User talk:Piano non troppo/Archive: The Sequel

Simpsons

I'm sorry, but that was the worst episode ever. Death to the Simpsons 71.135.56.241 (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not vandalize (title changed)

I did not vandalize, i was trying to correct vandalism but didnt know what i was doing and accidently saved another page with vandalism

sorry if i wasted your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.49.112 (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I struck out my comment on your page to "clear the record". Piano non troppo (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! (added by 72.138.49.112, but mistakenly removed as vandalism [1])

State Defense Forces

Thanks for your help in reverting unsourced edits, personal opinion and other forms of vandalism, all of which have come in a barrage the last 60 minutes or so from several SP ANON IP's. If I were skeptic, I'd think it was an orchestrated effort. Wait, I am a skeptic. Newguy34 (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your message (Vilnius County)

It seems that the phrase that was replaced was not referenced either (and also that phrase was not making much sense as to why such a "new" role to this particular region). A fact is that the new borders were diluting the % of Poles in the region (compare different census numbers) and probably that was one of the reasons for this change altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.94.26 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I puzzled over both versions for some while. I actually couldn't quite understand the meaning of the one you put in and wasn't sure whether it was just vandalism. If you could expand on it, that would be helpful. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How to edit and become an admin

Can you help me?

I think I edited something else on your page but I don't know what this is all so new to me :*(

Ok then help me become an admin like you, what do I need to do?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.19.252 (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. To be an admin, you'll want to be in Wikipedia for several months, make many good edits, make friends, and keep your cool. A good place to start is to get yourself "adopted". That's explained on this page [2], but all you really need to do is add {{subst:dated adoptme}} to your user page.

By-the-way, I'm not an admin. You can have plenty of fun, and make important contributions to Wiki just as a regular editor. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I bookmarked this page so I can check out the links later thanks. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.19.252 (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Darcy Freeman

This story is big news in Australia. It will continue to be. Allow this to remain as a notable death. Not every day a 4 year old child gets thrown off a bridge by her insane father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightybigman (talk • contribs) 08:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said on your discussion page, being in the newspapers does not automatically make something notable. Wiki has different (and higher) standards than most newspapers. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tim Richmond

Hi Piano, I was looking at the Tim Richmond article - if I understand the history correctly, you added the wikify tag (which I didn't touch), and a statement about a political game being played. I was wondering what that meant? Usually I only see that wikify tag on stub class articles, or maybe even start class, but was surprised to see it on a C-Class article. I don't debate that the article could use a ton of improvement, I added a fact tag myself while I was there. Anyway, I just wondered - I know there were a lot of politics within NASCAR that kept him from getting the recognition he should have, and wondered if that was what you meant, or if it was something to do with the wikipedia. have a good one ... Ched (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You're seeing some of the same things I was.

The phrase "political game" in the edit explanation was responding to the appearance and disappearance of the intro para, which mentions that AIDS cut his career short. The wikify tag is more straightforward: 1) Examples of essay language, unsuitable for an encyclopedia "Everyone thought he was crazy for doing all these things in the mid 1980's. They had no idea how much ahead of everyone else he was" and "Tim was a hit with the ladies at the racetracks". 2) Some statements need references: "Nobody knows how to handle AIDS, especially in a sport as backward-thinking on so many things as this sport is", said Petty" and "many of his fans were outraged at NASCAR's treatment of him". 3) Most of all, the sequence of events isn't quite clear: He knew he had AIDS, but NASCAR tested him for Sudafed and Advil? Then asked him to surrender his hospital records for AIDS? Those events seem to be muddled, somehow.

Perhaps a "multiple issues" tag would be more suitable, but I'm uncomfortable with them. One of the guidelines given new professional editors is not to give writers so many edit suggestions that they're overwhelmed. Focus, it is said, on a couple areas where the writer is able to and liable to make improvement. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate you taking the time to explain that. I've seen a lot of "political" type of talk in regards to Wikipedia, and thought maybe that's what you meant. As conservative as I am, and as much as I love the sport - it's flat out wrong for his legacy to be treated as it is. He was a great driver, and if he didn't do anything to hurt anyone else - his abilities should be lauded. Thanks again, and I agree with your choices. — Ched (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Hi Piano non troppo. I just read the message you sent me a few minutes ago and wanted to tell you that I wasn't really try to vandalize the website. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression, I'm just quite new to editing wikipedia pages and I didn't know about the editing rules.. thanks for letting me know by the way, I'll pay more attention to them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.31.110 (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for responding. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Gulf and western (music genre)

Wow. You really swooped in and zapped a bunch of stuff quickly on that "Gulf and Western" page: less than one minute after I added another band to the list and before I added the trivia to the bottom of the article. (I clicked the edit buttons in reverse order from what I intended.) I worked with both Buffett and Fingers Taylor, and that list of other Gulf and Western performers that you deleted was actually a pretty good one. The only one in the list that I'd quibble with is Fingers Taylor. Just because he performed in Buffett's band for many years doesn't make his own work "Gulf and Western". He tends much more toward blues in his own recordings. I don't know if you can undo your deletion of that list, with or without the one added, but I'd argue that the ones there were reasonably justified. 99.141.119.177 (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The issue is that without a proper Wiki citation, it's difficult to tell the difference between: vandalism, inappropriate commercial promotion, and a legitimate entry. You might want to have a look at WP:MUSIC to see what is considered "notable". Then, if in your judgment, they are notable, by all means add them back. Giving a proper citation would ensure that some other editor doesn't remove them again. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. I just felt bad that by adding one other musician I knew of, that must have triggered you to check it and then delete the others that were already there. And it surprised me that it happened so quickly, between the time I edited one section and then the other. I thought I'd inadvertently done that, until I checked the history and saw your note. Nevertheless, thanks for your work on this site. It's very cool.

Well, thanks, but don't feel badly. There are a lot of ways to find vandals (which is what I was looking for). But in the big picture it benefits a band or music genre (or any Wiki article) to be properly represented. It looks professional and notable. It's a momentary disappointment for an editor to have material removed, but hopefully (fingers crossed) that's an incentive to contribute quality, referenced material. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tokyo Jihen

Hi - I can tell that you absolutely mean well with the edit you made to Shiina Ringo's wiki ((diff) (hist) . . Ringo Shiina‎; 07:43 . . (-918) . . Piano non troppo (Talk | contribs) (Removes external links. Editors, please read WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Also sites that have lyrics are in violation of international law and CANNOT be referenced in Wikipedia.))... Why did you remove the official Tokyo Jihen site - that is totally relevant. Luminifer (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove the official site for the artist: the topic of the article. The ten other links were off-topic, and generally, as I wrote, contrary to WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Adding the word "official" to a site that would otherwise be disallowed does not change the underlying nature of the site. The topic of the article is Ringo Shiina, not her band. I.e., Shiina does not get to spamlink every article on a band member, every CD, every single, every concert, just because they are "related". Piano non troppo (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I just went over both of those WP articles you pointed out, and I fail to see how the Tokyo Jihen page falls under either's jurisdiction - the page is very relevant. The other links I never disputed, so you don't really need to bring them up in this discussion - I didn't. Luminifer (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't entirely sure which links were under discussion. The issue is this: There's a sentence in WP:LINKSTOAVOID: "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." This gets freely interpreted by link spammers to mean any site that calls itself "official". A person's Wiki article is about them as individuals, and should not contain links to their fan clubs, their recording manager, their record company, the brand of perfume they endorse, their favorite charities, all the bands they ever played in, etc. (These are actual examples.) There's no logical end to the links that could be added. But, quote another sentence in WP:LINKSTOAVOID "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." I.e., there's nothing saying an article needs any external links.

Actually, this situation is a little unfortunate, because I think both anti-vandalism editors and editors acting in good faith are largely wasting their time. As a webmaster for a couple major companies, I know that "external links" are rarely used. I don't think people would bother to add them, if they knew how rarely. (Search engines are the preferred way to find related information.) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be exact with your wording

Hi - I can tell that you absolutely mean well with the edit you made to Shiina Ringo's wiki ((diff) (hist) . . Ringo Shiina‎; 07:43 . . (-918) . . Piano non troppo (Talk | contribs) (Removes external links. Editors, please read WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Also sites that have lyrics are in violation of international law and CANNOT be referenced in Wikipedia.))... All sites with lyrics can't possibly be in violation of international law - only sites with copyrighted lyrics for which the copyright restricts distribution as such (which means lyrics for most commercial artists). I know it's pedantic, but I the suggestion could be misleading, and I think could anger some people. Luminifer (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Right. That gloss was not particularly successful: I was targeting my message to what I guessed were the readers. However, in the case of that page, it did appear the lyrics pages were copyright infringements. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to be so vigilant with these clean-ups (and I should say, I don't think that's a bad thing), I would suggest you be more exact (and polite) in your wording. Saying blanket statements that are simply untrue is never a good idea - and will encourage a negative reaction. Wording things more carefully would probably get a better response overall from people who don't quite understand what you are doing or why you are doing it (judging by your talk page, that does seem to happen). Just trying to help. Luminifer (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Usually I have more trouble with the boilerplate messages that are left by the tool I'm using, particularly its wide use of the word "vandalism". I've suggested to the tool's author changes in this regard. I may be reduced to writing my own tool. (But then I'll have to take all the responsibility!) (Oh, also, I'm going to leave an explanation on the article's discussion page, clarifying just the points you made.) Piano non troppo (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

citing sources on Joe Carrasco's page

I'm his daughter is that a reliable enough source Youracnt (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(This is referring to this edit [3].)

Generally, the answer is no, it is not. When I first got to Wikipedia, I made edits about things I had first-hand knowledge about. They were (correctly) removed. Especially, controversial statements need references.

You also appear to have a conflict of interest WP:CONFLICT. When this is the case proper references and neutrality are essential. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:HorseGirl070605

I've been watching HG myself for the last few months and noticed that she has moved onto editing anonymously to avoid a block just a few days ago when she edited her own talkpage from the IP address. Anyway, it's clear she's sockpuppeting to evade a block as her behaviour has resumed after a final warning, AIV wouldn't have helped you out because it wasn't warned anymore than once by XLinkBot. Better to set up a case at WP:SPI as it's a lot more than simple warnings and I'm sure she's had more than 4 since she's been here. treelo _radda 10:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain. The reason given by AIV not to take action was that she did not edit again after a "final warning". She actually *was* given a previous final warning by AMALTHEA, but since that concerned a different edit (on the same article The Saddle Club), it doesn't count? Or possibly the editor reviewing the situation missed the fact that HorseGirl had erased the previous final warning...? At any rate let me know if there's something I *should* do at this point. I could just add my two cents if you or others decide to take further action. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I say it's complex but it isn't that much, Amalthea has issued a final warning for a long history of disruptive editing and because she's now using an IP address to evade what she sees as a probable punitive ban it's just gotten a bit easier to block. What for you to do... hmm, seeing as the only real complexity comes from just where a report regarding her should be made (could goto WP:SPI but could equally goto WP:WQA) your other best bet is simply to ask at WP:AN about what should be done and hopefully we'll get a better idea of where to go. I'd say to also go talk to User:Aoi about this, he's been watching HG for some time also and will have something to say about her, I've already mentioned this to Amalthea and she should pick it up on her return. Oh, nice to see you've borrowed a little bit of code from my talkpage there too. treelo _radda 12:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did borrow some code from your page to do the talk box. It may not be permanent, it's more in the nature of a learning experiment. I was thinking of quoting you as the source, but then I was uncertain how much you were using that was passed on from another source. If I've copied original work you did, I would be happy to mention the fact. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There's no reason to attributing it to me, it's fairly routine code. Might want to remove some of the code which is used for a imagemap I have commented out, had you used some of the images and the code which I used for positioning I might have wanted some attribution. You may also want to learn how to wrap thing in styled div tags so you don't have to make a mass of non-breaking spaces to get something into position. Anyway, we're digressing here, spoke to Aoi yet? treelo _radda 06:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha, you've noticed a coding habit which drives some cohort employees wild: When I've learned what I wanted to know about a problem, the rest is finished off as quickly as possible. "Focus on the task!" I say to them. They're scandalized. So it goes.

I hesitated to mention anything to Aoi -- guessing that between Amalthea and you and him HG's activities were well monitored. It's an interesting situation, though, and one where I can't help wondering what kind of personality it is that's behind this. A marketing manager for "The Saddle Club"? Or, given edits such as this, where HG doesn't seem to be able to spell simple words, an errant teen? [4]. Let me know if you'd like me to contribute in the process in some way further. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

They're right yknow. I said to speak to Aoi just so he knows what's going on with HG if he doesn't already. The personality behind it is a simple one, just some teen who hates the other editors (and has said so a few times) for "interfering" in her work, it's a MySpace mindset which is either too stubborn, stupid or arrgogant to change. If you want, just ask Aoi about her and what you know so far, he might be able to tell you a lot more. treelo _radda 12:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I just sent a little message to Aoi. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Received the message; thank you for letting me know. Let me know if I can help in any way. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Just a heads up, user is now editing at User talk:71.68.223.17. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For someone who is "retired", she doesn't seem that inclined to pack her stuff up and leave the building. treelo _radda 11:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Passive-aggressive: When confronted, retreats; when left alone, misbehaves. I notice she deleted Aoi's "final warning" from her page. That makes two "final warnings" she's deleted. I guess one of us should get started with the sockpuppet or vandal block? Piano non troppo (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so, we can wait for Amalthea to come back from her break or Aoi or myself can file a report, will a checkuser be required in this case? I reckon so just so we can be sure about the anons being HG herself. treelo _radda 13:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I spent an exciting 30 minutes reviewing her editing history as HorseGirl070605 and 71.68.223.17 over the last months. It's my impression that overall, she doesn't intend to change her behavior: She wants to say whatever she chooses. She wants to treat social sites such as Facebook as reliable references, and doesn't accept that she can't do this. She's not interested in following basic Wiki guidelines such as giving reasons for her edits, or reasons for removing other people's edits, or even signing her posts. This is a fairly comprehensive list of what she's done:

1) Threatens editors who have commented on her page (I'll have my dog bite you.)

2) Abuses editors (A-holes, idiots, peons)

3) Is a sockpuppet. Claims on old user page to have retired from Wikipedia, but continues same type of edits in new account. (The old user name is not currently being used, however.)

4) Does edit waring.

5) Removes material and tags from articles that she doesn't agree with, with no explanation.

6) Makes controversial changes and backs them up with no source, unreliable sources, and in one case claims "the Bible says it", so there can't be any discussion.

7) Regularly blanks her user discussion page, apparently to remove warnings and other comments she doesn't like.

9) Removes maintenance tags and leaves non-functional ones.

10) Frequently makes comments in articles that are reverted as vandalism.

11) Does not cooperate or often even respond to the many editors who have asked her to change her habits.

She has been given a final warning twice already, that I found.

I don't know when a checkuser is required, but given that the same kinds of edits are being made, to the same articles, with the same vocabulary, there's not much doubt. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Spoke to Amalthea about this, they feel we should do nothing until HG forces our hand but I'd rather just get it handled with as there's a good enough amount of evidence to enable an admin to block her account and IP addresses. So, either we go off to ANI and start a discussion there, get in touch with an admin who's familiar with HG or start an SPI case. Any way we go about it, it needs to be done by the person who knows HG best and has history with her which'd be Aoi. Inform him of what we can do now and see where it goes from there. treelo _radda 19:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I just wrote Aoi. Amalthea is being very tolerant, but considering that HG is making no effort to change, in fact, made dozens of edits today, and again announced that she is "retired", I don't see another recourse. In the big picture, she's caused trouble for several editors over months, often adding vandalism. Where her contributions are not vandalism they are relatively trivial. This is a person who simply doesn't want to abide by Wikipedia guidelines, but wants to use it for her own purposes. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Then let's just wait for what Aoi decides to do, nothing much else we can or should do. treelo _radda 11:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I currently don't have the time to take the lead on any sort of action against this user. As frustrating as this user is, I agree with Amalthea. However, if any of you decide to take the lead, I will be more than happy to back you up. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Amalthea and Aoi have decided to backseat it until anything disruptive comes along which I do agree with but that seems to follow that when it does happen it'll only affect the user doing the bad faith edits at the time and still leave the rest. I suggest SPI a lot because then it'll allow for all the accounts we know to be blocked. OK, as an SPI might be a while in coming I'd say just to start a discussion on ANI with diffs explaining her backhistory and her current issues as that might just be enough to get the ear of an admin who'll block. treelo _radda

Hi all, I decided to get some official feedback on the situation at ANI. [5] Piano non troppo (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Good, might need more diffs regarding her final warnings and combative behaviour along with the talkpage blanking which went from something that is permissive if a little rude to bad faith blanking with the intentions of ignoring other editors. Few from more recently are always good too, gives people something recent to work on and simply linking to her contribs is something that'll generally be ignored, be precise when explaining what she has done and continues to do. treelo _radda 02:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to list a couple of your favored examples here, and I'll cut-and-paste to the ANI page? (It might be better not to confuse reviewers with two editors making changes to the initial incident report?) Piano non troppo (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok folks, this is the result of the ANI, a message to HG and IP:

Hi HorseGirl070605 - although I can see that many of your edits are useful, your pattern of poor communication is problematic. If you introduce any more external links to The Saddle Club at MySpace in any article at any time, you will be blocked for one week. This is your only warning. Dcoetzee 07:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Piano non troppo (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a preliminary answer, somewhat neutral, but as I feared, HG's desire to remove Santa Claus and The Easter Bunny were taken lightly. I believe her comments were related to her changing Ghost to say that ghosts are real. All three points of view are common in certain groups who, shall we say, are not known for being tolerant of even small variations in belief. (Sigh.) Anyhow, I responded to the admin, (who missed that HG changed accounts completely, and to avoid detection). I'm curious what the admin's recommendation will be. If there's not some official sanction to put on HG, the only other thing I can think of -- and I just don't see this as optimal -- is for the group of us to constantly monitor her edits, and revert them as quickly as possible (where appropriate, of course). This is what our local police department recommends for graffiti: speed of removing graffiti is critical to discouraging graffiti artists. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As I told you before, you need more proof and you aren't giving it to the people in the best position to issue blocks. I figured some might use the logic that she's merely editing whilst logged out or that someone can retire but have a change of heart but that isn't whats going on, HG is or at least appears to be trying to evade what she sees as punishment by using the IP addresses instead and declaring them retired also. It's not trying to pose as anyone else and not editing via being logged out, it is intentional evasion and gaming of the system. May want to notify both Amalthea and Aoi that it's occurring so they can put forward their opinions on the issue. treelo _radda 12:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you all, having more experience with her, might be the best to give details about your daily interactions. Since my last message, there's another ANI message added by administrator MuZemike who both feels she's headed for a block, and that she needs a reminder about GFDL contributions. This might be an apt time for the three of you to put your oar in the water, yourselves? Piano non troppo (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if either are watching this page so I think you should tell them on their talkpages. I however don't know her much longer than you do so I'm only of so much help, I can tell you what is good but I cannot do it for you. treelo _radda 14:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Left 'em a note yesterday. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm watching, but only just now catching up with my watchlist. Sorry, I was offline throughout the weekend, and when I finished typing up my input to the ANI thread a couple of hours before it had just been archived (see User talk:Amalthea#ANI and HorseGirl070605). Wouldn't have made a difference at this point anyway.
If she does anything she has been final-warned for in the future then another ANI thread with reference to the last one will certainly result in a block. Her more recent edits just aren't anything we block people for, and made in good faith I'd say.
I'll keep checking the IP contributions, if someone notices her switching IPs again I'd appreciate another notification. She'd be pretty easy to spot I guess.
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 18:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Burr Edits

(My comment editor about adding inappropriate opinion in Raymond Burr. [6]) "Hi. It doesn't matter whether opinions are validated by an official estate. To express your concern, the way to go is to add a comment on the discussion page...not on the article itself. That will be rapidly removed.

I'm a fan of Burr's, by the way. So for two reasons I want to make sure your concerns are addressed according to Wiki practices. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)"

When something is an "opinion" as you call it, it needs to be presented as an "opinion" and not as factual. The section I object to is presented as fact while it is actually just an excerpt from a controversial and unauthorized "biography". I object to Wiki entries that are presented as authoritative and yet have their roots in unauthorized or questionabe sources. Such should not be allowed.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.67.180 (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping you could address that a number of the books in Google Books seem to support the notion that Burr was not hetrosexual? If you have solid references, your point will certainly be heard. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Its just a bit of fun

Come on wikipedia man with corrective pencil and cold shoulder toward casual laughs, editing the page of a relatively small Irish suburb whilst not withdrawing any preceeding, relevant information (all 5 lines of it) by including a small joke about the creation of a world renowned television series and role play game of the same name can hardly be construed as harmful! Its blatantly a bit of banter nothing more. Why must you callously, and needlessly I may add, remove a line written in evident jest? Its just a bit of fun.(Editor 83.70.69.223, regarding edit [7].)

Were it just my Wiki, and not the community's, there would be humor in Wikipedia. I once convinced a vice-president of a major company that the Web site should include humor. (That ultimately was barely implemented, but not due to opposition to the concept.) A book by Gene Perret, "Business Humor", posits that humor belongs in practically every situation, for these reasons: "1) Humor generates respect, 2) Humor gets the listeners' attention, 3) Humor holds their attention, 4) Humor can clarify obscure or complicated issues, 5) Humor helps your audience remember your points."

However, this isn't my Wiki. (Yet. Muaaa-ha-ha-haaaa.) Forgive me, I'm all right, it's just the recent change in medication application....

Unfortunately, I can't conceive of a graceful, viable way to introduce humor into Wikipedia, without attracting weak humor and outright vandalism. The issue of vandalism, of course, was the reason the edit was reverted. Although I suspected there was an element of truth to what you wrote, it's unusual for a vandal to include outright fabrication along with important content, because, so to speak, they don't want the bathwater thrown out with the baby -- as that Australian father might have said.

With a reliable third party reference, the basic tenor of your information might be useful, and who knows, even lead to other important meetings in the pub. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

Thanks, my usual account is zapzupnz, so I guess I should log in. I like to cruise Wikipedia to look for unnecessary blocks and wipe them, however I usually forget to log in... hehe

125.238.225.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

Heh. I made a fairly reasonable change without logging in recently, and immediately got that edit reverted with an explanation that "material with references cannot be deleted". Hee, hee. Writing back as that anon IP, I explained that there are other criteria for inclusion besides whether something is referenced. Still waiting to see whether there's a response. But especially, I'm wondering whether they would have dared revert my edit, if it hadn't been anon. Wiki can be a curious place... Piano non troppo (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

deleting edits

you recently deleted something i added to an article, stating i shouldn't add personal opinion to articles. what i added was absolutely true, if you had researched the article you would have realised this, also, it was in keeping with the main article and not my personal opinion.

why do you feel you can just delete things from here? is there some kind of elitism at work here? i must say i'm very disappointed, i understand you have to stop vandalism, but don't just delete things because you don't know who added them, because that creates a "holier than thou" regime, where only the "chosen few" are allowed to edit pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.49.211 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you let me know which article you are referring to? Piano non troppo (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful information

Hello, as many of you know, when you post something, you should have sources. Or at least some credible evidence, of some sort. In other words, it can't just come out of no where. In this instance, I bring the article about Marlboro, New Jersey. I will quote the statement that has no source attached.

Many of the newcomers to Marlboro from the 1980s on were migrating from Brooklyn and Staten Island.

There is no evidence to this statement. In fact, if you were to look at the growth of Monmouth County as a whole, or neighboring counties in the percentage charts in terms of growth in decades, you'd notice Monmouth and neighboring county's didn't grow much. Therefore, those who bought these homes, otherwise known as McMansions, were likely just New Jerseyans. Typically speaking, New Jersey's taxes are high, especially in Monmouth county. The real estate in Marlboro is much more expense than in Staten Island. The property taxes are as well. Not to mention New Jersey's well-known most expensive car insurance. Plus, many Staten Islander's take the train and ferry, which is one of the cheapest ways to commute to Manhattan, which is a place someone in this article says many of the residents there work.

I am not looking to add my own material to this site. What I'm looking to do is take out information that is in doubt and doesn't make any sense. A lot of people rely on this information and are too lazy to check if that's right themselves, so we need to be careful when putting things up on here. I'd greatly recommend and appreciate if just that one sentence was taken off. Also, just so no one is confusion, in the previous sentence regarding McMansions, I put the period before the quotation symbol to keep the grammar correct. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk)

Also, previously, for various reasons, many second and third generation South Philadelphians began moving en masse to South Jersey when the Walt Whitman Bridge was opened in the mid 20th century.

To start out, the Walt Whitman bridge was built in the 1950's, which there's even an article about. The mid 20th century would be the mid-1800's. It'd be kind of embarrassing to leave that up there. More importantly though, the content of that sentence is why I'm talking about it. My point is though if the person who originally posted this said 20th century, well before cars were even around, you have to question the integrity of the statement.

There is no piece of evidence or source to go directly with this quote. In this quote, it shows a lack of respect to South Jersey's cultural sovereignty. To say en masse should definitely require a quote. There have been plenty of people from South Jersey who've moved into Philadelphia neighborhoods, including South Philadelphia, yet this isn't being mentioned. The side of New Jersey where the Walt Whitman bridge is Gloucester City, New Jersey, which likewise to South Philadelphia, is a heavily blue-collared place, where there's been a lack of growth in population. Similarly, there's neigborhood places in Camden county nearby that have experienced the same issue. People wouldn't nor couldn't move en masse to a place that's not growing and losing plenty, without a reasonable explanation as to where those people are going, which wasn't mentioned.

Likewise to the other article I posted about Marlboro, NJ, I'd appreciate it if that one sentence I posted above were to be deleted. Previously when I changed things on Wikipedia, I did so without writing on here, which I apologize for. I shouldn't have done that, but at the time, I was knew to using this site and didn't know how this discussion thing worked.

Tom72.73.230.11 (talk)

Hi, Tom. Welcome to Wikipedia! Let's just talk about the first change you mentioned? You'll be happy to know that the kind of thing you are saying is very much in line with the policies here. In fact the first sentence you quoted does have a problem. It needs to be given a reliable reference, or it probably should be removed. This is something you can do yourself. You can edit the article, removing the sentence, and giving your reason in the "Edit Summary" at the bottom of the window. The other thing you could do is to add a tag right after the sentence: {{fact|date=February 2009}} . What that does is alert readers and editors that somebody questions the statement.

I'm not sure how you got my name, but several months ago I made a deletion in that article, that, in fact, was very similar to what you are commenting on: [8]. I made a decision to delete the information, probably because at the bottom of the material I deleted is an external link that goes to a Web site supporting Puerto Rican tourism! In this article, that's inappropriate advertising.

Let me know if you want more info, but the changes you are interested in, you can do yourself. Also, you might want to add some of your other comments to that page's "Discussion". Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I deleted both of those quotes regarding Marlboro and South Philadelphia that I brought into question. I wasn't sure if I was the one who was supposed to delete it or if someone else were. Now I know though. I'll make sure I write on here when I make an edit. In reference to the article about Puerto Ricans in the United States, I will be more careful in the sources I use. I'm sorry I used a web-site that involved tourism. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk)

Sounds good! By the way, if you make a simple edit, just a few words in the Edit Summary is enough. If your edit is long and controversial, it's better to explain yourself on the Discussion page. Maybe even without making a change to the article itself. That gives other editors a chance to explain how they feel, first. Happy editing! Piano non troppo (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Similarly to the other two articles, I'll be deleting two sentences in the Nazareth, Pennsylvania. It's under the New Jersey and New York City migration section. The following sentences lack source:

Many of the customs and cultural ways of the Pennsylvania Dutch permeated the Nazareth area throughout its history until the recent years of a new Nazareth-area construction fueled by former residents of New Jersey and New York City.

Because I know less background on the following statement, I can't say for certain if it's true or untrue, but because the other sentence will be deleted and it's a very short section, it'd be the only sentence with no tab. For what it's worth though, there's no evidence supporting such a statement. The following quote is:

Quilting ladies groups were common in meeting rooms of churches and private residencies throughout the years.

There's two reasons. I'll be doing so because there's no source. The second reason why it's vague. It doesn't explain why people would do such a move. The county it sits in (Northampton County) does not have growth that matches the normal natural increase an American county should. There are towns close to Nazareth that don't increase much in population. Therefore, it'd make most sense for people within their own county to supply Nazareth's growth. Even if that's not the case though, it doesn't mean people from New York City or New Jersey are moving there though. Without a source, there's no way of knowing if that's true or not. Obviously, it's someone's opinion, and possibly even bias experience.

This statement shows disregard for the Pennsylvania Dutch heritage that exists in the Nazareth area as well. Also, if people from New York City and New Jersey actually were demographically impacting this area, why would the place be 98.46% white? New York City is only 45.3% white (Demographics of New York City), less than half of Nazareth's amount. New Jersey's also 79.16% white, which is more than 19% below what Nazareth is. I'm not saying it's not possible a couple people from New York City or New Jersey moved there, as it may be possible someone from Nazareth moved to New York City or New Jersey, but to classify this as a migration, without any evidence, can induce ignorance into anyone who's reads that. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

Hi again. I should explain that I am mostly an editor on "anti-vandalism patrol". I have software that brings up recent changes, and asks me whether I want to remove them, according to Wikipedia rules such as are described in WP:OR and WP:SOURCE. Actually the most common problems are WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID, but I think you would be less interested in those. I see article changes on every topic under the sun!

So...I actually don't have any special knowledge about New York neighborhoods at all! Not only that, but I "clean out" this page occasionally, and put it in an archive. A better place for your comments is on the article's discussion page. What you write there will be available for everyone to see for months, if not years! Also, that's the place to engage other editors who are interested in the topic -- they'll never see what you write here. (So, I won't be offended if you cut-and-paste your kind words to those discussion pages!) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't sure how to access that part of the site yet. I'm getting the hang of things now on here. I appreciate that tip though, as it'll be more relevant to a discussion there. I'll try to figure out to access the discussion portion of the articles. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk)

First, bring the article up. Then click the "discussion" tab at the top of the window. Don't worry if you are the first person to comment, and are creating a new page. It's no big deal to create a new page. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I found the discussion tab. Thank you. I'll post on there. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk)

Handel

The birthplace of Handel is almost certainly San Francisco, but I haven't had time to go back and fix it yet. Camw (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your AIV report on 122.169.43.138

Thank you for your report on 122.169.43.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and you are encouraged to revert, warn and report inappropriate conduct. I have however declined to act on this report for the following reason:

Stale report. I think they left already, and I'm afraid they wouldn't even notice a short block. Don't hesitate to poke me if they return and we'll see to either blacklist the link or block the IP for a long term.

If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers! -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

khomeini

why didnt you just wait and see what I was doing next to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.136.37 (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I imagined you were finished! To avoid feedback before you're ready? -- make your changes at once, checking them using the "Show preview" button. That way, others can get a better idea when you've finished. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Piano non Troppo

Dear Piano non Troppo - Everything that I am posting is true (although politically incorrect). Why do you insist on hiding the truth from readers of wikipedia? 71.135.42.207 (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Site your source. That's what we call truth in Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey smartypants - did you mean to say "cite your source" instead of "site your source"???

HACS

Hi, I'm pretty open to changes. What did you have in mind?

70.71.251.142 (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It was actually a one character change! And in the article Ship Gun Fire Control Systems. I was having trouble reading this sentence "The major components of a GFCS are a manned Director, with or replaced by radar or television camera,..." What I did (after I decided you had indeed finished editing the article for the day), was change "Director" to "director".

I was interested in the subject, and started to read the article. Then I changed "Slew Sight" to "slew sight" in the sentence: "The Director Officer also had a Slew Sight...", 'cause I figured, it's not a product named, e.g., "Slew Sight Mark III", as used in this sentence, it's a generic device called a slew sight.

About then, I started perceiving difficulties. Should "military" style of capitalization be used or not? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that on board ship, "digital upgrade" as used in this sentence was referred to as a "DU": "The Digital Upgrade was evolved for use...". (I know NASA terminology and practice, and they might do that.)

The problem is that this is contrary to non-military style manuals, in part because it starts turning everything into an acronym. Making something up that's probably not technically correct, but you get the idea: "The GFCS DF'd by RADAR, giving the LOF to the FTs." That's incomprehensible to a typical reader. As an amusing aside, at NASA, at least, fairly frequently two people know a thing, know its acronym, but understand the acronym differently! Again making up an example for illustration, one person thinks it's "Self-controlled underwater breathing apparatus," another "Self-contained underwater breathing apparatus", and someone who grew up long after SCUBA was popularized has no idea "scuba" is an acronym at all!

I don't have any major opinion here, except that articles should be kept readable. Sometimes that means an acronym and sometimes it doesn't. The joys of our rapidly evolving language! Piano non troppo (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Siskind page

I am Sarah's sister-in-law and new to editing Wikipedia pages -- hers is the only one I've edited thus far. After making some changes today, I reviewed the page's edit history and saw that you had tagged the page with an "advertising language" warning and a "reliable citations needed" tag. I now, in hindsight, understand the reason for these tags, and would like to find a revision of the page that works for Sarah but is also a legit Wikipedia entry. I didn't want today's changes to come across as flouting the rules, which is why I am now writing to you. Please help me figure out an accurate, acceptable version that works for all parties, Sarah included. Thank you! Yellowrose22 (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Good intentions are certainly the way to start! As someone who knows Sarah Siskind, you are in a position to know her accomplishments, and know where to find reliable references. Often people making changes do not understand the subject very well, and add trivial information they got from fansites, blogs, etc. So knowing the subject is a big leg up.

That's the positive news. However, Wikipedia asks people to have a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. Another of the three "core" Wiki policies is that there must be a reliable source. WP:SOURCE. This is where some edits you've done start to be problematic, because, for example calling any music in Wikipedia a "shimmering, unforgettable sound" needs a source. Did a reliable source (such as The New York Times or Rolling Stone Magazine) actually say this? Then no problem: cite the source. Is the source Sarah's marketing manager? Nix. Fail. That is not a reliable source: obviously it is biased, and has a vested interest in saying things that are overall positive.

Wikipedia relies on reliable, independent sources. Not personal evidence. For example, there are things that I have seen in person -- that I was involved with -- that I would not be allowed to add to Wikipedia. So there's the fine line: I'm a good source in the sense that I know the subject, but an unacceptable source for information that people might disagree with. So phrases such as "a powerful track that merges intense, old-time feeling with rock muscle" need to be given a citation, or they will be deleted.

"Earned a Grammy nomination"? That's a fact. No way to reasonably dispute it. "Genre-bending band", on the other hand is peacock language WP:PEACOCK, and as such, might be disputed, EVEN if it was written in Rolling Stone. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising platform. If it's not something you'd read in the Encyclopedia Britiannica, it probably shouldn't be in Wikipedia, either. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback! I am going to re-edit the page over the next couple of days based on your comments/suggestions and on the NPOV policy. I see you do a lot of editing -- just out of curiosity, is it a job or a hobby for you? You must learn so much in the process! Best, 68.53.114.7 (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Just made some edits -- getting better, right? Now I need to follow up on your link to how to add a citation... Thanks! Best, Yellowrose22 (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're getting the idea.

Did you make the anonymous edit as IP 68.53.114.7 ? [9]. Whether or not you did, those edits tend to be correct. Notice that "Popular indie rock act" was changed in that edit to "Indie rock act". The reasoning is pretty similar to the above: Who says the act is popular? His fans? His manager? Those doesn't count, as you can imagine.

Notice that the anonymous edit also changes "Sarah" to "Siskind". This is according to the manual of style. After noting a person's full name, afterward it is unnecessary to elaborate. First names aren't ok, because then the article starts getting into using indiscrimantely: "Sarah", "Sally", "Super Sally" etc.

The next edit after that comes from a bot. It deleted the photo, because it found the photo on the Internet. And most Internet pictures are copyrighted. In this case, the bot was right. The photo comes from Facebook, and the (apparently professional) photographer's name is right in the caption. At the bottom of the page is Facebook's copyright notice.

No doubt these things seem burdensome, but the problem is that articles such as "Sarah Siskind" are in the margins of what belongs in an encyclopedia. (Check the entry for The Beatles or the Rolling Stones in the "Encyclopedia Britannica": in my edition The Beatles only rate 1/3 of a page of text.) Only the most famous musicians are in the Britannica at all. Happily, the online Wikipedia has much more space than the hardbound Britiannica, but that isn't to say Wiki wants articles of any less quality. So if the rules seem "restrictive" it's because you're swimming against the current, a little bit. But it's worth continuing. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I made those edits -- forgot to sign in! I'm now working on getting a pic of her that doesn't violate any copyright laws. If I want to use a pic of her that her professional photographer took, do I have to get the photographer to upload it herself? I tried to make sense of the rules in the Wikimedia Commons, but it's pretty complicated! Thanks for your feedback! Yellowrose22 (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You're so right that the Wikimedia Common and Wiki rules for getting photos into Wiki are complicated! But there are a couple easy, reliable ways to do this. Yes, you could get the photographer herself to do this. I do the following process, and have never had a photo questioned: 1) I take the photo with my own equipment, not on company time. 2) I upload the photo, and give it away into the public domain with "no restrictions of any kind". The photo in Galangal is an example [10]. (Notice the wording that I use is suggestive of the options the person who uploads a photograph would use.) One can get trickier, and apply a license that forbids others to change the photo and subsequently use it for their own profit, but...gee...if it's only a low resolution picture 350 x 233 pixels...it isn't as if I'm giving away the farm. If somebody REALLY liked one of my photos, they would still need to contact me to get the full size original. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Akshay Kumar

Hi,

I agree with the other user, anybody can add anything on IMDB. However, I have noticed that, for the most part, they seem to include accurate information, especially about the casts, character names and release dates. But if this other user has found inaccurate information, perhaps I shold dig a little deeper before citing it as a source

Regards,

--Maurice45 (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the discussion didn't happen on my talk page, and I'm unable to find the editor's comment. The context was that a Hollywood director was attempting to establish his Wiki article's notability. Do to this, the article cited a couple films released by his company, and three that were due to be released. I assumed this was more than sufficient evidence of notability, given that these were listed in IMDB. But apparently this was old ground for the other editor, who did indeed say "anybody can add anything to the IMDB", and cited a page describing the IMDB policy. I read the page, and guessed that he was right. He had experience that somebody non-notable, attempting to establish a record for themselves in film, sometimes starts by adding an entry for themselves to IMDB.

How to discover whether this has happened in a general case didn't seem clear.

What I found alarming was the notion that, as an anti-vandalism type, I could no longer rely on IMDB being a solid reference. I have found it often more complete than other sources, and I've not noticed inaccuracies. On the other hand, I wasn't alerted to watch for them.

One problem that surely does exist is that IMDB references are added to Wiki pages routinely, apparently with little consideration. I.e., as if IMDB were an infallible source. Yet, IMDB itself does not cite sources.

I just did a little scrounging, and discovered this interesting Wiki article about citing IMDB [11]. The discussion page is long and complex. There seems to be a general feeling that IMDB information is reliable and useful, yet statements like this do not reassure me, rather the contrary, "IMDB is now owned by Amazon, and Amazon enforces accuracy above all else, as inaccurate informations directly affect their profits". Surely Amazon does not really enforce "accuracy above all else". Surely there are ways to deceive what limited resources Amazon puts into fact checking, just as there are ways to deceive Wiki editors.

Then there's Termer's comment:

"Even though my real name has an IMDb ID with a credit list including exactly 22 movies at this point, even though my real name has been listed by The New York Times and CNN etc. and yes my real name has even (LOL) a celebrity ID at hollywood.com and has been mentioned in coupler of books, by so called "secondary sources". Still I've never considered my real name to be notable enough for an encyclopedia such as WP. So I have no idea from where this "being listed on IMDB creates notability" ever came from and who exactly has come up with such a silly idea."

Sigh. Rather a mess. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for doing the research. It sounds like the user has indeed told the truth about content on IMDB, but only to an extent.

Unlike Wikipedia, IMDB users must register to edit, therefore keeping petty vandalism to an absolute minimun - vandals wouldn't usually waste time registering (sock puppets found here are another matter).

IMDB's vandalism rate also seems to be minimal, given that most inaccuracies are merely technicalities (i.e. wrong-place edits, misspelt words, etc.) Therefore, citing IMDB as a source, while sometimes inaccurate, can sometimes prove beneficial. Yet we must remain wary in some cases - sometimes information found there cannot be found elsewhere on the web!

Regards,

--Maurice45 (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Maurice45, this comment in [12] was interesting: "I think everyone active in the project is aware of the limitations and strengths of IMDB as a source. It isn't considered a reliable source for many things (bios, trivia, etc.) but is for films, roles and similar credits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)" Piano non troppo (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Night on the Galactic Railroad

Having recently just watched the film, I instantly recognized the voice of Giovani as Veronica Talyer (Saying to my sister "Dosnt that sound like Ash Ketchum??") I looked it up on the www.animenewsnetwork.com to find that I was indeed correct (I do so love to recognize voice actors) and I was also equally thrilled to learn of Crispin Freemans role in the film of Campanella.

However, I checked the wikipedia article later on the story as I wanted to piece together more about what the story was about, and stumbled accross a rather silly little mistake on the page. The page stated;

"The English dubbed version in 1986 starred Crispin Freeman as Giovanni and Veronica Taylor as Campanella."

Well, oops, someone goofed. I fixed it by making a simple little switch around. Now, I am an avid wikipedia reader, but am perfectly new to actually editing articles. I suppose it slipped my mind to include a citation, mainly because the original statement had none. Nevertheless I was quite suprised to find that my change had been rejected as "vandalism" and I was told "not to make false edits"... as my information was perfectly true. Whats even funnier, to my mind, is that if you go to Veronica Taylers wikipedia page, it lists her role in Night on the Galactic Railroads as being Giovani, and not Campanella.

Now, I was asked to include citations, but to be frank I cannot seem to wrap my head around the codes or the formatting required to do so. To be honest, Iv never really felt the need to edit an article in the past, and am not likely to in the future.

In any case, here are a few pages if you want to double check my information. I could tell you "I could pick out Veronica Tylors voice anywhere" all day, but my assesment is actually based on better fact then that.

Night on the Galactic Railroad Encyclopedia Information - http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=51 Crispin Freeman on ANN - http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=1074 Veronica Taylor on ANN - http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=1081 Crispin Freeman on imdb - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0293342/ Veronica Taylor on imdb - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0853301/

Again, I want to point out -- Veronica Taylors wikipedia page also lists her as having the role of Giovani. That one I have not touched in the slightest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EruannaTelperion (talk • contribs) 03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It sounds as though your edit was correct, and made for the best of reasons. I hope having your edit changed doesn't discourage you from making other quality edits to Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Tetra-

No worries. I'm happy to leave it for now, and hopefully an expert on the topic will do the hard work: discerning fact from fiction. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Alestrom

Alestorm a pirate metal band whats up eith that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.166.8.14 (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit was a hostile, uncited opinion, and reverted as vandalism. [13] Piano non troppo (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Olympia (painting)

You've rolled back my edit in Olympia. It's really strange for me, that you call it vandalism. It's simple error. And easily could be proved if you check article Le déjeuner sur l'herbe. Please, make simple check before rollback and especially blame someone. Thanx. --LonelyKoyote (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Vandals sometimes try to sneak in a one character change, thinking it won't be noticed. "Lunch" is probably best, you're right. "Luncheon" ... I think I've heard that translation too. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my reaction was too fast. In Britanica (1911) it is Luncheon on the Grass. It seems strange for me, but this caption is really popular. --LonelyKoyote (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You might be going in the right direction? "Luncheon" is rapidly becoming a rare word in English. A more modern translation of the French, it would seem, is "lunch". Piano non troppo (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. :) But, alas, my English is too bad, to feel difference in these two words. My dictionary says that luncheon is more official. --LonelyKoyote (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Conscription

Sorry if I sounded opinionated in the conscription article. However, I don't think I was giving an opinion as during military training orientation in high school, the commandant at the time indeed stated that one of the objectives of such training was to instill/foster nationalism. In fact, it was also stated in my country's National Defence Act Article 7, Section 80: "To develop the spirit of Filipino nationalism." --58.69.182.211 (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Banat edits

You reverted my edits in Banat (1941-1944) and I simply reverted an user that deny holocaust and removing facts about killed jews and serbs - what exactly you consider unsourced in this? (please respond here, thank you). 212.69.0.46 (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edit, adding this statement, needs a citation from a reliable source: "due to the fact that 95% of ethnic germans were members of fascist organization known as "Kulturbund" Piano non troppo (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I will add source right now, thank you for your answer. 212.69.0.46 (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And where is the source? The user (that´s me) doesn´t deny holocaust but he removed claims without sources. I would suggest to leave the article “Jabuka” only to those users who are logged in. --Speidelj (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous - I showed web source to User:Speidelj on the Jabuka talk page, but he refuse to read the source and claim that I do not have source. I mean, this is just unbelieveable. 212.69.4.119 (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I had an issue with the single uncited phrase mentioned above. You folks probably want to move this discussion to one of your discussion pages? Or perhaps an article's discussion page? I don't have any detailed knowledge of the editing history, or the subject, and I'm not an admin. So this probably isn't the appropriate place. Thanks, Piano non troppo (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey there, thanks for keeping the vandalism by 202.134.149.222 and 86.96.226.16 at bay. I've given a warning to the former and reported him, so I hope it is enough. Regards, --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Les Miserables

How exactly was the little change I made to that article any worse than the actual comment I was replacing, which if you took notice stated: which make this adaption one considered laughable by many fans of the book.???

If anyone was doing any "editorializing", it was the person who posted that, and all I was trying to do was change it into something a little less POV sounding. Yet you punish me but not that poster? I'll admit that I've made some provocative edits in the past (though I almost always either believed them to be based on fact, or similarly to this no more biased/POV than what was already posted...and some DID come with explanations), but in this situation I was genuinely only trying to be helpful. Of all the things to expect an editor to single me out for, this was absolutely not one of them. 74.69.64.52 (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand. You correctly removed the phrase: "which make this adaption one considered laughable by many fans of the book".[14] That phrase was inappropriate, because it was uncited, but also because "considered laughable" is unsuitable language for an encyclopedia. So at that point you made an addition -- probably figuring that the least amount of change would be the least objectionable. However the way to go would have been simply to delete the whole uncited fan opinion entirely, rather than adding, as you did "which leave a bad taste in the mouth".

In a bigger picture (since I reviewed all your edits before I left the message on your discussion page), it's important to recognize that Wikipedia isn't a blog or a forum where people can express any opinion they have. What Wiki wants most is cited statements based on reliable references. I have the feeling, given both the types of your edits, and the wide range of subjects that interest you, that in the long term you might have a great deal to contribute to Wikipedia. Learning the basic guidelines was a source of much frustration for me personally. But when I finally "got the concept", I found I enjoyed contributing just as much. And also that my edits weren't always being reverted! Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Vampire

Saw your edit on the Clans in Vampire: the Requiem article. I recently found that the Julii being a strix childe thing is legit; there's a rule for it on page 227 of the Requiem for Rome book, which is already in the reference section of that article. I...just don't know how to make citations on Wikipedia. So I leave that to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.29.174 (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information! I reverted my edit. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Spam links

By the way, Piano non troppo, can you please look edits of this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Outesticide He spaming articles about Vojvodina villages with external link that do not speak about these villages, but about Germans in Yugoslavia in general. Thank you. 212.69.4.119 (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I've written them a message, explaining some of the issues with their edits, and with their process. In other situations, it might be fruitful to take Outesticide's issues to the discussion pages, but even if the external link he's adding was specfically quoted -- I have a concern that the whole book is biased and unencyclopedic. I started reading at random, and almost immediately read this para:

"The Helpers After the Catastrophy

The post-war history for the Danube Swabians in the USA began with the help of their brave countrymen. There were three men, who, in response to the catastrophy, not only initiated aid in the form of Care packages to the refugees in Germany and Austria, but also were instrumental in abolishing the discriminatory immigration laws of the United States...."

This kind of peacock, biased, uncited writing wouldn't belong in Wikipedia, and therefore -- unless there was some other circumstance that I don't perceive -- shouldn't be an external link to Wikipedia, either. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Khatris are descendant of Indo-Scythians and are related to Jatts and Tarkhans.

Their are Traces found that tell Khatris are related to Jatts and Tarkhan and Khatris are Descendants of Indo-Scythians.Than how can you say that Khatris are not the descendants of Indo-Scythians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.148.204 (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(Regarding [15] edit in Khatri.) If you are going to reverse the meaning of an existing sentence by inserting the word "not", then you need to give a reason for doing so (which you didn't), or preferably a reliable, independent reference (which you also didn't), or at least discuss it on the article page (which you also didn't do). My comment was about the edit, not about the factuality, one way or the other. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why

why are u editing my stuff out its actually true so stop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.219.65 (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Re: [16].) 1) No references. You need to cite reliable references when making controversial edits. 2) Nearly all your other recent edits are outright vandalism. You've been blocked from editing earlier this month, and you're on your way to being blocked again. You can't just make changes because that's the way you feel, or because you "know it's true". Read WP:SOURCE. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

EXTERNAL LINK WAS NOT SPAM!!!!

I have told you on the talk page that the www.kidzania.co.id/ver2 webpage is not a SPAM! It was just a new external link to the Pacific Place Jakarta page 202.47.69.213 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.47.69.214 (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles about businesses are allowed a single link in "External links" to an official page. If there are other external links, they need to be justified. The external link that was removed to [17] is a news page, is largely not in English, has a blog...that requires login. This is WP:SPAM, as well as WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not about HG

Nothing going on with HG right now as you know but that's not why I'm here. Amalthea has recently (as in earlier today) been given the admin bit and should anything arise he'll be the first person to tell if action needs to be taken. treelo _radda 12:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good. I guessed the nomination would succeed. But, um, I see everyone write "him", but isn't Amalthea is a woman? Piano non troppo (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I... forget. treelo _radda 18:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I guess I'll have to ask. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Oh, just so you know, all is done with the whole HorseGirl thing, she and her IP addresses have been blocked but gallingly because she requested it, not because she was being a WP:DICK. Stupid yes but dealt with, I didn't tell you at the time but this is just in case you didn't already know. treelo _radda 21:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning. I didn't realize until spending some time reviewing her history that she was making edits with a political motivation -- articulating the stance of a particular group. When I was able to "put her words into the mouth" of someone I know quite well, it became clear that she wasn't just childish, she was, effectively, a junior mouthpiece for a cause. That seemed trivially innocent when considering her edits to a children's show, but the obstinacy, the unwillingness to explain herself, and dishonesty about her behavior are part of a mentality that believes that people who disagree with your own position aren't due respect. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What group would that be because I seem to run into very obstinate types who always seem to be teens with a religious background quite a lot. treelo _radda 23:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My acquaintance, at least, is a teenage home-schooled evangelical. But one hears the same claptrap from other groups (and professions). Part of the big broad canvas that makes up our world. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm, is this evangelical Baptist? Seems to be a running thread from what I've seen. treelo _radda 23:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

West Ridge Academy

An anonymous obvious role account has been inserting POV into the West Ridge Academy and Chris Buttars articles. You reverted him once, but he's still going at it. I could use some help dealing with this. Thanks. -R. fiend (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a message to one of the IPs. I'm thinking there might be a certain extent of good faith edit going on. That, in conjunction with other things, perhaps. In any event, I'll follow up. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

External link - Quart festival

Piano,

I added an external link to Quart festival which you removed. I am an english speaker living in norway and have created a totally free with no advertising tourist website for people visiting Kristiansand. One of the main attractions in kristiansand is the Quart festival and it is imposible to get info on the festival in english. A lot of tourists come over for it and so i created a page with up to date info on the festival in english.

I am aware of the no follow rule, but the link was added purely to give people english info on the festival. Is this not helping them to be able to see that link from wiki? I believe it is.

Adam

You know, I looked at the page one way, and it came up "Tourist Information on Kristiansand Norway", but when I clicked in another, I got the music festival. Hmm. It's still a little "iffy", but it's not the tourist page I thought it was. Let's put the link back, but change the name so it doesn't look so strongly commercial. Ok? Piano non troppo (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Yeah the title you have is a lot better 'Latest news'. I have been living in Kristiansand for 3 years and was so sick of not being able to find out info on the city, I decided to make the site in my spare time. The quart festival is great for the city and thankfully it is back on this year. cheers, Adam

Re: Interesting edit on Amy Macdonald (singer)

Hi!

I'm shuddering just thinking about the possibilities you raise!

I think any such list would be far more valuable as a "List of number ones in X" (which I believe already exist). More general lists, applying to an act or artist, would potentially quickly takeover popular acts with little history (for example, a one-hit-wonder with international success would have an article that consisted mostly of "see also" links). I'd also be concerned about verifiability - as it currently stands, verifying and referencing chart success is already difficult - certain countries are straightforward (e.g. US, most of EU, etc) whereas other countries lack agreed sources (Chile is one example that I've encountered recently). On the other hand, I suppose that such lists would bring into sharp focus exactly which countries' chart sources are unreliable...

Interesting question! I suppose I'm opposed at the moment, but my opinion could change as more information becomes available.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Promotional plug/spam?

This mention about Sarah Warn from AfterEllen.com in the Marissa Cooper article was not a promotional plug or spam. It is quite routine and allowed on Wikipedia to specify who made a statement about a subject, especially when that someone or site is notable/has their own article here. Perhaps mentioning what AfterEllen.com is was promotional-like, but mentioning that Sarah Warn made the comment is very valid. I've added back that she made the comment and who she is (as in an editior from AfterEllen.com); after all, that part in the article is argued by her. I left out what AfterEllen.com is, of course, since people can simply click on the link to that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your change. It's unusual for a web site in a reference, not the subject of the article, to be given an extended opportunity to promote itself. That, and the WP:SPAM external link, were the focus of my edit. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll see you around. Take care. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Posner (musician)

He is a real musician. If you Google "Mike Posner", he is the first result — [18]

[19]

He just released a mix tape and has been featured in numerous blogs.

[20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.83.173 (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I just Googled him, and he's nowhere on the first page.

The deal is: he needs a reliable reference. That www.mikeposner.com web site redirects to MySpace -- where people can say just about anything they want. Same for a blog. So, for Wikipedia? Not a reliable reference. He needs a reliable, independent, third-party reference. Not his own website. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the Duke Chronicle work?

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2008/10/23/Recess/Mike-Posner.The.Brain.Trust-3502247.shtml http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2008/12/03/BusStop/Mike-Posner-3565438.shtml http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2008/12/03/BusStop/Mike-Posner-3565438.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazamos (talk • contribs) 07:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the reference by Kanye West: http://www.kanyeuniversecity.com/blog/?em3106=221403_-1__0_%7E0_-1_1_2009_0_0&em3298=&em3282=&em3281=&em3161=

Additionally, Big Sean, who already has a Wikipedia page, is on Mike Posner's mixtape (hosted on Duke University's iTunes U) http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/new.duke.edu.1926121494 Blazamos (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)blazamos

Thanks, Blazamos, you addressed the problem directly by creating a Wikipedia article for him. I wasn't going to make that suggestion to an anonymous IP editor with no other edits, since it's a difficult thing to do for a typical new editor. If there's any discussion about notability, that new page you created would be the place. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Greater Lowell

Hello, I put back the edits you had made to remove the employers section from the Greater Lowell article. In the context of, say, Greater Boston, having the same exact section, why is this any different? Certainly the section could use improving to be more useful, but I don't think it should be completely deleted.... CSZero (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A list of businesses doesn't belong in either article. This is specifically addressed in WP:SPAM#LINK. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it can't serve as a replacement for a phone book, and it is not a promotional platform. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

But if you're talking about a regional economy, don't you agree that there is value in saying, especially in a non-arbitary list like the one in the Lowell article (the Boston one drives me nuts, people add and remove to it all the time), what people do for work, has some value? They aren't external links, either. They're pointing to Wikipedia articles. Now, granted, that list could be replaced with prose and it would probably should be, although I don't have the time to do it today. CSZero (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, when you put it that way: An accurate portrait of regional economy is hugely insightful. And it's sorely lacking in the majority of Wikipedia articles that deal at a local level. I'm intrigued when I travel to smaller communities to discover they are sometimes supported by a couple industries. Some are practically company towns -- for better or worse that's "who they are" in a sense.

What I'm not sanguine about is the ability for businesses to view their value to their community in a dispassionate light. Or for a community to necessarily even understand itself. A failing that Wikipedia commonly falls into is focusing on recent history. If a town's 500 year history was mostly agricultural, presenting it in light of a new manufacturing plant is misleading -- even if that's how the town chooses to see its future. Piano non troppo (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course. I love looking at lists of "major disasters in x" and 90% somehow happened after 2006! As for the Greater Lowell article, it's sad to see Wal-Mart ranked high on that list and it does seem wrong to have it there. That's recent history and certainly not unique. After all, Lowell is the *original* company town. 100 years of pioneering textile manufacturing, and Wal-Mart is on the list, and not a single consumer manufacturing concern - good amount of military stuff there. Then again, Market Basket, while a massive grocery store chain so seemingly non-notable, was born and bred in Lowell and is headquartered in Tewskbury (next town over) today. There is certainly value in mentioning things like that. CSZero (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

AudioMulch page tagged as an advertisement

Hi there - I contributed to some updates to this page a little while back. Since then, a few others have added in some info which may or may not have attracted your tag (I believe a user cut and pasted info from the website about version 2); or perhaps my own content did? As someone who had really good intentions to write a comprehensive and neutral page for AudioMulch, I'd love some feedback on which language/sentences may be inappropriate. I spent a lot of time reading the neutrality policy and also the "verifiability" and "no original research" policies before I added my edits in. Are you able to give feedback on where I may have gone astray here? I'm curious as I'd like to get more involved with Wiki edits and pages in general, and I certainly don't want this page to be pulled.

Many thanks!

GirlMadchen —Preceding unsigned comment added by GirlMadchen (talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I should add that I'm going to make a few changes now that a wiki savvy friend has suggested, and look over the page again for any changes I can make... _______________________

Have made these edits now. Any feedback appreciated! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GirlMadchen (talk • contribs) 03:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. In fact, you just made some of the changes I had in mind! A quick answer is that if one went down to the local R&R music store, and asked for the glossy handout to prospective customers, the material in the AudioMulch Wikipedia article would be what one would expect to see. I.e., it isn't the way encyclopedia articles are written.

There's a fair amount of WP:PEACOCK (much of which you just removed!): "wide range of styles", "wide range of processed sounds", "software responding instantaneously to changes that the user makes", "a number of more sophisticated units", "constant development", "other software and programming environments have influenced the development and design". None of this actually means much: similar statements could be made about 1000s of applications.

Although I'm not a recording professional, I have used some sound processing software and equipment: I'm somewhat puzzled what makes AudioMulch different than other products. Terms such as "real-time" processing and modification are thrown around -- but that's been available in some form for decades. (In fact the article seems to confirm that in some sense it's a cheaper version of what was available 10 years ago.)

The "Notable artists" section ... well ... what does it mean that "they use AudioMulch"? Someone sent them a demo copy, and as far as you know, they're still using it? That's quite different than saying, for example, in a published quotation in a reliable, independent source, that it's been one of their primary tools for major commercial albums and concerts. (Guitar Player, The New Yorker, and Keyboard Magazine are all good sources, but they aren't directly quoted.)

Fixing the above problems would probably be sufficient to remove the advertising tag. Providing you have the magazine article as hand, this might only be a few minutes' work. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Much appreciated. I suppose I should strive to use less poetic (!) language in future. The peacock link is interesting. Will go in and tidy up a few more you've mentioned. In regards to the Notable Artists section - the references about these artists using AM are posted at the bottom of the page. They've all referred to their (often) frequent use of the program in both print and online articles and interviews. Hence the list, and the references. Is this enough, or do I need to also reference each artist's name in the list, linking them to the reference at the bottom? To the best of my knowledge, no one was sent a demo as they all use and choose to mention the software in these articles/interviews themselves. I didn't realise that lists like this had to be directly referenced - please let me know if this isn't the case! As for comparisons with other software, I might have to leave that to someone else who has more knowledge. In regards to your tag, who can/will remove that once the article looks in better shape? Thanks again! Most helpful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GirlMadchen (talk • contribs) 03:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You're making positive changes, and for the right reasons. One can't ask for much more. (In fact, you could could fruitfully give instruction to other contributors!) It wouldn't hurt to make at least one direct quote from those magazines. The reason being -- and this is behavior apparently quite apart from the edits on AudioMulch -- a large number of Wikipedia references, when checked, not not confirm statements in the article. With rock stars and commercial entities the percent of misrepresentation sometimes reaches 100%. But at this point? The changes are sufficient: Remove the advertising tag.

One final thing: add a brief sentence on the article's discussion page describing your connection to the product. I assume you aren't just an enthusiastic user, but represent the product in some way. This will avoid the remote possibility of an editor adding a "conflict of interest" tag to the article -- that, you really do not want. A 30 second scan of WP:CONFLICT will give you an idea.

I do hope you decide to contribute to other Wikipedia articles in the future. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much - your suggestions have been most helpful :) I'll consider adding a line or parag somewhere with a direct quote from the articles about the musicians that use the software. It can only add to the strength of the page.GirlMadchen (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

External Link not spam ptII

Just wanted to present my pov that the links you removed from the Rightmove article point to significant and distinct sub-sections of the business, particularly in the case of holidaylettings, so would ask you reconsider the edit. (Brotherharry (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

Both links removed are purely commercial. One is a listing of real estate properties, and the other a page with dropdowns to select holiday locations for rent. They are utterly contrary to WP:SPAM. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Spanish and Russian links at xkcd

Re this edit of yours: [21], which I have reverted. These seem perfectly fine to me. It's only two links, they're directly related to the topic, and they're non-commercial. If you really feel they should be removed, may I suggest discussing that on the article's talk page? Cheers! Mark Shaw (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't read Russian, and not much Spanish, and I imagine that most other English Wiki editors can't check the references either. (I was surprised to see, looking more closely, that this matter has been brought up in discussion.) It's a somewhat small matter one way or the other, but actually, in this case, I was responding in specific to what seemed to be general problems with this article. There's a lot of original research, and the "Activities inspired by xkcd" section is mostly trivia that belongs on a fansite. The main idea was to rein in the promotional and unencyclopedic direction this article seems to be taking. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

American Girl Wikipedia

Responding to your talk message...you're right, my efforts on the American Girl page are primarily focused on holding back the tide. One of the biggest problems we've got with it is that there are a lot of ill-informed young girls who keep adding info, varying from made-up spam to copious details about beloved doll characters which have no place in what I see as an overview article. We also get adults who are passionate collectors who post on collector forums and who come here to add that kind of speculative content. Most of my edits have been geared toward streamlining these additions. You're right; I get sloppy in my edit summary rationales and frankly, most of that is due to burn-out. Sourcing is an issue, because there are some details which don't have a written source for back-up, and often they do fall in the realm of insider info. So mostly I try to remove such when I catch them, with the rationale that it's speculative and not verifiable. For example, I can perosnally vouchsafe that a new historical doll named Rebecca Rubin is indeed going to be released in a few months, but the only verifiable source info right now about her are the pending publications of her core books series which are listed at online booksellers like Amazon, et al. I have tried to source that info accordingly but at some point it was removed, so I've mostly given up on trying to add info about this new character line (even though it is a huge step for the company) until some other more acceptable source appears to back it up.

I'd like to see this article streamlined a lot more, so your guideance is welcome. It's a mess.

FYI that "Facemold" is a collector term. The face mold/face-mold/facemold issue is an important one to the American Girl world, so I did want to make sure some of that information remained. But yes, a standard spelling is needed and I was sloppily going with that which I most often use elsewhere. No quarrels there and my apologies for the inconsistency.

AG stores are central to the "AG experience" and I think that is why that section gets so cumbersome and overloaded with information that varies from factual to rapturous. I think it could be condensed with some basic history and a summary line that makes mention of the experiental nature of the store visits without all the detail.

Adjustment for inflation versus actual price increases for the dolls over a 22 year history is behind the statement mentioned, but you're right, it is commentary and not appropriate.

Heidi Laura

Heidilaura (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have any ideas of how I can help, let me know. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Les sacres au Québec. Québec Swearing

I would like to know if you are looking for the article to be completely re-written or just have some sources for what is there. It is sometimes difficult to cite sources for unwritten rules like slang and local language usage. Ce qu'on disait au Québec dans les années 80 et 90 n'est pas nécessairement ce que les jeunes disent aujourdhui! Please let me know if the couple of books I have listed is enough or if you need me to re work the article. (Not what I really want to be doing, writing vulgarities and swear words!) :}--Mrboire (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's great that you added references, thank you. In my experience (at least offline) books on slang and vulgar language are difficult to come by, and the level of scholarship is often low. I understand your reluctance to be associated with profanity, but it's worthwhile precisely exactly because professional scholars avoid the topic. (I wonder if you have heard of the journal "Maledicta", where scholars wrote, sometimes under assumed names.)

It *would* be good to have a few key concepts given a specific citation, if for no other reason than to stop the article from "wandering" at the hands of later, casual editors (cf notes in Joual as an example of useful footnotes). In particular, the "History" section indulges in original research and bias with sentences such as "The sacres originated in the early 19th century in a time when the social control exerted by the Catholic clergy was increasingly a source of frustration." I'd be interested in the evidence given for this "increasing frustration", but even more, proof that there was a tie between this frustration and the (questionable) "source" of words.

I was tempted to delete two paragraphs in the section "Sacres outside Quebec French", since they deal with Italian and Spanish, and more broadly, suggest that there are interlingual patterns in the use of "sacres". However they *seem* factually accurate, and by implication suggest that the theory about the sacres' origin in the 19th century is demonstrably incorrect.

I'm unsure what direction to take this article, and my French isn't strong enough to make critical judgments in a number of places that such are needed. The article Profanity does a relatively good job of covering the related topic; perhaps material or structure can be borrowed from there. Piano non troppo (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hannes Vanaküla

You're obviously unfamiliar with the situation at Hannes Vanaküla, an article of a cult reader which is attacked by a devoted cultist. Please revert your revert. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the unexplained removal of a tag reading: "Accuracy and/or neutrality dispute This article may violate Wikipedia policy as it contains unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims about a living person." The edit was done by an anonymous editor with no other Wikipedia edits. That part of my edit was correct. I have no objection to a cat as "Conspiracy theorist", but I assumed that since part of the edit was vandalism, the whole was. Feel free to re-add the cat, of course. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The blpdispute tag is invalid, too. It concerns Wikipedia:BLPN#Hannes Vanaküla -- a quite obvious no-go. Basically, the SPA User:WorldReporter is unhappy about the noncomplimentary facts regarding his idol and prefers presenting claims from Vanaküla's autobiographical writings in the article. Considering that stuff like "mage abilities" doesn't belong to Wikipedia, there isn't any dispute there. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I had a quick look at your discussion reference. As you say, it's a subject with a history. I think I'll just bow out and let you carry on. Cheers. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

why you revert my edit? my edit is not vandalism, it is wikifan edit is vandalism. look at sources, you see my edit is correct, wikifan edit is not NPOV and is not accurate. sources say what my edit says, wikifan is not right. i revert again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.29.236 (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As the editor whose changes you reverted observed, the matter is being dealt with on the discussion page. Insisting on your edits without explanation is vandalism. [22] Piano non troppo (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

look at history, he insist, he revert other editors edits many many times, no discussion on discussion page. please look at sources and see if he is wrong for insisting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.29.236 (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that editor is talking about this page [23]. I don't know the details, but usually language such as you added is considered biased and political, and inappropriate to Wikipedia. "to executions of Palestinians suspected of collaboration with the Israel Defence Forces by Hamas, as well as members of the Fatah political party."

"suspecting" someone is what Wikipedia calls a Weasel word. For example, in this case, there are people who "suspect" them of collaboration. Ok, so what's the point? There are people do not suspect them, too. Just because somebody "suspects" something doesn't mean they are right. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

article about people hamas killed, why not say whay hamas says they killed them? hamas killed them because hamas suspects them of collaboration with israel against hamas. sources say this, not just killed palestinians. 166.217.29.236 (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

and other editor no discussion on page you link. 166.217.29.236 (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Good Oil

I can see your point on some of the lines but a lot of it is not opinion but well accepted facts, in his area he is 'questionable' and within the media and wider community these are statements that most would agree with. Unless you were to understand the circumstance yourself I dont think you can make a judgement on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.199.199 (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits, none of which included a citation, included calling someone a "questionable journalist" and noting "when he is rewarded by his bosses for not losing as much audience share as usual". This is straight vandalism. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If somebody is 'questionable' within their field how is wikipedia ever able to report it if that term is not allowed to be utilised. Surely it can not remain one sided, always on the side of the subject of its articles, then what about hitler and Osama, despite the fact its well accepted their evil shall we leave that out of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.199.199 (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Using terms such as "enough said" may be appropriate to a blog, but would not be used in an encyclopedia. [24] Nothing about your edit meets Wikipedia standards, and it was reverted. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2009 (UT

Yet you did not respond to my query on the use of "questionable", quite frankly your wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.199.199 (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

CE

Sorry, I thought it stood for Common Era(which is what I was told in school as an alternative to BC and AD as these were religious as well), instead of Christian Era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.237.167 (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. (Looking at Common Era.) I feel you're right that the dates in the Chinese history articles do need to be qualified somehow. The best solution might be to include both Chinese dates and some other format. I'm not sure how that's done, or whether it's appropriate to Wiki MOS. But anyhow, thanks for responding. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

ToyPedia

I followed your suggestion and put the link for discussion on the Talk:Hot Wheels page and propose to have the discussion there. I also replied to the comments made on my earlier user page User talk:87.194.32.54. I have now registered. Being in the same position as you on our wiki (ToyPedia) I think you are doing a great job (just think you are wrong in this matter ;-) LaToya Giocattola (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I was somewhat of two minds about ToyPedia. What tipped the scale was that links are being added to the site in many Wiki articles, at least one of which, as I remember, had nothing directly to do with the topic. Discussion would be useful. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, if you can remember which link was the one that you felt was inappropriate I can check. Also, is it possible to get email notifications on replies (like yours above)? LaToya Giocattola (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The inappropriate external link is to [25]. There are actually multiple problems with this link, but the most straightforward to deal with is that while the existing Wiki article Hot Wheels is relatively well-written and quite detailed, the external link to toycollector is brief, adds almost no encyclopedic information to the Wiki article, and does not quote sources. This alone is sufficient: it's not a good or useful reference.

Your email question. I'll let you know when I reply. Another common way to handle this situation would be for both of us to "Watch" one another's pages for a few days. Regards, Piano non troppo 10:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful. LaToya Giocattola (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SL Shakespeare Company

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article SL Shakespeare Company, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

A virtual Shakespeare company--virtually no independent sources to establish notability.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the prod tag, with explanation. Conventional media sources typically do not cover significant events in virtual worlds, even ones such as Second Life, where 1.4 million people logged on in two months. In the SL Globe Theater professionals from several countries created an environment with productions that have been ongoing for some months. One original play has already been performed. This has as much, or more theatrical significance, than, for example Wikipedia articles including one-off, non-professional high school drama productions, and as much encyclopedic weight as articles on places, events, and characters in computer games that have not been sold for years, are rarely played, and have no particular cultural legacy. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Amalthea (moon of Jupiter) external link

Good morning. I saw that the "external links" section for this entry includes an artist's rendering of the moon from Jupiter. I am a musician that wrote an ambient song inspired by Amalthea (the moon of Jupiter) and hoped to add the song to the external links section. However, the link keeps getting removed. As mentioned, the song is based on the moon of Jupiter and contains references to it. Is this considered an inappropriate external link, unlike a painting? Thank you. --J Criss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.223.108 (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the link isn't appropriate, as it happens. External links are not intended as a linkfarm to all related topics. This practice is confusing to those who are thinking "Well, readers might be interested in this, too." External link guidelines are described at length in WP:EL, but the nub is that external link material should include encyclopedic content that is directly relevant to understanding the topic. However, there's actually a more critical difficulty, which is that Wikipedia may not be used for self-promotion, except in special cases. Otherwise...(as a professional writer)...if I wrote a story called "Amalthea", I could use Wikipedia to promote myself. I might decide to write only stories that I could advertise in Wikipedia. Given the thousands of writers out there, you can imagine where that would quickly lead. What you might consider is creating an entirely new article about the piece of music under discussion. If it's been played by the London Symphony Orchestra, or Mz. Spears, it would be considered notable. If it's something that has not been played by notable artists, or reviewed by notable publications, then, according to Wikipedia policy, it probably isn't appropriate material for its own article. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. --JC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.223.108 (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove +10 links off Melbourne Shuffle?

just as the title says You're just killing the article

83.81.113.116 (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As I explained in my edits, those were links to blogs and forums and are specifically mentioned as generally inappropriate for Wikipedia. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID, point 10 under "Links normally to be avoided". Piano non troppo (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Systems analysis

Hello. Re: this article I will defer to whatever course of action you think is best. I have a conern about your reference to "max number of edits", though. Was I wrong in thinking that blanking sections without an edit summary was vandalism? Should I have undid the edits rather than rolled them back? I have been rolling back blankings that had no edit summaries, but I'll stop that if it's improper (or even impolite). I'm just looking for guidance...any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Tiderolls 14:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You were steering the right direction with Systems analysis. Have a look at WP:3RR, which is something the vandal or another editor might throw in your face. (This happened to me once, when I slept overnight, woke up, didn't realize 24 hours hadn't passed since my previous edits, and made a fourth edit: someone took the opportunity to give me my only block warning...cute.)

Text blanking by an anonymous IP -- especially one that has no other edits -- is always suspicious. However, many of those edits are perfectly correct, and overall, constructive. Blanking text without an explanation is *not* necessarily vandalism. Blanking the same text four times in 24 hours without explanation *is* vandalism. So the concept of vandalism is tricky (not to mention defined inconsistently in Wikipedia, but let's pass on that discussion). If an editor is acting in good faith or if they are new, they may not understand that "being right" isn't good enough reason to make any change they want. They may not intend to be a vandal. On the other hand, there are earlier edits by 158.123.187.121 that most certainly are vandalism [26].

In terms of warning the editor, you were correct: You gave three warning messages of increasing severity. The next step would be to block them, as described above in [27]. Now, however after our trouble, the vandal has stopped -- and a request to block them will fail. So, now, I'm going to put a watch on the page, and see whether they return. Regards, Piano non troppo 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to go into more detail on your original post. I agree 100% with your assesment that the concept of vandalism is tricky. Since we don't live in a black and white world, that trickiness is not really a problem for me. I just hope that more experienced users are patient as I negotiate the minefield. I must say that I have been very fairly treated, even helped along, as I learn the ropes. I'm asking all the editors that offer advice to please let me know if they come across problems with my edits. I'll be happy to address any concern. It is a process, after all. :) Tiderolls 15:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Camp Tamakwa

The subject regarding Michael dying after the required swim test is an important part of what has occurred at camp just like all the other events good or bad. The OPP investigation is still ofpen and there may still be a coroners inquest. Just because the ministry of labor dismisseed their charges does not let the owners or the camp off the hool David Greene —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.179.90 (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, not a place to debate political positions. Wikipedia cannot be a log of every lawsuit, every death, every shooting. Your Wikipedia edits over the last months are all about Camp Tamakwa, which suggests you have a conflict of interest, see WP:CONFLICT; from the discussion page, it appears that you are related the the person who died. Other editors have explained carefully why Wikipedia is not the place to bring up these issues. This has gone on long enough. I am going to suggest that you be blocked from further editing on this article. Piano non troppo 10:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your signature...

... appears to be broken, possible. It's not providing the required link. Looks like it was a recent change. Just an FYI. :) لennavecia 14:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(Laughing) Thank you! I was trying to figure out how that happened. I was playing with my preferences for email contact at about the same time I believe a change to the signature went into play. But in the end, I thought I hadn't changed anything. Ideas?? Piano non troppo 14:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Figured it out. If "Edit Raw Signature" is checked -- with no other changes, the talk link in the sig disappears. Thank you for prompting me to fix this! Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I typed out the instructions to fix it earlier, and apparently got up from the computer without saving. Glad you found it! :) لennavecia 04:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Piano. I remembered that I talked to you early in my wiki-life, and we talked about the condition of the Tim Richmond article. Didn't know if you'd be interested or not, but the article recently made GA status. Just wanted to let you know, and thank you for your input on the topic. Hope you have a wonderful day. ;) — Ched :  ?  16:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Great! That is good to hear; thanks for taking the time to let me know! Piano non troppo (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Cyprus Institute

Hi, I'm just trying to justify the text I've put in The_Cyprus_Institute article. The reason why it look like an advertisement is because I used as model some big universities like MIT or Illinois University and they have this kind of layout. I don't really understand the need of other citation more reliable than MIT, Illinois Univ and European Commission! The institute is new, just started its activity this is why we don't yet have billion of citations. Ciao e buona Pasquetta, Denis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denics (talk • contribs) 12:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What the article could use is independent sources. The ones that are there appear to have been written by the Institute, or someone working with the Institute. Those are not unbiased, and in fact, can be relied on to give only the positive, official party line. I don't seriously doubt that the Institute is doing good things (in fact some of the projects look rather interesting to me), but this long article as it stands is completely one-sided, and mostly without footnotes. This kind of peacock language: "maintain from the very beginning internationally recognized high research level" or "understood excellence on a global scale" (WP:PEACOCK) is boilerplate PR, and therefore constitutes advertising. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Voila, fixed. I hope :) I removed all the PR sentences and sorry about that but the text actually... come from our PR! Let me know if I have to change something more, regards, Denis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denics (talk • contribs) 21:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Piano, I see that nobody removed the "ready to delection" tag on the Cyprus Institute article, what is still wrong? Let me know, Denics (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry not to answer right away, the subject needs careful review, so I was waiting until I had time. But. Your recent changes are a huge improvement! I removed the advertising tag that I placed...since you seem to be heading in the right direction with the article. (I did remove a few more unneeded words, but that was in the way of a copy edit.)

On the issue of the editor who left you a message about The Cyprus Institute being nominated for speedy deletion: The editor, Ttonyb1, has a history of successful page deletions, so you should take his comments seriously. However, you two seemed to have completely resolved this issue [28]. At this point, unless he takes further action, do nothing. If there is further discussion about deleting the article, please let me know. I do not believe the article should be deleted.

What would still greatly benefit the article is references from what Wikipedia considers "reliable and independent" sources. That is, any other perspective on the Institute besides that of those who work for it, or with it. From the Wiki article, it's hard to tell what the Institute has accomplished, and what the larger scientific community thinks about its work. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop removing official MySpace sites.

WP:EL#What should be linked: a link to a social networking site may be included when it is the official website for a business, organization, or person. --Kmaster (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure what article you're talking about. MySpace is specifically named in WP:LINKSTOAVOID as being not wanted, except in exceptional circumstances. An exceptional circumstance is when, for example, there isn't any other official Web site. (But if that MySpace site has material violating copyright, for example? It cannot be included under ANY circumstance.) Piano non troppo (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like a clarification on this specifically that The Cure and The Smashing Pumpkins has links to both (Myspace and official sites). MegX (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that you've already got an opinion from WhatamIdoing on The Smashing Pumpkins, but most of what's on both that and The Cure's MySpace is either commercial, contrary to WP:SPAM, or is for social purposes (blogs, forums, etc.) WP:LINKSTOAVOID. What little else is there that is encyclopedic could be added to the Wiki articles, as described in the opening of WP:LINKS. Adding excellent content to Wiki (instead of pointing to content somewhere else that may disappear next month or next year) is, unsurprisingly, often preferred.

Occasionally an artist has no other Web page except their MySpace page available. In that case the MySpace page is generally allowed. However, there's nothing to say a Wiki article needs any external links; using Wikipedia to link to a site that violates the law puts the Wikimedia Foundation in a position where courts may find the Wikimedia Foundation is, by extension, violating the law.

External links are well-covered in Wiki discussions. There are a couple aspects to this which usually do not arise. The external links to MySpace probably don't get more than 1-in-50 readers clicking them. (This is something I know as a Webmaster for a Fortune 500 company.) So if an article only gets 50 "hits" in one day (and very many probably don't get that), only 1 "click-through" is generated. And how many people aren't going to guess that Googling on "myspace band X" will find a result? It would probably be better than following whatever happens to be in the Wiki external links section. I.e., I wouldn't use Wiki to research external links for bands I'm interested in. So, ignoring Wikipedia policy entirely for second, there may not be much pragmatic point to adding what would occur to anybody as obvious external links, anyhow. Knowing this, myself, I don't bother to add external links unless they are somehow not obvious. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree with the first commenter. I honour your vigilance with the external links, but I believe you are going too far with removing links to MySpace. The WP:LINKSTOAVOID indeed brings the site as an example, but the note next to it clearly states (at least according to my interpretation), that official MySpace pages for artists and bands do not fall under that rule. And as a response to the last comment, I don't think the obviousness of a link should be a criteria for a link's inclusion. For example, even the artist's official website would be the first result of a google search. As for my personal experience, I would keep the links included as well, because these links have actually been helpful with some bands new to me. Quite a few bands do use MySpace as an alternative for a personal official website and keep their MySpace pages constantly updated. Also, linking to copyright infringing sites is indeed prohibited, but artist's official pages don't fall into that category. Please stop. Quibik (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Gramlee

I wrote the Gramlee article and belive I successfully wrote it from a neutral point of view. Why do you not agree and how can I improve it? Also, why did you delete the external references...all were from neutral third parties? Thanks. Casadega (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I see on inspection that this page was deleted after editor review, and has been recreated. Did you realize this?

I deleted some of the advertising language, but "has led marketing initiatives for several technology companies" and especially "he saw an untapped market niche full of people" belongs not in an encyclopedia, but in company advertising.

External links: Twitter is generally disallowed because it is an unmoderated social site where anybody can say what they like (and in this specific case have created a page with no encyclopedic value) [29]. This link, ditto [30]. This link is WP:SPAM [31], and contains little material, all of which could easily be added to the Wikipedia article (a preferred preferred practice to relying on external sources for content). Links that Wiki most wants are from books, reliable magazines and newspapers, independent reviewers. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If I "neuter" the language per your instructions, is it then OK to remove the tag you left?Casadega (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to be supportive, and say "yes". But there is another issue, which is that the topic as a whole was voted on in a review, and editors unanimously voted to delete the article. That discussion is here [32]. Regardless of the (rather harmless) advertising tag I added, you will want to address the issues they raised -- otherwise, there's a good chance this article will just be deleted again. If you are personally related to the business, one thing you certainly should do is explain your relationship on the talk page [33]. Obviously people often have personal associations with articles that they edit -- however when there is controversy, as there was before about conflict of interest, your safest bet is simply to state what your "bias" is, as it were. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Multimedia ebook

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Multimedia ebook, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This article seems mostly to be definitions of "multimedia" and "e-book"; no external sources provided; no evidence of notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. This message has been left as a courtesy as, according to the article history, you had some contribution to it. Please be aware that I did not nominate the article for deletion, though I have endorsed its nomination, I'm merely exercising due dilligence, especially since it would be good to see the article saved if something can be salvaged. Regards, HJ Mitchell (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It was my intention to recommend the article for deletion. It was added by an editor who already had another article on similar topic evaluated and deleted. I don't think it can be "fixed", partly because it overlaps with other Wikipedia material, and partly because it relates to a company that may not be making a particularly distinctive product. Let me know if my further input would be useful in one way or the other.Piano non troppo (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I doubt it. It's a shame, but there is the occasional 'unrescuable' article. It may be worth seconding the proposal though in order to show the relevant admin that there is a consensus of opinion- i.e it would be unlikely for three editors to propose the deletion of a good article. Thanks for your reply, anyway, HJ Mitchell (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a deletionist or an inclusionist, but where I got "stuck" here is that there is apparently a conflict-of-interest, and again apparently, by an editor more focused on a conventional marketing statement than in Wikipedia guidelines. Another person might be able to approach this in a more balanced way, but company knowledge about EVEDA might be a tad hard to come by. Regards! Piano non troppo (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Kirkland, Washington

Thanks for undoing the anon editor's extreme POV in Kirkland, Washington#Nightlife. Even more could be done in the section—removing loaded words like "smear" for instance—but I have been reluctant to engage in an edit war. Brianhe (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol...it's hard to resist an invitation such as that. All the more since I've been in Kirkland on occasion. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a number of other standard copy edit changes. I'm unsure whether you are alluding to the edits of 206.188.60.1, but reviewing them, I see a vandalism edit [34], and on this talk page [35], an addition to a list that already included the (correctly capitalized) author [36], and which was removed. I've placed a warning on their talk page [37]. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Inverted microscope

What is wrong with you son? Didnt you see that the inverted microscope links were all together and not in different lines? What is wrong to tell people about invertted microscope applications compared to normal one? that is a useful questions beucase often times people ask us "why cant you use a normal microscope, why do you need an inverted one"? you are a bad editor? are you in 5th grade or what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.216.78 (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit in Inverted microscope included the text "Microfluidics chip because the connections come from top of the cip and in traditional optical microscopes the lenses hit the connections. Nanovazio.com" Whether this is vandalism, a commercial plug, or simply poor writing, it didn't improve the article and was reverted. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

in that case you should correct the english mistake and not remove the whole content. and why didnt you leave the references in separate lines? if you want to do a good job, DO IT RIGHT!! everyone can write nicely. the important is the information that is behind. and i could pass that. just tell me the truth. you dont have any friends, right? just tell me yes or no. i dont see a reason for you to do such a poor job. how would you feel if someone remove you contribution to the humanity knowledge? hah? im sorry for the duplicated (on top) i was not expecting new posts to go to the bottom of the list. fiz that too. new posts should be on top. be decent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.216.78 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem (apart from adding the spam link) is that rewriting the information would require an expert. I'm not an expert. If another expert was available I'd ask them to explain more thoroughly. In the meantime, Wikipedia isn't a "placeholder" for incomprehensible information that might be improved sometime later. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yuzuru Ito

ITO citations are correct--98.235.135.159 (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Referring to this edit in Yuzuru Ito: [38]. As I said in my edit summary:

"Removes reference by editor with only one other Wiki edit. Reference wasn't used to create article, and seems like a plug".

Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, and cannot include references to all the many books that have been published on a subject. You gave no reason to include this reference, which was not used to create the article.

Links on digital signage

Hi there. Pro tem I have restored the external links on digital signage but please come and join the long-running discussion on the article's Talk page; I think we are generally agreed that there may be a few too many, but they need to be considered on a case-by-case basis rather than butchered en masse. None are promotional sites simply pushing a company's products or services, and although they may not be perfect, they represent the best up-to-date sources of information that are out there. Barnabypage (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: AndrewEnn's use of (my) material

I'm really not sure whether he is finding other sources of material and just not providing a link to the source, or whether he is inadvertently interpreting the data as he reads it and then makes mistakes when relaying the information or what. I can certainly confirm that he has been consistent in this pattern in the various Waterfall articles I've been patrolling for the last month or so. I've cleaned up a few of his problems where he has cited my website(s) as the primary source [39], [40] but there are still several other articles that he has contributed to / started which need to be overhauled [41] because he's taking liberties (intentionally or not) with the information and including lots of irrelevant and unverifiable information. I'll address those articles I can, but I don't have a lot of time to do so at the moment.
Bryan Swan | World Waterfall Database (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, why in the world is posting relavant info about a murder that happened there vandalism? I'm sick & tired of hearing about how I'm "vandalising" wikipedia. The info, in my opinion, was both well written and referenced. I put that info back on cuz it was true, factual stuff that was perfectly suited for that article. I am totally without a clue how it could possibly called "vandalism". Listen, Im not trying to be a jerk, but this is getting annoying cuz I, for the umptenth time, just don't see how posting, true, factual, descriptive, detailed and referenced info is considered vandalism.

Plz send me some feedback on this little issue cuz I'd like to know a little more about this.

AndrewEnns —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewEnns (talk • contribs) 05:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you and Bryan Swan were annoyed that I changed the height from 40 feet to 30 feet for the Ashlu Falls article. The reason was, I was there last summer and I had a good look at the area and it was dead obvious the falls were not 40 feet high. 30, definetly! tHe upper drop is no more than 10 feet and the lower one is about 20. Simple as that. I hate 2 be sarcastic or rude, but honestly, you guys are making Bryans 40 foot thing sound like it is gospel, and I believe it is slightly off. And the reason I am saying thios is because I do not believe Bryan ever actually phisically went to the falls, because if he did he would have done a full write up on it on his site. Here is a link to his page on the falls [42]. If he had actually been there, i garuntee u he would have done a full write up with a picture. Since I have been there and he hasn't I think I am allowed to point out where he is wrong on this since he hasn't actually phisically seen the falls. everyone makes mistakes u know. I am sorry if I sound arrogant but I am just saying why I belive my height figure is more accurate. After all, I'm just reporting what I saw when I was there.

PLZ send a message back to my talk page ASAP

AndrewEnns

AndrewEnns, thanks for responding. I was puzzled about your editing process; I guessed rightly that you might be working from personal observations. I was delaying answering you because I wanted to consider what was going on carefully. I'll get back to you on your talk page, as you suggest. (P.S., the word "vandalism" is unfortunately used by Wikipedia to cover really malicious editing as well as rather minor misunderstandings. I'm assuming this is more in the nature of a misunderstanding -- no offense was intended.) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: AndrewEnns/River articles

Dunno if you preferred me to reply to this here or in the discussion on AndrewEnns' Talk page, so copy + paste it if you so desire. I'm not associated with a government agency at all and the vast majority of my research comes from personal field observation (whether that becomes a conflict of interest here simply because I post it on my own personal website, I don't know but understand if it is). The little data I do get from the government comes from mainly USGS Topographic Maps (in the form of latitide / longitude and elevation readings), occasionally from Department of Fish and Wildlife information. The historical information I've compiled regarding discovery and naming of the waterfalls comes from a wide variety of sources, much of which can't be absolutely confirmed but some does again come from organizations such as the USGS, National Park Service, National Forest Service or State / County records.
Bryan Swan | World Waterfall Database (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Good! That simplifies things. I was worried that material on your Web site was for some reason, actually in the public domain already, in which case all the text I wrote AndrewEnns on his talk page about copyright violation would have been wrong and quite unconstructive. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixing this whole thing up...

First of all, I'm sorry for being so aggressive & at times, sarcastic & rude. I later read that you are actually a professional editor with a lot more experience than me on this stuff. I felt kinda bad after cuz I realized I had lost my cool and taken it all out on you when ur just trying to help. I think I was more confused than anything about what was going on. I was getting kinda mad cuz I could not understand why I was getting what I thought was a bunch of useless crap.

Copyright Infringement: As for how that works, I now understand what I can & can't do as far as copyrighted material goes. I will now b careful to only quote stuff sometimes.

Original Research: I am still a little bit confused on how this original research thing works. Are you basically saying that even though I, for example, have been to Ashlu Falls, that even though I might be just writing down what I saw, its not for sure going to be accepted by others? If that is the case, then if that guy who explored Sulphide Creek Falls recently in Washington decided to post what he saw on Wikipedia, it would not be considered "correct" and would just be re-written by someone who just knows a little bit about it but had never actually seen or been there? I would like to here your explanation on that cuz I'm still a little confused.

Bryan Swan's Site: Listen, I can see when I said I believed the height figure on Ashlu Falls was incorrect on the part of Bryan Swan's sight, it also appeared I was questioning his integrity and the quality of his write-ups on his site. Let's face it... Bryan Swan's site, in my opinion, is probably the best waterfall site I've ever come across. It is written by a guy who has a lot of experience with what he has been doing. He also seems to really enjoy what he is doing, so obviously that is going to be a factor as to how good your info is. There are a lot of waterfalls I've visited before that I never coulda made it to without the help of his site. There are a lot of falls out there I plan on visiting THAT I NEVER WOULD HAVE EVEN KNOWN HAD EXISTED if not for his sight. Of course, his site isn't "gospel" obviously, no-one (myself included) is perfect. But his site is very accuate and I plan on using it a lot for future waterfall hunting trips of my own. Now when I stated that I believed his height on Ashlu Falls was incorrect, I was only questioning his height on that particular write up, not his entire site. In all, I really like his sight as it gives a lot of info most others wouldn’t.

Anyhow, thanks for helping me with this and I’m sorry I kinda let my emotions get the best of my at first.

Later

AndrewEnns —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.186.243 (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew! The idea is to contribute, and obviously you want to do that. Sorry this is a bit rocky. It was worse for me, when I came to Wiki. There were uncontroversial things that I'd seen with my own eyes, and yet editors were suggesting my contributions were unwanted in any form! Then there was the guy who reverted my edit (about a fact that was easily checked) -- and who threatened me since he was a "Superior Court Judge" in SE Asia! Haha. Pretty good, eh?

It sounds like you and Bryan are coming to terms, so I'll let you guys do that. But I actually saw two big (no, huge) opportunities for you: a) Take photos of the falls and add them to articles, and b) Describe something about the native plants and wildlife. It doesn't have to be much. General material from local guidebooks might even work. Anyhow, glad you are sticking around to work this through, and hope to see more stuff from you! Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Esperance edits undone

I made my first-ever Wikipedia edit, two factual instances which have occurred in recent times, and both were removed without any reason given, and I would like to know WHY, when relevant links were provided? Are they to be reinstated at a later time?--Esperanceguy (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at your edits, the first I'm not sure about, the second though was not necessary. --Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Esperanceguy, I changed this one of your edits [43]. Wikipedia's three core policies are verifiability WP:SOURCE, no original research WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. It's in the last that your edit fails, because it describes "payment" of a fine whose validity NASA and the courts do not acknowledge. It could be that NASA was wrong in not paying the fine imposed by the city, but then again, it might be that NASA did nothing wrong. That's a matter for NASA and courts to determine -- not the hosts of a "variety breakfast program". NASA did not agree to have the fine "paid on their behalf". Your statement describes a publicity stunt, and reflects a point-of-view not tried in the court that NASA did something wrong that they did not provide compensation for. Completely unacceptable for an encyclopedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Are iTunes Store links really spam?

You've removed a link to Ngmoco's App Store company profile on that article. Can you explain why you think this is spam? A notable aspect of the company is that all of its products are sold for the iPhone OS. Don't you think this link is relevant? Brianreading (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(The above comment in regards to this edit in Ngmoco [44])

1) If you consider, any spam link is relevant to the topic: otherwise it would have no commercial or promotional potential. Typically, a company is allowed a single link to an official site. Not an indefinite number of links to any related site. See several points in [45].

2) I had iTunes on my main networked computer, but I removed it, because I don't trust the Apple company (in this particular respect), which for example, repeatedly places QuickTime in msconfig startup preferences, without notification. This, of course, slows my computer startup. Apparently Apple feels it has a right manage property that it does not own, but belongs exclusively to me.

3) Now lacking iTunes, to check the reference, I was redirected from the link in question to a page offering to download iTunes. (In fact, I had to use another Internet browser -- with its security settings set low -- just to see the download offer.) A typical Wikipedia editor should not be forced to lower their browser security, download and install software, merely to check the accuracy or cogency of a link.

Either point 1 or 3 is sufficient to remove a link as spam or a "link to be avoided". Point 2 is not directly germane to Wikipedia rules and guidelines, being personal experience, but it does give a sense of why I feel that Apple marketing -- as much as I like the company overall -- is not always a benign influence, and cannot be trusted to make changes on my computer -- or on any other Wikipedia reader's computer. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Outlaws Fan Site And Game

the links I posted for http://theoutlawdad.com are the real links to the website, It is the biggest Fan site for the game, The map site you have posted as not working, is working at http://theoutlawdad.com/maps all I was doing is correcting the info for the game, if Wikipedia wants to have incorrect info on the site then go a head and do so, It just makes more reading for my News page. I was not trying to promt anything but the correct links to a old Outlaws game. Post what you want, I really don't care but all the info you have for the game is not correct. TheOutlawDad I have supported the game for years, & for me not to be able to correct links here is just not right. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.42.70 (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The game site seems to be relevant, and generally conforms to Wiki rules. The fan site does not, but in this case, it seems like it might be an exception. Thanks for explaining, I'll add that to the edit so people know what's going on. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Official MySpace

She stated that it is her official myspace. Same with Nathan Kress.

Then remove the Myspace from Nathan Kress profile BAH (from user Jeneral28)

It doesn't matter what she calls it, what matters is how Wikipedia classifies it. She already has one official page. Putting the word "official" on social or commercial sites that add nothing encyclopedic to article doesn't change the nature of the site.

I fixed the error on one page, not all pages have the same issue. Some pages do have the same issue. One doesn't have to change them all to make a fix.Piano non troppo (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Watson

Is notable enough. He has forwarded a new branch of IPE.Jeneral28 (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What does that mean? Explain in article, and provide a citation. Piano non troppo (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes reverted incorrectly

Why did you change back to the modern spelling of one word (brief) of a sixteenth century title in the article on George Joye? The correct title is

Dauids Psalter/ diligently and faithfully translated by George Ioye/ with breif Arguments before euery Psalme/ declaringe the effect therof, [Antwerp]: Martyne Emperowr (=Merten de Keyser), 1534. (cf. Early English Books Online)

Ok. Reverted my edit. Thanks for pointing this out. Piano non troppo (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Bankot

My aportation to Bankot is, simply, the interwiki with the same article, most extensive, in catalan wikipedia. Why is not constructive?--88.3.129.96 (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Mistake! When I clicked the link it said the page could not be found! I see it now. Sorry, and thanks for bringing this up! Piano non troppo (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Christian

I see from previous messages you have a habit of sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. If you know something about Charlie Christian, feel free to post. If you don't, quit interfering with someone who turned a horrid article into a verifiable one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.166.210 (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My edits [46] were largely to remove overlinking on common words WP:CONTEXT and to trim a dozen unnecessary words -- without particularly changing the meaning.

Your edit was trivia, which is often not considered useful, and was not given a citation. I gave you a warning, because your edit did not seem to be constructive.

I see from the article history that many anonymous IP editors have made changes in the last month, I assume, since many start with "4.88" that you are responsible. You can avoid having editors label your casual changes as vandalism by establishing an account for yourself. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I considered it valuable and moved it into the article, as it is not trivia, but a real topic of dispute among Charlie Christian historians as the link to it proves. Elmo the Dancing Pig features "7 Come 11" is trivia. Erviltnec (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Erviltnec. The edit in question was made without citation by an editor who, as far as I could tell, made no other changes to Wiki (and whom I thought had finished editing.) Instead, it's an editor who edited the article under more than one IP, and who was not finished. It's ironic that I found the article interesting and well-written, and had decided to make only trivial changes. There was no intent to intrude on a work-in-process. (That was done to me once while working on a new article that I'd written, and I found it extraordinarily rude and "un-Wiki".) Hopefully there are no bruised feelings. I'd absolutely encourage that editor to continue adding to Wiki indefinitely. (And to get their own account!) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Salient, April 2009.

Hey, twit. What I added to the salient article is common knowledge. Do I have to cite a source when I say that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen? Where do you draw the line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.16.180 (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I draw the line at edits that contradict existing material, are personal opinion, and irrelevant to an encyclopedia. [47] Phrases such as "caused this salient to enjoy particular popularity" are also, for example WP:PEACOCK.

To change what the standing article says in a concrete way (from it being the most decisive, to the second most decisive) requires a citation.

You've been blocked before for your edits, and this edit and your tone suggest you are close to being blocked again. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I futue te ipsum. ("Go fuck yourself" in Latin, added anonymously by 71.48.16.180 [48])

I don't know what happened here (Foie gras)

In this edit you state in the edit summary that you are removing spam links yet what you actually did was revert the article to an earlier version. I am assuming that this was a mistake, so I have reverted you. I would be surprised if such a hotly debated article where multiple editors with all sorts of views have hammered things out on the talk page would have spam links but, if you think there are some please come to the talk page. Cheers. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted to a previous edit in error. Happily, I see that you have cleaned it up -- I was looking in horror at the number of edits that followed my mistake, and wondering how long it would take me to undo the damage.

However, it (possibly) was my intention to remove one or more external links, which appear variously to go contrary to WP:SPAM, WP:LINKSTOAVOID, WP:LINKFARM and WP:EL. Were I to choose one in particular, it would be [49] which is a review of a cookbook: much of the brief article is about the book itself, and no encyclopedic information about foie gras is added to the Wiki article. I would label this as pure spam. I'm unsure whether you would choose to adopt a broad interpretation of those Wiki guidelines, however, there are millions of foie gras article showing in a Google search; I looked over the first couple pages, and found two that seem to be more useful, one from the Humane Society and one from the Village Voice. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have removed that link and another editor removed another somewhat dodgy one.Theresa Knott | token threats 15:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable Bridge Players

Hi, I see you removed Lauria and Versace (inter alia) from the list of notable bridge players. They have long & illustrious careers and are currently ranked fourth and fifth in the world (see [[50]]). Which I would think makes them pretty notable. Is existence of a wikipedia article a necessity to be considered notable? EdwardLockhart (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You are completely right. They do not need a Wiki article to be considered notable, and it looks as though they should be included in the article. I'll put them back, right now. What I don't know, is whether the page you mentioned is the best source, etc. I'm assuming it's reasonable. I would prefer that *you* added that link to their names in the article, because I wouldn't know how to answer questions about it, later. Ok? Piano non troppo (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicarchus entry

You recently removed a link I had added to the Nicarchus entry. It was a link to eight English translations of poems by Nicarchus. I'm not clear on why this was an inappropriate link, especially since there is very little information on Nicarchus in the Wikipedia article, and these poems provide a chance for further study. In fact, I believe the link I had added is the largest collection of Nicarchus poems available on the Web. You also suggested that the Black Cat Poems site I had linked to contained copyright violation material. This is not accurate. You specifically mentioned the full text of Robert Frost poems, but under U.S. copyright law anything originally published by Robert Frost prior to 1923 is in the public domain (the Sonny Bono copyright extension law is not retroactive), and this site only includes poems published by Frost before 1923. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.12.216 (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It had not occurred to me that they had culled the Frost poems so that only the copyright-free years appeared. Checking in detail, I see that Black Cat was careful to do that. I still have concerns that the *translations* are not copyright-free, but given their scrupulous approach to Frost, it's reasonable to assume their intent is to avoid copyright infringement. I reverted my change, which had deleted the external link. There is, in fact, a considerable amount of copyright infringement, in Wikipedia, and in Wikipedia external links, so thanks for your understanding in this. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:waving your direction

Yeah...During the school year it's extremely difficult for me to find any free time at all, let alone to do stuff on Wikipedia. Summer vacation is approaching, though, and I'll certainly be on soon. ^_^ miquonranger03 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Rudeness

Try not being so vile and rude. If you have a problem with my edits, the article has a talk page. Grow up.--Theosony (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

??? You're referring to: a) the suggestion to read guidelines for Wikilinking in WP:CONTEXT, b) the request that you give descriptions for your edits, or c) the quote supplying the definition of "orphan" [51] [52].  ???

I'll let your own words speak for you, when you deleted all the content from your talk page, erasing the comments of several editors: "I don't read talk pages much anymore. Wikipedia's got too full of people wanting their own way who are very anti-fact."

Piano non troppo (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Across The Earth Spring Tour 2009

I only forgive I want an information it would like to know on the tuor in the South America —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.194.172 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Np. Best thing to do would be to add the info you think is important directly into the article. Maybe a sentence would do? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

you have some information?--201.58.194.172 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

link in the site had one, but it was removed, we are here without concrete information--201.58.194.172 (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any information. But if you do, the article would be the place to add it. What's *not* ok is adding this stuff:

"???? 2009 Suth america south amrica????? south america????? ????"

The reason is that you're not sure about the details, so it's basically a rumor. I know sometimes you see in Wiki "Big Star XYZ is rumored to be dating Shessosexy" or "Big Star XYZ is rumored to be working on his new album" ... but that kind of thing isn't ok, unless there's a reference / citation / footnote to back it up. You *CAN* add that information, and give the site as a reference. If you don't know how to do it, give it to me, and I will do it for you. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for its patience, but I did not find the source trustworthy. thanks a lot--201.58.194.172 (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Spammer bingo

I do get the WP will never notice line a lot. I also get that their fansite is better than all the others that are listed.

The main time I get accused of being a shill is when there is some backdoor spam disgused as a reference that I miss. the someone will get on me for leavin that particular link and killing all the others. However, that is easily remedied. One gent actually wanted to edit war because I had left a link in from someone else. So after talking to him a bit, he clarified that he had a right to spam because I had seemingly given someone else the right to spam.

By the way, I think you go a great job. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 17:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't finish writing to you when I get a "someone else is spamming, why can't I complaint." Sakes. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 22:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Links to social networking sites

Hi Piano non troppo. I reverted your recent edit to Jennette McCurdy that removed a couple of links to social networking sites. If you go to Wikipedia:External links#cite_note-0, a footnote to the Wikipedia guidelines on links clearly states: "Note that under WP:External links#What should be linked, a link to a social networking site may be included when it is the official website for a business, organization, or person." I appreciate your efforts to prune out frivolous MySpace links on Wikipedia, but in this case, Wikipedia guidelines clearly allows for this link's inclusion. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you consider, all, or nearly all MySpace sites are someone's "official" site -- as the people themselves define it them. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia's definition of "official". One official site is generally allowed (and there are exceptions even to that). The footnote you cited is not a backdoor to add any number of self-defined official sites (otherwise...any number could be named "official" just to get around Wiki rules).

MySpace is specifically mentioned in WP:LINKSTOAVOID because, in most cases, it is not ok to add this link. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've relooked the policy and see what you mean. The links I reverted then were indeed inappropriate. I'll keep that in mind in further editing. Thank you, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I was just writing a "P.S.", to make sure that Jeneral28 was included -- since this was a bit of a three-way discussion. But since you two are actively in discussion, I'll assume it's covered. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I still don't get it. So why is Malese Jow's Myspace allowed but her Youtube not allowed and why is Jennette McCurdy's both not allowed?Jeneral28 (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Is Nathan Kress' Myspace allowed (he doesn't have any official website?Jeneral28 (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Jeneral28, you must be reading my mind!! Lol. After years on Wiki, I just decided 10 minutes ago to write a section on my user page about the guidelines for removing MySpace pages. Nathan Kress is an example of an exception, for exactly the reason you gave. Regards and Happy Editing, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The policy you wrote up looks good. It is more specific than the version at WP:EL! 青い(Aoi) (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

More suggestions for improvement are totally welcome. I'm aiming at a "bigger picture". Many editing decisions might be presented in a "rule-based" format, so that others can understand. I noticed in the external links WP:EL discussion that when an editor says something like "That's not the same thing" that often leaves it unclear as to what exactly isn't the "same". With a rule, a criticism can be specific: "I don't agree that 1b is an exception to 1" or "Why aren't there any exceptions to 2?" Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a very thin line. Some music groups like to use social networking sites first rather than update their own websites. It looks like there's going to be millions of webpages/myspace links to be proof read.Jeneral28 (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's an interesting observation. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

David Gemmell

Although it undid part of my work and research (wry smile), I agree your deletion of plagiarism vis-à-vis David Gemmell, was best for the article and should have been done long ago.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

81.23.56.9 (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, several things went through my mind. Maybe that plagiarism material could be copied to the discussion page? Ideally, it would go on the discussion page of Mary Kellis or Christopher Hall, but they don't have their own Wiki pages. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

McCurdy

Can yoiu help lock the Jennette McCurdy article to only established users. People have been vandalising it. ThanksJeneral28 (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I can make the proposal, or you can. Before that, have a quick look at pages about protection. My guess is that protection for Jennette McCurdy is a *little* iffy, but probably will be accepted by the administrators.

1) This page describes "semi-protection" [53]. Notice that one of the criteria is whether the article is "high-profile". I would say "yes" Jennette McCurdy is high-profile, because it's getting over 2,000 views a day. [54].

2) This is where the request is made [55]. Have a look, especially at the "Declined" requests. Those are reasons we do not want to use. For example, on a Lady Gaga song Paparazzi, the protection was declined because it was a content dispute. So we want to make it clear we're talking about anonymous IP vandalism, not a content dispute. But also notice...a lot of the page protections are only for a few days. And that's not really going to help us much.

Since you are most familiar with the subject and the article's editing history, you might want to consider whether what the most important issues are. Notice that the requests are just a sentence or two. I'd be inclined to shoot for something such as:

"This high-profile article -- over 2,000 views per day -- is regularly vandalized by a number of anonymous IP's."

Anything that I'm missing?

If the protection request is declined...the administrators might point out that between you, Aoi, Frehley and me, the vandalism edits are being reverted within a few hours...sometimes within a few minutes. The better work we do, the less reason there is for protection. Ha, ha. But I still think it's worth a try. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather busy, but her article, as well as many other teen actresses have been vandalised but various unregistered users. Being new to wiki, I'm hoping you could help me out with that--since her fell co star's article is semi protected. Thanks.Jeneral28 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it's done [56]. I added that Miranda Cosgrove is semi-protected. Let's see what happens. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the answer. It's reasonable: there are articles that are so heavily vandalized hundreds of readers a day would look at them and be shocked. Jennette McCurdy's article not in that league. Lucky for her!

" Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I'm sympathetic to this request in general, but I only see a couple vandal edits over the last five days. There is a good amount of link spamming, and I would be willing to reconsider if things get much worse. Feel free to relist or request on my talk page as need be. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)"

It should be . It's annoying to change back info all the time.Jeneral28 (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

True enough. But I feel Wiki is also an opportunity to meet issues head-on, instead of waiting forever. In this case, the issue is not Jennette, but how to deal with vandalism. Fame has its price. In this case, you and I are paying. Lol. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it's annoying to see her pages and others changed by non users who add irrelevant info. We're first her to add and improve, not to spring clean all the time. As i said, Cosgrove's page is semi locked, and she isn't the most vandalised page. Jeneral28 (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Whitehouse

You obviously don't know much about Whitehouse. Susan Lawly is William Bennett's label, on which he releases all Whitehouse music. It's the official Whitehouse site. Please refrain from making statements on things about which you know nothing. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

One is an unprofessional Website for a record label that sells Whitehouse albums [57]; I didn't notice anything there that's remotely suitable for an encyclopedia. With the other link it's difficult to tell what relation it has to the group at all [58]. Wikipedia is not a free advertising site for anything related to article topic. It's an encyclopedia, and references need to support article content. These links are WP:SPAM, and disallowed. In addition, they appear to be unreliable and unprofessional. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, forget about the Come Org one for now. Let me try and clarify the Susan Lawly one for you, since you're obviously having some trouble with it. Per WP:EL#What should be linked, "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site". As I've already explained to you, Susan Lawly is the record label run by Whitehouse's founding – and now sole – member, William Bennett, and this site is the website of Susan Lawly. In other words, it is the official Whitehouse site. A quick scan of the website should make that obvious. For example, the section for booking enquiries gives email addresses of the same domain as the website. Now will you please reinstate the link. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Right then, now that we've sorted out the Susan Lawly link (without any kind of acknowledgement from you that you were wrong, I might add), let's have a look at the Come Org one. You say "it's difficult to tell what relation it has to the group at all". Not really – it's pretty obvious that it's some kind of discography – but in any case let me enlighten you. Come Org was the record label that William Bennett ran in the 80s, using it to put out music by Whitehouse and other artists, as well as some printed material. This site is clearly an unofficial resource that does nothing other than list the various material Bennett released on the label. As such it fulfils the third criterion of WP:EL, namely "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article". It is certainly not spam, since it is not selling or promoting anything (none of the material listed on the site is actually available from it). Please reinstate the link. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 06:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Richardrj is right. Both links should be reinstated. SethTisue (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to continue the discussion on Whitehouse's talk page, but my practice is to keep a record of what was said on this page here or in the archives.

Briefly, I don't agree that either link should be there. They are both unencyclopedic and unprofessional. WP:EL reads that an external link should be "useful, tasteful, informative, factual" and also "Is the link functional and likely to remain functional?" and also "Is the site content accessible to the reader?" Both links fail in several respects. Piano non troppo (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Phish.net

Phish.net is actually somewhere between a fansite and an official site. The Webmaster is Ellis Goddard, who also runs The Mockingbird Foundation, one of Phish's charities. It touts itself as being run "by phans, for phans", but Ellis is more of an insider than a fan. If you could, please restore that one link. 69.137.130.101 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Understand. If you feel there's a strong reason for restoring it, go ahead, and give your reasoning in the edit summary. Also, it would help if the external link said, in a half dozen words, what makes it distinctive (along the lines of what you just wrote). That would help later editors evaluating whether the external link is appropriate. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Southampton F.C.

Fair enough on the poor man's Kevin Davies thing, I was just being facetious, but removing the nickname really grinds my gears. I know lots of people who nickname them the scummers. The box doesn't say 'flattering nicknames'. I'll put it back, shall I? Thanks darling.--82.19.73.18 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's true, put it back. If you don't want some fan who objects to remove it, maybe provide a citation? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually care that much, I was just procrastinating and showing off to make my friends laugh. I succeeded. Sorry to have wasted your time, enjoy your life.--82.19.73.18 (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Art education

Hi

This User is anti-educational and profoundly ignorant. He has removed an entire section on art education that is of profound use to students of the area ( A lst of contributors ) because they are not cited. This pig ignorant abuse proves that Wikipedia is of little relevance to education when specialists have their hard won contributions intended for students guidance and use removed by an ignorant clown on the basis of non-citation. I have finished with wikipedia for good! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.108.168 (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(Comment concerns this edit [59]).

An uncited, unqualified list of those who are "contributors to art education academic theory" is, in point of fact, an invitation for vandalism and POV additions. Offhand, having read for coursework in college a considerable amount of two of the authors listed, I'm not inclined to agree even with those two "good faith" inclusions. Including Hal Foster is an example of another problem with the list. Does this mean the cartoonist, or the art critic? In terms of influence, possibly the cartoonist has greater weight, but there's no particular reason to single either out from evidence supplied. Since the list was haphazard and unexplained, it was deleted. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Appreciation!

I appreciate your effort in removing the personal bias from the article Kaddi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hi781 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. (This edit: [60].) Maybe one day I'll visit, and see for myself whether the hill adds beauty. Of course, that would still be original research. Lol. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Re.co.de page deleted

Hi I have been working on this article for more than 2 months now, doing my best to make the RE.CO.DE concept easy to understand, and to comply to Wikipedia rules. I have taken into account every single feedback I have received, and spent a lot of time to learn how to use WP.

1) I am a witness of the emergence of this concept, and one of many contributors to it. As a collaboration designer, my interest is to share my understanding of it; To help people, communities and organizations reinvent how they interact, and build a more respectful and sustainable future. I am part of a non-profit association of designers, called "The Value Web", which committed to contribute to spread this meme. I don't understand why you refer to a COI (Conflict of Interest) here.

2)I replaced the link to youtube with the BBC video because BBC gave us the right to use it freely. The video is about the peace process in the Middle East, and shows how political, civil society and business leaders try to build neutral and peaceful solutions to help solving the conflict. Is this vandalism? When it was removed in the first place, I understood that it was because of the video being hosted on youtube, not considered as a reliable source. In this particular case, it is reliable.

3) the page has now been deleted, and I have no recent copy of the text. I don't know what you refer to because the specified link is now inactive. I have answered the tag by modifying the article directly, clarifying the fact that it was not an ad by writing that the concept is open source. Notability is a very subjective notion. I know there is a debate about inclusiveness among WP contributors, but this emerging RE.CO.DE concept is really impacting lots of people, especially in the design community, in the NGO and multilateral initiatives, in the global political, media and business sphere.

I hope these explanations will help. Please note that English is not my first language, and that I am not fully familiar with WP habits yet. It is not an easy environment, in terms of how the rules are interpreted. Gregser (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregser (talk • contribs)

I understand. I was surprised to see that an administrator had deleted the article. I did not request that. The information can be recovered: that is not a problem.

I just spent time researching, but I am not sure how to continue. I will need consider. Not everything that someone in "good faith" thinks is important is what Wikipedia wants. I will give you an example? I saw a performance. I wrote about something that the cast did. Other editors erased my edit, because Wikipedia does not allow "original research" WP:OR.

You will need the help of the administrator called "One". But don't write him, yet. Just to give you an idea of how complicated this can get? You said: "The BBC gave you the right to use it freely." Ah. But *what* right? Wikipedia follows the law! But it justifies itself with particular laws! It is *those* laws you need to follow -- not just an informal agreement between your group and the BBC.

The big mistake you made was erasing changes other Wikipedia editors made, without explaining why you did it. Your reason might not be very good! But no reason is quite bad! So it's much better, now that you are explaining what you are doing! Let's hope we can make progress tomorrow. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all this. How can I transfer you the email received from the BBC giving us permission for use of the video debate? Gregser (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Gregser, I'm moving this discussion to your talk page. It's quite possible that others will want to contribute. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

One-term congressmen

First of all, I'm not sure where you're coming up with the assertion that the page has never been viewed. Entering both "one-term congressmen" and "list of members of the united states house of representatives who served a single term" into the article traffic statistics search engine you cited, it is clear that the article has in fact been viewed nearly 300 times (only a small minority of which were the result of my own editing). Secondly, you contend that a mere "database lookup" could yield this information - if you are aware of the existence of a similar list elsewhere, please let me know. In the meantime, I would submit (as one who did not take the initiative of creating this article in the first place, but took some time and effort in working to expand it) that there is legitimate scholarly merit, beyond any mere trivial value that has been intimated, in collating this information together. Clearly, the article is a work in progress, but in my opinion there is no reason to stop the work from progressing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.87.252 (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(In regard to this edit, adding a notability tag [61].)

As I explained in my edit "Strongly question whether this article belongs in Wikipedia. Consult WP:LISTCRUFT." I would name specifically points 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 in "Meaning" section. Note that any one of these alone could be reason enough to delete the article.

The page has an average of 10 views a day this month, but many of these appear to be you. (I note that on two days you did not edit, there were no visitors.)

There are a thousand collections of such information that could be assembled by a scholar, this particular one doesn't stand out. For example, I could see writing a paper on the ratio of democrat to republican "one-termers". Or "one-termers" who died in office. Or "one-termers who went on to other political office" Or one-termers in relation to two-termers. Etc. I'd use a database for that. I don't know specifically which, but this information is so simple, it would probably be possible to extract it from any of several.

I'm concerned that the article gives as part of its justification "More often than not, they fade into obscurity and are only remembered by political historians, close friends and family members." Wikipedia is not a memorial site. This isn't a valid reason to create the article. (In fact, the sentence should be deleted.)

In sum, I think editors of this article misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia, and are not clear on the value of such a list (BTW, I have a degree in American History.) My tag and message were just to warn you that there's a good chance the article will be deleted.

You might ask "What harm does it do?" For one thing, it would put an editorial burden on other people, who would have to edit, police, review and update the page. Of course, as I say on my main page, I enjoy talking with other editors. But in terms of time spent, I've now put 30 (moderately enjoyable) minutes into just this one reply. But in that time, I could have created an entirely new article, or uploaded a photo to Commons. There is a "cost" to maintaining a page. The job isn't done when you leave it.

What I *do* recommend is that you fish around a little more, reading American history articles, and watching out for topics that "call your name". If you are an American historian, I bet you would find such a one very quickly. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

I accept your challenge! :-D Vicenarian (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The page is all gone! Vicenarian (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Tease! Now tell me how you did it! Piano non troppo (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Check out WP:MFD. All in the wrist, though. Vicenarian (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Captions under picture

How do you write captions under picture to describe individuals--eg from left to right?Jeneral28 (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are just identifying one person, give the description that makes them easiest to find. E.g., "The second person from the left" or "Second from the right" or "Seated in front" or even "With the large hat". If you are identifying all figures in a picture, either left-to-right, or right-to-left is ok; it gets tricky when people aren't in rows. It's in such cases that one sees those extra "outline" versions of photo, with a number in the position of each of the faces. (That wouldn't be hard with a few Photoshop skills. Hmmm.) Hope one of these situations matches your question. Regards! Piano non troppo (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Diocese of the Faroe Islands

You reverted my changes to this article under the claim that I was providing unsourced material. Leaving aside WP:BB, the use of material from the linked German wiki article, and the fact that the changes were unarguably improvements to a stub article, I DID SOURCE THE MATERIAL. The book was listed in the new section of the page titled, possibly confusingly, SOURCES. It's available at Google books and I just spent an hour reading through it. So... Yeah.

Kindly desist in your vandalism, reversions, and snide messages. Thanks. -114.91.67.7 (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to what my anti-vandalism tool showed, which was not your whole edit, but only the addition of this text:

"Some of the bishops are known to have kept mistresses, and it was reported that clergy in the Faroes would on occasion demand prima nocte rights."

To my knowledge (and I have a couple history degrees) most reports of prima nocte are long standing urban legend. Notice the Wiki article prima nocte says much the same.

So, I was responding to just the addition of that sentence, which itself looked like "intelligent vandalism". I did not see your entire edit. Since, on inspection, the bulk of your edit seemed constructive, I replaced your version. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that there was some learned understanding going into your knee-jerk revision, but still, the appropriate response would've been a tag or a note on the discussion page. Certainly not a revert that also deleted a new list of the bishops; and certainly not when the page did in fact have a sources section I added.

The point isn't whether prima nocte ever really happened - if it were, I wouldn't've linked to the article: I'd've listed the historical details. The point's that people actually did spread those rumors in this context, pointing out both the lack of credibility held by the Faroese bishops by the Reformation and the fervor of their opponents. In any case, yes, it is sourced. -114.91.67.7 (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)