. Thanks--Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 11:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Allmusic would be welcome, because those are independent reviews from a source that has been approved by Wikipedia. But Amazon.com is WP:SPAM. The material is promotional, and not controlled by peer review. For that reason, it is generally not acceptable as an external link. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Piano_non_troppo_removing_references --NeilN talk to me 22:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, NeilN, for letting me know that a discussion had started. I think people's concerns were answered, at least an admin or two appeared to be reasoning with the editor who felt putting dozens of links to commercial pages was necessary to support TV show air dates. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Test edit

I didn't do a test edit, i was trying to fix the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.30.131.23 (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

How do I cite references?

I edited some things on the Ashland, Ohio page and they were deleted because I did not cite my sources, how do I do this and what if there are no sources to cite from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.65.145 (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The "boilerplate" message doesn't cover all situations very well. The issue is that to be listed in a Wikipedia article, a person has to pass the "Wiki notability test". That's automatic if they have a whole article written about them. If not, then a reference needs to be provided showing how they are notable. Without that, a person can't be added. In the article, there are a couple "iffy" entries, "Lorin Andrews" ... probably shouldn't be there. "Barry L. Finlay" definitely should not. I've deleted the definitely not-ok ones, to demonstrate. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image Placeholders

Hey Piano, the relevant discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Image_placeholders. This is also linked from each of the placeholder image pages for future reference. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Muchas Gracias! Piano non troppo (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Knobby tires

The article Knobby tires was revised to address the Too Few Opinions added in [29]. The article now covers both motorcycles and other vehicles, and covers both off-road and street use. Can the Too Few Opinions template be removed? Obankston (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever works is fine. The tag was just a comment in passing. I added a couple suggestions on the discussion page, if they are of interest to anyone, over time. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I removed the {{toofewopinions}} template. I did not remove the stub template because I do not know the procedure for that. Also, I did not see any additional comments on the discussion page. Obankston (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, Obankston. I personally don't add or remove stub tags, so I'm not a good person to ask. I've had a couple of my articles tagged with "stub". I find the stub classifications vaguely annoying, but they probably don't make much difference one way or the other to most readers. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

your revert of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_Road

Hi Piano,

Please could you explain the justification for removing the external link http://dione.no-ip.org/AlexisWiki/Cycling/RomantischeStrasse which I added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_Road? Certainly, I, as a cyclist, would have found one site where with GPX info and all the camping sites where listed, extremely useful, and it was my intent to alert other cyclists to the existence of this labour saving link, so I am curious what the justification is. Many thanks.

Alexis

It seems intuitively like a good idea to add the link, until considering that a couple dozen places are named in the article, and there are probably several popular ways to access each. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a linkfarm to every external site that "might be interesting to someone". And when the external site is promotional, it also becomes WP:SPAM. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Piano, I didn't quite follow you. Certainly one could be more specific that that the link "might be interesting to someone", it is certainly of interest to anyone cycling this route. Also, could you clarify why you think it is promotional? I am not affiliated with any of the campsites and the GPX data promotes nothing that I can see. Well, I won't pursue it further than this, but would appreciate clarification. Thanks!

Agree it's not worth pursuing much, except for your general interest. One link of this kind isn't going to horribly damage Wiki, one way or the other. Generally, lots of folks drop by Wiki long enough to put in an external link to their site, and disappear forever. What Wiki would *like* is for folks to add important encyclopedic material to the text of the Wiki articles itself, only using external links for extensive material that can't be placed in the article, etc. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Piano non troppo. I would like to thank you for your attempt at diplomacy with T-f-o. I appreciate your effort and your time. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You should not be deleting another person work!

Before you start removing others subject lines use your brain and thry to contribute instead to remove and delate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.50.111 (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed an empty section that preceded an unreferenced claim about the skills of ball boys.[30] To avoid having someone remove your work in progress, you can check your work as you go using the "Show preview" button. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Tarik O'Regan edits

I'm confused by your recent edits. Please can you justify your removal of the external link to O'Regan's published works list - [31] from the page. Looking at a random sample of Wiki pages (John Tavener Philip Glass Arvo Part) of other living composers, this seems to be fairly standard procedure and presumably quite helpful. Do you suggest removing all such links from the pages of living composers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutenow (talk • contribs) 04:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

1) Of the external links, an official page is almost always allowed, without any further justification. 2) I misunderstood the purpose of www.chesternovello.com -- I didn't catch that there's an extensive list of his works in the dropdowns. So that one is reasonable. 3) This link, www.thresholdofnight.com, however is not allowed because it doesn't *directly* relate to the topic of the article. If this Wikipedia policy was not in place, then artists and record companies would use the person's Wiki article as an excuse to insert dozens of external links to their products. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a linkfarm to anything that someone "might find useful", and Wiki especially sensitive to commercial use WP:SPAM.
Other examples of how this article is going over the line into WP:SPAM are adding the photographer's name to the photo, use of the © symbol, and the attempt to insert references and external links ... to his great-grandfather (!). (Notability is not established in Wikipedia by association.) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about 3) www.thresholdofnight.com. However, the link to William Rowan Hamilton is a strong point of interest for those interested in O'Regan, not to mention the link between music and mathematics, and has been documented many times on the web - notably here [32] and here [33] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutenow (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue on distant relatives is from WP:BIO. A person is not notable because they are related to someone notable. So, for example the husband of a famous film star is not necessarily notable. Mention of immediate relatives is usually allowed (father, son, brother), however more distant relationships are almost never held to be worth mentioning. Wikipedia is also not a genealogical site. (If you do the numbers, almost everyone is related distantly to famous people, and possibly to very many of them.)
Right now, the article is looking pretty good, in fact, I'd prefer that the text of his biography was about twice as long. Forewarned is forearmed, though, in other places it's still getting a little close to WP:SPAM. Example ... I'm not 100% conversant with the Wiki rules, but I believe adding the three record covers is not allowed — Wikipedia is *extremely* fussy about fair use justifications, and generally one per article is allowed. Also, not to pick nits, and I don't intend to do anything personally, but the copyright justification on his photo appears to be incorrect (probably unintentionally). It reads "Inside CD booklet and various promotional materials", but as a sometime professional photographer, I can definitely state that the photo did *not* come from a CD booklet. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I understand the rationale behind not trying to make a relative "notable" just because of the fame of their spouse. In this case, however, there appear to be two "notable" people (Tarik O'Regan and William Rowan Hamilton}, both with fairly well written Wiki pages, and an external documentation of the link between them. No, it's not "vital" information, but it is of wider interest, perhaps to those particularly interested in music and mathematics.

I'll look over your other points, and will try and clean up in due course. As you say, the article is looking pretty good now, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutenow (talk • contribs) 05:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

William Carey University copyvios

I semi-protected the article for one week to stem the tide of copyvios. Noticed that in your talk message to the main account (which I've indefblocked, as he's obviously the same as the IP who tried to put it back in) that you said he's been editing it under other usernames as well--what other accounts? Let me know so I can indef the lot. Blueboy96 17:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Paparazzi

Hello, Piano non troppo. You have new messages at Talk:Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Piano non troppo. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Amazon and Smallville

Show me where it says "Amazon links are not allowed". Because there isn't any place. Commercial websites are not preferred, but nothing says you cannot use them for basic information like the release date of a DVD box set. Now, if you have another, more reliable source, then please feel free to supplement it where it best fits. I would appreciate it if you didn't blanket remove links from the page that are used to source release dates. Yes, release dates must be sourced, because they are easily challengeable. Now, if you don't have a better source to be used, but still have a problem with Amazon, then I would suggest you start a discussion at WP:RS regarding the use of Amazon, or other commercial websites, as sources for release dates when non-commercial sources cannot be found to cite the information. This way, a centralized discussion can take place instead of one person's interpretation of WP:SPAM.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

In practice, release dates and air dates are almost never vandalized. The other possibility for changes is that release dates are somehow contested. What is your evidence that this happens frequently? Piano non troppo (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Being "almost never vandalized" has nothing to do with being challenged. Being challenged means that someone questions if the date is correct. How am I supposed to know, or trust that season 1 of a show, which aired 10 years ago, was actually released when the page claims it was if there is no source to verify it? This isn't like contesting the color of the sky, it's contesting when someone "claims" a show was released on DVD. I have never seen any page pass FAC with unsourced dates like that. The same goes for release dates for episodes. I don't source every episode, as one link in the table can typically suffice, but the same is true. How do I know when a showed aired, especially when shows don't air all 20+ episodes consecutively, but have breaks in between.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't know if it's Amazon you just have a problem with or what. As stated, I don't care if the source is replaced for a better one, just that a source is there because one needs to be there. It a figure easily manipulated if someone wanted to. Anyone could come in and change one number and we'd never know if it was right or wrong if we didn't have a source to verify it. Do you have a problem with The Futon Critic?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
You may not be familiar with Wikipedia vandalism. A major purpose of Wikpedia references is to stop vandals from changing numbers that have political, social or economic significance. None of those factors have a role in TV show air dates. In consequence, the air dates are rarely vandalized.
This isn't a discussion about a single link to Amazon, but about many links. Links that add 20% to the size of the article. I don't see compelling evidence that any link to Amazon is encyclopedic, let alone many links. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
So because YOU think that many links providing RELIBLE information takes up too much space, we cannot use it now? This is wikipedia, not gogreenia. These links to Amazon are encyclopedic BECAUSE it provides a source. Were not just making up some random date. And having one link will not suffice for the other dates that had nothing to do with the first date. And what is this about you reporting me? The link you provided me with says nothing about me or the page or you.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

→ Bignole and ChaosMaster16, I note on ChaosMaster16's talk page that you two have an association. Also that ChaosMaster16 was blocked last December for edit warring. I'm not to the point of asking for another block, but if you continue your deceptive personal attacks, I will do so. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you freaked out last time I did anything without consulting you, I'm here to tell you that I started Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Multiple use of commercial links.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

UW re 3RR violation at List of Smallville episodes

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Smallville episodes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

And yes, I'm posting this to the user pages of both parties involved in the dispute. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It does not, however pertain to vandalism, which is what is happening here. Two associated editors are replacing the same external link WP:SPAM information with little or no justification. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

FireBird

Hi,

I noticed you reverted a change I did on the page I created on a French Chess player of the 18th century, Jacques François Mouret. I indicated erroneosly that the analysis of the games were made with Rybka (a chess engine). I was using Rybka till last month (not anymore), thus I wrote Rybka automatically, but it is not correct since I used a new engine called FireBird 1.2 w 32. I suppose you reverted the page thinking at vandalism... I know, FireBird sounds a bit like a porn movie :-), but it is actually a chess engine ( http://www.chesslogik.com/FireBird.htm). I probably had to log in with my user and explain the changes. Sorry, my fault. Anyway, I reverted the changes back again. Thanks for your attention.

Cheers

Sersunzo (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I did look at the site, and recognized you were working to a constructive plan. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Unclear edit

Hello, Piano non troppo. You have new messages at Xeworlebi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Personal accusations replaced

In this edit, Collectionian completely removed a discussion on her talk page, while at the same time adding her version of what happened in the discussion very publically to WT:FILM [34], [35] Since I feel that being underhanded is a central aspect of the defense of pop culture references, I copy verbatim what Collectionian didn't wish people to read:

Quote:

Hi, I thought maybe a side comment on air date references might be in order, since you and I were just agreeing in a WP discussion that it would be good to review articles once a year to make sure they were up to FA standard?

Taking an article at random, I typically find that something like 20% of the links no longer work or no longer match the statement in the article. Articles like those for rock stars, with 100s of references, take a very long time to check. So ... nobody checks them. I can see that many of those links haven't been checked for years.

A couple links to highly contestable material, such as gross sales are important -- and they are subject to vandalism and difference of opinion. But many other kinds of links for minor, uncontested, information just obstructs checking the few bits of information that should be checked on a regular basis. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk)

Sorry, but I completely disagree. To be FA, ALL bits must be referenced beyond the truly uncontestable (i.e. X is a film). This is per actual Wikipedia policy and guideline. None of the information you want to remove sourcing from is "minor" nor "uncontested" nor does it "obstruct" any sort of checking. There are quite a few episode lists I've been involved with where during actual clean up and referencing it was found that almost all were wrong, and where, if you have them on your watchlist, you will see them frequently vandalized and/or changed because someone contests it because they "remember" it better than any source. If people can bother checking it during the FAC (and they do), then reviewers can bother themselves to check it during an annual check. I don't deal with bios, and that's a whole other issue since it has potential BLP issues. For television series, its airdates ARE major bits of information. For an episode list, the dates the episodes air are MAJOR aspects of those episodes. I was, quite honestly, disappointed to see it was you saying we don't need to worry about referencing. And to call it "spam" is extremely insulting to dozens of editors in the media areas who worked their butts off getting those articles to that level. Yes, it would be nice if there were more third-party sites for such referencings, but often there are not and we are lucky to find any reliable one at all. Without those dates being referenced, such lists will not pass FL and will be demoted if they are removed.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
It unfortunate that more Wiki editors don't have a chance to be "Webmasters for a week" for a large knowledgebase such as Wikipedia. My disposition toward references (as well as toward over-wiki-linking) is based on similar experiences, the practical side of how much they are used. It's very difficult, for example, to convince a marketing manager in a major company that putting dozens of links to his new product won't *vastly* increase the eyeballs seeing the new product. But in practice what happens is readers respond to a maximum of about 10 links a page.[36]
The issue of references has the same problem. The number of people checking a typical reference is very few -- life is short. The ones that are "hot" are ones where financial gain or fame are involved (movie gross, awards, birsthdays). The ones that aren't "hot", added in dozens, don't help much, because the diligent editors such as you and I aren't going to be stopped from checking article accuracy -- regardless of references. So, pragmatically, very-not-hot issues aren't likely to be wrong, won't be checked by 99.9% of readers, and are about information that the other .1% (you and I) would double-check anyhow. I.e., the net result for not-very-hot subject references is creating a huge burden on working editors and interfering with readability for typical readers. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm a webmaster, thanks, and been one for over a decade. There is a great difference between spamming and randomly adding links just to add them and validly referencing stuff. If you can't see the difference, that is not something anyone can help you with. Deciding that something is "hot" or not does not help. Claiming that it is a "burden" or interfers with readability is irrelevant. Editors who aren't going to check refs aren't going to check them anyway, and it is no more an issue of readability than any other reference. By that argument, just add OR on the theme of a work because "hey, no one argues its about X" and the ref just clutters it.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but are you a Webmaster for large public knowledgebase like Wikipedia? I'm not trying to be smug, but discussions with marketing managers has left an indelible imprint on me. The managers are convinced the statistics are irrelevant, that their "gut feeling" is what counts. I don't want to make value judgments about what's "hot" at all. It's bound to be somewhat of a waste of our editorial effort. The Wikipedia webmasters need to come forth with statistical reports. Lacking hard statistical analysis, all we can do is say: "Well, in our experience, what information most likely to be contested/falsified/vandalized?" When you and I are checking references, it's dollars to donuts those will be the places we'll find the most factual errors. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm a webmaster for multiple state agency websites. Large "public knowledge base" is a very obscure term. And sorry, but marketing managers are irrelevant here, and we don't really care what they thing about statistics, their gut feelings or anything else. For the purposes of Wikipedia, we do verification and sourcing. If you feel sourcing is a waste of editorial effort, then don't do it, but do not try to argue that other editors shouldn't because it somehow wastes your time or will interfere with other editors work. Your claim that such information is not likely to be contested, et all does not appear to be based in actual editorial experience, because any editor with such media works will easily tell you otherwise. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, then enjoy your experience checking -- quite literally -- 100s of trivial references per article in your quest to have film articles periodically reviewed. No one will do it, the articles will stay unreviewed. "Marketing managers" ... they are like you apparently ... faith in principles that have no statistical basis. Have fun. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
You haven't provided a single "statistical basis" for your outlandish demand that we STOP referencing content. If you're going to throw an attitude at anyone who disagrees, at least there is little likelyhood anyone will go along with this plan. And somehow claiming its how the "pros" do it is, of course ridiculous. Please show me an actual professional Wikipedia editor. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I said that in 10,000s of edits, I couldn't recall a single vandalism change to air dates. I can't run statistical analysis on Wiki, because I don't have the logs. What else do you suggest? Lots of editors who have never used WebTrends express their "feelings" about how important references are? I don't see your points at all. You seem hysterical. Communication ends. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Unquote. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

External Link deletion on Tugboat page

Hello Piano,

I would like to know why you deleted the link to TugboatInformation.com from the Tugboat page and have considered it spam. The link is 100% relevant to the page it is listed on and does not violate any of wikipedia's guidelines. It is clear that the page is not out to make a profit of any sort. In fact, you won't even find the simplest of advertisements on the page. It is completely non profit. The link provides details and pictures about tugboats and their owners history. It has as much right to be on the page as any of the other external links that are present.

Please explain.

Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noneater (talk • contribs) 23:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No disrespect to the site was intended: the stated purpose is somewhat like Wikipedia itself. However the purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation vis-a-vis Wikipedia is not to create a network of alike projects, but to make an encyclopedia. The site's twice-stated goal to be "a collective exchange of information" suggests the focus is community exchange, rather than reliable, verifiable fact, as in WP:V. With Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Slash (musician)

Hi Piano non troppo, I noticed you removed some external links from this page, giving the edit summary: "rmv external links, various WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID". This is fair enough but was hoping you could shed some light on the removal of the link to the musicians Twitter page specifically as although Twitter and other social networking sites should generally be links to avoid the Slash account on Twitter has been verified to be the musicians official Twitter page so links to be avoided could be overruled by Wikipedia:External links#Official links. I won't re-add the link however until I hear your opinion on this. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 12:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's rarely a question that a musician's Twitter (or MySpace or Facebook) is not written by the musician or their representatives. The issue is that social sites often change, are not peer reviewed, usually do not provide reliable references, use informal, unencyclopedic language, and are self-promoting. None of this is acceptable for external links, which are meant to be encyclopedic extensions of material that might be in a Featured Article.
Generally the direction taken for MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter is that those sites are only allowed as an external link when no other, more reliable site is available. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID and also [37] In this case, www.slashonline.com is named as the official site.
However, looking at www.slashonline.com I'd maintain that it does not provide encyclopedic information any more than the Twitter link does -- it's mostly promotion and chat. Therefore, in this unusual situation, even what is labeled as an "official site" should be removed from Wiki. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

IMDB as a reference

Hi

I am actually pretty new at this editing of Wikipedia, so ì`m not so good. Have that in mind. Ok, i will try to the explain the reasons for editing, but when you edit the run time for like 40 tv-series, it will take extra long time to finish it when you have to explain each edit. What other source should i use if imdb is not good enough? Of all the series i edited the correct run time to here, i was also actually the one that added the run times of the series at imdb, so i know they are correct, because i timed the series. Because it seems like people here to not believe me unless i have a link to a source.

The series It takes a thief, i know most of the episodes last 51 min in original NTSC, because i saw the run time over all episodes over at Hulu.com, then some other person changed it back to the standard 60 min. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.21.117 (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If an edit does not have an Edit Summary, the overall contribution to Wikipedia is lessened, because there's a fair chance someone else -- or even several other people -- will have to guess at the reason for the edit. Sometimes editors don't like your reasons, but usually Edit Summaries are to your benefit. Non-obvious reasons are that: 1) You meet interesting editors, 2) Editors are more likely to be friendly and helpful, 3) If there's ever a major issue with edits you're involved with, the Edit Summaries will help make your case.
Just as a quick comment, it's a lousy idea to confront a Wikipedia administrator when you are new. It's unlikely they are wrong about a simple article change. Occasionally administrators make edits without understanding the situation, but most Ckatz's edits are not like that. Ckatz made a series of edits in It Takes a Thief (1968 TV series) that are straightforward, correct, and have an informative Edit Summary[38], [39], [40], [41]; while the editor they were disputing is not only incorrect, but is involved with what I would characterize as an edit war.[42] An edit war is sometimes a justification for temporarily blocking an editor from editing.
In this edit you corrected information about the TV show runtime that was obviously wrong.[43] Well and good! I don't know the history of Wiki style here, but obviously "60 minutes" was added by an editor who assumed that the timing was the timeslot, not the actual number of show minutes. My understanding is that the actual show minutes is indeed what is wanted.
Now. In this edit Ckatz removed your change.[44] They probably did this because of the IMDb external link reference. Either Ckatz believes that the "timeslot time" belongs there, or they made a mistake changing the time -- when they actually only intended to remove the external link. It will be easy to find out, we'll just ask Ckatz.
It's a good time for you to get a Wikipedia account. There are not any negatives that I know of, and several positives. One of them is that anonymous IP addresses are allowed in Wikipedia ... but are often used by casual editors to make inappropriate or even vandalism edits. Having an account signals to established editors that you have good, well-informed intentions. Cheers and Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Since the Alice A. Bailey classification of seven psychological types, one for each of the seven colors of the rainbow references are sourced and each psychological type is paired with its matching color, I don't see what is the harm in including them. Of course they are purely arbitrary and not scientific as are all religious and metaphysical color associations of all religions and metaphysical systems. As far as the Alice A. Bailey article itself, the only editing I did was very minor, just adding and refining links to other Wikipedia articles. Best wishes, Keraunos (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the Alice A. Bailey system, which is called the Seven Rays is one of the three major systems of what is called Spiritual Psychology (note: "spiritual psychology" links to Transpersonal psychology, which is a much broader subject) that classify human beings into various psychological types. Alice A. Bailey's system is used in Theosophy and the Ascended Master Teachings. The other two major systems of "Spiritual Psychology" are the Five Buddha Energies, popularized by Chogyam Trungpa, which is used in Tibetan Buddhism and classifies human beings into five psychological types, and the Enneagram of Personality, which was popularized by Oscar Ichazo of the Arica School and originated within Sufism, a sect of Islam. The Enneagram of Personality classifies human beings into nine psychological types. It is by far the most commonly used of the three systems and is even used in secular contexts such as management training. The other two systems besides Alice A. Bailey's system also associate a color with each of their classifications of psychological types. I've been meaning to put those other color associations into the color articles also when I have time to do so. Best wishes, Keraunos (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 03:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I recall now there is a fourth system of "Spiritual Psychology" that is used by some Mormons that has four personality types, each associated with a different color. I forget the name of that system. I have a book about it somewhere, I have to look for it. Best wishes, Keraunos (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

My 'vandalism'

Idiot, I changed it back myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.106.61 (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record [45]. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

EFL revert

You were reverted... you might want to keep an eye on this article. --92.26.61.151 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Response

Frankly, it is absolutely none of your business and is quite judgmental of you to comment on my state of health nor my retirement from CRIME related articles. I do not owe you an explanation of my health status and I consider your comments regarding that a personal attack that is well beyond civility and good manners. I did not "snipe" at you, I reverted your heavy handed removal of sourced content. Keep in mind that the opinions on Talk:Angelina Jolie are heavily against your POV removal of mention of People magazine lists and mentions. Does this need to go to AN/I? The same applies to any other article where you are attempting to purge the encyclopedia of that mention. Opinion regarding that mention can certainly be sought on the Hathaway article or any other where you attempt to purge Wikipedia of any mention. You need to have valid justification to remove content that is sourced and let me remind you that you omitted mentioning in your edit summary that you removed mention of something in which you are currently involved in a RfC which is not going your way. In any event, please refrain from making personal judgments and commentary on someone's personal status. It is bad form and completely against all good behavior guidelines. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you stop editing until you have resolved your health issues. It is dishonest of you to state on your talk page that you are compromised, while at the same time making controversial edits.
(And yes, this will absolutely go to dispute resolution. Your conception that anything that is published in "People Magazine" is encyclopedic implies they have the same goals as Wikipedia. Their goal is to make money, Wikipedia's is not.) Piano non troppo (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
And again, it is absolutely none of your business, nor is it in any way civil to post your opinion of whether I am able to edit or not or pass judgment on my status. It's wholly incivil and just reeks of bad faith. My health issues will not be resolved and will likely ultimately kill me, but they will not be "resolved". Satisfied? There is nothing dishonest in posting that I may not be able to quickly respond due to health issues and no connection in any way to whether I can look at pointy edits and protest against them. Being able to SEE the frigging pages is the issue here, but there is nothing preventing me from editing when I can. It's none of your business as to whether I can see the pages to edit. That an RfC has already been conducted on the People magazine lists has been done on one article, there is no reason that it would not apply to other articles where you endeavor to remove mention. That is actually a step in dispute mediation and opinions were against you. Please consult the responses to that RfC. My perception is that People magazine is considered a reliable source and is therefore acceptable for sourcing content is absolutely valid. Now please stop making personal comments about me or I will file a report on that behavior to AN/I. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Back off. When you revert my edit, give no explanation for that, state on your talk page that you are sick, ("This user is currently experiencing health issues that may affect his or her ability to work on Wikipedia"), then delete my message to you with the explanation "no, I don't want that left here" you are acting dishonestly. Being sick does not excuse bad behavior. Don't confound your bad behavior with a content dispute. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
In fact, that is a lie. I gave rationale for returning the properly sourced content, regarding which comments on Talk:Angelina Jolie already supported this type of content. Oh, and for the record:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, may I ask why you even brought up the message that Wildhartlivie has on her talk page? I didn't see her use that as a reason to revert you on the article. I see no reason at all to bring it up. I also have major health issues, see my user page. The reason I tell everyone is so that they know about it and if I make an error, need help or get testy they understand. I've not had problems with being testy because I realize it and take a break when this happens. But for you to leave messages like you have is just plain rude. Calling someone a liar, now really, how did she lie? My medical problems in no way prevent me from editing here. I try hard to make sure that if I am not doing well or that it is affecting me here, I do something that is not controversial or I don't come here. There are a lot of editors on this site with medical problems but that is not a reason to tell them they can't edit here until they are well again. Unfortunately, some illnesses don't have cures to make people well. My Crohn's disease doesn't and it shouldn't prevent me from being an editor here. From what I could tell, the two of you have a difference of opinion about a reference. This doesn't have anything to do with anyone's health, it's an editorial difference. I think you should strike the attacks about her health issues and talk about the differences you two feel about the article. I hope you understand what I am saying here. Happy editing, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I wrote the comment on Wildhartlivie's page, then on consideration of her track record, removed my comment a few minutes later. Wildhartlivie chose to follow up on my page anyhow. At that point, I replaced my comment, since she obviously wasn't going to let the matter quietly drop.
This "I am sick, so can I do whatever I want" scam has been pulled by another editor. That editor, too, continued to edit much as they did before, but now also took self-righteous offense when anybody questioned them.
(Also note, Wildhartlivie called *me* a liar above, not vice-versa. I said she was acting dishonestly. I stand by that comment.)Piano non troppo (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I have news for you, dude. I did not use my health issues to try and justify anything and just to clarify it, it is no scam and your suggestion that it is is yet another inappropriate personal attack and that is clearly a lie stated by you here. You used my health issues to launch a series of personal attacks against me to try and force me to leave Wikipedia until my health issues were "resolved". At no time did I ever try and blame anything on my health, look in the mirror for the person to blame for that, if you can stand it. In fact, there was no bad behavior that you can document about me in regard to this issue. You are the one who launched personal attacks and attempted to remove validly sourced content based on your POV. And your comments regarding my honesty continue. I would certainly like to see where I ever tried to use my health as an excuse. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
As a potential vandal, I considered your editing history, and after 14 minutes completely removed my comment.[46] 5 minutes later, after my comment was already gone, you chose to raise the issue here, yourself.[47] Your continuing to act as the offended party is, in itself, if not dishonest, at least misguided. It very much seems to me that you are acting dishonestly in this matter, and also that your are attempting to gain points in a content argument by casting aspersions on me, personally.Piano non troppo (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that you think you can post such attacks on someone's talk page and think that removing your post would ameliorate the things you said, especially when my post to you actually occurred 5 minutes after your bad faith accusations. I am offended, you tried to use my health issues as a reason to force me to leave Wikipedia. You are the one who launched the personal attacks and you should be admonished, if not ashamed, to pull something like that. It seems to me that everything you've said since then was a feeble attempt to save face. I'm entirely offended that you would dare to draw such conclusions based on a generic talk post about health issues as a tool to use against anyone. I'm not just offended, but your conduct toward me from the first post you made on my talk page is completely offensive. There is no dishonesty in saying that health issues might prevent me from responding at some points and it's bad faith to claim that reporting you for posting personal attacks has anything to do with the content dispute, despite the fact that disputing your removal led you to attack me. You need to take a step back and actually look at what you are saying and claiming because this is so completely offensive that I believe I may vomit. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
It would be contrary to the goals of Wikipedia and to my personal goals to have you leave Wikipedia. Why don't you stop this, now? In the 14 minutes my comment was posted to your page, no one responded in any way. You, yourself, have turned this into an issue. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am morally offended by the attacks and disparagements you have continued to post and each time you do so, you are making yourself look worse. The 14 minutes your post was on my talk page was basically in the middle of the night here and I have every right to be offended by your bad faith suggestions and attacks. That's why. Each post you make is worse and worse. Is this how you act toward people who disagree with you? Shameful. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to be making any new points. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
That's because the posts you've made are so offensive that no new points are needed. Please stop posting personal attacks and disparagements against me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piano_non_troppo/Archive:HowGreenwasMyArchive&oldid=1143228558"