User talk:Piano non troppo/Archive:ItCameFromTheArchive

You need to block User:209.66.221.210

User:209.66.221.210 needs to be blocked now. --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I second this request please? They've just added a really dubious/bizarre comment about animal abuse on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fashion, and given their previous history, I suspect provocation/trolling. Mabalu (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is something you can do. Go to [1]. Copy-and-paste the line there reading

* {{IPvandal|IP address}} brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~

Paste to the bottom of the edit window.

Change "IP address" to 209.66.221.210. Then remove "brief reason for listing (keep it short)", and add 10 or 20 words describing the situation. (Do a "copy" on your own edited addition before saving, because this page regularly has edit conflicts, and you may need to attempt "Save" more than once.)

Common reasons for block requests failing: 1) The editor has not been given a "final warning" on their talk/discussion page about being blocked. 2) The editor has been given a final warning, but has not made vandalism edits since the warning. 3) The situation is "stale" -- it happened hours or days ago -- and it's not clear that it's still a problem. 4) It's an IP used by hundreds of people -- where only some of the edits are vandalism. In this specific case, recommending a block will probably fail because there haven't been than many recent vandalism edits by the "San Diego County Office of Education", in fact, the second-to-most-recent, although a little odd, seems more misplaced than anything [2]. (Specifically re: "Animal piercings", Google returns 141 hits, some of which are apparently about real situations (see [3])). Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to WBAL-TV, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 23:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is about a TV station. As explained in my edit summary, it isn't "an opportunity for anyone associated with station to promote". Some station articles, such as this, are being used by otherwise non-notable people to promote themselves, their latest professional associations, their websites, etc.

Reverting an article because "information is same as other TV station pages" is not directly relevant. Even so, most other radio and TV station article do not include such information. Even if they did, it doesn't mean that the pages are correct according to Wikipedia rules, guidelines, and policies.

Also, I note that you completely reverted a few other edits related to TV stations, which had different edit justifications. You gave no reason in all cases, except that it was "vandalism" -- which, as I have explained, it was not.

Btw, your "edit status" says you are offline, otherwise I would have completed this explanation before making the revert. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying where a reporter is currently, is not "an opportunity for anyone associated with station to promote". This is standard for all television station articles to say where a reporter/anchor/meteorologist is now once they have left a certain station. If you are going to remove any of this information, you will first have to get consensus from WP:TVS and remove the information from ALL pages after receiving that consensus, not before. Otherwise, you will find not just myself will be reverting you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The standard is for an article to stay on topic. That includes all manner of material about station programming, sponsorship, ownership, equipment, finances, and controversy. But there are things it does not include; Wikipedia articles are not free association on any related topic. If anyone who was associated with a station was allowed to add a Wiki bio of themselves, then it would be an excuse for any janitor, executive or secretary to promote themselves. The article is about a TV station, not about what happened to people after the TV station. Does that make sense? Piano non troppo (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been a member of WP:TVS for 3 1/2 years, I know how what does and doesn't go into a television station article and this information is SOP for all telvision articles. I mean all of them. You would need to get consensus from WP:TVS to delete this information. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please cite the section of WP:TVS that you believe supports your reversion of my edits. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Under Article Structure...."information on its personalities, past and present". It is in the actual structure rules of WP:TVS. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Information" means "aspects of their history that contributed to the station". Not promotion of people's careers after they've left the station. It's the station that is the topic of the article.

The opinions in WP:TVS do not negate comprehensive Wikipedia guidelines such as those in WP:SPAM and WP:BIO. External links to "Former personalities", such as this one which you replaced in WBAL-TV probably would be spam:[4]. (Except that the site doesn't mention even "Rudy Miller". (Update, the site has now been changed to show her photo.))

The material you replaced is almost entirely uncited. There's no easy way to check whether it's true, or up-to-date, or vandalism. That is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, it is in the rules...I can't help it if you don't like it, but it is in the rules for WP:TVS and the information is fine. Period. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't "the rules". I'm citing the Wikipedia rules. You are saying effectively "That's how we do things in our part of Wikipedia". A group does not own articles in Wikipedia, nor do I see that WP:TVS makes claims that back up your statements. You can expect to be called into arbitration about this. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, very nice, threaten me with ARB. I cited the rules, you didn't like them. Now after a couple of days you threaten me with ARB. I can see this conversation is over. Take Care. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) May I provide an informal third opinion here? I have to agree with Piano - information about the current careers of past station personalities seems very off-topic for an article about the station itself. If a personality is notable enough, then he or she will have his/her own page, where the current job should be noted. Otherwise, the information is just extraneous to the article and at least borderline promotional. The external links are certainly not in line with the standards and quite possibly also promotional. And yes, Wikipedia policies and guidelines take precedence over any standards a particular project may impose. I support Piano's revisions. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 05:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Third and fourth opinions are welcome. I would ask that good faith be given that all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines were taken into account when the guidelines for WP:TVS were drawn up. If you don't like the current setup with the former reporters/anchors/meteorologists/etc, I welcome you to open a thread on WT:TVS and discuss it with the users there. Consensus should be achieved first before removal of any information, regardless what it is. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking a quick look over, I do see that WP:TVS articles do use this "where are they now" practice a lot. However, this doesn't mean it's right. Regardless of how commonly used it is at a WikiProject, I still believe it violates Wikipedia policies, which take precedence over any WikiProject practice. Further action needs to be taken, but I will defer to Piano's wisdom as to how to proceed. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 06:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. I have started a post on WT:TVS about this if you would like to respond there as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, Vicenarian. Precedent has no bearing here. The "guidelines for WP:TVS" I don't think are relevant here. This information just doesn't go on the station articles. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Where are they now

In terms of escalation, I guess the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal is a good place to start. Thoughts? Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 16:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a good place to start. I've submitted my first arbitration request in all the years I've been here. Probably be better if we all went out for drinks, but so it goes. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Hi there; I've volunteered to mediate a Mediation Cabal case with which you may be involved. Please read the mediator notes section on the case page or feel free to remove your name from the list of participants on said page. GrooveDog (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've accepted. Thank you. Piano non troppo (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tours

I read that page as well, and to me it doesn't seem that it says spefically if those dates are allowed or not. I opened a section on the talk page, so that it can be clarified. I know a bunch of articles have future tour dates, so I would like to know as well. I'll let you know what the consensus is there. ^TheWeak_Willed 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, good, I see you started a discussion here, [5]. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: U2 360° tour dates

From the exact same sentence: ...although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. I'd say that the tour safely qualifies as a "major event" and as being "historically significant" when looking at how it will affect music history. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

See the above discussion that's been opened in [6]. There are several reasons not to include this information in Wikipedia. It's also worth noting that this tour information was added by an anonymous IP, who has no other Wikipedia edits except to add touring information. So far, they have not explained their edits at any points. I.e, apart from being inappropriate, the edits seem to be WP:SPAM.

I've added my two cents. For the record though, the IP who added the U2 360° tour dates has made edits to more than just touring information. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a different IP: 189.104.102.104 [7]. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Cemeteries

When I first started on Wikipedia I did a bunch of maintenance work on cemetery articles. I kept many on my watchlist because I assumed they'd be targets of vandalism (like in real life). But they've been among the quietest topics on my list. Finally, some action!   Will Beback  talk  03:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep that shovel handy! According to this BBC article today, if zombies existed, they would lead to the collapse of civilization [8]. Now that's newsworthy news! Piano non troppo (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Zombies?! Where?! Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 03:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that when Michael Jackson is buried he won't stay buried. There was talk at one point that the family would dig up the coffin and move it if its location became known (or if the permits for Neverland burial are approved). "Final resting places" can be more like dilatory domiciles.   Will Beback  talk  09:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't bones of the saints occasionally make tours around the countryside in times gone by? I didn't suggest this. An evil marketing person had a checkbook held to my head. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Saints, mummies, outlaws, it's a whole traveling show. Even a dead pope was disinterred and put on trial. (He was found guilty. He didn't have anything to say in his defense.) The dead can be restless. (Not to mention the way that coffins tend to pop up and float away during floods.) One of my grandfathers had a complicated post-life travel experience, but at least he's stayed put (so far).   Will Beback  talk  10:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me, if I may, of a line in poem I wrote about my deceased Theosophist grandfather: "I'd call you dead / but for my fear / to prove me wrong / you'd reappear." Piano non troppo (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Lovely.   Will Beback  talk  15:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

from Academic Challenger

No problem. It seemed like that IP had been active for a long time, making the same kinds of edits.. The block is for 2 weeks; if the editor continues this behavior after that, I will block for even longer. Academic Challenger (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: My edit to Droooling

Why did you revert my edit? What just reason do you have to then castigate me with your message that what I edited in and out of the article (in: direct link, the actual page name; out: a mistyped spam link that managed to slip by)?

Lest we have yet another misunderstanding, or start a revert war, I think you should revert your own edit, and perhaps strike out what you edited in on my usertalk page.

Cheers. 129.78.64.101 (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you are talking about. Took me a minute. The original link looked correct, and what I thought was a change to a different article looked incorrect. I didn't realize they directed to the same place. (Not that it makes a difference to your point, but why change the link, if it goes the same place?)

The template message sent (which I will strike out, with explanation on your page) is a boilerplate. An example of a "seriously wrong" message is just above it: a "last warning" message. The one I sent is more of a "the information doesn't look correct, are you sure it's right?" message. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter LaBarbera

So douchebags is inappropriate and personal commentary but listing "yellow journalism" under see also isn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.33.129 (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree "yellow journalism" was vandalism, and removed Wikilink. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2009 (UT

i love you98.215.33.129 (talk)

Let's keep it between us and the other hundreds who read this page. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, you have an admirer, Piano! Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 09:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it! Eeekster (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

By accident, my 40,000th edit was humorous. Maybe that's a sign, and I should get back to my Wiki roots improving articles about humor? But it's so much more lively bandying words with vandals. My regards to Vicenarian, Eeekster, and...98.215.33.129. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Myth World Cup page edit

It is accurate information, it is now properly cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.89.171 (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I do understand your point, but a fansite isn't what Wikipedia considers a reliable reference. See WP:SOURCES on that. The most reliable sources are published by major publishing houses and universities. The reference provided was an apparently unmoderated social site with a forum -- almost as far from what Wiki considers a reliable source as it is possible to get. I understand your group is having a great time, and more power to you, but in regards to Wiki, it is not a fansite. I don't particularly disagree with your edit...I'm recommending the whole article be deleted. That just means the material belongs elsewhere. Not that there's anything wrong with it. Yours Truly, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The site in question used as a source is clearly moderated, and is a direct reliable source for the particular information added to the page concerning an update to the game's competitive tournament history. There are plenty of other examples of similar sources being used for such purposes such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberathlete_Amateur_League#CAL_Division. Recommending deletion after years of use is ludicrous at best.

Cyberathelete has 500,000 registered players; the cash prizes are $3 million dollars. Myth World 2007 prizes are $1,200. I reviewed several pages on the Myth World site, and saw no evidence there was any review.

Many Wikpedia articles were created before the latest standards. And many slipped through the editorial cracks. This is not to do with how worthwhile the Myth tournament is -- chances are I'd enjoy it. But it is a matter of not being encyclopeic. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Cyberathelete had a large user base, and I say "had" because it currently does not exist in any fashion. As far as I can see the only source I can locate that even points the league ever existing is a mundane title page.

So I'm to understand that because I took the effort to properly update and maintain a wikipedia entry that I have now unwittingly damned the entire article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.89.171 (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, using the phrase "not being encyclopedic" as a point against a wikipedia article is pretty illogical considering the very basis of wikipedia itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.89.171 (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the saving graces of Wiki is that no one has to do any more than they want. In fact, that's why I didn't do any more to Myth World Cup. I had a point to make, I made it, and now other people who are more involved can decide what to do (if anything).

It's a common notion that because Wikipedia is free people can write about whatever they want. In fact, it's a formal encyclopedia, owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, and hundreds of articles are deleted every day, and the additions of 100,000s of other editors are removed. One of the five pillars includes:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Content should be verified with citations to reliable sources. Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory."

So, in fact, "not being encyclopedic" covers quite a lot of stuff people would like to put in. In the case of the Myth article, I'm more or less alerting the folks writing the material that it's pretty close to the edge, and...maybe...they might not want to spend too much time on it, in case it is severely cut down, or perhaps deleted. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Which anti-vandalism is faster

Thanks for your message. I've found Huggle to be much, much faster than Twinkle. Just the whole set-up of being able to see each new contribution with the touch of a button and the ability to roll-back and to warn with another touch of a button. All of these need to be done in seperate steps using Twinkle. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 09:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nina Girado

Hi, sorry for the late response. Been kind of busy. User:EugeSer 14 is still blocked btw, I haven't unblocked him. See [9]. I will look in more detail at User:Kristelzorina, from a first glance it does look like an obvious sock. Although I don't see copyright violations anymore, which was the reason for the original block. That File:Nina - Renditions Of The Soul.jpg was taken from a copyrighted source is not so important here since the image is being used under WP:NFCC. Garion96 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

np, I just didn't know how to proceed. At a guess, User:EugeSer 14 / User:Kristelzorina is working from valid information, they just don't care to follow any Wiki policies and guidelines that inconvenience them. (Such as: providing any explanation for their edits.) I'm uneasy. If the information all comes from Billboard, why can't they just say so? If it doesn't, is this some private (e.g. COI) source? As I recall, at one point User:EugeSer 14 was introducing factual errors about sales. Amongst the hundreds of edits that they do, how do we know when they will decide to alter some key fact?

I suppose one option is to rollback everything they do. Regardless of whether their changes look reasonable. At least that would presumably force them to justify themselves. And if they did have a good source, well not too much harm would have been done (?) Piano non troppo (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Mickey Finn

Well, then we're in agreement, and the entire section is now gone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's probably best.

I've just been considering what cultural references might possibly be relevant. One section of the Mickey Finn (drugs) article says a Mickey can be chloral hydrate, but another antimony combined with potassium tartrate, and another ethylene (a gas). They can't have the same effects. The gas doesn't even agree with the statement in article's opening paragraph. Hmm. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The cultural references (and I still like the W.C. Fields one) are indeed trivial compared with apparently not having the basic straight facts correct! Unless there's more than one kind of knockout drop that's generically called a "mickey". I confess I am not an expert on this subject. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should do some practical investigation...

I'll find a detective to knock out. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Marinara

can you explain to me the correct way of resolving the problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.247.91 (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You are referring to this edit [10].

To be honest? You might want to just let this drop, because there are so many issues. Wikipedia is not a forum where people can just say anything they want. It's not a problem to add information that most people will agree with, but when you delete a reference that someone else added, and replace it with another -- giving no explanation why you have done so -- then in Wikpedia's policy, your edit is closer to vandalism than helpful.

There are several other problems with your edit, as well. If you are interested in contributing to Wikpedia, I suggest you start by looking over [11]. If you are just interested in advertising your site, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. It's not a place for free promotion (it is governed by the Wikimedia Foundation) and people who try to use it that way are blocked from editing. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi First i want to make it very clear i have absolutely no association with the link i provide simply that that link supports the changes and that the one i deleted has no evidence to support their claims

Second i'm not just saying anything i want. What i am adding has an Industry wide consensus in the hospitality industry (who would be considered experts on such a matter) Please list the rest of the ":There are several other problems with your edit, as well." so i can address these its not fair to me to say there are problems without listing them you might also want to view this page where i have started a discussion on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thedarxide#Marinara —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.247.91 (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes new editors make edits that just have one or two problems. Even then, they often aren't receptive to change. Your edit is contrary to WP:SPAM and WP:OR. You also deleted a valid reference, this is considered vandalism. You linked a common word which is contrary to suggestions in WP:CONTEXT. Phrases such as "industry wide consensus" are WP:PEACOCK. You reverted the edit by User:Thedarxide more than three times in 24 hours. This, alone, is edit warring, and can get you blocked. (No, it doesn't matter that the other editor was doing it too. It means you both should be warned, then perhaps blocked.) Wikipedia is not an opportunity for any random free expression, it is a site controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation, and you need to follow its rules to contribute. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain how my edit is contrary to WP:SPAM because as i read the page it doesn't appear to apply to my edit

I'm not presenting my original research just evidence that the post is wrong

Currently "Industry wide consensus" is that the world is round. Is this WP:PEACOCK too? Are you in the Industry and therefore are considered an expert?

Fair i deleted the reference, i take it back and i am happy for it to stay

I added no common word links simply an 's' to the already linked word 'Herb'

My apologies for the apparent "edit warring" i thought it was being reverted by a bot and as such i made what i felt were the necessary changes and re-posted the edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.247.91 (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You are headed the right direction, and make some valid points. (It wasn't you who Wikilinked "herb", and labeling the "AllAboutSpaghetti" page as WP:SPAM is open to interpretation.)

Understand that when my editing tool shows deletion of a source, with no explanation, by an anonymous editor, I revert. That's the basis for my change, not an expert knowledge of marinara.

Change of subject (more or less). I went to a number of references I have, hardcopy, looking up "marinara". "Webster's 3rd" doesn't mention the sauce. The "OED" (Oxford English Dictionary) doesn't mention the sauce. "The Cambridge World History of Food" doesn't mention the sauce. At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if there are common reliable sources. The wiseGEEK article makes what is probably a common mistake -- which is to assume that because a word originally meant something (500 years ago!), it still means the same thing now. As a consumer who assumes restaurants use any language that appeals to customers, I would guess, seeing "marinara" in a menu, that seafood was involved. But even the statement in the Wiki article "is a type of tomato sauce" says next to nothing. The "AllAboutSpaghetti" article says "traditional Italian marinara sauce often has seafood in it". That, too, says very little. What is "traditional sauce"? What does "often has seafood" mean? When it's in season? When there are leftovers? In certain countries? Lacking any more reliable source, my inclination is recommend the article be entirely deleted from Wikipedia. At any rate, I have tagged it for needing a reliable source.Piano non troppo (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Whole page changes

The article entitled "Royal Belfast Academical Institution" has been totally edited to be identicle to that of "Methodist College Belfast". Could someone with the technical 'know how' be able to revert the article to its original form? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.106.64 (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! The tool I'm using does not show the kind of vandalism edit you were responding to. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)