Talk:Roomano

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(moved here from User talk:Lexein --Lexein (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you ever read?

I wonder if you read and think before taking any action. You accused my of vandalism because, in you opinion I removed content "without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary" and not happy about it, you advised to use the sand box.
Now, if you had tried to read just a little bit, you would have noticed that I DID put a explanation for my removal, and very valid too: it is wrong! And just for you here it is: "(well, I just checked on Amazon and there "Roomano" is not mentioned at all in the given reference)". Moreover before accusing someone of vandalism just because you are in a bad mood, is useful to look to its edits. Than you would have noticed, that I'm here since 2006 and just today I made some 70 edits none of which has been reverted. Please, when you are tired, in a bad mood or whatever else, do not come to edit Wikipedia and waste contributors time. --Dia^ (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You looked at the 1999 edition on Amazon, which has "Look Inside" but no Roomano. That was not my given reference. My given reference was the 2004 edition, which discusses Roomano, as seen at the given link. I could only assume it was vandalism, since you must have read the publication date correctly, and known the ref was valid. --Lexein (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice to post an answer here and a different one on my talk page!

So here my answer (identical to the one on my talk page): And that's hardly any vandalism. Just for you here what is NOT vandalism on Wikipedia. Moreover, that the paperback edition from 2004 is a revisited edition of the hardcover from 1999 is just you supposition/hope (in order not to be utterly wrong and not just wrong as you are at the moment). --Dia^ (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The ref is valid, your deletion was incorrect, your edit summary as applied to the ref was false and therefore invalid, your accusations just made (above) only make matters worse for you. The 1999 and 2004 editions of the books, with the same title and author, have differences. If you knew this (and you have not denied this), and deleted anyways: that's vandalism. Your tone and actions, then and now, are not in accordance with the goals and precepts of Wikipedia: to build an encyclopedia cooperatively. Read WP:TIGERS, please. And please do not communicate with me further except respectfully, politely, or through WP:DISPUTE resolution procedures. Thank you. --Lexein (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Followup: I have requested a WP:3O Third Opinion - please stop edit warring, pending 3O. If you prefer, we can use a different WP:DISPUTE resolution procedure. --Lexein (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Followup 2: For verification of the URL in the given ref, here are two screengrabs http://imgur.com/a/RSQXF . The first is a screengrab of the page preview, second, the search result for a key phrase in the article. Hope this helps. --Lexein (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Followup 3: Running Press/Perseus' official book page for Cheese Companion (2004), Perseus' official branded preview at Google: Cheese Companion (2004), in-book "Roomano" search results. The first link, Perseus' page, shows the "Selling Territory" to be US/Canada only. The above links might only be accessible via a U.S. proxy. --Lexein (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Followup 4: Proxify.com, one of many free web proxies, presented with the Google books page preview link, at first returned a Google "Maximum page views" message in place of the page preview. However, doing an in-book search for "Roomano" then produced the full preview page. This link worked for me, your mileage may vary.

Even though 3O has been requested, we can still discuss, and perhaps even settle this before they show up (days, usually). So, discuss. --Lexein (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess you didn't bother to read what is written in WP:VANDNOT, otherwise you would not write such work of fantasy as: "your edit summary as applied to the ref was false and therefore invalid,'" and you'd have apologised for accusing me of vandalism and removed the notice from my talkpage. If instead of spending your energy in harassing me as you did, had you looked for a better reference in the first place, the issue would have been resolved hours ago with less ado and waste of editors time.--Dia^ (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I accept your apology. --Lexein (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL!!! You really need to learn to understand when you read! And I'd like to remind you, that you still need to apologise to me for the repeated unfounded accusation of vandalism. --Dia^ (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, which part of VANDNOT are you specifically calling into play here? There's nothing which excuses repeated non-AGF deletions accompanied as they were by uncivil, insulting comments and false edit summaries. I don't expect you to agree with this. Do you want VANDNOT to be expanded to allow such behavior?

WP:V#Access to sources pointedly says "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". That is, individual inability to verify a given reference is not a good reason to delete a reference. Templates such as {{verification failed}} and {{dubious}}, and asking investigative questions relevant to the article and reference, not the editor, are all better approaches. I hope you agree with this. --Lexein (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(moved Dia^'s response from User talk:Dia^ to maintain single discussion) --Lexein (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL!! Still problem with the understanding? No problem! I'm always happy to help! ;0)

Here it is: All you mistakes in this issue:
You wrote me:

• "Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Roomano, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary."
  

I did actually write the reason for it. The reference was not good or clear. So you are wrong a first time. In the edit summary you wrote "Page blanking, removal of content". LOL!! I think you loose a bit too fast the sense of proportion... Well, clearly you are wrong again

• Still thinking that was not enough, you accused me of a "blatant lie", something that you changed while I was answering you on your talk page. Right. While doing some 70# constructive edits, I got bored and I thought to add "some blatant lie", just to upset you....LOL! In other words you have accused ma wrongly a third time You should not just read and understand WP:BONAFIDE, you should learn it by heart! And someone should test you every few days, just to be sure.
• The funny thing is, later on you write: "I could only assume it was vandalism, since you must have read the publication date correctly". Right. Because doubting that a smaller paperback edition has information not present in the larger hard-cover edition is a clear example of vandalism. (°_°)
• After you managed to accuse me of "vandalism" some 5 or 6 times in few hours between here, your talk page, edit summaries and article talk page, you haven't managed to actually read and understand what vandalism is. Now here is the essence of that is considered vandalism on Wikipedia: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Clearly removing a reference because believed wrong and explaining that in the summary is no vandalism. (Here is the long version).

Even more specifically in written under "What is not vandalism":

• • "Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold, and acknowledges the role of bold edits in reaching consensus." **"Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such."
  • last but not least: "However, not leaving edit summaries is not considered vandalism."

Short at to the point, you have accused me unjustly and repeatedly of vandalism and lying, threatened me and generally wasted my time.--Dia^ (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(moved this response from User talk:Lexein --Lexein (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really, since you accused accused me unjustly and repeatedly of vandalism and lying, threatened me and generally wasted my time.--Dia^ (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please STOP harassing me. --Dia^ (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not just de-escalate? There is no harassment going on, neither has there been any threat, nor unjust accusation. Requestion 3O is not harassment. You are free to mock the Twinkle generic language - and you are free to reject my specific explanation added to the Twinkle boilerplate. You, as a free being, are also free to ignore the warning! But repeated deliberate deletions based on persistent false statements, which are proven to be false, where such proof is ignored while repeating the action, cannot be dismissed as non-vandalism. Thank you for quoting, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", because removal of proven-correct references directly compromises the integrity of Wikipedia, by damaging its verifiability. To repeat, I welcome a review by any dispute resolution process you care to engage. That is the most pro-Wikipedia, pro-progress, pro-resolution statement any Wikipedian can ever make, in the midst of a dispute. --Lexein (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop harassing me! And don't pretend not to understand. You know you have not acted correctly. --Dia^ (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. We'll see what 3O or any other dispute resolution says. No problem. --Lexein (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

1. None of the recent edits to the article represent vandalism, which is defined as a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.
2. The reference in question seems to work fine for me from the west coast of the USA. I see no reason that it should be removed from the article. Using the discussion page when the Gbooks link did not work (rather than immediately hitting the undo button) might have been more productive.
3. Both the participants here should consider re-reading WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.
4. User:Dia^ appears to have asked not to be contacted on their talk page again regarding this; it probably is best to comply with that request.

Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my request for 3O. Though I respectfully disagree with #1 (WP requires refs, their deletion damages WP, and individual inability to verify does not justify deletion of a ref), I appreciate the time taken, and I will refrain from inappropriate use of the specific word "vandalism" as (too) narrowly defined here.

Could you now settle whether any alleged "harassing" has taken place? --Lexein (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)