User talk:Piano non troppo/Archive:Mother

Changes reverted: why?

Why were my changes reverted? It now again states an opinion rather than the facts.

Weasel terms like "some people" and "many others" maybe? Who are these people? How is their opinion any bit objective? The only real content was that the DVD was released in 2006 so just add that as the rest is merely opinion. treelo _radda 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Treelo got it.

There was another thought, though, when making this edit, which was to open a discussion about what the original editor meant -- whose comment you were responding to, IP 85.148.224.110. What in a useful sense does the original statement "McNichol's career took a dip" mean? Was it because the film "flopped"? But that's apparently original research. Maybe the dip was due to poor marketing, or a weak McNichol appearance on a late night show. Who knows? But most especially, what does it mean for a movie to "flop"? You liked it, didn't you, 85.148.224.110? It wasn't worth making because some people didn't like it? Piano non troppo (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Who are these people ("some people")? - I don't know. The original editor apparently. It does not matter. The point is that apparently there are different opinions about this, not only one. I think this should be reflected if there is to be a page on the person at all. (Does she agree with this?)

I am not stating that opinions are objective. But I think it is objective to state that there are different opinions.

What is the meaning of 'career'? What is the meaning of 'dip' and 'flop'? More than 10 years ago, when Wikipedia was not even in its craddle, and about 15 years after the movie was made, there were many privately owned websites dedicated to just this movie and its main actress - full of praise. That is to say that the movie is more than a 'flop'.--85.148.224.110 (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with many of your points. I'd be happier if Wikipedia required every article with a critical review to include at least one dissenting opinion. I'm uncomfortable casually labeling any art a "flop", and even more uncomfortable with assuming that because it was a flop, it hurt someone's career. Wild assumptions that fans and Hollywood critics adopt are, often enough, too superficial for an encyclopedia.

Another movie phrase that's often bandied about is "stood the test of time". Somehow, the implication is that such a movie is better than another. But if a movie was very topical -- and the topic is forgotten -- then the movie that didn't stand the test of time might well have been excellent -- in its day. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a quick response! :-) Next thing: who decides on the contents of the pages?--85.148.224.110 (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's deep water...something I adore. For Wikipedia, there is, in part, a superficial answer: Since contentious statements need citation, article contents are largely based on prevalent references. Did a marketing department discover that a movie broke the all-time record for first night ticket sales in the Cayman Islands? And they were quoted in "People"? Well, great! Let's put that vital information into Wikipedia!

As a historian, I'd prefer articles written from a range of material -- but how many Wiki editors have the esoteric books that I own? If I write an article based on a book that 1-in-10,000 editors have read, another kind of bias is placed on the article contents: I've chosen a source, and chosen a way of representing that source, and in the process, what I write is difficult for others to gainsay. It's another kind of systematic bias. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So, there is no dispute resolution system and we end up deleting each other's changes? For the next person disapproves the improvements of the previous.--85.148.224.110 (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why sure we do! treelo _radda 22:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

If one is an established editor, on the side of right and love, and has lots of friends, AND is making reasonable edits, one has a fairly good chance of making edits "stick", at least in some form. But there are corner situations that are not so benign, and it was those I was thinking about in referring to a bias. One case: the Wiki page of a best-selling historian who had made pivotal, well-documented discoveries is "academically trashed" -- apparently by someone in the military who has a personal grievance with him. I could fix it, but to do so, I'd have to read at least one long book on a military incident I'm not interested in. (That is, I know the author's works, just not the specific one that's being attacked.) Another case: an established Wiki editor has added a cutting, documented criticism to a book that is otherwise highly regarded. The problem? The quote is about the movie adaptation. I don't consider that valid, and have removed the quote a couple times, supplying a justification. His answer? "I think it's appropriate, so it's staying". He has the page watched, and even after months, reverts any change to his contribution within a few hours. Could I confront him in a lengthy resolution dispute? Sure. Would I "win"? Probably. Is it a cost-effective use of time and emotional energy? I rely on Dilbert for this: "Avoid meetings with time-wasting morons". But the upshot for Wikipedia is that a pettish, irrelevant edit persists in an otherwise balanced and professionally polished article. In the real world, it's rather like not taking a justified case to court, because it's too expensive to win. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-Directed IRA

Hi. Thank you for keeping an eye out for copyright infringements in this article. The particular source identified is okay; it's a Wikipedia mirror. (Fortunately, one of the Wikipedia mirrors that makes things easy. By the time I got there, they had updated their page to include the copyvio notice! If only they would all make my job so simple. :)) But I note that you indicate other infringement as well, and I wanted to stop by for more information. I've currently restored the text, but if there's reason to believe that older versions of the article infringe on something will want to look into it further. You said ask with questions, so I wanted to see what more information you could provide. Since I hope that that CP page will be archived soon, I'll watch here. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you could discern the dependency! You gave me a smile: "By the time I got there, they had updated their page to include the copyvio notice!"

Looking for copyright infringement is something I did professionally for some years. (Reviewing articles submitted to a knowledgebase for publication.) But here, we've done "due diligence". We tried to discover the source, and couldn't. I'd write the contributor, asking where they got their information: Aston.myers [1]. However, they have no other edits, and added the material 2 1/2 years ago.

If someone offered a 1-to-3 bet that the material added by Aston.myers is a copyright infringement, I'd take that bet. But the article now is twice as long, with changes made by many editors, including reworking of parts of the Aston.myers material. So it looks like Wiki is clean on this one. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It gave me a laugh, too. :) You should come hang out with us at WP:COPYCLEAN. We could use more educated eyes. Of course, if you would rather not do here what you did professionally, I wouldn't blame you. As it happens, I do exactly that, and sometimes I wonder why. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Links removal

Some links have been deleted and its said they're came from social sites "Removes external link to social sites" I totally agree with you when the links really come from social sites

{ 10 - Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook),[2] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists. }

but some of those deleted links doesn't belong to any of this categories. There are huge differences between real websites and a social network

hope you understand :)

Kreukmail-new (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a different item in WP:LINKSTOAVOID. "11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority". The "Unofficial fansite" is not written by a recognized authority, and it is not ok to include in Wiki external links. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against you but do not remove my link to a Yelle supported fansite (talk) 06:43 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Think about it, though: If Yelle's fansite was an exception, then most singers' Wiki pages would also have fansites. All kinds of people might like to put their favorite fansite as a link in Wikipedia, but that is not what the Wikimedia Foundation is trying to accomplish with Wikipedia. Take a look at Wiki pages for Lady Gaga, Britney Spears and Hannah Montana. Notice none have a fansite listed in external links. Right? Ok? Piano non troppo (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Upadhayaya

Hi I did not add any external links: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Upajjhaya&diff=292189371&oldid=290945504 . It was already there. I just added "References" section because there were references but it was not mentioned. Thank you. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please learn to assume good faith and show some civility. Did you even bother checking what are you reverting?

Have a look at the diffs. I did not add the link www.star-sense-vedic-astrologer.com. It was already there! I cleaned up the article by adding wikilinks such as dharmic religion and you're calling it vandalizing. Ridiculous! 202.54.176.51 (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was focused on you replacing a WP:SPAM link, and removing a valid request for references. I see what you mean, now. You were adding material, and trying to make the reference work. The problem is that the reference itself is not good, it's to an application form to get a psychic reading. (WP:SPAM) Can we delete that, and replace the tag asking for references? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's OK! Happens once in a while when you keep fighting spammers all the day! You're doing great work of fighting spammers and vandals! I removed the spam link and added a better one. Thanks. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding -- the police were in the process of making an arrest outside my place. (How's *that* for a good excuse!) It does tend to distract one's attention! Go well! Piano non troppo (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Link removal again

Official Myspace pages and the artist's page at their label's site are both acceptable links. Please do not remove these or I will have to block you to prevent further damage to these articles. Hope you understand. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only are they explicitly listed as being generally unwanted by [2], but XLinkBot deletes them without exception when added by new users and IPs [3]. Furthermore, I make many exceptions [4]Piano non troppo (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It says in big bold letters at the top: Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject. This is exactly that. Stop now. Thank you. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Consider the footnote on WP:LINKSTOAVOID please:

Note that under WP:External links#What should be linked, a link to a social networking site may be included when it is an official website for a business, organization, or person. However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website, and more than one official website should be listed only when the additional links provide unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." Piano non troppo (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Usually Myspace does provide more content. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In the many MySpace pages that I have checked, very few provide additional encyclopedic content above the article and official page. Moreover the footnote says "not prominently linked from official website". MySpace links are common on official pages, for example, on the first example I chose of my edits which you just reverted [5] http://www.juniorjack.biz/ Piano non troppo (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

<- Fine then, I shall revert my reinsertions. Apologies for my haste. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I am interested in this process, btw. I have an open question to the XLinkBot programmer, asking whether the rules that it enforces are too strict. My guess is that it's operating off "pragmatic" experience -- maybe it deletes 1-in-50 MySpace links that really should be there. Is that a good ratio? I don't know the answer. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the process it uses, unfortunately. You may be best off asking the bot operator personally. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you immediately change an edit that I made ??

I edit very rarely on Wikipedia. When I do, I try to be correct, brief, and to the point. Therefore, I take offense at you constantly deleting language I'm modifying on the "list of regional nicknames."

I added this term - FIB - U.S. - An acronym for "Fucking Illinois Bastard." This is frequently heard at sporting events between sports teams in Wisconsin and Illinois.

and I modified this --> (additions in bold). Cheesehead - A person from Wisconsin, from the many dairy farms and cheese factories there. Also extended to fans of the state's National Football League team, the Green Bay Packers. This term is widely used by people from Illinois, a bordering state and frequent sports rival, although many Wisconsin sports fans embrace this name by donning large triangular blocks of cheese on their head during sporting events.

These are correct and clearly add to the page. I'm from Wisconsin originally, and again, take offense at why you keep deleting them. What's up with that?

No offense was intended. Those messages are just boilerplate, they come from a Wiki tool.

The reason they were reverted is because you didn't provide a citation. See [6]. You need a reliable reference in a published source, not something you personally know to be true. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting to my edit. On a general note, however, there are 77 regional nicknames on this page but only 9 references. That should have been looked at before initially before taking it upon yourself to delete my edit within about 5 seconds of my editing it in the first place for "not having a citation."

• If an item has a reasonably good wikipedia article, then it does not need a citiation in the list. - Altenmann >t 15:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• I totally understand your reasoning. You look at an article and think, "I'm adding exactly the same kind of information that other people already have done." It's by far the easiest way to contribute to Wikipedia..no question. It runs into problems when the example you choose is incorrect somehow. This is not obvious, I admit, but the best articles to imitate are "featured" articles, described here [7].

Anyhow, getting back to your edit. If you use a swear word, or if you write something that someone is likely to object to, it will be removed by some editor or another -- sometimes right away, but usually within a few days. But adding a reference from a published source will stop that from happening to your edit. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that Altenmann is mistaken about citations in lists, WP:LIST explicitly says: "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.". There are no special exceptions to verifiability for lists. Beyond what policy says if you actually look at those articles you will see many are not cited themselves. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and linking to a Wikipedia article does not satisfy verifiability. I would say you were right for removing content lacking citation if you found it dubious.

I know I am commenting some time after the conversation ended, but I felt it relevant because I am now undertaking to ensure the list is brought up to standards. Chillum 15:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I read the survey, thank you for asking. I see problems not as specific to climate change, but with how statistical modeling is employed and understood. (Faulty among even those whose livelihoods involve statistics on a daily basis. See, for example "Judgment under uncertainty: heuristic and biases" by Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky.) People aren't good with the Gambler's Fallacy, and 95% of PhDs aren't clear on the basic conceptual use of a Bell Curve. In an example, I explained to the PhD lead on the simulation we were developing that the computer-generated number called "random" was not random for our purposes. She couldn't understand that the concept of "randomness" itself was being invalidly applied to what she was doing; she finally agreed not to use the computer numbers: deciding that the random number generator itself was broken (!!)

Except waiting for sea levels to rise three feet, the most productive approach to resolving the issues is not, I believe, better academic studies. But rather compulsory high school statistics classes. If the vast majority of people can't understand basic statistics, it doesn't matter what the studies show. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you very much for this. I understand that you feel frustrated by the lack of basic research understanding/skills even with PhD students. But hey, inappropriate use of stats can also be seen in published research beyond PhD level. No wonder why media and general public struggle with these... I have to agree with you that there is probably a serious weakness in academic curriculum at all level - starting with encouraging pupils not to be scared of numbers.

Anyway, back to encyclopaedia, what do you think of the use of numbers, statistics, modelings, etc. in articles for general public such as Wikipedia? What are other/better alternative to introduce the concept of probability, uncertainty to the public? Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a peculiar tension between people's natural curiosity and their equally natural reliance on what, for them, is usable folklore and "common knowledge". I had a grandfather who wrote an article published in the Britannica on a strictly technical subject. Yet he also believed in Atlantis, UFO's, magic and ghosts -- on little or no hard evidence, except that he felt that they were true.

In terms of what's efficacious in the big picture? That's probably directly addressing the fallacies with the folklore itself. Since much folklore doesn't have a solid or scientific basis, it wouldn't take all that much. For your purposes, however, it's problematic. And perhaps this is precisely what you're attempting to address in your survey. People won't believe a scientific study that flies in the face of "what they know to be true". I did a "desert island" study in college. I posited that two scientists in the same field, but with conflicting theories, needed to come to an agreement to survive. I asked in the questionnaire how this would be resolved. I wasn't happy with the answers, but my fellow students were adamant, and insisted that I faithfully record their responses. Nearly all answered that the scientists would physically fight it out. I.e., hit each other until one gave up. That's, if you will, the academic problem that needs to be addressed. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect competition for fundings, race for publication, debates, etc. are form of fights. Winning the fight is probably a matter of endurance... I suspect there must have been studies on how to win arguments in Wikipedia (if no formal studies, there are tips may be?) Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Fighting" is part of many models, others such as Wiki emphasize cooperation. I discovered as a kid that I didn't enjoy winning sports competitions. I prefer cooperative situations. That predisposition is not aided by the curious inability of highly competitive people to understand why competition isn't fun for me (that includes some close friends). Seemingly their underlying, unspoken, assumption is that I'm not good enough to beat them. In fact, it's because there isn't a need to hurt their feelings. (But from their perspective, I suppose, if I beat them it's been determined to be a fun game and they want a rematch.)

I don't know of compelling studies about how to win arguments in Wikipedia. (But see WP:DR.) There are those who enjoy the Wiki fighting. It's an out-of-court debate with sides flinging Wikipedia rules, guidelines and practices at one another. Later, in extreme situations, Administrators may act as judges.

Alternatively, in the spirit of cooperation, I try to "grok" tone of articles and the community supporting each kind. Standards differ quite radically between articles on sport teams, rock groups, TV shows, companies, and train lines. To contribute to articles, I balance four things: 1) Is there something important to say? 2) Is the tone appropriate for this kind of article? 3) What Wikipedia rules, guidelines and practices have strong relevance? 4) How would an edit contribute to the overall direction Wikipedia has been recently heading? The last, for me, is critical to my interest (and an impetus behind my tens of thousands of edits): Wikipedia is a dynamic social process where something of major social consequence -- and I'm not sure what -- is in the process of formation. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I skimmed through the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. There does not seem to be any case involving GW&CC article, may be no GW&CC discussion have escalated that far and consensus have always been reached?

This makes me think that it may be interesting to look at Wiki-fighting and and Wiki-collaboration in a few examples of GW&CC articles. To which extent those guidelines to avoid/resolve disputes are respected or if everyone is mostly relying on one's own judgment and personality?

Also, when you wrote: "How would an edit contribute to the overall direction Wikipedia has been recently heading?", I can see the importance of it... though I do not see how to capture this quantitatively. I think I have seen somewhere studies looking at how long does a particular edit last, but I am not sure that such approach would necessary tell about the actual impact of the edit on the overall content of the article or on Wikipedia's heading. I wonder if the change only come from thousands of continuous edits?

I am interested in these issues but I do not know yet which ones I will be focusing on for my PhD. As I am focusing on the perspective of contributors, I will probably mostly discuss issues that they these contributors tell me as beeing the most important from their point of view. Anyway, I will see what comes out from the email survey and from the follow-up interviews. Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Prove me wrong.

I hope you like science. I also hope you hate nazis. If you hate both...we can be friends. Why do you like abotion so much? Let me know. My wife and I pray for a kid of our own everyday, so as much as you care to insult me...no problem...we just want a child...please, any woman considering an abortion...we, a good family will do whatever it takes to bring that child to term....just give us a shot...please...Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.168.132.210 (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User is referring to this edit [8], where I reverted the edit "kill a baby or other such choices" back to "right to exercise such choices".

74.168.132.210, as you know, many people do not agree that abortion always is killing a baby. I would have reverted the change if it had read "right to control their own bodies", too. What I was doing was removing the non-neutral language. I was not expressing my opinion on abortion.

Society has such a terrible time resolving such issues -- that worries me. The answer probably lies in reforming the question. It would be nice if both sides could read "Why Elephants Weep" [9]. A different issue that's "life related". Maybe if we could get a little perspective, society might make some progress. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

From zero to Godwin's Law. WP:NPOV is absolutely essential. Without it, I think the entire project would collapse. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 17:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate Links

"Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product."

You removed a link I just added today on the Arial page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arial. I understand your comments, but I was trying to provide a link to additional content on the topic. I was only following other links that were also going to a business website.

You chose to remove the link that I added, however, the link that was directly above that: Arial Font Family - by Robin Nicholas, Patricia Saunders, which goes to http://www.linotype.com/145867/arial-family.html was left on the page.

The Linotype page directly shows products and prices, which goes against your explanation of the removal of my link as stated in the quotation at the beginning of this message.

Please explain why you decided to keep the Linotype link which also broke the guidelines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.221.115 (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia warmly welcomes contributions from knowledgeable professionals, and looking at your site, it seems likely you'd have something to contribute. However, Wiki isn't a linkfarm (See [10]), what's strongly desired is improvements to the articles themselves. You're in a position to improve the Wiki text, perhaps giving an inline reference to your site. By contrast, what is not considered helpful is adding the same external link to several articles -- without making any other contribution to Wikipedia: that qualifies as WP:SPAM.

Although there's a pragmatic logic to "I was just adding what other people did", it's Wiki guidelines, rules and policies that experienced Wiki editors follow. Those practices, for example, are to immediately stop someone vandalizing Wikipedia -- without other consideration -- but do not require the editor to "fix all errors in an article, or don't edit it at all". The other links you mention are also probably inappropriate. If you were to contribute improving the articles on fonts, one thing you'd want to consider is removed those very external links. I hope you decide to contribute. It can be a satisfying experience. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Links

There are a number of Links over a variety of pages to websites with the types of food/other examples of the articles subject matter. Please do not vandalize these articles. 96.27.38.63 (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Examples" are not what Wikipedia wants in this context. All the links that I checked were blatant advertisements for restaurants, adding little or nothing encyclopedic to the article. Wikipedia is not a free promotional platform. See WP:SPAM. If there is information in those links the reader should know about, add it directly to the article. Not the links to the advertising sites. Thanks, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be mindful of WP:3RR. The items listed are of local sites that are related to the type of restaurants not nationally known, let alone by a world-wide audience. It is for that reason these links should remain. 96.27.38.63 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

1) You are out-of-line citing WP:3RR. I made three changes total to Coney Island (restaurant).

2) External links (picking one at random) such as [11] are WP:SPAM, and have no encyclopedic content. Furthermore, that link requests that Javascript and pop-ups be enabled. See Point 8 in [12].

You have no valid argument for adding the links, while there are several Wikipedia guidelines contrary to them. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Window treats inc

Yeah, I tagged it again and it has been deleted. Cheers, OtisJimmyOne 20:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Beatles: Rock Band

One of the links, I suspect the one that sent your browser into a loop, wasn't spam but a reliable source that noted that the "All you need is love" song was a time-limited Xbox exclusive, which is rather important here for this game. Yes, the Gamestop link was spammy and I did remove that later. But the other links there were information about how the game's content would work (or this case, wouldn't work) with the other "Rock Band" games, so again, that needed sources.

"DLC" is short for "downloadable content". --MASEM (t) 20:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

An Issue Roy Rogers Restaurant

(NOTE: Moved from user page. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 14:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

I have an issue. I do not work for Roy Rogers Restaurants or have anything to do with the company. I have worked very hard to make a good wikipedia page. There is no bias and your accusation of that is totally unfounded. I appreciate your editing, but make sure you are accurate. contact me at davejonesmd@aol.com or facebook jonesdr77 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesdr77 (talk • contribs) 09:44, June 18, 2009 (UTC)

Hi. My only change was to remove external links. The issue was that editors, including you, had added 20 external links (in addition to other references). I removed, for example, links to Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube videos. These are a combination of WP:LINKSTOAVOID and WP:SPAM. As I wrote, almost all your hundreds of edits are on Roy Rogers Restaurants, so I just wondered whether you represented the company. Thank you for responding to the question.

There are other issues with the article. In particular, it seems that the remaining links to YouTube copies of commercials are copyright violations. Wikipedia may not link to video where there is a strong question of the legality of the link.

Also phrases such as "SmithGifford, a nationally recognized advertising agancy and one of the fastest growing ad firms in the Washington, DC area is selected as the agency of record for Roy Rogers Restaurants" are out-of-place in Wikipedia, not just because they are off-topic promotional plugs but because "nationally recognized advertising agancy and one of the fastest growing" is WP:PEACOCK.

Statements such as this are original research, or need citation: "Popular items on the menu are roast beef sandwiches and fried chicken, which is very similar to the "Pappy Parker's" recipe".

Before you put a lot more hard work into the article, you might want to request feedback from editors who often have useful input [13]. Yours Truly, Piano non troppo (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion recommendation for Gable article.

I noticed on the history of the Jeremy Gable page you brought up the question of deleting the article. I was going over the Fullerton, CA article when I came across his listing as a notable person from the city. I deleted that listing in the Fullerton, CA article and followed it back to the Gable article which looks like a self-serving page intent to list his plays and productions, none of which are notable.

I would appreciate it if you could {{Prod-2}} the Gable article if you agree. Thanks Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Vnarfhuhwef. It's a modest publicity attempt on the part of someone who seems to be a legitimate artist. In isolation, I'd be inclined to let it pass, but as a largely unsupported artistic assessment, as a systematic attempt to alter a number of articles, this has no part in Wikipedia. The article you mention was tagged when I just looked. Please let me know if other input would be useful. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be more careful when you revert edits in the future

Capolago is no longer a municipality. (evidence).--93.45.84.81 (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What didn't seem correct is that what it was called changed, once it was no longer in existence. A ship that is lying on the bottom of the ocean, that doesn't float anymore, is still called a ship. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Links

I responded on my talk page. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Geology of Azerbaijan

It was a while ago, thank you for your nice comment :) Neftchi (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Heidi Klum

First, let me clear this simple fact that I am not scared with you blocking my IP address. All I would have to do is to restart my Model and I will back on again. Oh and BTW I do have multiple ISPs in my house. So, good luck with that. Stop threatening me.

Now the real topic. I have three more links to satisfy you. You still keep deleting the text. Of course I left the links I initially had in the text in there. Point out a problem, if you have any, with them. You seriously think that her becoming a naturalized citizen is a big deal. However, her disrespecting another religion is not important. Let me ask you--would you react in the same way if Heidi Klum dressed as mother Mary and drank alcohol and danced in a club all night. As reported in one of the citations, when Heidi heard Nelly's song "hot in here" she said "I want to take my arms off." Did you know that is very symbolic for goddess Kali. It is similar to Heidi getting up on the stage dressed as Mother Mary and saying "I am tired of being a virgin."

To fascinate you even further, I have added even more links. One of the links shows a rather small, but important, news where multinational company Bayer's CEO apologized for disrespecting Goddess Kali. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.51.40 (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You claimed you were adding new external references, but the ones I checked were the same as before.

Several editors have removed this material about her party costume, and given their reasons. The place to make your comments is on the discussion page, not here, where the other editors will not see it. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

List of songs about London

Hi, I see you just removed 'linkspam' from 'Blessed' by Simon and Garfunkel. For info, someone placed this link there to demonstrate that the song is about Soho, London and not about SoHo, New York, after the song had been removed by someone else who did not believe this. Pterre (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sounds like a good reason to include it. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Insadong‎

Care to join the discussion about the links that you removed but were immediately restored as "official links"? --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective and patience --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. I don't know whether you are aware, but another contributor to the Korean pages challenged the block that admin VirtualSteve placed on 112.222.74.196 (block at my request). [14]. The admin (or I?) is being accused of cultural bias toward America, or perhaps against Korea. You have to wonder...the admin has been to Korea, my Father served there, and I shop at a Korean market on a fairly regular basis. All this because I removed external link WP:SPAM from an article presented to me at random by MWT! (And then undid a dozen of the vandal's edits.) Lol. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware, hence my admiration of your patience. --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

chesnoff

Your comment on notability has already been decided. Look at the comments of the editors.

Per WP:Deletion, outside of things like copyright violations with legal issues, the role of quality of the article is irrelevant to the question of keeping or deleting--the question is whether it can be cleaned up. To address your question about NOTINHERITED--I want to point out that (1) NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a guideline, and it has been disputed (in particular by me) due to what I have seen as its mis-use in arguments, in cases exactly like this one. For example, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Cynamon, it was argued that a lawyer is not notable if "the subject's notability arises from his actions in representing his client". I think this is an argument that is used in an attempt to override WP:N, to argue to delete material even when sufficient coverage exists in reliable sources to write an encyclopedic article on the topic. And as a side note, I also want to point out that there is one article I showed above that stated that Chesnoff was a suspect in a murder case, and that article was written directly about him. Cazort (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's very interesting, thank you. I only came across the article in the process of going through the backlog in the "Recent changes patrol" for new articles, and assumed there was no significant discussion. So my tag was just a comment in passing.

I'm rather more interested in what way you have disputed WP:NOTINHERITED. Do you have a couple links you'd share? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any off hand, but can you remove that tag? Thx. Letsgetit136 (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Your user page heading

Why did I delete something that's completely true?Probably because it wasn't cited. Even if you saw something with your own eyes, if it contradicts what other editors put in the article, your statement needs a reference. Got to have that, or a month from now some editor will come along and just undo it — having no idea where the idea came from.

• It's just as possible that someone will come along and put in the correct reference. I know that I've done this many times. Luminifer (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, reasonable point. I'm writing an article now where I don't want to pay $10.50 to get the reference, but I can see from an abstract that the reference exists. Someone else can add it later, if it's that critical.

This Wiki account is mostly used for anti-vandalism from anonymous IPs, and the message was targeted toward them. It's not unusual for new editors to come to Wikipedia with high expectations they've found something important to contribute, only to immediately have their edit removed by Huggle, MWT, or one of the bots. They come to an anti-vandalism editor's page, and they're not in a happy mood. Rather than recite an endless string of rules — a practice that I found annoying when I was a new contributor — I suggest the practical consequences of *them* adding uncited material, which is simply that it's likely to be erased. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Please will you chip in here with a further comment? --VS ^talk 01:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You must be a mind reader! I saw the block at my request, and decided to read your personal page. Then I drifted over to your discussion, and was surprised to see someone questioning the block. I was just in the process of answering. Best regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

All fine at my end - although thank you for your offer.--VS ^talk 03:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sustainable Living External Link

I noticed shortly after I made an edit from an IP address that you deleted the entire external links section on sustainable living, and advised users to say why they felt a link was of note. I felt that you justified the deletion quite well, and consequently felt encouraged to finally make an account after a long history of Wikipedia use. I also did exactly as you advised and posted on the article's talk page stating why I felt that particular site was worthy of note. However, the Talk page as a whole seems to be suffering from inactivity. I was wondering if you could comment on my proposition at your convenience, as you are clearly an exemplary user. Jscpowser (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, heh. Unwarranted compliments. Grin.

My concern about the external links was that various entities, with various interests, some inappropriate to Wikipedia, were feeling free to add their external links.

I've no issue with you replacing external links that have some special significance to the article, and are according to Wikipedia policy.

What I do have something of an issue with is the conception that because the subject of an article is virtuous, that anyone can chip in. That the rules don't apply any more. The article was presented to me by an anti-vandalism tool, at random. It showed me an external link that was just added, to www.2b4theworld.com. I examined that site, and wasn't impressed that it was essential to the article. Wikipedia, for better or worse, is not a linkfarm for all interesting, related subjects. See WP:NOTLINK on this.

At any rate, I wasn't making a definitive statement, or taking a stand about any particular external link. I was hoping to attract the attention of some reasonable and constructive editors. It appears I succeeded. Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)-

Right place, right time, followed by initiative: Providence in a nutshell. Sustainable living is something I've recently taken a strong interest in, and the deplorable state of that article along with your well-placed interjection has moved me to take a more active role on Wikipedia as a whole. I'm currently trying to get some sort of outline and citations together for the improvement of that page. When I was initially placing the link, it felt like something of a cheap shot- even though my intentions were good- to add something like that while leaving the rest of the article to standards I felt were inadequate. It will consequently be my Wikipedia starting point, and I hope to expand on many more things in the future. Thanks for the nudge; I am a firm believer that the smallest of pushes in the right direction can go the greatest of distances. Jscpowser (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

American Girl

I saw you left a note on the talkpage a while ago. I started pruning a little bit, but don't know how far to go. As far as I am concerned, 80% of the article ought to be cut, but there's so many articles on WP full of unverified, detailed information on anime characters etc. Any advice? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies, thank you for asking. I also had issues with American Girl months ago. It's an interesting, but not overly difficult situation. The article is regularly targeted for change by...girls, unsurprisingly...but also by commercial interests. I've had conversations with User_talk:Heidilaura, who is, in a manner speaking, the article's guardian angel. This is a topic of interest to her, and she has worked long to keep the excessive unencyclopedic material out. Not being keenly interested in the topic, my feeling was that Wikipedia was lucky to have her -- irrespective of the article's excessive length. Heidilaura is pleasant, and you might enjoy addressing your issues to her. I'll also note that a frequent contributor to the article is User:Woohookitty, who is not just a Wiki administrator, but a very senior one. So, if there are opportunities for article improvement, there are also forces at work to keep the article in check. Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your response. I've made some more edits to the article and dropped Heidilaura a note; I proposed a list article for all those dolls and she agreed, adding some suggestions (she's knowledgeable enough to sort out what to me looks like a mess (is it about dolls? books? both?), so I think we're making progress. I'll keep you posted. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fanta

Hey mate, I had to revert your edit as it deleted Montenegro from the list. In Montenegro, all Coca-Cola products are the same in Serbia as Coca Cola Serbia is responsible for Montenegro. Rave92^(talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I was attempting to revert the work of a vandal. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok :). Rave92^(talk) 21:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions about Wikipedia Etiquette

I'm new to editing Wikipedia pages and I have a question about etiquette. I noticed that someone removed some content that had been inserted by myself & improved by another editor. I'd like to find out why the person removed that content, and restore it, but I don't want to get into a situation where the content is restored, removed, restored, etc. What is the etiquette on such a matter and who referees such situations?

Thanks, from Palomar444 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palomar444 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking! You are referring to edits you made on Camp Merrimac, here [15]?

An editor removed this material you added:

"In 1975 Tony Bond met Debra Silvermen at camp -- they were married in 1976 and now have five children, four boys and a girl. They are one of many Merrimac couples from the 1940s to the 1990s. In some instances the children of Merrimac couples attended the camp. One curious case involved Michael Bertin, who was a camper, waiter and counselor at Merrimac from 1953 to 1962. In 1962 he was joined at camp by his girlfriend, Barbara Bunin. They married in 1964. In 1992 Michael returned to Merrimac for 3 summers as a group leader. When he approached Bob and Werner about this possibility Bob had to speak to Barbara to make sure Michael wasn't a bit crazy. It was the ultimate walk down memory lane."

Ask the editor personally, if you choose, but that material is far enough outside Wikipedia guidelines that I can explain. To get your hands on the basic problem, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's trying to be like the Encyclopedia Britannica, not someone's diary. Statements such as "The ultimate walk down memory lane" and "make sure Michael wasn't a bit crazy" are ok for magazines and blogs, but they are not strictly, demonstrably factual. They are in the language of poetry and fiction, and not the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia has three core policies. They are that information must be verifiable WP:SOURCE, that information must not be an editor's own, original research WP:OR, and that a neutral perspective should be maintained WP:NPOV. Bob talked to Barbara? Who says? When did the conversation happen? Was it video recorded? Can other Wikipedia editors and readers check the video recording to see what it says for themselves? If not, then everyone has to take your word for it. And that's not what Wikipedia is about. You don't write about what you saw yourself, but quote what other, reliable, published sources said. (Seems a little weird at first, I grant you.)

On the other hand, this material that you added is constructive and factual. There is no "slant", no personal opinion. (Notice that later editors did not delete it.)

"Both boys and girls attended the camp from after World War II until 1998."

You are headed generally in the right direction. It does take some time to learn the basic Wikipedia guidelines! I'd encourage you to stick around and learn the ropes! Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Westmoreland Mall

First of all, I don't work for the mall, so I'm not promoting anything, I'm just posting what I thought was useful information. Secondly, how is this crystal ball speculation? The site plans are legitimate and township officials have discussed this expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.229.247 (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I do appreciate your response, and the context in which you made it. The issue is elsewhere.

I've decided to address this in another way. I don't believe that the article belongs in Wikipedia. This is just another mall. As far as I can see, there isn't anything distinctive here; it's just another group of business enterprises that happens to be in the same location. Every business is somewhere. Giving the place it resides a name doesn't make it more important. I've just tagged the article for evaluation, and possible deletion. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So then that would mean that every other mall in the Pittsburgh area (which has a Wikipedia article) as well as hundreds of others would also fall within the same criteria you mentioned already? The mall in question *is* notable in the fact that it is one of the largest enclosed shopping centers in Western Pennsylvania, I've sourced it to prove this. This is like saying that Mall of America is not notable even though it is one of the largest malls in the United States. The mall site also happens to be the location where several famous people camped 60 years prior to the mall's existence. This is also sourced. I also suggest that you visit www.labelscar.com for a second opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.229.247 (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There are probably significant malls, because of their role in society, or highly significant events happening there, or on account of their architecture. But simply having a lot of businesses in a big building...so what? The businesses have to go somewhere. We might as well have Wiki articles about all stores on a particular street, or around a particular square.

Moreover, I'm concerned that these articles are heavily commercial, and give otherwise unnotable businesses an opportunity to spam Wikipedia. WP:SPAM, WP:LINKSPAM.

So, yes, the answer to your question is that I would like to see 99% of the articles on malls removed from Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, your concern of these articles is that malls are just big buildings with a lot of stores in them, but the reality is that malls are extensions of the post-World War II suburban areas in which they are located, especially in the United States where the majority of them are located. They essentially act as indoor main streets or cities. Every business may be somewhere, but when it comes to malls or cities, they are a major part of the physical landscape. I see room for improvement with these articles though.

And you mention, "We might as well have Wiki articles about all stores on a particular street, or around a particular square." We are not talking about stores in a particular mall, but more the history and the reasons why these malls were built in the first place. I don't think the articles are trying to act as a promotional advertisement for the mall, however. That's what the mall's official website is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.229.247 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I suggest you visit the WikiProject Shopping Center group to get an idea on what articles on shopping centers and malls are intended to be. [[16]]71.61.229.247 (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree in some large part, actually. As long as someone is thinking these mall articles through -- as opposed to "hit and run" contributions by anonymous editors with no other edits -- then the information could be useful. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

John Lennon "Working Class Hero"

I see your point but please see mine. What makes the Green Day cover that much better than all other covers? They belong in the covers section, period. I will revert changes once a day to avoid an edit war, I can keep it up once a day. I play that song as well but because I am not famous, I could never be mentioned as a person who covers it. I am fine with that. What gets to me is how much the Green Day section is riding on the coat tails of such a well known, established song. People should not see Wikipedia as a promotional tool for their own interest by shadowing the work of another artist with content of an artist they like. If people look up Working Class Hero, they will see what notable artist have covered it. They should never see half an article on a cover unless it was completely revolutionary, such as "Knocking On Heavens Door", originally by Bob Dylan but in case point, Guns n Roses made completely their own. There is nothing revolutionary about Green Days rendition, just another cover that fails in comparison to the original.

75.38.111.47 (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My mistake! I just put your version back. I was looking at portion of the text, and for some reason I thought the article was only about the non-Lennon cover version. There is a Lennon single cover for this, and of course, it's the one that should be used. [17].

In terms of what to do, however, just reverting over and over is not the way to go. (It could still be counted as an edit war. See WP:EW) The discussion page is the place to take this. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Élton José Xavier Gomes

Success is only attributable to the speed of the computer when you are faster than me. When I'm faster than you it's skill and judgment. William Avery (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I was afraid you'd see the flaw in my artful complaint. Darn it. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

Hi. Just wanted to say how effective the 'system' is in finding malicious users. And you of course! Thanks for the quick correction on my article. Also, after reading through some other comments to you, I have made a major edit to my article. Thanks for your input and diligence. Lcrtp (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Looks like you are doing some hard work, there. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

'Private'

Thanks for your input regarding Private (novel series). I responded on the Talk Page. -- James26 (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding subsequent use of names after first use, there is WP:SURNAME [18]:

'After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms". For example: Fred Smith was a cubist painter in the 15th century. He moved to Genoa, where he met John Doe. Smith later commented: "D'oh!"'

Also, for example, in Wikinews [19]:

"Names of people and organizations

On the first mention of a person in a story, write the person's organization, title, and full name. Try to include a local link or Wikipedia link to their organization and name. Many politicians have local categories and main namespace redirects, e.g. George W. Bush.

When asked his opinion, American Association of Puppy Lovers President John Doe said puppies were fun and cute.

On subsequent mentions, mention only the person's significant name without it being a wikilink. For western names this is the last name, many asian countries use the first name for subsequent mentions."

Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As mentioned, I know that's the case with real people, but I haven't found it to be the case with fictional characters. Thousands of Wikipedia articles refer to fictional characters by their first names throughout -- including the Good Article example I provided, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Therefore, I think the use of first names throughout the article should simply remain unchanged. Thanks again for your input on the article overall. -- James26 (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any strong sentiment one way or the other, but I thought the "last name" practice was used everywhere in Wiki. (I'm not sure why fiction should be an exception, but whatever.) I do have one article-specific comment? Before I made changes, characters were named with: first and last name, last name, or first name, interchangeably. (That I recall, there weren't instances of first, middle and last name.) The point is, without any apparent guidelines, there's no way to clean up fiction articles. Any casual editor is free to use whatever naming convention they feel appropriate -- without regularizing the naming in the rest of the article. Regards to you, Piano non troppo (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edit to the article. I've since had to undo more damage, because -- as I mentioned on the Talk Page -- it's under repeated attack from annoying people who continually try to insert dramatic text and product descriptions. The state you'd found it in previously was actually not as bad as it gets sometimes. I'm grateful for your reversion, and would appreciate any additional ones. -- James26 (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Beautiful

I don't know who you are kidding but to not mention Angelina's huge media following and how her looks are regarded would be like not mentioning John Wayne appeared in loads of westerns. It is obviously important to the person's status. It isn't original research or one editor's subjective opinion when it is cited by thousands of media sources all across the world. The article has gone through FA and been pier reviewed and everything and if it was not relevant or appropriate it would not have been permitted to be included. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I like and respect Jolie. However, I also recognize that marketing departments will say anything, including what is completely subjective and unprovable. Such marketing-driven articles are not reliable Wikipedia references. Otherwise, there will be a thousand Wiki articles stating that someone is the most beautiful in the world. That would tend to call the reliabilty of all those Wiki articles in question. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree in a way. But women like Jolie and "beauty" go hand in hand with the media coverage of her. It is the same with guys like Brad Pitt and David Beckham, they have probably received more attention for their looks that their actual professions. When it is at that sort of level not mentioning the huge worldwide media coverage they get would be really like you are trying to hide something. Where does it describe somebody as the "eighth wonder of the world". Because I agree that is overstepping the mark by a long shot. Where is that? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a mention at the end of section "Early Career"? [20]

'The film was also noted for the song "Poovukkul", written by Vairamuthu, dubbing Rai as the "eighth wonder of the world", with the music video comparing her to seven other prominent world monuments.'

With Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've toned that down as I agree that is way too much. The trick is to mention the media coverage but not make it sound like some PR blog bigging the actors up. The thing is I live in the UK and I've seen Rai in some magazines at the Cannes Film Festival discussing her as one of the world's most beautiful women so I think it is not just in some Indian sources. Also one of the sources is CBS, a national American media group. I agree that if mentioned by one or two is is subjective but when it has been widely discussed all over the world, maybe it is worth mentioning but written in a toned down way. As for Rai being the most beautiful, personally I think Bipasha Basu, Mallika Sherawat and Priyanka Chopra are hotter, so it isn't my view or Shahid's (Shshshsh) (to my knowledge). But it is afact it has been widely reported in the media. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also note that User:Shshshsh regularly removes POV and all sorts of fan cruft and unreferenced that people add to these Indian articles otherwise you;d be quite shocked with how gushing they would sound if he wasn't around to at least control it. Then you look at Indian writer articles which arne't on many watchlists and the POV is horrendous. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Indian articles present an interesting challenge to Wikipedia, don't they? Between Europe, Down Under and North America, there's commonality of historical precedents, names, religion...and even media stars. What a Wiki editor writes in New Zealand is likely to be readily intelligible to a reader in South Africa.

Though I have affiliations with Indian culture, overall I find Indian Wiki articles difficult. Professionally, I was involved for a couple years editing material from India for wider use. Mostly it was usual editorial task — encouraging writers to improve on what skills they had. Occasionally though, I would run into: "This is perfectly acceptable here in India, why are you questioning it?" Following up, I perceived something of an alternate social order in play. Perhaps the writer had a social "position" of some sort based on caste or education? — but they did not expect to be questioned. The social issues aren't clear to me. Nor does there seem to be an easy remedy for what you just noted as horrendous POV in Indian articles. It's for these reasons that I tend to avoid editing articles on Indian subjects. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As a coda, I noted with interest and amusement this edit of Shshshsh's [21]. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for reverting vandalism on my page

No Problem! I've had issues with it myself and hate vandalism with a passion. It's especially nice when your able to do it quickly when they are going after someone else who is working against them :). If I remember correctly it was the same person who kept me and a couple other guys busy for a while last night before we could wrangle an admin.

Hi

Hello, I'm not sure if this is where I can talk to you? I've got a 'inappropriate link' message from you. I wanted to link the Masters of Business Administration site to BusinessBecause as it is held the reference to my text about the admissions policy of Harvard changing. Would this be suitable to be put back on the wikipedia page? I think I may not have put a date next to my text fact(which would be 2009).

Really sorry for the other inappropriate links I've added, I am new to wikipedia editing. I saw that FT and Business Week popped up a few times as links etc on varies pages so I considered the BusinessBecause website to be appropriate to add where I saw these other similar websites listed. Is this not the case?

SianFJ (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. When a statement in Wikipedia is likely to be questioned, it needs a reference. On the other hand, if it is not likely to be questioned, then the reference may be unnecessary. In particular external links whose purpose is largely to promote a Web site outside of Wikipedia (and to direct traffic there) is often considered WP:SPAM and deleted. It is especially inappropriate to add the same external link several times to an article.

This statement that you added is not appropriate to Wikipedia for a similar reason, it's promotional:

"Interact with the top 50 schools by looking at their pages on BusinessBecause"

An example of a phrase you added is that original research is your uncited contention that there is something special about the recent admission changes to "many schools". Original research, that is, uncited personal opinion is contrary to one of Wikipedia's three "core values", and that is WP:NOR.

Although I confess the anti-vandalism tool I'm using does not leave a proper explanation for my edits -- that's not something you should do. An edit that you briefly explain in the Edit Summary is far more likely to be accepted. And not reverted, as you will note another editor already did to your changes in Master of Business Administration.

It seems from your editing history that you are making a number of good edits to articles on business schools. (I think you've been editing with an anonymous IP, yes?) This one, to Rotterdam Business School, was interesting, albeit with a tad much original research [22]. Adding www.businessbecause.com to many articles will soon get you temporarily blocked from editing. On the other hand, a number of other edits you're making are constructive and interesting. It does take some while to learn the Wikipedia guidelines. Generally, other editors will be polite as long as you are, and if you explain your edits when making them. With Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply piano non troppo I'll make sure I edit properly in the 'wikiway' next time.SianFJ (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nina Girado

Okay, I'll try to retype it in my own words. Thanks for reminding. (User EugeSer 14)

No problem. The material could stand to have a little more formal tone, anyhow. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dawn Wells

I agree with your edit summary about the "marijuana incident" and have started (another) comment at Talk:Dawn Wells#More about marijuana incident. I notice the issue has been raised by other editors but that one user is convinced that it must be included, and the discussion seems to have died each time it's reached a brick wall. If you're interested in commenting, your opinion is certainly welcome. Rossrs (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless a crime is exceptional Wiki material on actor's crimes ought to be in small proportion to their overall work, not, as was the case with Wells', constitute a third of the article. There's an pernicious bias in Wikipedia for salacious sources that are easy to get ahold of -- for example newspaper gossip pieces -- in lieu of books such as Inside Gilligan's Island that make at least a modest attempt to research, document and present a coherent viewpoint. How many people -- even Gilligan's Island fans -- have time to read a book vs. how many have 30 seconds for some random online factoid?

Knowledgeable fans need to be encouraged step up and fix this kind of thing. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit on Human evolution

Do you have a specific reason ? 76.16.183.158 (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The tool I use for anti-vandalism only shows me the last edit. So I actually was responding to you deleting the entire section "Implications for the concept of race", which is cited. (They are all from the same source, granted.) After more careful reading, I'm not happy with that section either. It uses jargon that's bound to be difficult for a typical reader. Some of it sounds like babble.

I had no issue with the other changes you made. So overall, I'm ok with you reverting. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you rethink about your revert?

The revert to Pacific Place Jakarta is pretty confusing to me. I'm not trying to be a sockpuppet here, but I have to agree with 202.47.69.213. Even if it's entirely in Indonesian, a news page, and includes a blog, I've seen a lot of similar pages, and they were not even counted as spam. Plus, I seem to have found a link to the English version of this page. Regards,--ROT9 (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the edit [23]. I did look at the external link before removing it. There would be several factors: 1) It's in Indonesian, 2) The site prominently displays a login, 3) It's highly professional and commercial (professional quality cartoon characters, professional quality photos in slide show banner. Each one of the points alone would tend to make it inappropriate. Taken together, as an external link, page is certainly inappropriate. (There's already an external link to the official business site.) The page is linked from an article on a shopping mall? That makes it WP:SPAM. The Wiki article itself is promotional, including phrases such as "it all began", "and lots more", "the most interesting floor". I.e., I'm not entirely sure the article belongs in Wikipedia at all, it's verging on WP:SPAM, itself. The external link is basically spam-linking-to-spam. Yours, Piano non troppo (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see the factors of the page being involved on WP:SPAM, however, the webpage itself is not linked through the Pacific Place Jakarta website. The official site itself summarizes the theme park briefly, compared to the Kidzania page which specifies the place itself clearly.--ROT9 (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your changes to Art education page removing list of name

Hello,

I am a member of the National Art Education Association (NAEA) and gave a presentation on April 17 that related to the list of names on the 'art education' page on wikipedia. I noticed that you removed that list of names on April 17. Is there any chance that you are a member of the NAEA or possibly attended the NAEA conference? Just wondering if this was merely a coincidence or if there was any connection.

Please let me know. My email is (I'm using the written out words for the 'at' and the 'underscore' to hopefully prevent spam. melanie(underscore)buffington(at)hotmail.com

Thank you for your time. Melanie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.60.99 (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A) Answering your question, I am not a member of an artistic association. That includes the NAEA.

B) The reason I made this edit [24] is to delete a list of more than 40 uncited, largely unlinked people who are -- in verbiage of Wikipedia -- described in WP:PEACOCK terms as "famous world contributors". This is promotional and unprofessional material that has no place in an encyclopedia. Their contributions to art education should either be explained explicitly (with proper references), or they should not appear. When a person is claimed to be famous without authoritative support, it is WP:OR, and contrary to one of the three core values of Wikipedia. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wondered about editing accuracy

hey all my teachers told me not to use this site because people can add what they want all the time. i didnt know if it was true or not so i wanted to test it out. sorry for the trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.148.190 (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Sounds like a reason! How about telling your teachers that I reverted your edit and sent you a message within a few moments of you making your change? Hee, hee.

For me? Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it's an experiment to see how lots of people -- from many countries and cultures -- can get along and do something useful. That means all people, even if they are students. I had things to say when I was a teenager. Maybe they weren't right. (They probably weren't especially intelligent.) But...I could have learned a lot, very quickly, editing here. I don't think Wikipedia is just for people who are experts. (And tell your teachers to think big!) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said Piano non troppo - your young friend should note that it is because there are 100's of 1000's of editors watching to make sure that Wikipedia is as accurate as possible - is the very reason why this project should be promulgated by teachers as the very first reference/research site for students. Those students, depending upon the level of accuracy required can then use the references provided on this site to research more deeply/widely. Best wishes.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 04:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:ITunes Store

Thanks for your polite notification. I am aware that the template I added (Macintosh) has a different priority than the one already there (Software). Different WikiProjects have different priorities, so an article that is tangential to one may be central to another. So yes, I meant to do what I did, including leave the software priority in place for someone of that WikiProject. Cheers, HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: U2 360° Tour‎ details

Cheers, I'm glad you found it of interest. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Induction cooker

You modified Induction cooker to replace the word "former" with "second", which made the article imply that induction cookers worked primarily by hysteresis losses. I assume that was a mistake, because you left the next sentence, which stated (as the references state) that these losses typically accounted for less than ten percent of the total heat generated. So I have changed "second" to "first". Let me know if you see any problems. 96.26.243.182 (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, thank you for catching that. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Commercialism

I appreciate your comments with regards to commercialism on the "Sphereing" page - I am new to Wikipedia editing and still learning the ropes and correct etiquette. I was not attempting to use this article as a promotional tool, simply trying to ensure the facts are correct and remove those comments that did not fit within the "sphereing" article. The term "ZORB" is a registered trademark by the company ZORB limited, hence why the page "ZORB" was removed from Wiki, and redirected to sphereing. Some of the changes made were to ensure the trademark is not infringed upon further (namely in the "In popular culture" and a mention of a "ZORB" site). As mentioned, Wiki-editing is new to me, and I would appreciate some direction from you. You appear to be well involved in ensuring articles are not vandalised and I am sure will have some valid input into this page. I do not want to "promote" any company, business or person, simply ensure the facts in the articles are correct and relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorb guru (talk • contribs) 22:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking. For a business, for fans of a rock group, for those with a special cause, there's one tough pill to swallow, which is that Wikipedia is not a free promotional site. It's owned and run by the Wikimedia Foundation, and to edit it, one needs to follow the rules. The second pill, which I found overwhelmingly and exceptionally frustrating as a new editor, is that Wiki seems to have a rule for everything. As a new Wiki editor, I felt I was constantly being "baffled by bullshit".

Let's talk about the edits of another editor? Eight hours after my edit to Sphereing, editor "Thrill Girl" made a significant edit that was reverted within a few minutes by experienced editor "SynergyBlades". The changes she made are here [25]. "Thrill Girl" made several types of change — almost all were unhelpful, or were contrary to guidelines. One you might be most interested in is:

"While the Zorb Limited business model involves leasing spheres to franchisees, and not selling them to private individuals, several companies now offer sphereing balls for sale."

This describes details of Zorb's business. But this Wiki article is about the concept of "sphereing", not about a business. Perhaps Zorb would like to imagine they invented the whole thing, but in fact, this idea has been around for decades. Phrases such as "Zorb Limited" -- which does not appear in the summaries on first page of Google results for "zorb sphereing", and the sly innuendo that "other" companies produce inferior products suggests "Thrill Girl" wants to assert that Zorb is what sphereing is all about. (Note there has been much on the discussion page about how commercial this article is [26].)

Next most importantly, "Thrill Girl"'s editing process was poor, particularly that she gave no explanation at all for her edits. Especially when such major changes are made, it's just politeness to other editors to explain them. (If you look at her editing history, you'll see she never explains herself.) This kind of behavior is close to vandalism, especially when...

Many of the changes she made were wrong. She replaced 14 trivial popular culture links -- use of such is discouraged in Wiki. I had changed the opening sentence to match a common Wiki style. She changed it back to include verbose, pointless phrases such as "the activity of", and "the recreational practice of humans". She put Wikilinks on words "recreational", "business model", "franchises" and "sphere", none of which are probably necessary WP:CONTEXT. I.e., she's apparently an advocate for Zorb, is writing poorly, and is ignoring Wiki policies and protocol.

Hopefully this gives an idea of common pitfalls. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer and clarification. I understand your comments and the example makes it very clear how easy it is for someone to commercialise an article. You will notice "Thrill Girl" has gone through and edited the article further (as per usual, with no explanation for her edits). I do not believe she is an advocate for Zorb as her latest edits have removed all and any reference to Zorb - it appears she would be an advocate for another sphereing company (opposed to Zorb). Her latest edits have removed topical facts relating to sphereing, would you say this warrants an "undo"? As I mentioned previously, I am still getting to grips with the wiki-editing and etiquette. Thanks again. Zorb guru (talk)

I got a message from you

Hi, you sent me a message about some editing that I did??

I don't do any edits of any sort, nor would anyone else who has access to this pc, so I'm not sure what you're on about.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.155.91 (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. It was probably another computer, months ago, with the same Internet Address. You just picked up someone else's message. (The experience you had is rare.) FYI, the edit I was responding to was this profanity in King Penguin [27]. Obviously that edit needed to be reverted, and the Wikipedia process is that the reverted editor gets a message explaining the issue. That's the message you saw. Nothing to do with you. Please enjoy your reading. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Brotherhood of Death

In what way have I vandalized the Brotherhood of Death article, as you have accused me of doing and threatened me for? 12.155.58.181 (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I missed that it was a quotation, not your personal opinion. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Gotcha. No problem, then. Thanks for the clarification. 12.155.58.181 (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

talk where?

what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.37.118 (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(Left instructions on how to add a comment on their page.) Piano non troppo (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Im just trying...

What do ya need from me cause I can pull it all up....nobody cares anymore...everyone just glances and excepts it....whadaya want from me...I was hoping to post and disapear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.37.118 (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You don't *need* to do anything. New edits in Wikipedia are reviewed. So this was just a comment. To do with what you like. Maybe useful if you'd like to contribute in the future. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Brickwork vandalism

I disagree. The information is useful, correct and commonly used. I would also say it's concise and in the correct topic to broadly introduce the problems people will then want to read about in other topics. Brickwork is the first topic most people wanting to find out about brick laying will hit. I just had trouble getting it correctly aligned on the page.

The only reason I know these terms is because I'm out buying the stuff and using it, soaking up the mistakes others won't have to make if they read the article, as opposed to being great at editing the code of wiki. I can't do both simultaneously, but I would suggest wiki benefits most from having both those people who can supply information and those who can lay it out in a clean looking format. Otherwise, we either have people who are great at editing and don't know what to write about, or people like me who are the vice versa. This is a community project after all. Similar to the now hotly debated "does slang deserve a place in the dictionary" discussion.

You don't say how my changes are incorrect, so I can only assume I'm being punished for incorrect layout.

I would suggest the article would benefit most if my changes were reinstated and someone better at editing could get them correctly placed with respect to the images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.47.178 (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I replaced your edit.

I was looking at some of the casual language you used, and not considering the content. I would encourage you to continue editing Wiki, actually. Have a look at [28], point 3 before you launch into it, though. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Roy Rogers store list

(Question was why article shouldn't have a complete list of restaurant locations.)

Wikipedia is not an online directory WP:NOTDIRECTORY points 3, 4, 5. Wiki is not a free opportunity for businesses with three, ten, or hundreds of locations to list each location. That's what online search and phone books are for. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I realized I didn't answer part of your question (elsewhere). After your observation, I went to the Carl's Jr. page, with the intent of evaluating the list of links you mentioned, and possibly deleting them. I left them intact, because they gave me information that surprised me and which has considerable cultural significance. I was tempted to remove the list of US states with restaurants, but "American Samoa" caught my eye. I wondered what it was doing there, in contrast to, say, Puerto Rico or Guam. The list of countries with Carl's Jr. isn't even a question. It's an unequivocal statement about sharing of American culture. I was moderately surprised to see Russia and Malaysia in the list. (I would have been astonished to see Burma, North Korea, Yemen, or Libya.) In fact, I would like to have seen some explanation of how Carl's Jr. established itself in Russia and Malaysia -- and any special terms, conditions, selections. (Other Wikipedia articles do this.) But in terms of an exhaustive list of the 1,000s of Carl's Jr. restaurants? It would be immediately deleted by any experienced Wiki editor. Again, the goal is not advertising, but recording of what is notable in an encyclopedia. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thnaks for the info.