User talk:Piano non troppo/Archive 1

Re.:Diahorrea "Vandalism"

That was NOT vandalism at all. The terminology came from the US military, and got picked up by the people at large. I was only answering another contributor who asked why "The shits" redirected to the article Diahorrea, and placing where that came from when you and someone else used the "V-word". 205.240.146.148 (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I should mention I'm trying a new tool, and it's not always giving me the options I want. I understand you weren't vandalizing. As I said on your page "good faith edit" would be closer to the mark.

However, about this particular term...the "shits" didn't come from the military, the term, meaning diahorrea, was known 1000 years ago, according to the OED. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you said you're a linguist, where did the food "shit on a shingle" come from? This is NOT bad language at all. It really is a food. 205.240.146.148 (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the online version of the OED, so I can't search on "shit on a shingle", specifically. But I just read a discussion about this a few weeks ago. (It didn't come to any conclusions.) But that phrase, if I had to bet good money, *does* come from the military. (Shrug. I could be wrong...but what's betting all about?) Evidence is: a) I've read that phrase in a number of military contexts, b) I can't ever remember reading it in a non-military context (I heard it in the Boy Scouts, but they are quasi-military, anyhow), c) the "prefab building" connotation that I get suggests that the term was invented after sophisticated mass production canning and preserving methods were introduced, that is, within the last 150 years or so, and, most flimsy of all, d) it just "sounds" military. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Piano non troppo

I am a resident of Zachary and I will tell you that Zachary is experimenting intensive growth currently. The report that is in the article that Zacharys growth was only a result of Hurricane Katrina is purely fictional.

Ok. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

what the fuck

you idiot? --84.234.60.154 (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because " a man allegedly with connections to the secret police" is not cited. You can't just make allegations without evidence. That's what the "bad guys" do, isn't it, now? Piano non troppo (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

you FUCKING idiot:

(years later, shortly before his death in 1990s, he said he was told to lie by his father and the men from the secret police).

The page you cited appears not to work. Also, the error message is in Polish. Foreign language references in any Wikipedia are not considered valid, because typical users can't check them. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

was ALREADY in the text 'in your "last known good version". --84.234.60.154 (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, either somebody does have connections to the secret police, or they do not. Either way, you need to provide a citation. Also, "allegedly" in Wiki is called a "weasel word", that means someone (you) is expressing bias about the "true" facts, without giving evidence. Personal bias is NOT allowed in Wikipedia.

This is all pretty much the same to me. Your edits are so bad, another editor will soon erase them. I'm trying to tell you you are wasting your time, and not doing the subject any good at all. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Bad"??? If you do something like this to people and edits costantly, I hope somebody will erase YOU, you stupid vandal fuck. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits seem either to make little sense, or to express your personal opinion, or to rely on references that can't be verified. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish, but you've failed. I'm finished discussing this, although I will consider having your IP blocked from editing (again). Piano non troppo (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Attic Thoughts

I'm confused as to why you reverted my edit, since the article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria. 71.204.176.201 (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a toss-up. There was some information beyond tracklist. Someone took a little more than the usual amount of trouble to create the article than some that clearly are contrary to WP:MUSIC. Without that article, there's less chance someone's going to casually add more material? Also, since the change was an anonymous IP, I thought it might be vandalism. Feel free to revert my edit.Piano non troppo (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. 71.204.176.201 (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Lifestyle Drug

I hoped my edits here would reorient the article to a NPOV, sharpen contasting issues, raise new ones, and add polish.

The resulting changes to its content and form are of fair variety. Your revert applies to edits according to my IP address, however, so it seems to have followed from a concern about the edits taken as a whole, rather than from editorial disagreement over particular change(s) taken in isolation.

So I feel like I should tread lightly here. I'd like to restore that work, at least in part, but I'd like to hear from you first, in case you have a global objection of some kind, or in case I've run afoul by accident of the guidelines.

Thanks in advance, 216.162.196.34 (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I latched on to philosophical statements about normality, profane, and evil...and assumed it was vandalism...but maybe it would be productive for you to continue down the path you were going, and put your edits back again...providing some citations from reputable sources can be found. The citations would be invaluable, for a couple reasons (besides the fact that Wiki requires them for "controversial" statements). 1) I suspect other editors will have a quite different attitude, so giving citations would provide a useful basis for discussion. 2) You may not be aware, but the drug companies do have an editing presense in Wikipedia -- they are liable to delete any edit that is critical of them, that cannot be defended. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take your point about the critique from cultural values and democratic norms, and either find roots for it from outside sources, or remove it entirely. Thanks also for the tip with regard to drug company editing presence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.34 (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Victor Hervey

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Victor Hervey, 6th Marquess of Bristol. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My edits were substantive, accurate and relevant (and consequently constructive) and your initial reversion I assumed equal to the notes on your talk page (where you state you are experimenting w/a vandalism software in response to other editors' asking "what are you doing"). If you have a personal problem or issue w/my edit the proper response is to raise that in the discussion section of the article at issue. Vandalism is something very specific and not at all the same as adding information from printed sources. 96.224.37.193 (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize on review that perhaps you are not familiar with the life of Victor Hervey and his children and that is why you reverted the edits; I suggest you review the embedded cites for the children's own Wiki pages in order to learn that the additions are in fact accurate addition of widely reported news items and not vandalism. (ie, his daughter IS the face of Playboy UK, that is not a vandalism, his son was gaoled several times on drugs offenses, etc.)96.224.37.193 (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's what's going on: It doesn't matter whether it's true so much as whether you can prove it's true, with proper references. I.e., when I first joined Wiki, I had non-controversial edits reverted about things I'd seen, in person, because there was no published source to prove I was right. Verifiability is one of Wiki's three "core content policies". See WP:SOURCE. The way to proceed is to find references.

The problem is that if you don't use references, somebody else with an ax to grind will put their own (incorrect) material in. (Or some prankster with a sense of humor will add a few words.) Without a way to tell whether something is factual, there's no way to keep Wiki articles on the straight and narrow. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But as is referred to above, the added material IS cited, is published, not viewed first hand. Again, see the pages for the children, or google the material. That the 7th Marquess of Bristol was a drug addict, eg, has been published about and in the public record - I think the link to his own web page is sufficient, rather than listing footnote cites as in a college paper for every item. If you feel citations are needed (and I am not sure they are, so would suggest a talk page query/vote), the thing to do is put in citation requested notation; perhaps, if you feel they are important and as they are readily viewable already on wiki through the embedded cites, you'd care to add them yourself, and thus reassure yourself of their accuracy and learn more on the topic? You should have done that before suggesting vandalism.

You made uncited statements. Their "strong" nature led me to suspect vandalism. Now that I've taken the time to track down one of the references at the bottom of the article, what I find is that you misrepresented what a source stated. It does not read "the face of Playboy", it reads "Isabella is the face of the Playboy adult TV channel". [1] I (correctly) questioned that statement you wrote , because it made no sense: There is no such thing as "the face of Playboy". It is not up to other readers to Google to figure out whether every phrase is factually accurate, it's up to you, the editor, to back up extraordinary statements (and to get them right). My original assessment was correct: your edits should either be cited, or removed. Piano non troppo (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Google hervey face of playboy; you will see MANY sites stating this, from virgin media, Telegraph, sopornia (?){I forget - it read like softporn w/a twist); one does say Playboy TV, others Playboy magazine - there's really not much difference - accurate is face of Playboy UK; that's what happens when there are so many sites that state this - ditto w/drug addict son, suicide son... There is nothing extraordinary about common documented knowledge by those in the know - everything doesn't need a cite; if it does, feel free to add it, but do the research first. You can cite Telegraph UK.

Charles Benny Hinn

I respectfully submit that you yourself continue to vandalize. Pastor Benny Hinn regularly wears white suits made of mixed cloth and linen. This is in express contravention of Leviticus 19:19, which you would know had you bothered to read the KJV before vandalizing my perfectly factual entry. You really need to take a less arrogant approach to your self-appointed duties, read the source material, and let the edit I submitted stand as is. It is ENTIRELY correct, though you may find it offends your theological sensitivities. Boo hoo. 75.157.202.114

It's your interpretation that this be treated literally. Many Jews, Christians and Muslims would not agree that the Bible should be treated literally in such instances. Your argument, applied literally, would defame many of the most famous recent religious figures, I doubt many of them see what they are doing as disobeying God by wearing modern clothes. I wonder why you single out Benny Hinn, when there are so many others.

You are making a statement that is not neutral, and does not conform to the general point of view. This is contrary to Wiki policy. See WP:NPOV.

You have now reverted edits by six different editors on this same issue within a couple hours. By Wiki policy, you are required to stop. You can complain about this to an administrator, but the argument you are trying is very old ground, and you will immediately lose.

If you continue making your change, what will happen is that your IP address will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(Note that this user was blocked from editing for 31 hours.) Piano non troppo (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

attack

Hi, just to let you know that I left a message for the (IP) user who left rude comments for you above. You shouldn't have to put up with that. Regards, — Alan^✉ 13:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I try to not take the comments in the spirit they were given. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree. His comments were inappropriate, to tell this politely. However his edits seem to be non-controversial and technical. A better way would be to discuss specific problems with his edits at the article talk page. Then other users like me and others could join the discussion of the article content. Thank you. Biophys (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I added details to my reasoning for reverting Kielce pogrom on that discussion page, if that will help. Reading that page, I think other editors are keenly aware of the nuances of the events in Poland, already, and they don't need rehashing. I reverted simply on the basis of unproductive, uncited alterations to the text, not to dispute the Polish events, themselves. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. His edits are obviously not vandalism. I replied. If you are interested in, you can continue at the article talk page. If not, this is fine.Biophys (talk)

I think it's probably best for me at this point to leave it in the hands of those who know the subject well, and who also can read Polish. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

keep up the fine work

		The Original Barnstar
		For all you do, keep up the good work Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and also...

Thank you for tirelessly reverting vandalism. Could you also place the standard vandalism notice on their userpages when you do? Thanks in advance. Miquonranger03 (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC) :D

I certainly have found similar situations. That's one of the problems that comes up with school computers editing Wikipedia: multiple, almost thousands, of people seemingly using the same computer to vandalize, and on some occasions (when I went to public school, this was the case for me) attempting to make constructive edits to Wikipedia that get targeted immediately due to the notoriety of that IP, or a block being put on. The easy solution for those people is to get a user account. It increases the amount that people on the wiki trust your edits many times over, and it prevents you from receiving responses to people's vandalism from the same IP. BTW, Wikipedia, at the moment, is getting hammered from vandalism to high school pages, from kids who are angry about having to return from school. I've counted about 15 so far. Miquonranger03 (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

barnstars!

looking at your talk page, and continuing to look at my huggle readouts, you deserve these.

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		in the face of insult, remains calm Miquonranger03 (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

		CVU Anti-Vandalism Award
		rollback expert, beating everyone to the punch Miquonranger03 (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

my edits at Dorje_Shugden_controversy

If you look to my edits in the external link section, there is no link to a Blog site I added - maybe you see About.com as a Blog? I have no problem to remove it as long as other blogs are also deleted. The Times is also no blogsite. There are a lot of links to anonymous websites, including a blog, like http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com/ which others added. This blog is also quoted in the article what I complained about at the talk page. I mainly wished to make clear who the authors of the plenitude of anonymous websites are. Your advise is most welcome. I tried to restore the Link section, which I mainly wished to balance. Maybe you can add your thoughts at the talk page? Thanks a lot. 79.171.63.246 (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are completely right. The tool didn't revert the article change I intended, but a different one (that's a "trick" it never did before). Please feel free to change article back to include your edits. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I corrected a bit and also it was me who initially added a blog yesterday after recognizing that the "external links" list blogs and anonymous websites. What do you think about the mentioned blogsite: http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com/ which is also used in the main article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden_controversy#cite_ref-69 79.171.63.246 (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm very uncomfortable with this controversy as a whole. Statements in the blog you cited, a Wikipedia editor would be out-of-line to write. E.g., "The Dalai Lama is lying again" and "this is a clear policy of discrimination against other Buddhists". Such statements sound less fact, than they are rhetoric. (After all, who doesn't lie on occasion?) Perhaps there's some reason that blog needs to be quoted in Wikipedia, but I have some difficulty imagining it. It would certainly be better to find other sources. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you here. Moreover, I think, it is personal judgement and somewhat misleading to claim the Dalai Lama lies just because he has a different view to those following Shugden. If we both have different views this doesn't qualify a judge that you or I would lie. I will not engage in the article, mainly I wished to balance the link section. I would appriciate if you can ahve a short look and maybe you leave a note on the talk page. Thanks again. 79.171.63.246 (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. I will read a little further tomorrow, but I find this whole subject painful. My limited goal was to remove an inadmissible citation and what I supposed potentially biased opinion from an even-handed discussion. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: no prob

There was an error alright - between my keyboard and my chair ;-) --Bachrach44 (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

as you like it

Want this to be a page of Italian American dishes like Marinara Sauce, Spaghetti Bolognese, Fettucine Alfredo?

Go right ahead, makes a great encyclopedia article!

213.156.49.142 (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(The above comment is about List of Italian dishes). The Wiki page on Bolognese sauce says the sauce does come from Italy, but implies the dish Spaghetti alla Bolognese does not. Ooooook. Is the situation then, that the dish was served in Bologne, but was not called Spaghetti alla Bolognese? If that's the case, would that fact be worth noting, or not?

Looking at Eggs Benedict, the Variations section, there are various ways the word "Benedict" is worked into related dishes, so seems that a name does not always imply a country of origin. E.g., "Irish Benedict", "Dutch Benedict"? So, on this particular account, would the fact be worth noting or not?

Your comment "( does not exist, never existed , in Italy)" would be suited for the discussion page. Very suited, actually. I read a comment from Justinc in Merge Tag saying that the Italian cuisine article needs work, but this one is a "stupid list of dishes". Lol. It seems as though your thinking meshes with Justinc. Try adding your comment to the Italian cuisine discussion. But, just as it stood in the article, it would need a citation, because it's making a strong statement that seems open to various points of view. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Bishop

The IP is correct, community councillors don't get "succession boxes". If you disagree please give reasons on talk page, no blind reverting without discussion please.--Troikoalogo (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I assumed choice of adding new infobox information on Jonathan Bishop was a matter of taste. And, if so, taking it out would be vandalism. I'm unsure what it hurts to add the extra information? Where else would someone be able to easily find a complete record? Piano non troppo (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The information is not verified and thus inappropriate anyway. Someone disagreeing with you "taste" is not a vandal.--Troikoalogo (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of guidelines on councillors and information boxes. It would be helpful if you could give a reference to understand the situation. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re.:Victoria of the United Kingdom "Vandalism"

It's true, part of Brown's penis was placed in Victoria's coffin. Why did you remove it?

Because no reference was given, and changes using indelicate language on an important subject generally require them. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely Best Questions

I got this message from you: Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Blog Quiz. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I did something inappropriate. I did not know I was doing something like that. I red the instructions in Finnish and understood that it is appropriate to add an external link - especially as the previous sentence in Blog Quiz has a similar kind of an external link. Would it be possible for you to tell me if I can add my two sentences without an external link? I would also appreciate an explanation why the other external link is allowed to be there. Furthermore, I would appreciate your opinion whether an article about Definitely Best Questions, if I wrote one, might be published in Wikipedia. Should I write it first and send it to editors for review? I would like to point out that there already are several other articles and mentions of commercial quiz products in Wikipedia. 88.112.13.75 (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I took a closer look at the Blog Quiz and the Online Quiz articles. You are right that the site you quoted, and also the way that you quoted it aren't different than the other sites mentioned.

However both those pages seem to be an opportunity for sites to advertise what would otherwise be disallowed in Wikipedia. Online Quiz is already tagged as needing citations, and Blog Quiz should be merged into it, and has the same issue. (That is, both need citations.) Neither states candidly what the quizzes are -- at least those quizzes that are referenced in the articles -- which is a form of online Trivial Pursuit to generate advertising money. That much could be said in a single sentence, for example in the Quiz article. I don't feel "Blog Quiz" has a meaning, and none is stated in the article. I'm going to recommend it be merged into "Online Quiz". That, perhaps, is the ultimate answer to your question. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Vladimir Lenin: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm using MTW, and it automatically pops up the user's page to allow comments. There are situations where I don't comment, one being when the tool crashes. Another is when there are already warnings of various severity, and the problem I'm commenting on is minor. In situations where there are already a couple "this is your last warning" vandalism messages, it seems to dilute the earlier messages to say anything at all. The next step might be to ask to have the user blocked, but that seems problematic, if the editor really is trying to reform. To confess, there are pages such as Lenin where I'm making a simple comment on a recent edit -- not taking a philosophical stance. In not leaving a warning on the user page, it seems to send the right message -- i.e., I'm not partisan in the dispute. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

using broken software is no excuse for not explaining edits. Eeekster (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was explaining, not excusing. There's no obligation to confront irrational editors. Anyone who is sufficiently interested in the situation would need to do a diff on the history, regardless of whatever I said the edit did. In this case, I reverted a Lenin edit that says in the edit history "Replaced content with 'jack is a gay boy". It's surely not too difficult to figure out why I did that. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep up your great work

Your well on your way to becoming a great vandal fighter after only a week or two on the wikipedia. When i first started i used to use MWT as well, it played up on me a tad so i ventured around and discovered a great tool called Huggle. If you like MWT, let me tell you Huggle will blow you out of the water! Remember when your ready and think your trustworthy enough apply for rollback which you will need to use Huggle. Happy Editing Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I should give it some thought somewhere along the way. Even some of the "mild" MTW warning messages seem a little severe and bureaucratic. For example, it's plain that the editor in "Definitely Best Questions" (above) was simply following what he imagined were Wiki conventions. (Also, as you can see above, some anti-vandal editors appear to want more detailed information.) Unfortunately, it seemed I'd need to edit and recompile the code to make the changes I'd like. I can do that, but if there's an existing tool that allows customizing warning messages.... Piano non troppo (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Gel "Vandalism"

In regards to User talk:128.138.120.79, the edit to Gel was absolutely NOT spam. It is the DOI of the pre-existing reference. Reign in your stupid bot. 128.138.120.79 (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's special use of the word "spam" may be confusing. You added an "External Link" to the home page of a commercial site, http://www.organo-tech.com. The brief paragraph in the article on that subject is already covered by six references, none of which seem to be at that URL. This is from the Wikipedia definition of spam: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed." There is no justification for the link that I can see. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Gel. I didn't add that external link, I only corrected formatting, thus making it visible to your bot. Check the revisions if you like. I've corrected the article again, hopefully for the last time. 128.138.120.79 (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

First, you're right. We were talking about two different links. Your good faith edit to an improper link focused my attention on that, and not the link you were talking about. The improper link is what I intended to revert. But second, a different issue, the "Nature" link you added isn't working. I tried clicking the link in the article, and cut-and-pasting it from the raw text, and using different browsers. An error reporting form appears instead; perhaps you'd be the best person to fill it in? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Creation of Female Name Norma

My official urgent request demands for somebody to create some articles about Norma-feminine names related-and please specify what the name really means. How to create it and to avoid vandal-related edits at the same time is tricky. Help me please.

Neurotic heart (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You've already got the Norma (female name) page started already, great. Let's talk about page development on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Norma_(female_name) ? I'll address vandalism here. There isn't a way to avoid higher-than-usual vandalism on a "name page". Happily, other editors will readily help keep it clean.

The Linda page has interesting examples of problems. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda&diff=prev&oldid=188440828. Notice:

1) Linda Yogeswaran has just been deleted. Although the editor does not give a justification, reasons might be that she is "red-linked", and that there is no other source given. Google investigation shows only a few entries for "Linda Yogeswaran", and none on first glance appear to be porn stars. That would lead one to suspect the statement "married to Melanie Phan" is also unfounded. (Vandals often make comments about a person's sexual habits.)

2) Linda River has been red-linked for months. But a quick search in Google shows it exists. (Was it named after a woman, or not? Hmmmm.) There are "list articles" that ask editors not to add red-link entries, and where red-links are immediately deleted. But in this case the justification that red-links alert other editors to missing material is apt. Interestingly, you can see from Google that someone's added an acceptable and instructive picture of Linda River in Wikimedia Commons. So, the justification to keep this link is strong.

3) Linda, Tasmania is more difficult. It's pretty much a ghost town. For some months now there has been a discussion about what qualifies a place to be notable. Most agree that being listed in a major atlas makes a place "notable" for Wiki purposes. However, not everyone agrees that abandoned towns are "notable". So, keep or not? "Following the Wiki guidelines blindly" in this case might provoke comment. Well, there's a nice Wiki article about Linda, Tasmania, with several references. So, even though it doesn't appear in The Times Atlas, this link looks like a keeper, too. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, Piano non troppo! I've seen you reverting vandalism during the past few days (I don't know if you've seen me though). Well, you are pretty fast for someone using MWT. Ever thought of using Huggle? I see you don't have rollback yet, so why not apply for rollback (which you are sure to get) and start using huggle? Looking forward to the day you join us ;) Keep up the good work. Cheers! Chamal ^Talk 15:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait... you've been on Wikipedia for only 11 days, and you've got 4421 edits!?! Don't you eat/drink/sleep? :o So maybe we'll have to wait for some time till you get rollback, since you are still new. Chamal ^Talk 15:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've definitely seen you around! Thanks for the suggestion, I've now been given rollback. (I'm afraid to use it, lol.) The next step is to summon the resolve to learn a new tool and its foibles. Piano non troppo (talk)

Sleeper bus

Regarding your continual removal of the 'Further Information' section and website. Your quote: " It's the commerical part which is not allowed. Either add material (and cite your page), or create a new article about your company.)" - unquote. First thing, I have no company! If you took the time to visit the website in question (www.freewebs.com/band-bus) you would see that its in no way a commercial venture. Its an information site only and as such has no revenue generating capability and is in no way affiliated to any operator or company. I started the site a couple of years ago as a source of information (incidently, I also started the wikipedia 'Sleeper bus' article) for people interested in the band bus industry. For people viewing the wikipedia article, a 'further information' website is a positive adition to the articlescancoaches (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I did take a look at the site...it's interesting, which is why I suggested you add material to body of the article text -- using your site as a reference. (The article possibly does cross over the "spam line" a bit with the http://www.freewebs.com/band-bus/operators.htm page, but an explicit quote of a couple sentences from your main page would appease just about any later editor that comes along.) The Wiki article has some reasonable photos but a couple of yours -- particularly the ones of the "mysterious" interiors would be nice -- if you would be willing to release your photos into the public domain. If you *do* decide to do that, let me know, because Wiki is tricky filling out the "paperwork" for submitting photos. If it's done "wrong", bots just come along and mark them for deletion. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for looking at my wee web presence! I agree that an 'interior' photo would be nice in the article but the 'interior' photos on my freewebs site actually belong to a someone else so I'll try get permission to use them. If not, I'll take some of my own and get them on there. Thanks for your help scancoaches (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nabih Berri edits

(Re: edits to Nabih article and to this page.) The edit page I saw showed only deleted material, by an anonymous IP, with no justification. In fact, deleted material was being restored. No serious harm done, I hope. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

V8 Supercar spammer

Is paying no attnetion to warnings. --Falcadore (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia

Dude, have you even been looking at what is contained in the links? They are extremely specific to the topic, with as much or even more information on the applicable topic than the official websites. I appreciate what you're doing, but in this instance I feel you are doing wikipedia users a major injustice. As you so rightly say, there is no search engine advantage to adding these links, there is however a massive Wikipedia user advantage. I'm only adding the external links because I couldn't find the info I wanted in the Wikipedia, but instead found all of it and more at these links. I'm really not sure what the problem is.

Would you please reconsider deleting my hard work? For everyone's sake?

Oh and fyi, that website is a non profit website, in fact it costs several thousand dollars a year to run. See how many ads there are on there? See how much it costs to sign up? See how, other than for Wikipedia and it's readers, there is no gain from adding links to it in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.135.130 (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(Comment in regard to reverting External Link on V8 Supercar Championships to [2].) Hi, I did look at your page before deleting the link, and saw that good work had been put in your site. The issue was two places on the page reading "Advertise with us", and at least one link that only worked with registration and log in. Here's a way to go that will probably work for you: Add a couple sentences to the Wiki article main text, and cite them with a footnote leading to your site. (Choose quotes from two of your pages, and you'll end up with two footnotes in the references.) In fact, the article really needs citations to back up statements such as "Australia's third largest sport". Another statement to support might be "Holden Racing Team, had a decisive competitive edge." Let me know if I can help getting those in. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this guy did same to my links to reviews of Agone, looks like trolling.202.82.171.186 (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Law School Outlines

Sorry to trouble you with this question. Can you please tell me why my site (Outlines.com) keeps getting removed from the links portion of search term "law school outlines." The site offers free registration and allows students to download free law school outlines if they upload one in exchange, to keep our database growing! The other option is for them to pay a nominal fee ($4.95) mainly to promote them to upload instead. I would not be opposed to having it listed under a category for paid site if you felt that was appropriate, but why not at all? With a site called Outlines.com that has an extensive law school database, it just not seem fully justified to merely remove it. I thank you in advance for your time and consideration.(UTC)

Thanks for showing interest in the process. There is a straightforward way to introduce your site in the article -- which is to add substance to the body of the text, using material from one of your articles -- then quote yourself. If, presumably, you want to generate traffic to your site, that would produce the best results.

The reasons why a number of Wiki editors have recently deleted External Links from Law School Outlines are complex. It's possible they'll wish to speak for themselves, however this situation is not unusual, and I can reasonably guess their motivations.

Wikipedia has created a hierarchy of rules, guidelines and suggestions. In this, rules such as those about copyright violations are strictly enforced with no appeal. Commercial use and self-advertising are not of the same order, but they are carefully monitored. The Wikipedia Foundation owns this site, is not directly interested in, and does not have the capacity to evaluate claims companies make about themselves. They have less ability to arbitrate between rival claims. Hence, when several "External Link" sites insinuate themselves into an article without contextual support, alarm bells sound.

Alarm increases when material is added by those with a strong vested interest, to the extent that they may not recognize other points of view. This is described in WP:CONFLICT.

Wikipedia is seeking to create an encyclopedia, not a "link farm" to every possible associated Web site. The burden of monitoring each External Link, for example to make sure it still is working, that it is relevant, that it is not blatant advertising, that it will not download spyware on users' computers, is beyond what Wikipedia can support. Hence, an External Link needs to justify itself.

Wikipedia references are not equally valued. Information from YouTube or blogs is treated as a last resort, if that. Highly valued references come, for example, from books printed by established companies or from professional journals, written by respected authors. In External Internet links, there is a tendency to "bait and switch": present respectable material alongside commercialism. It is up to the body of interested editors to decide whether there is too much advertising. Any at all in some strict sense is too much. Are you willing to strip all personal, corporate and university identification from the link placed in External Links? If not, then it's worth considering WP:NPOV.

I'm guessing you have more than enough to proceed in a way that Wiki editors will find constructive and sufficiently impartial. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate your response and understand the reasoning involved. Would you be willing to take another moment to explain just how I should properly use the citing method you mentioned in your response? Thanks again.(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outlines (talk • contribs)

(I added an example text change and a reference.)

I added a second reference and explained the danger involved with such sites and linked it to the legal disclaimer offered on Outlines.com I hope this is satisfactory. Thank you once again for helping with this process and feel that your are a true benefit to Wikipedia. Please let me know if/when Outlines.com will be considered for addition to the external links portion of the page or what can be done to allow this to happen. Keep up the good work! (UTC)

Well, life has moved on in a couple days, and two other editors have become interested. Neither removing the material you and I added -- so we must have accomplished something. If you have the inclination, it might be worthwhile following up on comments made by Mmmbeer on the Discussion page. Piano non troppo (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Book Scanning

Hi, why did you delete my addition about the new domestic book scanner ? I think it's a very useful addition, the Opticbook has opened up book scanning to a lot more people, your truly included. 92.237.186.252 (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Book scanning para had several problems: it seemed to be an advertisement, quoted no source, was written with peacock language, etc. (These are described in WP:SPAM, WP:V, WP:PEACOCK.) Finally the statement that "until 2005 books scanners were very expensive" doesn't encompass the entire market. I owned one a decade ago, and it certainly didn't cost over $100. I.e., as presented, there's nothing noteworthy about the Opticbook 3600. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it was a book scanner you owned and not just an ordinary scanner ? I was trying for years to find one to scan my Ring Record Books and I'm pretty certain the Opticbook was the first one on the market. Anyway it's your call but I feel that it's a useful development that should be mentioned. Maybe you could do some googling about it and rewrite the section without mentioning any brand names ? 92.237.186.252 (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The device I had was for document and book scanning, it included OCR software. I used it for material that couldn't be removed from libraries.

What you may be implying is that the Opticbook had a feature set that had an unusually low price? If the price change caused some "revolution" that could be documented from reliable sources -- such as the $100 PC for Third World countries -- that might be worth brief mention. Otherwise, wouldn't most readers assume, without making note of it, that a technical device becomes less expensive over the years? Piano non troppo (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It has an right angle edge which it scans up to, this means that the page is perfectly flat, that was what impressed me. Previously I had to press the books down and even then would get distortion at the centre near the spine. 92.237.186.252 (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that feature was long missing from many library copy machines, too. One can only imagine the number of books ruined on that account. It's curious that companies didn't choose to solve that problem optically, by changing the focus, but so it goes.

In terms of augmenting the article, at the moment section "Commercial book scanners" reads only that "Some models involve V-shaped book cradles". So the "right angle edge" approach is omitted there, and should be added. Whether it's important to mention a specific brand is debatable.

I notice other problems with this article's references and links. This may have been misleading to you? Two references are to a specific manufacturer and product, and could potentially be deleted (Atiz). The links to Kirtas were almost pure advertising: I just deleted them. Piano non troppo (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm with you although I still think that the Plustek "right angle edge" does warrant a specific mention not just because of the innovative technology but also because the price (about £150) has brought "proper" book scanning within the range of the home user ie me. Other dedicated book scanners cost an arm and a leg, several thousands of pounds. The rub is how to do it without it sounding like an advert. 92.237.186.252 (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have the inclination, the way to go might be to find an independent reference, and quote it. Or at least use the same language. That way, your good efforts are very likely to remain intact as other editors come across them. I looked up "book scanning" in Google Books and got a couple interesting results, just on the first page. ("The Whole Digital Library Handbook"...hmmm.) [3]. It sounds as though you are going in a good direction...have fun with the article. A couple of the other sections might make use your attention, too: "Cutting" seems to be a little narrow in its scope?

Piano non troppo (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of minor edits to Bran

These minor edits: [4] are impossible to confuse with vandalism nor are they the kind of statements that require references. Next time, try to make constructive contributions to wikipedia, thank you. 75.15.193.158 (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that brown and white rice were different plants. (Store packaging seems to suggest this.) Hence, my identification of the change as vandalism or needing a reference. Since I eat rice regularly, and had to read several Google articles to convince myself the difference lies in processing, the request for a reference seems reasonable. I imagine quite a few other readers will not know this, either. Piano non troppo (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Heron Marked Barnstar

The Heron Marked Barnstar I hereby award this Barnstar to Piano non troppo for their conspicuous effort reverting vandalism to The Wheel of Time article. Tai'shar Wikipedia! Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping an eye out for the Wheel of Time page and reverting those revolting edits. Wikipedia needs more people like you, and I wish that vandal patrollers got recognition more often. Please consider this Wheel of Time themed barnstar to be a small token of my appreciation for all your hard work. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

White Ajah? Well, I don't know about THAT... I'm more partial to the Grey, myself.  ;-) Glad you like it, though, and keep up the good work! Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you do that?

I've been busy for nearly 2,5 hours editing this article and searching/confirming additional information about my hometown Gorredijk during WWII (we HAD a rich Jewish history) and not even a minute after I had finished I saw that all my edits had been reverted by you. Now I want to know why you did that. If you see the Dutch version of the same article you can see that a large part there is about WWII aswell. Because our town had seen alot of action during WWII for such a small town. Please explain, because I don't know why you did that. --217.120.149.136 (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put your version back! Very rarely, the tool I'm using corrupts something I was looking at by mistake. I didn't mean to make any changes at all. Please carry on with your good work! Piano non troppo (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Thanks for the quick reply! --217.120.149.136 (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.126.138.140 (talk)

forum spam

Hello. I’ve reverted your rollback in Linux kernel, but couldn't find out which of the links there were the actual spam. --AVRS (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on this. There seems to be a strict Wiki policy regarding commercial External links, but another standard when it comes to free software, Open Source sites, etc.? The Linux kernel article has 41 references from footnotes, 20 other references, and 14 External links. That makes a total of 75 links. I'm not expressing an opinion, but rather asking: Doesn't that make Linux kernel far outside the guidelines of WP:LINKFARM? I've done professional programming in versions of UNIX, after looking quickly at the 75th link being added, nothing particularly noteworthy struck me. I'm not interested in making a political statement, but I am curious how editors are intended to apply Wiki guidelines to articles such as Linux kernel. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete valuable external links (Climate refugee)

I dont know why the environmentalrefugees.org links was deleted but please keep it on the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.104.148 (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted for several reasons. (uTube links that are liable to change and whose copyright status cannot be established are not allowed, it requires Java to work, it's just a song video placeholder to a site that doesn't exist, etc.) That you see it valuable does not determine whether it can be in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a "linkfarm" -- not every possible related page belongs in External links. Also, see WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. This link, in this article, is far outside what is allowed. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Missed vandalism

Hi, just a simple note about this article. On the 11th of September you undid an edit by a vandal, but you accidently reverted to a version by the same vandal. I reverted 4 edits including yours to get back to an older, cleaner version. Regards Ksempac (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, thank you. MWT seems to be smart about reverting some multiple vandalism edits, but lately I've noticed there are times it's best not to use the tool, but to wade back through the edits. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nipple - look twice?

I know that many people don't care for a statement like this as a 'reason', but it has had that caption for 2.5 years. So, while you might consider it much belated, I might think your change a bit precipitous? Not that it is a big deal, but I'd love for everybody to "think twice" about changes. Shenme (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice that the original photo in Wikimedia Commons does not describe it as an "erect" nipple -- that's an interpretation on someone's part. There are nipples that look that way in their non-erect state. I.e., the caption is original research, and it's misleading. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Muscle Worship Editor - What do you know?

(This comment is about article Muscle worship.) I'm curious about something. You claim to be a professional writer and editor. My guess would be that you spend most of your time professionally editing Wikipedia (judging by some of what I've read here). What do you know about muscle worship? Do you know enough about it to remove an external link to a site that contains content (free content) that would pretty much only be of interest to individuals who have an affinity for muscle worship? You must have, muscle fetish for men that nobody knows about, and are incapable of withstanding the sight of female bodybuilders. I can't think of any other reason you would go to the muscle worship article in the first place and then delete a link to a site dedicated to female bodybuilding. Many of the female bodybuilders featured in the galleries on that site do muscle worship sessions. So, why would you delete a link to a good resource for people interested in the topic? Seriously, what do you know about muscle worship that would precipitate your deletion of an external link that is pretty much a definitive (and free) resource for images and videos on the topic? I'm sure you have an answer, but I doubt it is a good one. But I can't wait to hear it anyways. So please; enlighten me. I'm sure you have the Wikipedia's policies memorized (more likely tattooed backwards on your ass), and have found some caveat to justify your deletion of that resource. And it IS as good resource on the topic. And if you don't believe that it is a good resource on the topic, just ask any of the 20,000+ individuals who visit the site every month to simply to browse the FREE galleries. Nobody spends a dime on that site, and it doesn't sell anything. And I can tell you, I certainly don't make any money from the site. So, if you're going to throw some commercial site bullshit at me, it's going hit the fan and fly back into your face. Think this one through before you answer. And when you answer, please include your expertise in the area of muscle worship to justify your actions. Because, my friend, this is only about what YOU think, and nothing more. But regardless of what you think, I've got my money on you not knowing a damned thing about muscle worship or what interests people who do. You say address the issue on the discussion page of the article. Who the hell is on that discussion page to discuss it with? Incidentally, that site is linked all the way through from the female bodybuilding article, and is within the categories of Bodybuilding and BDSM. Think Mink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazon1 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

First, your advertisements are in a banner across the top of the page, and again in a banner across the bottom of the page. The top leads to a page inviting me to have a public chat with a "Fitness Hottie" at 6.99 $USD per minute. (The bottom one is labeled XXX, and requires payment and login to do more than "tour"). The pictures that you claim to be free may be copyrighted -- by someone else -- and if not, then, are plugs to very commercial Web sites that are printed on the pictures (e.g., www.sheila-bleckrock.com). Second, even if your site was totally without ads, a link to it is still self-advertising. Did you contribute anything to the text of the article, or to Female bodybuilding, or to Strongwoman? Nope. You stopped just long enough to add links to your site, giving no explanation for your edit. This all fits with editors' decisions to delete External links: If they aren't necessary to understanding the topic in detail, and if they aren't the exact subject of the article (not just related), and if they are self-advertising -- they go. See WP:SPAM. Finally, I've deleted the link again, for the above several reasons. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazon1, the site is linkspam. A number of editors have removed it from various articles already (shouldn't that tell you something on it's own?) If the site continues to be added to Wikipedia it will be blacklisted and you'll be blocked. --Quartet 21:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you call it linkspam (whatever that is). Tell me what is the difference between www.amg-lite.com and the link in question? It seems to me, that there isn't a bit of difference between the two (other than the fact that www.amg-lite.com contains far more banners), but the external link to amg-lite never gets deleted, though it has far more ads. What is it? It certainly can't be banners on the main page, as www.amg-lite.com has perhaps 20 banners on the index page. It's an honest question that shouldn't be too difficult to answer.

And your insinuation in your message to me, that Amazon Muscle is somehow attempting to gain some type of ranking advantage in Google by linking from Wikipedia, is a quite presumptuous. The site is already ranked high enough in Google for the appropriate search terms, that the site doesn't require any help from Wikipedia.

If the idea is to have external links to sites that refer to bodybuilding or muscle worship, you won't find a single site on the Internet that contains relevant content, but lacks banners; just like amg and amazon are linked together. It's not about making money or spamming, it's about cooperation.

But tell me more about linkspam, and how amazonmuscle differs from amg-lite. Amazon Muscle is a free resource, just like amg, though with far fewer ads. The banners on that site are placed there as a free service to the owners of those sites. Amazon Muscle doesn't have a single affiliate banner in place, and it never has.

And then when you are done answering that question, perhaps you could advise me as to what the Wiki Police consider to be a page that would not offend their sensitivities. AMG and Amazon Muscle are the same model, but somehow, Amazon Muscle continuously get the shaft. Perhaps there is some sort of bias here. And if not, get your ass over to the female bodybuilding article, and start deleting GeneX and AMG as well.

And one other thing, take a look at GeneX, and tell me when you click on the very top link of the page the plainly states "Member", and tell me that you don't have to pay to access the resources of that site. Again, you just aren't going to find any relevant information on female bodybuilding, that isn't linked to some commercial site. That's just the way it is. I count 25 banners on amg's main page; all to paysites, including about 4 or 5 that link to sessions for 6.99 per minute, as does GeneX. Have a look, and then justify your bias against Amazon Muscle.

Oh, my God! Is that a link on the very top the girlgrip.co.uk link just below mine that you keep deleting? And where does it go? It goes to their page where they are selling 5 minute videos for $5. I'm not sure where your head is. I added the External links section to that page, and added my link, which is relevant to the topic. However, my link gets deleted, and some link that leads DIRECTLY to a commercial site that is selling video, stands in it's place. How do and your friends explain your actions?

Incidentally, I've removed my own links, as I just noticed that you and your fellow peons (And before you start freaking-out, no, that is not an insult or personal attack; simply a description of your status in this community.), yankee and quartet have issue similar "orders" to me as yours, threatening to block my account; no doubt in collusion with you. But you cats ought to have a little more sense than to go around harrassing people selectively. I certainly hope that you don't (though I highly suspect you do) get your kicks out of what you are doing. Take for example Elena Seiple's page; doesn't the only external link lead to a commercial site which only has the purpose of reeling in paying members? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Seiple How do you explain yourselves?

In the end, I believe that you will have some rational explanation for your bias. And keep something in mind, all of the people whose links I am mentioning are either friends or acquaintances of mine (in fact Elena has a nice gallery on the site whose link you and your cohorts continue deleting), so I am certainly not encouraging anyone to delete their links. I am mentioning them, as examples of your complete lack of judgment and fairness with reference to deleting external links.

I'm sure you're a nice person, but isn't there something better you could be doing with your time. Perhaps not. But if that is the case, then at least do your job professionally, and don't simply go around with a trigger-happy finger on the delete key, and arbitrarily seek out individuals to screw with.

And if you have something sane to say and don't want to continue having this out in public, send me a message and explain to me how we can resolve this matter in private, as there is no way for me to respond to the Wikigods messages to me. Sorry if I seem pissed. But I am, and you know why.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazon1 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For me, this isn't moral indignation, right? The Wiki tool I'm using brought up Woman on top (sex position) today. I looked at it, shook my head, and realized the article had to stay. Inappropriate for pre-teens? Or teens? Who can say? As far as I could see, it was pretty much straight arrow -- according to Wiki policies.

I understand that you took a look at GeneX and AMG, and thought "Well, that's just the same as what I'm doing". Problem is this: probably neither should be there. I'm going to look to see if they should be deleted as soon as I finish here.

Despite your good intentions, your site is strongly linked to sites that are purely commercial. It has nothing to do with the content, it has to do with the Madison Avenue motive.

There is, in fact, a way that you can get mention of your site into Wikipedia. It's not painful. Read the articles, and see what you think about them. Are they missing important information? Are they wrong in places? You're obviously articulate: so contribute. Then cite your own statements to statements made on your own Web site. (Or better yet, find another reputable source to quote WP:SOURCE.) If you've got something worth saying, say it. You're going to get argument, sure. But that's the way to go. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Madison Avenue Motive is, though I did do quick search but turned up empty handed. And I must say at this point, that Wikipedia is becoming a very weird site. Your link to Women on Top is a bit much for a site like this in my opinion; graphically that is. If there is information of an academic nature, then I can see the point, though the images, I believe, go a bit to far. But I guess images have there place in information as well (a picture being worth a thousand words and all).

Seriously, though, I don't really care about having our site referred to on Wikipedia anymore. Honestly, it doesn't do anything for us in a commercial sense. I simply don't accept the lack of fairness with which we were deleted. And I'm not the only one in the female bodybuilding community that has taken issue with this. Perhaps Wikipedia is simply growing out of control, with no possible way of applying policies in a fair manner, due to the sheer volume and scattered nature of information, exacerbated by the variety topics and the inability of editors/administrators to moderate topics because of insufficient knowledge reference a particular field.

Wiki is a big site, and I don't know how matters such as this can be handled. It's simply too big, and the administrators cannot know everything there is to know about how external sites on a particular topic operate in the real world. I can tell you though, that it is highly unlikely, if not, downright impossible, to find a site on female bodybuilding, that does not have some sort of commercial sponsorship associated with it. It's just not. That is the reality. People have to work very hard and travel all over the world to gather images of these girls at competitions and whatnot. Nobody can do that for free. I'm not saying that they are making a killing, but they must have a way to support their efforts. And this includes the bodybuilders themselves. Some of them spend thousands of dollars preparing for a contest. And even if they win, they usually do receive cash. And if they did receive cash, as in the world's largest competitions, it will probably not be enough to even cover the costs of their contest preparation.

I don't know what else to say, but this is a conundrum that is certain to grow as Wikipedia grows.

That was me changing, "Oh, shit." to, "Oh, my God". Simply and attempt to maintain a little more of a moderate tone, maintain a civil tongue, and be less offensive.

Regarding the girlgrip.co.uk site, that would be in Strongwoman article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strongwoman Again, I'm not bashing that site or saying that the link should be deleted. I'm simply saying that if the issue here is the commercial nature of these links, then this is just another example of the problem of having female bodybuilding links with no commercial activity associated with them. Amazon1 (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazon1 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I was called out above, I'm going to explain why I've been removing this spam link from numerous pages - and close this discussion once and for all. We are getting more and more of these requests every week across every subject, including all related to bodybuilding. And predictably, all the users who add their own websites cry foul when they're removed with the argument "but my site is non-commercial" or "but look, this site is linked and it has a banner ad, so mine should be linked too!" Well, I looked at the site "Amazon Muscle" when it was linked the first time and found that it fails Wikipedia's External Link Guidelines, in 3 instance.

1 - Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article..

4, Links mainly intended to promote a website. (also see Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Guideline).

13, Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject:.

The tired argument presented above that because another site is linked, means that this site should be linked too is irrelevant. The bottom line is, the website that Amazon1 and his/her numerous IP sockpuppets are trying to add, does not contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; or any information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic and no page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable.

Ask yourself:

1. Does the site provide information (not just pictures) above and beyond what is already in the article, and that could not reasonably be incorporated in the article? NO

2. Does the site serve as a referenceable source for information in the article? NO

3. Does the site have an official affiliation with the sport, and is there not a separate Wikipedia article where it would be better placed? NO

In addition, not every editor can be expected to explain why some links are still in any particular article and not removed, while others are allowed to remain, as the site is simply too large to expect every editor to be able to watch every page, however the reasons for not allowing this particular link to remain are clear and therefore I'll continue to remove it. And since Amazon1 has not contributed anything meaningful other than to spam Wikipedia with a link to his/her website and argue with long-standing editors about it, I'll remove it without prejudice, the same way I toss out the trash on garbage day - not because I'm bias, but because it needs to be done. --Yankees76 (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Icon

I thought that the article was a bit inconsistent because you had helpfully noted "in Spanish", but had left an icon ((in Spanish)) in place. However, I don't claim to be an expert on the guidelines and you are welcome to revert my changes. --Alan (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Glosas Emilianenses looks fine the way you have it now. My limited goal was to avoid having someone come along and clobber them as being non-English External links. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

hey

since-you-are-such-a-sailor-moon-fan-want-to-help-with-a-new-sailor-moon-wiki[[5]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.172.161 (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Good anti-vandal work!

Hey, PNT. I've seen your vandal reversions with MWT, but have you ever considered using Huggle or Twinkle? Huggle is, I believe, more faster than MWT, although I've never used MWT. Just voice your opinion here if you want to give Huggle a try or not. I still appreciate your anti-vandalism work. SchfiftyThree 21:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the supportive words, SchfiftyThree. There are two features about MWT that don't work well for me. One is that I can't tailor the canned warning written to user pages -- more a few people have been upset at the implication that they are "vandalizing" -- when they are actually acting in good (if misguided) faith. Also, other anti-vandalism editors have mentioned that the message left by MTW in History is uninformative. Can Huggle or Twinkle can solve either of those needs?

Also, a philosophical question? MTW works quickly enough for me that I believe I "shut out" other anti-vandalism editors. (Notice the comment on the CVU Anti-Vandalism Award from Miquonranger03 that I "beat everyone to the punch".) I get to the article faster than they do, so my edit goes in, while theirs does not. That seems like a waste of time for them -- everybody should have a chance to swat the baddies, right? So, I'm not really sure I need a "faster" tool, which might not work to the overall good?

What do you think? Let me know, I've been deliberating on these issues for a couple weeks, now. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to the first paragraph: Twinkle has a vast variety of warnings, not just for anti-vandalism purposes, and some of which relate to Wikipedia-related policies (e.g. adding original research, removing speedy deletion templates, making personal attacks, etc). Huggle is more of an anti-vandalism software that is very powerful, capable of reverting at the speed of within a second. I've gotten barnstars for reverting ever since January, until July, when I acquired Huggle. If you still believe that MWT will do the job, feel free to continue doing so, although you might see more 'Hugglers' out there. :-) SchfiftyThree 22:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Kretek

125.163.214.241 continually changes links in the Kretek article to an advertisement. I saw that you had posted on his "Talk" page, so I'm just wondering what the process is to ban this guy from doing those edits any more. Jehnidiah (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I looked over their edits: They also added a commercial link to Batik, and removed a commercial link to electronic cigarettes in Smoking ban.

There is a process for non-administrators to ask administrators that someone be banned...however administrators are already on the watch. Once it becomes clear that the editor is not responding to repeated warnings, they will be blocked. You don't need to do anything at this stage. But to get a big picture of what's going on, browse the links on this page in "Report abuse": [6] Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Jehnidiah (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User page protection

Hi Piano non troppo, I reverted vandalism to your user page by an IP recently, and I would suggest that you consider having your page indefinitely semi-protected in accordance with the Protection Policy, reducing the likelihood of vandalism in the future. Thanks =) Cflm001 (Talk) 03:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I just read through the protections pages, then paused to consider: 1) A reason there are a dozen or so "vandal revisions" on my pages is the number of my edits in the last few weeks -- in the 1,000s. (The number of my changes that are reverted, however, is about 1 in 300, so the percent of "angry customers" is rather low.)

2) I don't mind doing the work reverting vandalism on my own user and talk page. Is there some way, is it practical, to alert anti-vandalism editors not to make changes to my pages?

3) A number of times, angry editors acting in good faith have added comments on my user page, rather than my talk page. (I've simply moved those to the talk page.) So, unless it's a big problem, is leaving my pages unprotected a pressing problem or...what do you think? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

1) Personally, I think page protection is more of a precaution, and it may not be needed ever again, but to have it would just keep you on the safe side.

2) Would you rather... an RCP reverting changes to your pages... OR... your user page saying something like this?

3) Well, maybe you can add a polite comment asking less experienced editors to direct questions to your talk page. Like... <!--Please direct all comments and queries to my user talk page.-->.

But in the end, the decision is ultimately yours. Thanks, =) Cflm001 (Talk) 14:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove links to reviews on the Agone page?

I added links to reviews and additional resources. I could see your point that my internal wiki links may have been unecessary, but the links Iadded in the 'external links' section should have stayed, if you have not deleted my hard work, please put them back on.

By the way I am not a college kid in a dorm room, but a professional copy editor and journalist who also happens to know about the article subject. Josh 202.82.171.186 (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am also a professional copy editor, and I've worked for Fortune 500 companies. I reverted because you were not following Wiki guidelines or practices. 1) Wiki is not a link farm, not every associated topic belongs in External links. See WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. 2) Two of your links didn't work. 3) The two that did are in foreign languages, which is generally not acceptable in Wiki. 4) Glancing quickly at the French link, it didn't seem to add a great deal to what the article said. 5) You added Wiki links to common English words, which is contrary to WP:CONTEXT. 6) Statements such as "not like most RPG characters" are vague, original research, which generally is not helpful. WP:OR

Piano non troppo (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Fortune 500? Are we having a contest as to who edits for the best company? Mine's a global TV network that's a household name. Ihear you on broken links, cheers for that. Ditto non-English. However, you miscredited me for this:

"not like most RPG characters"

Because as you can see from Agone's discussion page, I removed that line for the reasons you state.

As for Wiki not being a link farm, agreed, but in this case there is a box on the page saying it needs notability. One of the ways to establish that for a book is to show that there are reviews of it. No matter, I added my links to the discussion page; another editor can determine their suitability.

By the way, at my company we believe in full transparency; we even asked Jimmy Wales why he edited his own page. .202.82.171.186 (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I explained the reasons why your edits were deleted. Notability: I didn't understand your motivation, thank you for explaining. I don't feel the Notability tag is warranted, so I removed it. (It was added by a new Wikipedia editor, so they can be excused for being a little strong in their tagging.)

FYI, I had very negative experiences when I first started editing in Wiki: it took some time to realize that I wasn't following the guidelines that the Wikimedia Foundation established. Read the guidelines, consider them, then come back and get into the swim. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. One way to solve the "translation problem" is to do some translation yourself, citing the original text and your translation in the body of the article. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just coming back to remove my email as I've already gotten some spam. Thanks for removing it. Have linked and cited what I think is fair in the article, and I think improved it greatly.202.82.171.186 (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Agone article is looking good. (It now seems appropriate to remove that editor's tags for Internal Links, Need References, and wikify.) Keep up the good Wiki work! Regards! Piano non troppo (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly the rest of the info for this article would all be in German or French, which I don't speak. What are the rules, if any, for translating and citing foreign-language sources?202.82.171.186 (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You've done well by the article. As a guess, the editor who added the tags for citations assumed Agone was an RPG developed in someone's garage, and that they were self-advertising using Wiki. You've demonstrated that is not the case. Now, the field is somewhat open to what you please. (I'd be interested in what "sneaky subtle spells" and "touchy-feely spells" mean, and that sort of thing -- but that's just me.)

In terms of translation, the first choice is a published professional translation from a reliable source. Second choice, a less reputable source or a bilingual Wiki editor. Third choice is somebody like me, who knows enough to spot big errors in French translation, but isn't fluent enough to catch nuances. Fourth choice, last resort, generally only good for short phrases, and sometimes not even that -- an automatic translator. They often make significant mistakes, though, so it's not good to quote them.Piano non troppo (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Re.:Paul Giamatti Vandalism

Removing other users' vandalism is barely vandalism. (71.244.215.164)

You're right, I missed that those are "Upcoming films" that you removed. The reason I deleted, however, was also on the basis of what you added "in this thread, we discuss the merits of being a member of the gaming-age forums". Wiki articles aren't threads, editors don't discuss in the article (but on the discussion page), and "gaming age" forums doesn't have any obvious meaning. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		Hey Piano non troppo! Lately, when I am following the feed of the linkwatcher bots, and I decide that something may be spam, I often see that you already are there as well, reverting and warning the same editor! Compliments, and thanks for the hard work. I don't know if you have access to IRC, but maybe you'd like to join us there in the 'spam fighting channels' #wikipedia-en-spam and #wikipedia-spam-t! In any way, your help is very welcome! Happy editing! Dirk Beetstra T C 10:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Anti-vandalism patrol is new to me. I haven't decided my long-term goals, but I'm definitely feeling the need to talk with other anti-vandalism editors. IRC sounds like the way to go to keep up-to-the-minute. I didn't realize they existed, so it was useful for you to mention them.

Happy editing! Piano non troppo (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The 'cookies' are here: #wikipedia-en-spam (if you have an IRC client (MiRC, the chatzilla plugin in firefox, etc.), that link should get you right to the right channel), we discuss in #wikipedia-spam-t. You'll find me, the others, and the bots there. Hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confussed...

you claim that I've edited a page without citing... the thing is I've never edited a wiki page in my life ._. I do not mean to be offensive in anyway, and I'm not even sure if this is where I should be posting stuffs I want you to see? I'm sorry if it's the wrong place o_o just thought I should tell you though. and thanks for anti-spamming =) 124.158.17.69 (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'm the right person, and you picked the perfect place to comment. I took a look, and if I am guessing rightly, you were reading a message that I sent to someone else. How could that happen? Does somebody else use the computer you are writing from? Because I intended the message to go to the person who changed the Nick Twiney article. They added this: "He is currently dating Penny Harnett, who attends Ravenswood School for Girls."

Maybe that doesn't ring any bells at all, lol!

Anyhow, Wikipedia calls a lot of things "vandalism". It's a bad thing to say about somebody in real life, but in Wiki, it often doesn't mean much. I wrote a warning to that person, because people often write rude things about who is dating. Unless they can prove it, well, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

Let me know if you have any more questions! Piano non troppo (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Because you really are good at fighting vandalism! ɷ i m b u s a n i a 07:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you deserve it, I think you've beaten me to reverting an article about, say, 15 times? ;) ɷ i m b u s a n i a 07:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose it's like shiftwork. ɷ i m b u s a n i a 07:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Acer Aspire One

Why are you editing articles that you have no knowledge of? If you actually bothered to read them you would have noticed that you removed links to a BIOS fix which fixes a not so uncommon problem that renders machines useless. It's posted on a blog, but not available elsewhere. Same is true for the forum which is an invaluable ressource for all new users. And why was a link to one review removed but not the other one? Seems like pretty random vandalization to me. You might also want to check for ref names, so that a few other links are not rendered useless by your vandalization. Also check the history next time to see who actually contributed to the article. You surely didn't. 88.152.211.79 (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Acer Aspire One is a mass of commercialism and self-advertising. In the past it's included blogs, forums, press releases, etc. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. It doesn't matter that somebody might find a BIOS fix. They might not. Who knows? That's not Wiki's responsibility to evaluate and monitor. It's the company's problem, and Wiki is not the company's site. The editors of this article are ignoring the guidelines of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, WP:SPAM, WP:SOAP, WP:CONFLICT.

Wiki editors remove what they see is wrong. There's no requirement that articles be comprehensively reviewed each time they are vandalized. Read the guidelines above, and it will be clear why these links are removed. And also why you repeatedly replacing the material without explanation for the edit, or without discussing the changes in the discussion is major vandalism, and unacceptable behavior.

Piano non troppo (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I did actually remove all commercial links (to Amazon etc.) when i started to edit the article if you had bothered to check. I don't see any harm in price lists that only list the official MSRP with no address or anything to actually buy it. Did your vandalization improve the article? Going by your arguments it probably shouldn't even exist in the first place. You still didn't explain the randomness to me. 88.152.211.79 (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You have been making dozens of changes for weeks to Aspire One. And have no other contributions to Wiki at all. If you are associated with the company, you should read WP:CONFLICT, before you are banned from editing entirely.

There's no requirement that an article be completely reviewed. I.e., one can "randomly" delete anything that violates WP:LINKSTOAVOID, WP:SPAM, WP:SOAP. Read them. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not associated with the company. It's the only article i'm editing, is there a rule that says you must edit at least two? You still didn't answer any of my specific questions. 88.152.211.79 (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:LINKSTOAVOID, WP:SPAM, and WP:SOAP. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Can i make further edits now without your bot autoreverting them or Wikipedia banning me? Not that i'm very motivated to make further contributions to the article now but i'd like to at least clean up the mess you created by randomly breaking links. 88.152.211.79 (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we don't seem to be making progress at this point, perhaps you can describe, as you make changes, what you doing on the discussion page, and let other editors (besides me) consider what is warranted. Also, perhaps your edits would be less likely to be changed (by other editors) if you considered examples of other computer pages, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_Inspiron or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_Satellite Piano non troppo (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok i did check the Dell Inspiron article and it actually contains quite a few links to blogs and forums. One of them is even about a BIOS patch. Here are a few of them: http://www.thelostbrain.com/post/2007/12/Raid-0%2c-1-%2c-5%2c-0-1-support-Dell-Vostro-200--400-and-Inspiron-530--530s-machines!-(Finally).aspx, http://www.diefer.de/i8kfan/index.html, http://www.geocities.com/i5100dustproblem/ and http://www.dellcommunity.com/supportforums/board/message?board.id=insp_general&message.id=184349&query.id=471133#M184349/. I feel like i'm wasting my time here, sorry. Please tell your bot to not revert any changes so that people who are actually interested in contributing to the article can do so. I agree on the sometimes lacking descriptions, but a small notice about that instead of mass editing the article would've been a better way to communicate it. 88.152.211.79 (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that you are not willing to continue to waste the time of three people over this i will revert your revert and then remove all links i added, good and bad ones. The article can then continue from there. The link to the BIOS fix was not posted by me. It was there before i even edited the article, so i will not remove it. You can discuss that with the person who added it, there is a post about it in the discussion page. 88.152.211.79 (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Those two articles are both about long-established ranges of products. Neither of them are as timely, nor as technically tweak-dependent, as an article on a recent, specific and less-stable single product, such as the Aspire One. For that reason they have less need of ELs such as the less-formal or blog-hosted ELs you were complaining of. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If objective decision making about what makes a good article has been replaced by spouting bits of the wikipedia namespace, then might I suggest a look at WP:3RR? You appear to be engaged in a one-bot revert war against the consensus that these ELs are useful and add something to the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that those four edits were all in a day. My error.

However, there is no "concensus". Anonymous IP 88.152.211.79 is making a large number of changes, and not justifying his edits. While I am. There are rules for External links, and I'm following them. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Whenever I hear "I'm just following the rules", I reach for my clueiron. 88.152.211.79 is adding content as they see fit. It may even be bad additions of ELs that aren't good ELs, and they may be against policy, but I think we can all clearly WP:AGF here. You OTOH aren't even trying to play by any sort of consensus and now you're off on some sort of rules-based high horse. Throwing WP:SOAP around is farcical. That makes it very difficult to try and sort out what's actually a good set of content to be adding, for the purpose of making good articles, for the purpose of making a better encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the discussion page before making my edits. Notice there are two long sections discussing whether prices should be in the article at all. I'm representing both the community and the rules. Your comments suggest you represent neither. End of discussion. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read it, you'll be aware that it only discussed the pricing issues, not the many other ELs you removed. Also that there hadn't been any discussion in there for two weeks, certainly not in relation to your recent flurry of removals and reversions. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

South Dakota Highway 26

What in the world are you doing reverting my edits on South Dakota Highway 26? I didn't put "external links" in--I simply added information about what was on the road. Get a grip.24.14.33.171 (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(Deleted text was reference to a steak house in a town on highway.) User deleted my vandalism report on their talk page (where there was a pre-existing final warning before being blocked from another editor). User has a vandalism history (most of their edits are vandalism). Piano non troppo (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Modesto edit deleted The Fruit Yard

I remarked to one key visitor site in the town area and it was NOT allowed. The Fruit Yard is our local Knotts Berry Farm or Disneyland. and no one deletes their references- who is anyone kidding- to be so hippocritical - it has as much a right to be there as any of the others it has been a big deal here for Modesto for over 30 years. Replace what was done. At least they do not charge to park or picnic- try getting that at Disneyland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.77.73 (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Knott's Berry Farm. Disneyland. These are notable places with major Wikipedia articles. The Fruit Yard, no article, no references in Modesto article to indicate notability. Adding links to non-notable businesses is contrary to WP:SPAM.

You have two options to have a reference included: 1) Write a new Wiki article about The Fruit Yard. 2) Find a reliable, independent third-party source that establishes The Fruit Yard as any more significant than 1000 other businesses in the Modesto area. See WP:SPAM, this explains it. Thanks, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dow Jones

This edit was actually correct, and sourced. Why did you remove it? Corvus cornix_talk 20:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a mistake, thanks for catching it. I didn't intend any change to the article. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 20:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Criminal Law Updates

Please explain your deletion of links to the page summarizing recent U.S. criminal caselaw, which had been added to pages about U.S. criminal caselaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.8.237.123 (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Change was made to Frisking. Page has commercial advertisements, self-advertisement, almost nothing to do with topic. WP:SPAM. End of discussion. Piano non troppo (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tomáš Rosický

I checked the unofficial english page and saw it was a link to and unknown site/advert. So I removed the two unofficial page links but just felt I should have checked the czech page also (So i did -and discovered it was related stuff). I put the czech link back and YOU ... By the way I am an arsenal / Rosický fan so i would not vandalise!

But Still, Great Job (Well done!) to YOU as you try to correct vandalism (You saw my changes real fast!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.206.136.77 (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The hardest edits to remove are the ones where an editor is trying to help a favorite subject, and to help Wiki! The link in Czech isn't helpful, because most English Wiki readers do not speak Czech, and editors cannot verify the information. See WP:NONENG. An exception might be when there is no English available, but in this case, the official English site is already in the External links. The other link to the "English unofficial website" is mostly an advertising site with other subjects. It is a problem for several reasons, see WP:LINKSTOAVOID. So, keep up the good work, but those External links are not appropriate. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Rv on Oraniopsis

Thanks for the warning but you are mistaken. I fixed a misdirected link to the proper page. If you reverted me, please undo. Im User:Mmcknight4, not logged in. Thanks.72.184.183.175 (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok so youve changed the link to the wrong page. the correction you reverted went to oraniospsis, not clinosperma. Not a big deal but revrrt yourself.72.184.183.175 (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Whats the deal piano? Fix your mistake.72.184.183.175 (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in no doubt that the link to GBIF Portal is useful and relevant. I checked two versions of the links, but they both have the same problem: they require a login. (Possibly your computer automatically logs in?) Since the page can't be checked by Wiki editors and users without logging in, the External link is in violation of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, point 6. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

So you are claiming that when you click on the existing, incorrect link it takes you to a log in page?72.184.183.175 (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

To be a little more clear, I'll say that Ive written about 100 or so new pages and of the palm genera, each contains a GBIF link when available and nobody has made the claims you are making about login. WHy, after all, would you revert one log-in link to the previous. Im gonna revert back to how I had it. If you dont mind, let the plant folks manage these articles. Matbe your connection is different than others, but it simply isnt the case that these links prompts a login window. There are, as I said, countless examples to compare it against. But thanks for all your help hitherto.72.184.183.175 (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tried all versions of the GBIF Portal link on Oraniopsis that have been posted -- they all take me to the same login page. I've tried two different browsers, both completely up-to-date.

Unfortunately, spammers, vandals, and even "good faith" editors often use the technique of referencing something that on examination turns out not to be what was represented. To be honest, I don't see any evidence of your "100 edits", your IP has only changed the odd dozen articles, several not to do with plants.

Since this isn't a matter of content, but Wiki policy, and it apparently is a widespread problem, I suggest that: a) You get a user account, b) you take this issue up with the "plant folks". In the meantime, the link is invalid. Period. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ugggh. You dont read. Thanks for the advise but if you had read my previous post, you would have seen that I have an account:User:Mmcknight4. Go through his history and then tell me what you dont see evidence of. Im a plant folk. Leave it alone.72.184.183.175 (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop fooling around. If you are Mmcknight4, then log in as them. If my computer, on an up-to-date OS and up-to-date browsers does not work, then there is a problem. The guidelines don't say a reference is ok, as long as it works on at least some people's computers. If you really care about the subject, then take this up with the "plant folks", and get it resolved. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Logged in. I'll tell ya what. I couldn't give a shit about the link or the pseudocrisis you mean to create about it. I made the page and Ill come back and make it right when you move on to legitimate vandals; Im not worth your time. Fair enough?Mmcknight4 (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is related: I just checked another GBIF reference in Oedignathus, to a different site. "Oedignathus inermis (Stimpson, 1860)". Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Retrieved on 2007-08-16." returns page not found, with "HTTP Status 404 - /species/13794083" This may also answer your question about why other people aren't seeing the problem -- other people appear not to be checking. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well hell, if the fever to remove log-in links exists so steadily, go through all the pages I wrote and remove this supposedly misconforming link from all of them. Or do it to none of them. But be consistent, anyway.Mmcknight4 (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok well, I just pulled up a palm page and clicked on a GBIF link on my iPhone and got the page you are seeing. Nevertheless, this wasn't the case when the links were initially entered. Furthermore, a remedy might be available short of deleting them. As I said, I'll look into the cause and pursue remedies; viewers didnt previously require such status. I will, of course, press them to make pages instantly viewable though none of the prior admissions condone changing an oraniopsis link, from an oraniopsis page, to a clerosperma link.Mmcknight4 (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you have got the matter in hand. I wasn't planning on deleting the links again on Oraniopsis other Wiki articles. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User:212.248.225.2

Hi there,

I noticed that an article I was viewing was vandalised by the above IP, and I reverted the edit. I also noticed the same IP had done similar edits on that article and others in the past month. Someone has placed a final warning on their talk page, but then the next warning was less severe.

Basically, I was going to get involved in this (I'm new to Wikipedia, editing-wise), but I'm not sure how to proceed, or even if I should. I noticed you're quite the vandalism scout, and you might be interested in giving a budding contributor some advice and pointers.

Rixxin (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed the same things, and had similar questions. The warnings are not consistent. Should someone who's had a "final warning" on the basis of introducing significant factual errors be blocked if they add a blog link? (Those links are generally to be avoided, but an editor might might well be acting in "good faith", when they reference a blog.)

Warnings are being used for two quite different purposes: 1) For anti-vandalism Wiki editors to keep track of number and types problems, so they can assess how to warn, and whether to block, 2) To alert a user that Wiki edits are patrolled and that there is a problem with their edits, while still being cautious not to "bite the new people", as one Wiki guideline says.

As an IT type, I can imagine a few ways for Wiki to proceed...the one mostly likely to work is...to do nothing to change the system. There's a tendency for those unfamiliar with Systems Analysis to assume that problems can be remedied by a quick fix. The first unworkable idea that came to my mind was to separate the "warning" information into two parts: one to explain to the user what's going on, and another for regular Wiki anti-vandalism editors to keep track of the ongoing situation. It took about 30 seconds to dismiss this, because: 1) Users don't expect warnings to be coherent. They expect a lot of impersonal, vague boilerplate text. And that's what they're getting. Computer users are used to "reading between the lines". You might be amused that a number of angry users have assumed, not that I was personally reverting their edit, but that a "bot" was doing it. If they think I'm a bot...I wonder...are they paying to the situation? Do they care about what they are doing to the extent that I wish to engage in a discussion with them? 2) Wiki anti-vandalism editors, for their part, respond to a problem that they are alerted to. They probably don't have time to investigate a user's history. That stage comes, for example, when it is time to block a user, because at that point (if ever) users will be paying full attention to the issues with their editing.

So far, after 1,000s of reversions, the only outstanding pattern in responses to my edits I've noticed, using Mike's Wiki Tool, is that being called a "vandal" unnecessarily offends people. I wish I could change the messages. You might notice that I've written individual messages to schools, encouraging them to keep on editing, tempering the "You are a vandal" boilerplate messages.

For anti-vandalism (I've been told by the local police authorities), a critically important factor is to respond immediately. In pursuit of that goal, it may be that a fast boilerplate response is preferable. Fast enough that the vandal is probably still online. What do you think? Piano non troppo (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the effect of a block is. Does the person on the other end of the IP get a "You have been blocked from editing WP" message when they try to save changes? If they do, I can imagine the shock that someone who is (relatively) innocent might experience, and this might cause them to stop, because they feel watched. Other times, and in the case of the IP in this title of this section, it might just spur them on to keep doing it. There is another warning after the 31 hour ban. I don't think there is answer in technology (I'm a Systems Analyst, by the way!), because this is a very human, and therefore, complicated problem. It's like trying to prevent infection rather than come up with better drugs. I think we need people to keep vigilant and spot these bad edits. Perhaps we need to make registering compulsory, at least then we won't end up banning dynamic IPs that end up as someone else's IP the day after a ban.

I'd also like to say that my contact with you initially was for specific advice on this specific case, but it's good to chew the cud!

--Rixxin 16:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, heh. "Chew the cud". Heh, heh. Yes, they get a message that their IP is blocked, when they try to edit. I'm not an administrator, or I'd block some of these people, myself -- such as your IP in question. (I'm a loose part of a group where others have that role.) There is a way for a non-administrator to ask for a block. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy)

As to the effect of a block...oh, man...brings to mind my "Philosophy of Law" class. Is the purpose to warn, to punish, to correct, to instruct, or to get the sob off the streets? In the case of your IP -- shared by multiple users of St. Helens Council -- it may be hard to do anything constructive about editor behavior, since one can't be sure it's not several people doing the unproductive edits. Unfortunately, Wiki editors may have no option except finally "getting the sob off the streets".

Just to chew a little longer (I'm only up to my third stomach, lol), in the case of St Helens Council, we can see what happened. They WERE blocked for 31 hours after your first message here. And shortly after the block ended, that IP was back again with disruptive edits. Probably, they'll get a longer block very soon. Then, assuming they haven't given up, a block of a year, or perhaps an indefinite one. Your surmise, of course, must be correct that some vandals take the block as a challenge. But I can tear a page from the instructions of the advice of my city's police: react as quickly as possible: sooner or later it occurs to the vandals they're wasting their time.

There is the possibility that somebody else at that IP will see all the warning messages, and seek the individual causing them. It might be, e.g., someone who should be working instead of playing in Wiki, or a student who is misusing school equipment. There's evidence this does happen. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Toshinden Characters

Hey, I noticed you put on a few tags on the List of Battle Arena Toshinden characters article. I suppose it had to happen sooner or later, haha. I've actually left a much longer message in its talk page.

Are you going to help rewrite the article, seeing how you put the tags up? Just thought I'd ask. 86.11.139.109 (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair question. Sometimes I do spend quite a lot of time fixing articles with issues. That's particularly true where I know something about the subject or about how to fix the issues. The article is 81 kilobytes, as you can observe selecting the "edit this page" tab. Should the article be split into two, or is the subject covered in too much depth? Reading it, I decided it was too long.

In this case, my ability to contribute is not great, but the tags alert other editors who *can* contribute that there might be an issue. If I did contribute, here's the kind of suggestion I could make:

"Sadly for Adam, his dream would never come to pass, for Rungo Iron, a Toshin fighter and his specific target, defeated the robot, turning him into a pile of scrap metal beyond repair."

This language is essay-like or even story-like, which are styles that are identified by Wiki as unencyclopic. Moreover, it's weak writing, even as an essay or story. "His dream would never come to pass" is a cliche. "A pile of scrap metal" is a cliche and also hyperbole. E.g., is it true that in the story he was actually scrapped, or was it that his parts cannibalized for other robots? If it's not known in the story, then the author is delving into original research. And no original research WP:OR is one of the three Wiki core content policies. Anyhow, that would be the direction I would go. Hope some of this is helpful! Piano non troppo (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to my message. After reading it, I defininately see where you're coming from with how the article's written, and now I think I have a better idea of what else that has to be removed, eg., like you said, trivial and unnecessary little things that happened to the characters which are pretty ambiguous. This is especially true for the "evil" counterpart characters in the third game, as, if you've played it, the only readily available information given about them is in the instruction manuals and their endings, which actually contradict some things that is said about them in the article. 86.11.139.109 (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Update

I've changed the article as much I can, and got rid of most of the bumfluff that was written previously, although I've kept a few things I that I know is official in the game's canon storyline. All I need now is some sources.. and probably fast, seeing how someone dosen't seem to like the recent changes and has sporadically been writing back the ambiguous/false info.

I'm deciding to try and source the third game's characters first, as, IMO, they're getting fooled around with the most. I found an online game guide that lists all of the characters' endings from Toshinden 3, and it's a word-for-word rip. Would that be any use? Sorry for bothering you again, I'm just new to the whole "references" thing.

Scrub that, if you've read this. I'm now well on my way on adding sources, haha. 86.11.139.109 (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You're putting a huge amount of work into the article! I, too, had a difficult time with my first Wiki articles, because I was used to writing in an entirely different style. You're obviously willing to put in some effort and to learn more about Wiki. Since you're enjoying discussing what you're doing, it might be a good time for you to get an account. You'll strike up acquaintances with other editors with similar interests. Also, I've enjoyed feeling like I'm contributing, not just to Wiki, but to the community. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the inspiration to edit the article. It still needs loads more tweaks and sources, but at least its a little better now, I guess. I might consider registering soon, but for now, I'm alright. 86.11.139.109 (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

External link

Really? I didn't know it was unavailable outside the UK, I assumed it was just the video portion of the page. Apologies. 81.153.165.99 (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No harm done! This is one of those things it's easier for someone else to check. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oksana Grishuk

Please don't come to my user page just to give me grief on a small thing such as this. If you look at my contributions, you will see a history of quick, easily judged edits read as vandalism. I apologize, I thought that's what that was. I am not a vandal, believe me. I would never intentionally bruse the honor of a successful organization. 71.176.127.17 (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked and agree that your edits are positive, with this mistaken exception, which actually has to do neither with you, nor with Peridon. I placed comment on your page, because that's the standard thing to do with vandalism. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the work you are doing. I'd taken this material out of a number of articles, and was waiting to see what happened after the undoing of my undo... I'm fairly new here, and still feeling my way. I've no intention of getting into an edit war. Not yet, anyway... Peridon (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing Felucca

Hi. I see what you have in mind with Felucca. You might want to have a look at the latest conventions about linking in WP:CONTEXT. The article may have been more correct before you changed it. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add any links. Which links do you think should be removed? 58.8.1.243 (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is something of a matter of taste, which is why I drew your attention to WP:CONTEXT, rather than changing your edit. Before your edits, there were "See also" links to lateen, rigging, dhow, sail and Nile. You removed all but dhow, adding Wiki links in the article text. As WP:CONTEXT suggests, plain English words should not be linked, and links should not make the article harder to read. So two things happened: there were already too many Wiki links in the article text, and more were added to common words. The collection of "See also" links, which might have been expanded to good advantage was almost eliminated. Maybe the key issue is that the article could use considerable expansion, as even this commercial site has better information than the Wiki article: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/feluccas.htm Anyhow, it was a thought in passing, in case you hadn't read the lastest changes to Wiki link guidelines. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I only added one link to the article text - [[rigging|rig]] [7] - seems to me that link doesn't conflict with WP:CONTEXT#What generally should not be linked, and is appropriate according to WP:CONTEXT#What generally should be linked. 58.8.1.243 (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternate vs. alternative

Hi, Piano non troppo. I noticed your edit on Gregorian calendar. You may not be aware that "alternate" is the US/Canadian equivalent to what is known in the UK/Australia/New Zealand as "alternative". We talk of "an alternative proposal" etc, whereas you guys say "an alternate proposal". We use "alternate" only as a verb, meaning "move backwards and forwards between two things". Just another example of countries being divided by a common language. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware. Interesting! Since the English Wikipedia audience includes those employing both usages...a way to proceed might be to only make use of word senses that read equally well throughout English-speaking countries, yet...that doesn't seem satisfying. Idiosyncratic language usage reflects local culture and dynamics...something worth retaining? If this change won't engender one of those endless seesaws between editors...maybe "alternative" was a good choice, after all. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you're also aware that there are WP rules about this. I'm hopeless with tracking down our rules and policies, but my understanding is that where the subject is clearly American, say, then American spellings and word usages are employed. Where it's clearly a Brit, then British words and spellings are used. And so on. Where it's a general topic such as Gregorian calendar, one version of English applies consistently. It's usually the version used by the originating editor that remains, but a consensus can decide otherwise. So you might have Gregorian calendar written in New Zealand English, and Julian calendar written in Canadian English. All OK, as long as people know what's going on. I've often thought that articles on general topics should have a banner: This article is written in British/Australian/American/Jamaican/whatever English, so that editors would become aware, firstly, that there are in fact different versions, and then they'd be more alert to using the words that fit best. Assuming they know what they are; which in many cases they may not. But other editors will soon come along and correct things like alternate/alternative. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I had an idea while considering your comment, which I immediately dismissed. Smile. The idea was to have Wiki automatically change the English/American wording or spelling, depending on where the reader was. Nah. Viva la difference, to quote the folks known for not being English. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

HAL 5 "Vandalism"

It wasn't vandalism, sorry about that. Either Wikipedia or Firefox3 was acting up, which was causing some errors. Anyways, I have the sources cited, didn't edit enough from one edit so I had to go back and do additional ones, which inevitably caused me to deal with the errors. I had to log on so I didn't look like some random IP editing, and talk to you.

Edited: ULTRAZORD (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by ULTRAZORD (talk • contribs) 07:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism" may not be the clearest word (it's picked by the tool I'm using), but your edit to HAL 5 is not ok. Wikipedia isn't an advertising platform. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop reverting the entire article, then. If it's so bothersome to you, just take out the pricing citations. Also, you've only taken out my edits, while the page already had pricing information on it before I edited it. The page hasn't been really changed in a while, so this breaking news seemed relevant to updated its status. ULTRAZORD (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that the second time, I didn't revert, I removed the pricing, trying to maintain the technical information. If it's a technological breakthrough, it's worth mentioning. Definitely add that information. If it's a "price breakthrough" it's marketing and self-advertising. I will revert, and I will have you blocked if that continues. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You're a hypocritical asshole, did you realize? You got so ape-shit about me doing "blatant advertising", which wasn't true, and even threatened to block me because I kept updating it, but you completely removed the citation for my information. Kind of narrow-sighted of you to cite Wikipedia policy to enforce one rule while ignoring and even removing one rule? I took out the pricing that I put, which in hindsight was a bit much for such a small article, but really, I must emphasize you're a hypocritical asshole. As of this post, you've only deleted pricing citations I placed, and none that were on the article before my edits. Mind explaining that? ULTRAZORD (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to delete them all. Providing reference for a price makes no difference at all. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tried to delete them all? Sure you did, after I called out on your narrow-sighted bullshit. "Blatant commercialism"? Either you really are short-sighted or you're quite stupid if you took all of that as "blatant commercialism". At least I can admit I put a bit much pricing information, along with proper information, for a page of its size, but you, you keep on with your holier than thou attitude and crusade against perceived vandalism, real or not. You will raze the article of the violation, along with what's correct, right, and needed. Good job, Detective Dipshit.

I'm done with this article for now. I tried to contribute, to something that verily needed an update considering the breaking news I just saw on Gizmodo, but I had to do so while dealing with a power-mongering hypocrite who obviously wants to dip his hands in so many things that he'll sacrifice policies to savagely enforce one, and incompletely to boot. From the looks of this talk page, you're doing less contribution to Wikipedia than needless reversions and annoyances. Do you mind brushing up on reading comprehension, since you apparently lurk a lot of articles with a very poor perception of "vandalism" that leads to too many problems and conflicts, with information and people.

This is probably all you have, though, so I'll leave you with your Pyrrhic victory.ULTRAZORD (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Your message

I've removed the copyvio pics and requested speedy deletion on Commons. As for point 10 on WP:LINKSTOAVOID, it only refers to unofficial sites. As to whether myspace.com/chrissydaniellemusic is an official link or not, I think it is. Unofficial/fan-made links usually have a low number of views. If you really want, you can remove it until it's proven it's official, but I'm just saying I think it's legitimate. Spellcast (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Point 10 in WP:LINKSTOAVOID specifically says MySpace is to be avoided. I think you're saying: well, there aren't any other links claiming to be "official", so that will have to do? (If that's the case, then XLinkBot has a problem, because it automatically deleted that link.)

Perhaps we've invested enough effort in this. Other editors can weigh in with their own comments, if and when they see fit.

Is there a way for a Wiki non-admin to see "number of views"? I'd be interested in that for various reasons -- including where it's worthwhile adding new links, myself. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the MySpace views :) Spellcast (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludacris's official page

Hello, I was passing along as I saw your removed Ludacris' MySpace link from the external links. Per WP:ELNO, it states "Except for a link to an official page of the article subject…" and you removed the official MySpace. If you're not convinced it is the official page, you can search on MySpace in the search bar under music and when the musician's page shows it, it'll be boxed with the words "MySpace Verified - Official Artist". DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. His official page External Link is on the Wiki page as: "Official website". Also there's an External Link to his foundation, which is central to his life and is mentioned in the article text. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Err, that doesn't really answer what I'm getting at. You removed the MySpace link from the external links section, but the guideline says it can be there as long as it is the official page of the musician, which it is. What I'm asking is, why remove it when it's allowed? DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 04:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It is generally not allowed. "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." ONE official External Link is allowed, usually the one with the Wiki topic in the URL. He already has that. MySpace links are specifically named as not being appropriate in WP:LINKSTOAVOID.

But hold on. Now that I'm looking at what is called his "Official Site", it looks like an inappropriate advertising site. http://www.defjam.com/site/artist_home.php?artist_id=308

Ok, this is a problem. I would have to say the MySpace site looks more official, and less commercial. In which case that one should be used, instead.

Your thoughts? Piano non troppo (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say only one is allowed? DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 04:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It says in what I quoted "the subject's official site". It doesn't say: all the subject's sites. But let's move on from that. I think the MySpace site is more appropriate, here. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I'll bring up the MySpace concern to the talk page of WP:ELNO and see what is said there. As for the official site of Ludacris, it's hard to say because it is Def Jam's official site, but, but it does seem a little commercial. Maybe we should ask for a third opinion? DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 04:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

We might do a couple things. First, someone needs to find the most appropriate site to call his official site (you, for example?) I just tried to look in Google, and nothing stood out. Second, you might ask on the WP:ELNO discussion page, but my guess is eventually, given the other discussion already, it will come down to the fact that MySpace material can be written by anybody, and changed at any time, so it isn't a reliable source. One other aspect of this to give your consideration to: I've been on Wiki pages where the editors have named every External link "Official"..."Official Spanish site", "Official fan site", "Official concert tour site". They've changed the name, but not the underlying difficulty with the type of reference. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I also search Google and only come up with Wikipedia, Def Jam, and MySpace. The rest aren't official sites of Ludacris except the Ludacris Foundation, but that's more for the foundation than it is for him. As for the aspect you brought up, one of four of those links are relevant to most articles. The official site should be the only link of "official sites" under external links. The Spanish site would only be relevant to musician who have both Spanish and English albums, or a combination of both, like reggaeton musicians. Fan sites are not allowed, so that's out. Official concert tour site should only be relevant to the the tour article, if there is one (like the Rock Witchu Tour, for example); if there isn't one, it would fit better in the article of the album it is for, which is for most cases how it works. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 05:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Good, we see a lot of the issues in the same way.

I'm puzzled that Ludacris (or his marketing department) doesn't have a more obviously labeled "Official" site on the Web. (Perhaps there's some dispute about who controls it??) Whatever the situation, fans are going to recognize pretty quickly that whatever Wiki puts up in this case isn't necessarily definitive. An interesting situation. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I did happen to find a little site called Ludacris.com, but has nothing to do with him, which is a little strange. I wish Def Jam wouldn't make things so complicated. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 05:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a reply on the WP:ELNO talk page. Wikipedia talk:External links#WP:ELNO—a little conflict. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 06:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Smile. I noticed. And thought of a quote from The Fellowship of the Ring. "Go not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes." Piano non troppo (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha, alright. Let's wait for a few responses, hoping there will be more. I'm off to bed, hopefully we can resolve this sooner than later. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 07:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Land Rover

(Moved from my User page, this comment by 77.73.8.70, regarding this change: [8])

Piano non troppo: Forgive me for using this to communicate with you, however - regarding my recent changes on the landrover page - why is it acceptable to advertise for Jeep by saying its second only to them? Secondly I am fixing a incorrect use of "there" in the engines section.

I will accept you removing the comment "second only to none".

Hi. I didn't see your comment until just now, because it was on my User page. 1) No problem with changing "there" to "their": that change was off my screen, and I didn't notice you had done it. 2) We agree that "second only to none" was a little strong. 3) Your addition "over 80% of all Landrovers ever made are still on the road" would be intriguing, if true, but I was just thinking over all those TV shows 40 years ago that used them, and I wondered: Could those vehicles still be on the road? But it sounds as though you have a reference available for this? That would be a suitable thing to have, here. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

On the Kelly Havel entry

Hello! I wanted to thank you for your comments on vandalism and citations/references, Piano non troppo. Kelly Havel was born in Norway, both of Czech parents, and moved to live in Czech Republic shortly after her birth, where she grew up (http://www.barfland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59900, http://forum.adultdvdtalk.com/forum/topic.dlt/topic_id=121446/forum_id=5/cat_id=1/121446.htm, and http://forum.vivthomas.com/index.php?showtopic=3707&st=160). We could discuss what her nationality truly is, whether she has dual nationality (or if, at the time, such a thing was legally possible in Norway and Czechoslovakia, etc. http://www.eurobabeindex.com/sbandoindex/kellyhavel.html states that she is Czech before Norwegian). In that case, you can contend that the modification I made to the article is moot. However, she did act for Andrew Blake (http://www.eurobabeindex.com/sbandoindex/kellyhavel.html and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0369872/), and she did pose for Perfect 10 magazine (http://www.perfect10.com/popups/modellist.html and http://usedmagazines.com/titles/Perfect10/Volume1/), so I don't understand why you also undid those changes. Considering that her entry is merely a stub, I would think any contribution would be more than welcomed. I deeply hope that the fact that it is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway is not why the modifications were so quicky dismissed - especially if it was because I argued her nationality. Even though I understand your reservations on changes to entries that are unsubstantiated, I did cite a source when I made the change itself (i.e. http://www.eurobabeindex.com/sbandoindex/kellyhavel.html), so I am a bit confused. Perhaps the references above are sufficient for modifications or contributions under your criteria, but I will leave the task of adding more meat to the three sentences skeleton of the article up to you. Better luck with other revisions, and cheers! 220.41.26.175 (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. The change was made on the basis that it looked like vandalism, because another place in the article still maintained she was Norwegian. It wasn't a profound decision. Since you're constructively involved, by all means, carry on. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Young British Artists

I've restored some material you deleted, as I can't see any reason for its removal, and in fact its removal undermines the subject. Hirst's shark is the iconic work of Britart, which he is the leading exponent of, curating the seminal Freeze exhibition and now known world-wide. It is therefore appropriate to have a photo of him in the article. You say, "Self-advertising for one particular artist". What evidence do you have for this assertion that one particular artist (presumably Hirst) is advertising himself? Legitimate content is not "advertising" or WP:SPAM: that only applies when it is inappropriate material. It is accepted knowledge that the two best known members of this group are Hirst and Emin. I agree that material should be referenced, but a lot of this content was added when referencing did not have the emphasis which it now does. Ty 14:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Apart from rock-and-roll artists, I've hardly seen pages with biographical content in Wiki with more bias and unsourced material. Hirst's own Wiki page is more of the same. "Seminal", the word applied to that picture, is what Wiki calls a "peacock word". Peacock words "promote the subject of the article without imparting real information". See WP:PEACOCK.

I understand you are a devotee who is going to vigorously defend your page. And that you feel it is somehow a exception to Wiki policies and guidelines. Just don't imagine that other artists are fooled, ok? I can read the same mindless, self-serving commentary on the Britany Spears page. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I find your remarks offensive, and I suggest the way to dialogue with other editors is not by making disparaging comments without any foundation. You seem to be prone to jumping to conclusions as with your edit summary "self-advertising",[9] again without any evidence.

The word seminal does not occur in Young British Artists at all. Presumably you mean the word "iconic". You misunderstand WP:PEACOCK. It applies to editorial observations, not to a widely accepted definition which can be sourced properly. See Wikipedia:PEACOCK#Do_not_hide_the_important_facts. I have added a source from The Sunday Times. There are plenty more, up to 17,400. "Seminal" is also available, as it happens.[10]

I haven't done so much work on Young British Artists, but I've looked through and don't see the bias that you state. The material can be referenced, and there is the negative view put as well. As far as Damien Hirst goes, I don't see how you can possibly make your observation of bias. The negative reaction to Hirst is properly represented in the main text, even with its own section. Most of the article is very well referenced with 44 sources.

Your tone expresses something of a negative view of Hirst and like artists, and this seems to be colouring your analysis. There is no place for that on wikipedia. We work from a WP:NPOV, which means following the sources, whether they are good or bad, and whether they express our own opinion or otherwise.

Ty 04:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear and honest. The article presentation of Young British Artists and Britany Spears have much alike: They are both calibrated to appeal to those, to quote Red Dwarf..."with more teeth than brains". Howsoever, my edit was not based on my feelings, but rather the oversized photograph (in two articles) of Hirst. And the plethora of self-satisfied peacock language throughout the article. "presented the first survey of the new generation"? "solidly validating the pre-eminence of the YBAs". These phrases, and many others like them, do not reflect the tone of an impartial encyclopedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't (if I recall correctly) insert that text. However, I am inclined to think it would represent the mainstream artworld view. Do you think it doesn't? If it does represent the established view, then WP:NPOV demands that it should be represented as such. Do you not agree with that? You object to the photo (standard thumbnail size, not over-sized) of Damien Hirst in, what - Young British Artists and Damien Hirst? Is that what you're saying - that he's not important enough in those two articles to merit a photograph of him? Ty 05:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

a) I didn't check what you contributed to the article (in fact, I wasn't aware you had, until we started talking). My comments were directed to the article, itself.

b) I agree the artistic movement itself is important at the moment in the art world.

c) I did make a mistake remembering the word "iconic" as the word "seminal".

d) The Hirst photo is larger than any of the works of art on the page. If anything, readers will be interested in the art, not the personality cult behind it.

e) His photo isn't necessary in an article about "Young British Artists". It's fine in the article about him. That's why I deleted it in this article.

f) I deleted the photo The Physical Impossibility of Death... because the intention, from the caption, seemed to provide unfounded support to the YBA movement. I was wrong in one respect, but not, I find, in another. The citation provided says it's iconic, not of the YBAs, but of "British Art".

My point was that the language and presentation is inappropriate to an encyclopedia. I hardly expected fans of the movement to agree in more than in minor detail. I had no intention of making further changes to the article. Or to Hirst's. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

a) Your comments were not directed at the article. You posted above to me: "I understand you are a devotee who is going to vigorously defend your page. And that you feel it is somehow a exception to Wiki policies and guidelines. Just don't imagine that other artists are fooled, ok? I can read the same mindless, self-serving commentary on the Britany Spears page."

You have made very serious accusations. I trust you will see to either withdraw them or substantiate them. I understand you may have got over-heated on the subject, which seems to be an emotional one for you.

b) + c) Agreed.

d) That is an accident of wiki formatting, which makes the width of a thumb 180 pixels. It was the same size as Myra. However, I have set the key image of the shark for 300 pixels, which I think helps to redress this. If you read the available material on Britart, you will find a considerable amount of it concerns what you call the "personality cult". We follow the sources. We do not make up our own priorities.

e) Hirst was the driving force of the YBAs and has become the pre-eminent exponent of the group. It is thus entirely in order that there should be a photo of him. If you can obtain free images of other artists, they can be included too, but Hirst is the key one (with Emin second). There is a limit on the amount of Fair Use images of artwork in copyright that can be included, though I dare say more could be justified. You can always add them.

f) I have added another reference to validate its importance, which I am sure you are fully aware of, which makes your objections veer into suspect territory.

g) I have amended one text you objected to and deleted the other. Now, are there any other specific parts of the text you consider are not meeting wikipedia policy?

You seem to be saying I am a fan of the movement. Could you please say exactly where I have made that statement about myself?

If you can improve the article, then you should do so. But if you follow the sources, I don't think they're going to say anything substantially different from what the article does at the moment. Maybe you disagree with the sources, but that is WP:OR, not WP:NPOV.

Ty 03:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler

(From user talk page) Hi. Actually Wiki doesn't do spoiler alerts any more. The decision was that a person reading an encyclopedia would expect to read a complete account of the subject. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to warn other people about the spoiler in the Rock of Love Charm School page. That rule is total BS. I have seen one episode and now, due to the spoiler, the season is ruined. I would expect the results once the show has AIRED but not the full results now. I was looking only to find out when the season started and how many episodes have aired. And while one would expect full information from an encyclopedia, I certainly wouldn't expect full disclosure of episodes that aired. It seems that networks have worked really hard to keep a lid on things. But if it must happen, maybe WP should reconsider this rule banning alerts because I am sure I am not the only one who will be angry about it.

76.189.137.199 (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I kind of agree with you. People have ruined movies for me...not even meaning to! And in Wiki...I wrote an article about a favorite story, but in the "Plot Summary", I left the ending out. For my trouble, another editor marked the article as being incomplete! Ha, ha, ha! Maybe they should have added a tag reading "Sorry, no Spoiler in this Article".

Anyhow, I thought I'd alert ya, Wiki editors are like piranhas about removing spoiler alerts. So it's best to find some other way around specifically using "Spoiler alert". Like maybe adding a section called "How the story ends" or "Story resolution". See what works and let me know what happens. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems like there are rules, but no recourse to challenge the rules. Rules, guidelines, whatever. I am seriously annoyed. There was a section called "call out chart"- um, I had no IDEA what that means or I wouldn't have looked. Plus, it is in my natureto read a graph. I stopped looking as soon as I realized what it was, but alas, it was too late and I read the bright red WIN. And I am not a dummy, I just hadn't heard this very newly coined term for "CHART THAT WILL RUIN AN ENTIRE SERIES FOR YOU." It's the principle of it all. I realize I probably sound like a loser who has nothing better to do than watch VH1 and screw around on the internet, so for the record, the Rock of Love stuff was really the only reality TV I ever watched and I DVRed it! Maybe I am too old to keep up with these new-fangled terms and ways of the internet, especially since it took me forever to figure out how to write you back!

76.189.137.199 (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Most spoilers do not come from information that has been inappropriately leaked to the public. You're dealing with a special case. Let's figure out how to change the article so that the problem is clear. Here are two options:

1) If the information was given a citation, we could probably question the source of the information. But that isn't the case.

2) Therefore, we can DELETE the information about the episodes that have not been broadcast, because they do not have a legitmate source. You will need to do this, because I don't know what information has already been broadcast. In this case, you need to: a) Change the information, b) Explain what you did in the article discussion. Ok? Piano non troppo (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As an afterthought, the concept of "spoiler" suggests that revealing some particular part of a story "spoils" the rest of it. Mystery stories tend to be done that way, but for other stories, "getting there" is what makes it worthwhile. "It's better to travel than to arrive" sort of thing. Taken that way, *any* revelation of major plot elements is potentially a spoiler. There are some stories where I don't remember the ending, because the ending wasn't the best part for me. Take "Hamlet". The big surprises for me weren't at the end, they were when a certain woman kills herself, and when a certain man is killed in error. It wasn't hard to guess that bad things would happen to the central characters -- after all, it's called a tragedy, and that's what happens in Shakespeare tragedies. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Hudson games

That wasn't an inapproprite link 142.46.7.18 (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(In List of Hudson Soft games) Actually it was inappropriate. It's something that hasn't been released, and may never be (which is "crystal ball"), and the source is a blog. Neither is generally allowed. WP:LINKSTOAVOID, Piano non troppo (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I edit, therefore I exist? Hahahaaa!

I can't stop laughing. I opened your userpage because I've seen your revert on Meshuggah and the first thing I saw was the "I edit, therefore I exist?" I was so laughing... René Descartes...fine, very fine wiki-joke!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 17:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Kim Ung-yong

why would I need to cite a link on a page when the link on the page goes to a page with all the required references. Kim Ung-yong got a phd from Colorado State University as noted on his page. It also notes on his page that he has the highest verified iq. You deleting the link is lame and not helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.102.229 (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the addition was a joke, sorry. That kind of claim is made all the time in Wiki. The request for a reference was a good idea, though. So I just added it. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:92.72.9.102&redirect=no

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:92.72.9.102&redirect=no

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Istari_Lasterfahrer&diff=245870395&oldid=245870324

Can you please explain why linking to the release page of an album in the discography of an artist is considered bad, or why that justifies the removal of the complete entry in said discography?

Can you please explain why linking to the artists personal blog (myspace links are VERY common, and myspace is basically a blogging system) is considered bad?

Can you you please explain, why you just reverted all of the changes instead of adding discussion on the issues on the discussion page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.72.9.102 (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Three different things. 1) Blogs are usually not allowed as External links WP:LINKSTOAVOID. MySpace is specifically mentioned. (The reason is that there is no formal review process for blogs and MySpace, so anything at all could be written there). 2) The link to "classless kulla..." is to a non-English site. It's not exactly wrong, because in this case, for example, I don't question that "classless kulla..." exists. On the other hand, it isn't necessary, so the reference really isn't useful. 3) I see you re-added the discography to the article, and that is ok. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: 1) "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." Recognized authority = person the bio page is about -> disallowed? Re: 2) The site is indeed in english. The album titles aren't; the site is. Additionally, with wikipedia's strong citation needed guidelines, i'd rather have the link to the release page of the label in there than not. Also, i see no harm the link could cause. You could've changed it to a reference link, i would have been happy with that—Please be more careful when you remove stuff, these things are very discouraging for occasional editors with good intentions, and we don't want to end up with wikipedia being edited by a minority of zealots, do we? —92.72.9.102 (talk)

You've clearly invested time in what you're doing, and also considered Wiki guidelines -- that's 9/10ths of what it's about. (Not to mention that you are reasoned and polite.) One could hardly ask more. I had reverted the edits, because, in an article that has other yet other problems which we won't go into (as do the references), your edits first appeared to be vandalism. I perceive now that you are improving the article in good faith.

Parenthetically, Wiki can be a harsh experience for occasional editors. Creating an account makes that experience more likely to be positive. Unfortunately, it's hard to convey to those new to Wiki that there's no risk, and little effort to creating an account. Unavoidably, it isn't always possible to devine the intent of anonymous editors. (When I'm in doubt about the intent, background, interest, or contribution of an editor, I often consider their personal user pages.) Hence, every couple hundred edits of anonymous editors, I revert when it might have been more fruitful to selectively comment. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

MySpace

You recently removed myspace links in band articles claiming to follow WP:LINKSTOAVOID. But it specifically states, "Except for a link to an official page of the article subject". The links you removed were all official myspace pages, which are allowed. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No. MySpace links were only deleted when another official site already existed. Adding the word "official" to a site that would otherwise be disallowed does not change the underlying nature of the site. MySpace articles are not moderated or reviewed, can be changed at any time, and only by the site owner, if they choose. That is what makes them self-advertising, unreliable, social sites. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The band controls the site. It's an excellent resource to find out what a band sounds like. It is fan myspaces and blogs that are disallowed. Official websites are more advertising than anything else. I noticed that you didn't remove buzznet profiles. Probably because the site wasn't singled out in your drive-by arbitrary read-through of the guideline. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

1) Anybody can (and does) add the word "official" to Wiki External links. "Official tour site", "Official Russian site", "Official fan site", "Official photo gallery", "Official product site", etc. That doesn't change the fact that the content of the External link is not encyclopedic. I.e., not subject to review or moderation. Not written by a reliable, independent authority (but by people who have everything to gain by distorting things to their advantage).

2) The argument "that other External link is just the same" is a classic argument that's put forward by commercial sites, spammers, vandals, etc. I.e., the false argument that if all the incorrect External links aren't changed, then none of them should be.

3) From what you are saying buzznet links should also be deleted? I'll take a look. I did look at people.com, for example, which is added to many Wiki pages. What I read, in many cases, was higher quality than the Wiki article. Written by a professional publication that would probably be sued for publishing false information. Written by people who are not "in the pocket" of those they are writing about. You see how that's quite opposite from MySpace? Piano non troppo (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between the official website and official myspace, as far as POVs go? --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Very little. Encyclopedias should not direct readers to information known to be biased, lacking references, and subject to constant change. In some cases, it might be best to delete the official site and the secondary social site, both. Notice that WP:LINKSTOAVOID reads "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles." Also note that it reads links should be avoided to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." I.e., it's not just the *current* Wiki article content, the External link should have additional (encyclopedic) information beyond what the Wiki article *would* have, if it was a very good and complete article.

If *any* External link cannot be demonstrated to have the above characteristics, or if it cannot meet other requirements (such as not pointing to copyrighted material that is being used illegally) it should be avoided.

Opposite from the above list, MySpace pages and official sites are generally full of advertisements, blogs, forums, and little info that not in the Wiki article. They are, in fact, mostly self-advertising, commercial fansites. But I was just looking at MySpace. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Many times, blog entries are referred to for info on upcoming albums, etc. These cannot be linked for some reason, so there has to be an external link to direct people to the MySpace page. It is also an excellent resource to find out what a band sounds like. Many FAs have audio samples, and myspace goes above and beyond that. You are contradicting yourself by saying official websites are not allowed either, and then you try to justify it with policy, which is interesting, since they are permitted under WP:ELYES #1. None of your changes are rooted in policy, but they are based on an arbitrary reading of Links to avoid. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not just WP:LINKSTOAVOID. It's WP:SPAM, WP:CONFLICT, WP:V, WP:SOAP, etc. You answer none of the issues about unreliable, unreferenced, biased, commercial sources. Talking about future albums is WP:CRYSTALBALL. "Being useful" in someone's mind is NOT a sufficient justification. Everything is useful, somehow. But Wikipedia is not a linkfarm WP:LINKFARM. Read this quote: "On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate." One fansite. It doesn't read "two fansites". It doesn't say that even one is always appropriate. You seem to be interested in supporting rock groups in any way, but that is not what Wikipedia is about. It's an encyclopedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Talking about future plans/albums is not WP:CRYSTAL if the band members have talked about it themselves, either in reliable sources, or via other channels. Instead of linking an alphabet soup worth of shortcuts, how about you actually discuss this. You say that MySpace links violate WP:V but I just said that they are used to verify artist blogs/new songs, etc. How is that not encyclopedic? Where did I say that they should be included because they're useful? Of course they're "useful", but inclusion is determined by policy. Citing WP:COI like you did, would imply that official websites of all companies, musicians, practically everyone, is not allowed. This is not the case. WP:SPAM would be fansites, yet you're pushing for the inclusion of one fansite and not the official artist myspace. That does not make sense. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You want Wiki to support rock group fansites in every possible way. But Wiki policies and guidelines specifically, and repeatedly, in many different ways, say that is not what Wiki is about. It seems to me you are more interested in arguing than anything else. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No. All you're doing is making claims unsubstantiated by policy and using that to justify the removal of external links. You are now coming close to making personal attacks, so I ask you to WP:AGF. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You're doing it again. Please stop. It's not up to you to decide whether the links should be removed. There are arguments on both sides grounded in policy. I recommend you discuss with the community first. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no discussion. You have avoided every point I've made. Your attitude is: Material about upcoming releases and fan information is important, and therefore, any reading of the Wiki rules otherwise must be wrong. Get it straight: MySpace is NOT wanted in Wikipedia. It can't be any clearer. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Except for a link to an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:" The MySpaces you are removing are official pages. What part of that do you not understand? --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the MySpace link where there was another link in External links that states it is the official page. Only one External link to an "official page" AT MOST is allowed. So pick: the MySpace page, or some other page. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again. There is no guideline that says there should only be one link to an "official" site. This argument, and your link removal rampage come down to your opinion of what constitutes spam. Nothing more. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote before: WP:LINKFARM. Read this quote: "On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate." One fansite. It doesn't read "two fansites".

I'm finished discussing this. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not talking about fansites. We are talking about official artist pages. When policy isn't on your side, you give up. When will you stop being evasive and actually discuss this? --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

New Seven Wonders of the World

Hello. I partially reverted your deletion [11] of sources from the New Seven Wonders of the World article, and instead re-worked the citation to reference the original printed story rather than the on-line article. For future reference when you run into dead reference links like this, you should probably follow Wikipedia:Citing sources#Repairing dead links rather than just removing the citation. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The issue was that the only worked on mobile devices, not on PC or Macs, rather than it was dead, as such. You changed it so that it wasn't device-dependent? That would be the way to go. It didn't occur to me that there is a corresponding hardcopy Newsweek article. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh well

I'm sorry, I believed it was a known fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.31.69 (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I'd like to apologize for the vandalism of those student's who have used this computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.218.240.111 (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That is nice to hear, thank you! But also, it's no reflection on an institution that one individual isn't quite using Wiki in the way that the broader community -- one that the individual may not even be particularly aware of -- envisions. It's socializing: that we're all part of. At least, that's how I like to see it. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Siouxsie & the Banshees - removal of MySpace site

I see you have again removed one of the links regarding the above band. I note you did so previously, and it was I who reverted you and invited you to discuss the matter on the talkpage, per WP:BRD. I am gently dismayed that you have simply again removed the link, citing WP:EL (criteria 10, I hazard). While MySpace is generally a networking site, the link is to the "official" (it is run by a former member of the band, and his wife) site for the band - and since there is no other official Siouxsie & the Banshees website it would make sense to keep the semi-official one in the article. I look forward to your response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. There is another external link to a site labeled "Official site", but it seems, as you say, there is some reason to consider the MySpace site as being the more official one. So I reverted my change. (It was not intended, by-the-way, to insist on my change without comment, I didn't recognize that I'd made the change previously.) Piano non troppo (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Diwali

Hi, I reverted vandalism on Diwali but you reverted my fixes!

72.192.188.179 (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. (I hope you don't mind I put your comment back, I like to make sure everything is in the open!) I was trying to revert the text: "My mom is named after light in hindi. roshni ". Pardon if we crossed wires! Piano non troppo (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

rutland vermont

excuse me, how was my edit vandalism? it was a legitimate entry. please give something more than 2 seconds thought before you accuse someone of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.231.15 (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is just a word Wiki uses to describe unhelpful or disallowed edits...without getting more specific. It's not meant as a personal reflection. You added: "Fatman27183141, Youtube Sensation" to a list of "Notable natives and residents". To be notable implies a whole Wikipedia article on the person. (Jeffrey Wennberg, held an official elected post and therefore is considered notable because of his office.) Piano non troppo (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

talk to you here?

Hi. I just added a person's middle name, what gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymichaelcleary (talk • contribs) 05:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The problem is with the reference, which is to a commercial site. I didn't see the additions of his title and middle name, which are themselves, fine, and don't need reference. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

are you going to revert? I'm very new at this. I have cited the sources for what I thought was necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymichaelcleary (talk • contribs) 06:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You did what you thought was right, no problem. Go ahead and fix it as you see fit. Adding his full name is fine. Adding a reference to a site that sells one of his books is considered a commercial plug. Sometimes there is valuable information in booksellers' links, for example, sometimes in amazon.com, but Wikipedia can't allow a million commercial sites to plug themselves whenever a book or an author is mentioned. That's part of what's behind the reasoning. Do what you think best. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Moore

I added sources, this biased vandal/partisan removed them in an earlier revision. I'll happily re-add them, but meantime I really must ask you to remove the fact tag. It just doesn't seem appropriate. This stuff is effortlessly provable. He just doesn't like it because it paints his hero Moore in a bad light. Could you please warn him to stop reverting for absurd reasons. I've left a message on his talk page and the article talk page. I don't think he's going to listen.JJJ999 (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Apologies, I see you didn't add a tag... still, I'd appreciate if you could talk to this guy.JJJ999 (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I was certainly confused!

This is about Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy, I take it. I have not seen the movie, but I read the discussion section between you and Dynablast. You are on potentially good ground, noting that Moore has refused to answer some criticisms. It seems that there's some fur flying, and some unconstructive argument going on. I'd back off for a day or two, and let other editors who know the subject contribute their opinions. As an editor remarked on their User page: If you can't get through to someone in three responses, you're wasting your valuable effort, and it's time to move on. I certainly wish I had in a couple cases, I can tell you. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert de Holland

You have reverted an edit calling it vandalism. Have you read the definition of [[12]] at all? Factual information was added. The only constructive comment you make is that a comment and/or a discussion page entry should be added with references. *Both* were done. 76.116.5.27 (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No personal slight was intended! "Vandalism" is an umbrella term used to describe a range of unconstructive edits. (Yes, I have read the definition, I agree with you, and have asked the owner of the tool I'm using to change the messages. Often, an edit really is vandalism, in your case it was not.)

Vis-a-vis your edit: As I mentioned on the Discussion page, it's not fruitful to mention the notable descendants of someone who lived in 1300. That's roughly 35 generations ago. In that time, he Robert de Holland, 1st Baron Holand could have 1,000,000s of descendants (I just did the math). So practically, it's not a situation Wikipedia wants to be in: potentially having a huge list of links. See WP:LINKFARM on this. That in itself is completely sufficient to remove Obama from the article. Not to gild the lily, then, genealogy linking back to famous people is notoriously inaccurate, and such a claim would need to be sourced.

Finally, I agree that to be consistent, these sentences should be removed entirely, and for the same reasons: "He is also noted in genealogy sites for being the earliest notable ancestor of several disparate world leaders. He is reportedly ancestral to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, the Harrison family, Louis XVI, Barack Obama, Winston Churchill, and others." Piano non troppo (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK I agree on the content issue. Sorry, the "vandalism" charge is offputting to newer editors and therefore is a sensitive topic to me. Since the definition of vandalism is very narrow, and there is a template message for non-constructive edits. 76.116.5.27 (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.5.27 (talk)

Decidedly, the word is ill-chosen. I tried to recode the software tool I'm using, but it turned out to be a major effort. I think it's time to revisit that "fix". (In the meanwhile, could you specify the message template you have in mind for non-constructive edits?) But also, it helps when an editor acting in good faith treats an issue nicely, as you have, thanks. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Elena Paparizou

Hi, I'm kind of confused about this edit where you removed a whole chunk of the singer's biography. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right in that! I meant to remove a couple inappropriate external links, not to change the body of the text. Thanks for catching the error. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I Wrestled A Bear Once

Hi. I don't think there's any reason that an IP cannot remove a PROD and the user explained on the talk page the reason for removing the notability tag (though I disagree). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I+Wrestled+A+Bear+Once&diff=254558477&oldid=254558360 Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking of the copyright violation tag I had just added to another article.

I hesitate to get involved with discussions about music groups, but it seems the editor adding the PROD tag was correct per [13]? Also, I'm not sanguine about the argument on the discussion page which essentially says: "they will be notable one day". This seems to be an example of using Wikipedia as a fansite and for promotion. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. :-) Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of I Wrestled A Bear Once

An article that you have been involved in editing, I Wrestled A Bear Once, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Wrestled A Bear Once. Thank you. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the other editors have the issues well in hand, but thank you. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:189.50.161.77 (On Wikilinking)

Hi
I noticed your message at User talk:189.50.161.77, and was curious: You really considered this to be an improvement? All wikilinks were removed, so was the bolding of the lead. I mostly undid it, and was about to tell the user to cut it out when I noticed your message there. Maybe the changes at WP:CONTEXT were more profound than I was aware of. :) --Amalthea^Talk 20:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The bolding of the lead was fine. I was just giving general moral support to the editor.

One of the issues not given due consideration, perhaps, in earlier policy on wikilinking was: How well used are wikilinks, at their best? The WP:CONTEXT discussion has more, but one upshot is that when a page has more than a dozen-odd links, even if they are well-chosen, the "click throughs" from that page to other pages don't increase much. Excessive wikilinks add to editorial burden, add to article length, don't increase the number of people using them, and perhaps make the article difficult to read. It's good fodder for design discussions, at any rate. Piano non troppo (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, removing every wikilink from a moderately overlinked article is no improvement (it was far from an ALLWIKI). We are building some kind of web here. And honestly, given the weird changes the editor made before, I'm not sure if improvement was his goal. --Amalthea^Talk 20:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Mike's Wiki Tool didn't show me the earlier edits, so I'll have to plead guilty for not evaluating them. (Yet another aspect of the tool I'd like to change, if I ever have the energy to change the source code.)

I've worked as a webmaster for major companies, and have spent days pouring over usage reports. That experience gives me a perspective on what's "cost" effective. Our management, for example, at one point, wanted all our new products pictured in 360 degree, user-controlled dynamic rendering. Well, that's a really nice effect, and it was fun to do...but in practice, those graphics got almost no hits. In the time that it took to shoot a kinetic picture of one product...I could have written a couple text articles (with no cross-linking) from scratch that would have received hundreds of hits per week.

The Wikipedia Foundation itself needs to work a little on transparency — in order that dedicated editors have a notion of where to concentrate effort. With wikilinking, is the goal to increase "click throughs"? Or to maximize the utility for users who want a comprehensive understanding? Or to make articles more accessible to casual browsers? Or? At the moment, without information about how Wiki pages are used, we as editors can't be reasonably sure changes are having whatever effect it is that we intend. Piano non troppo (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Locrian mode

(copied from user talk page) Hi. I noticed your changes to Locrian mode. Is there more information about whether the use was intentional? And if it was, if there was any special purpose? I know the Beatles used mixolydian mode...but it wasn't intentional, as such. Just wondering. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Recently I became interested in modes, especially Locrian because it is rare. When I went to other mode pages they had lists of songs in that mode. I thought I would look around to see if there were any Locrian songs so I could add the them to the Locrian wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rammstein (talk • contribs) 04:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

With the Beatles, I always wondered how much of an "accident" mixolydian mode use was. Was it just random, as in "every short sequence of notes has some name"? Or was the mode borrowed from something they'd heard? Or, it would be intriguing, is there some musical or psychological foundation for locrian mode? Piano non troppo (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Springtime

Hello, I've removed your tag on this article. (Springtime (guitar)) You were right there are instruments with more than just plain 6 strings, but this instrument has a stereo system (not like on the Rickenbackers, but completly separated outputs for the individual string sessions). This relevance of this object is besides this odd deviation also because it has been made exclusive for Blood Red Shoes, Lou Barlow and dEUS, which are all quiet famous bands. 83.87.170.234 (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I see where you're going on this, but being used by a famous band doesn't mean it's notable, necessarily. What is needed is some quote in the article (from a reliable source) that explains how the instrument itself is notable. That is, not everything associated with something famous, is notable itself. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(I was typing at the same moment as you did:Oops, sorry, I suddenly realize it is not very nice to remove the tagging. What's your opinion? If you consider it not relevant I can put the tag back if you like and set up a discussion. I also found this article which could be useful for your information. I also added the behind the bridge blonde version instead of the blue Springtime, because this makes more sense related to that particular article: Tailed bridge guitar. As far as I know, not other guitars have this behind the bridge pickup configuration except one custom made instrument of Sonic Youth.83.87.170.234 (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerning your second reply: Being used by 3 famous bands (not just one) helps its relevance. It is indeed not notable for just this particular reason. You mention you would like to have a reliable source. The modernguitars.com is very reliable. It also has been reviewed in Guitar magazine (UK) and I also found this source: http://www.vintageguitar.com/newswire/detail.asp?newsID=603. The Dutch VPRO is also a very reliable source. It is the main Dutch broadcasting organisation dedicated to progressive art and music.83.87.170.234 (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a big deal removing that tag, in this case...an ideal way to do it is to add information that resolves the issue (or, as you have done, you can question whether the tag is really appropriate at all).

What would be good is some quote -- in the Wiki article -- for example that some charted song was reviewed by "Rolling Stone", where the review said something like "The Springtime guitar creates the sensational sound which made this song outstanding." Just to make this a little clearer -- from what the article says right now, it's not clear that any of the artists who bought it even liked it. It's the article that needs a little more info. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt if such quotes would be good to add. It might become an advertisement if you add very positive subjective feedback from a music journalist, don't you think? I'm not very enthousiastic about quoting journalists and think the guitar reviews are less subjectivly written, because they just describe the technical details and not if it sounds nice or bad. Anyway, there is not very much known about these instruments unfortunately because they are not very old yet and what the musicians think of it. I could only find this interview, which makes sense to me, they like it. http://www.wombatwombat.co.uk/ 83.87.170.234 (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I see the link is not coming through clearly, because the url sticks on the front page, Here is the involved Q&A with Blood Red Shoes: How's Laura-Mary getting on with her Yuri Landman-custom-made triplet guitar and when can we expect to hear it in action? Well… don't think you'll get to hear it this time around. Because it's in a totally different tuning, and because it uses three amps, we have to write songs specifically with that guitar. Which we've started doing actually, but nothing is finished enough for these dates. When we do bring it out, which I reckon will happen next year, it's gonna scare the shit out of everyone because that thing sounds like the thunders of hell when you stick it through a big muff. It's the most evil, beautiful thing.

Actually, it was the advertising aspect that caught my attention: The photo you added has a copyright justification reading: "The guitar I've built for Mauro" and "own work". Now I notice that the article on Yuri Landman was once nominated for deletion, and that the discussion includes Yuri himself defending the article on himself. If you are Yuri, or acting on his behalf, that's probably not a good idea. Anyhow, I'm going to move this discussion to the Springtime (guitar) page, because I think other editors need to consider what's going on. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Renaissance architecture

When reversing mindless vandalism, could you please check the history. Sometimes, as in that instance, the previous edit has also been vandalistic, but less obvious. If you reverse one and leave the other, it gives a false impression that everything is correct. 1/4 of the article on Fra Angelico went missing in that way, and I didn't discover it until I reread the whole article.

Amandajm (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. FYI, the tool I use only shows two edit versions, so occasionally I don't notice there are other problems. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg

It's my picture from mark, sorry i didn't log in. And by the way it's in CC on my flickr [14], so i don't see why you see it as copyright? Sincerely --Ulikleafar (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC) See my french wikipedia account [15]

Ulikleafar (and Moonriddengirl): Ulikleafar did own the photo, I take it. I'm not sure why the French copyright justification was done by a bot, on a French Wiki site, on an image on a flikr site, but this seems more like differences in method of putting something into the public domain, than anything approaching an actual problem. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Melvin Turpin

Why did you delete my post after I cited it. That is legit information. Stop deleting stuff that is true. 204.198.75.129 (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was a controversial statement (in bold) made without reference.

You only added a reference, afterward. However, the reference does not back up your statement. It only says he earns $21,632 in salary. It does not say how many hours he works, and therefore we do not know his hourly wage.

Then, another editor removed your all your edits (I don't know their reason, specifically.)

Generally, the kind of information you added is not considered useful in Wikipedia, even with valid citations. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll start a wikipedia page on how big of a douche you are for deleting valid and legit facts. Go ahead and block this ip I have 4 more computers right beside me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.198.75.129 (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not threaten editors.

Salary information isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. The tone of your sentence suggests you are making a biased personal statement. The fact that you know he works 3rd shift suggests you have intimate, personal information you are using, this is not allowed. You are very close to being given a long block from editing. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not threatening anyone. The information I provided is on a public web site. I have never talked to Melvin Turpin, I simply got the information for the UK salary database on www.kentucky.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.198.75.129 (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Glint

Please help, I tried to delete the notice for the page Glint (band) that says its considered for deletion because it came off the AFD log and is cleared. How do you make a notice in the edit summary, I am confused. Also, if you want a link to the band to come up on the page "Glint" (which is a radar entry) what is the proper way of adding a link so someone typing in "Glint" can also find a link to Glint (band)? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.87.216 (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first, the reason I reverted your change is that no reason was given in the editing field, simple as that. (Answering your question: your edit summary goes in a one line text box below the main editing window.) But...

It seems that the discussion has not been finished on the Articles for deletion page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_6#Glint_.28band.29 Also, it looks as though one of the opinions states that someone in the discussion has a conflict of interest. I'm leaving a message for the editor "fvw"...who put the original tag up...they'll be able to figure out what's going on.

To answer your other question, the word "Glint" is currently being redirected to "Scintillation (radar)" by this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glint&redirect=no That page would need to be removed or replaced with a "disambiguation page". But don't do that until this issue of whether the "Glint (band)" article should be removed is definitely resolved, ok? Piano non troppo (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how long does this debate go on for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.87.216 (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

An administrator will soon say "Ok, we've heard the major points of view, let's add up the Keeps and Deletes." That might happen in the next week or so. Looks to me as though your point of view is going to "win", anyhow, so, not to worry too much.

In the meantime, there's nothing stopping you cinching the outcome by adding article material, especially material that is cited in newspapers or magazines. Or anything that generally would make the article "higher quality". If you get the article anywhere toward this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article%3F it's going to be pretty much impossible to have deleted. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Troubled Assets Relief Program

No opinion, just cleaned up. It is what it is.--96.245.40.224 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit in Centrifugation

I removed the edit because it did not fit well within the context of the article. While washing machine spin cycles separate water from clothing using centripetal force, it neglects the fact that water escapes the central portion of the washing machine through holes on the side. Additionally, the use of gravity driven spin cycles is only true for top loading machines, where front loading machines use the inertia of the water to drive the movement. As for the context in centrifugation, clothing is not separated in a gradient fashion (mass or density gradient from the center of the washing machine), and the water removal is more of a sieving mechanism, facilitated slightly by the spin cycle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revwar98 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What an excellent and expert analysis !

My thoughts are whether what you've just written here might be useful to the Centrifugation article (or perhaps, in some part, to Washing machine)? Piano non troppo (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ultra

What I wrote was neither opinion nor analysis. (in Ultra) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.129.103 (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Then cite it and give a reference. "Bigots" as a code name sounds familiar, but I think you have misunderstood or misrepresented how that was used. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

David Kahn, 'The Code Breakers", a well-respected reference on the subject which is ALREADY CITED on the page. Now, since you apparently don't know about the subject as you think you do, kindly mind your own business, and leave the page alone. 76.231.129.103 (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read the book. I'm questioning whether you are quoting or understanding it correctly. Does it make any sense to you at all that people in a room are going to announce whether they are a "bigot"? In what way would that be "discrete"? I'm asking for a specific word-for-word quotation, because I believe you are involved in orginal research. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Skeleteen

Why is a link to a band's record label site considered spam? (In Skeleteen.) I see it on other band's pages. I don't see anything in the policies that cover that. I'm very confused. Particularly as it's an independent label that supports the noise rock scene that they are in. Thanks for the reply ahead of time. M. W. Eilers 17:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godblessyrblackheart (talk • contribs)

Basically, an external link must go to information that's exactly on that article topic. An external link to Skeleteen's official page is ok, but external links to the group's management company, record label, guitar maker, etc. are not ok. Also, external links need to follow many of the rules that Wiki articles do. (For example, Wiki can't link to a page with a photo that violates copyright.)

Using other examples works poorly in this situation, because businesses are constantly trying to break the rules and get free advertising. The big picture is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not for promotion or commercial purposes. ( It's also not a fansite, which seems to surprise people who assume that because Wiki is "free" it works just like MySpace. ) Read WP:LINKSTOAVOID to get an idea.

The link to Skeleteen's record label is a good example, actually, because it breaks not one, but several rules. 1) The Wiki article is about a music group, not the record label. 2) The record label Web page doesn't have any information about Skeleteen on it, so it adds nothing to the article content. 3) The record label Web page appears to be completely commercial. 4) The page has a photo of Frankenstein that is a probably a copyright violation.

In answer to your question "What about those other Wiki pages?", in general, plugs for record companies in external links shouldn't be on a group's Wiki page. If there was a really good, huge encyclopedic article about a group that happened to be maintained by a record label on their site ... well ... maybe. Maybe. But, for example, an external link to a page with little content beyond the Wiki article, lots of ads, popups, registration, and a forum? Nix. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I was just looking at your contributions, and noticed you added the photo for Skeleteen. Nice job on that. But the writing is on the wall: you know these guys or are in some business relationship with them. There are (still more!) Wiki guidelines about conflict of interest WP:CONFLICT. No harm in the photo, but in terms of adding text to the Wiki article, you need to be very careful, and stay strictly factual. Attention from Wiki editors about conflict of interest is not the kind of attention you or Skeleteen need! Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Javier Saade

Hi Piano non troppo, this may have just been an oversight on your part, but this edit is incorrect. Any editor can remove a prod tag and they don't need to provide a reason (although it's nice when they do). The IP shouldn't have been reverted or warned. Just wanted to let you know for next time. Regards, Somno (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I was treating the situation as vandalism, choosing the canned message in MWT because it was more specific than simply a "vandalism" message: that may not have been the best choice. But let's consider the situation, which is not entirely devoid of interest, as Holmes would say:

1) The standard tag reads "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page." The editor who removed the tag — who has made no other edits in Wikipedia — did not give an explanation.

2) The tag can be removed without explanation, but unlike most other tags, cannot be replaced. "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." This suggests that placing the tag sets in motion a process to have it reviewed. If there is no review process, this perfectly suits the vandal who wants to erase the request by another editor to delete the article. It seems to me that there will always be at least one person who disagrees with a prod tag, and that is the person who created the article. What purpose does the prod tag have then, except to encourage the editor who created the article to "patrol" it, and immediately remove any question of its validity, without explanation?

3) I note that now, in fact, yet another anonymous IP editor, who also has no other Wiki edits, has removed the prod tag without explanation.

So, two issues: Are the anonymous edits to Javier Saade vandalism, and second, how do we stop vandals deleting prod tags to their advantage? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've found that the people who remove prod tags and give an explanation, generally are not the article's creator. They tend to have thought about the article and made a reasoned decision (e.g. here). The prod tag is supposed to be used for non-controversial deletions that don't meet WP:SPEEDY criteria. The fact that someone removed a prod tag, even if it's the article's creator, an anonymous user or a single-purpose account, shows that the article's deletion is at least slightly controversial and it should go through the WP:AFD process. I've placed many prod tags that were not disagreed with by the article creator, the deleting admin, or anyone else who came across the page in that time (sometimes they "second" the original prod). The same day I tagged Javier Saade, I also tagged Francois Thurston, USDS Syndrome, Temper of the Times, The Story of Toys R Us and Build A Bear Workshop and Jawn, which weren't contested.

In short, the anon edits to Javier Saade weren't vandalism. For all we know, they might have been unrelated to the article's creator, and simply reading the article because Saade is notable when they noticed it was up for deletion and objected. We can still take the article to AFD. There if it should be deleted, it will be, because !votes by anons with no other edits, the article creator and single-purpose accounts are given appropriate weight. We can't stop these editors deleting prod tags, but then, we don't want to, because that's the point of prod. :) Somno (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Pragmatically, the process of adding and removing prod tags works most of the time, with a minimum of fuss, and that's probably what's critical. There's a puzzling asymmetry to needing a reason to add a prod tag, but not needing a reason for removing it. The polite way to handle removing any material is to give an explanation: it's not clear why prod tags should be excluded. And again, if removing a prod tag is deliberate vandalism -- how should it be addressed?

However, purity and politeness aside, there's another issue: new or occasional editors may not have a good understanding the Wiki review environment. Suppose, for the sake of discussion, when a new article was saved, there was a pop-up box reading: "Would you like prod tags automatically removed if another editor adds them?" Who would say no?

It wouldn't be just new editors who want their article unblemished. On the occasions I create new articles, I've spent time, and sometimes money on them, even given them more consideration than I would a school paper or a work assignment. I do not want prod tags placed on the article, and it's unlikely -- said piously and hopefully -- that I haven't anticipated article faults that would require a prod tag. My answer to the hypothetical pop-up would always be that prod tags should be immediately removed.

The existence (and the pragmatic success) of prod tags depends either on editors not realizing their new article may be quickly tagged, or on there not being a Wiki feature to automatically delete them. Either way, if the editor was more -- let's say "empowered" -- prod tags wouldn't work. That is, the success of prod tags relies on article editors being unaware of the use of prod tags or inattentive to them being placed on their work. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If a prod tag was placed on an article I'd created, I would want to see why, rather than have it automatically removed. Prod tags can give people targeted feedback on what's wrong with the article (and hopefully therefore how to fix it) and unlike other tags, a deadline for fixing the problem. (Assuming the problem can be fixed, of course - e.g. a hoax is a hoax, but a dictionary definition might be expandable.) I agree that there should be a reason given when removing a prod tag, but I think the article creator's reason is usually assumed ("I created this and it shouldn't be deleted"), hence why it's unnecessary in every circumstance. In response to your vandalism question, I ask another question: is removing a prod tag ever deliberate vandalism? Anyone may remove the tag if they object to the deletion for any reason, so even if someone removed the tag in bad faith, they would still be technically following the instructions on the tag. Somno (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback -- how new guidelines and habits are being created is sometimes as interesting as the articles. So, don't let me waste time, if you have more pressing things!

Not to whinge on, to borrow from the legal profession, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: "Even a dog can distinguish between being stumbled upon and being kicked." Similarly, whether removing a prod tag is vandalism depends on the intent of the editor. In that respect, yes, I did think removing the tag from Javier Saade was done at least without understanding, in that neither of the two editors who removed the tag have yet made any other edit in Wikipedia. The article was created, in fact, by yet another editor (Losunn) who has no other edits, except to add a Wiki link to the Javier Saade article. A speedy deletion tag, previous to yours, was ALSO deleted by an editor who has no other Wiki edits (Javierschuman). So, in this specific case, we need to consider that a vested interest is "playing the system", and that an article that should be deleted is being kept in defiance of Wiki policy. Piano non troppo (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been very interesting and far from a waste of time. ;) After searching again for more sources to support Saade's notability, and failing, I've nominated it at AfD. It will be interesting to see if the article's creator or the deletion tag removers show up to have their say! Somno (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

stop grey editor

please help me stop a indian pov pusher from the states from adding his anti pakistan bias into the azad kashmir article hes using the term POK i did the same to jammu to give him a taste of his own medicine 81.158.129.185 (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

More problems with vandal ip User:81.158.129.185 et al. a.k.a. User:Nangparbat

The user whose Jammu and Kashmir edits you just reverted is a sock puppet of Nangparbat. See User:Thegreyanomaly/Nangparbat the evader for their list of ips. Please revert all their edits; i was trying but I violated 3RR.

Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

no im not its called a dynamic ip your very slow in memory it seems i explained anyways hes using this mountain nangparbat as a excuse to add his indian pov into articles 81.158.129.185 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, guys, I'm not making a political statement. Let me explain the issue in the Jammu and Kashmir article. As much as we feel strongly about a political issue, Wikipedia is not a place to carry on political disputes. You can get an idea of the guidelines by reading WP:SOAP. Officially, legally, I assume, according to the United Nations, for example, Kashmir is a part of India (?) Saying something different is expressing a strong political statement. That's what I was reacting to. Thanks, Piano non troppo (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making a logical response this is the same reason why i reverted greyanomolys edits on azad kashmir he seems convinced that its occupied maybe he/she watched one to many nationalist bollywood movies perhaps take care 81.158.129.185 (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You may be misunderstanding me. Wiki is not interested in political debates, and as far as I know, the uncontroversial, mainstream position is that Kashmir is a part of India. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC) (I'm going to qualify this, because I actually did see a map on the BBC website that specifically labeled "India-Controlled Kashmir". My other comments still stand.) Piano non troppo (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What im trying to say is that Azad Kashmir is part of pakistan to so why are indian editors vandalizing the article and inserting ludacris claims such as POK aka pakistan occupied kashmir a term used only by indian nationalists i.e greyanomoly81.158.129.185 (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I do understand this is a very serious matter. But it also seems there is dispute. This article makes it clear that there are points on both sides [16] The problem is that Wikipedia cannot be involved in the dispute. Thanks, Piano non troppo (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jacko Barry

Hi there,

I noticed that you tagged Jacko Barry for inprovement. I am currently improving it now, but I will leave the tag on it so you can look at it and then decided wether it's good enough. Raphie (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok article done! Raphie (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you much improved the article, I hope Barry knows what devoted fans he has! Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the stuff regarding his local achievements is unsorced and I'll go to Google tomorrow to look for it, if I can't find anything I'll delete it. So I will leave the tag in it until then.Raphie (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Removal of Storytron link from Chris Crawford

I don't really get why you removed the link to Storytron at Chris Crawford (game designer) as WP:SPAM; it certainly doesn't strike me as spam. Storytron is the culmination of Chris Crawford's life of work, so I think it's a very relevant and useful external link. - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It said right in the link it's a commercial site. Wiki does not allow promotional links to sites that are entirely commercial, and not specifically on the article topic. That I could see, the site doesn't even mention the topic of the article, which is Crawford. The first sentence of "External link spamming" in WP:SPAM explains. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The word "commercial" does not appear in the section you mentioned. So, if we followed the guidelines very literally, we couldn't even have a link to Chris Crawford's personal website either, because it could reasonably be argued to promote Chris Crawford. Even if we kept to a strict commercial definition, this would mean you couldn't link to walmart.com in the article about Wal-Mart. That doesn't make any sense. - furrykef (Talk at me) 11:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In the Chris Crawford article, under external links: "Storytron - Chris Crawford's commercial website"

In WP:SPAM "external links to a commercial website"

The Wal-Mart article is about Wal-Mart: the external links in the Wal-Mart article are to the company's official web sites. The Crawford article may have a link to Crawford's official page. It may not have external links to every business venture he's associated with. Piano non troppo (talk)

Jessica Rowe

the info was in there twice, that is why i removed it thankyou. please revert my changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.48.242.128 (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Things seem to be ok now? Piano non troppo (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ghostbusters: The Video Game

All of the information that I have submitted on this page(release date revisions, new information, ect.) has come to me directly from Atari UK's PR Rep. Lee Kirton, so it is fact, as for citations, there hasn't been any "breaking news" yet, but as soon as I hear from him on this, I will be sure to add them to my future edits. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.135.140 (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, and for being polite. Generally it's better not to use information about future events, unless they are sure to happen. See WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Another possible issue to be careful about? Even when you have information from the horse's mouth, because other editors can't check it, it may not be considered reliable -- if there's any question, another editor might delete it. (This has happened to me. Things I knew were true, because I talked to the person in question, were deleted. Unfortunately, personal knowledge, that isn't published, isn't the kind of evidence Wikipedia accepts, often.) Piano non troppo (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

PAF edit

you have reverted my edit. fair enough, I was lazy enough not to give the reasons. that section is poorly written and incorrect. please see the talk page. thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Air_Force —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.224.229 (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

TIME BANDITS Sequel Edit

I think that the line about the three actors from the original film having died belongs in the TIME BANDITS Sequel section as it gives yet another impediment to a sequel being made.--Swingkid570 (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting thought. It would be worthwhile, as an analogy, for a Wiki article to report a citation from a member of a former rock band that they would not get back together because member X had died. However, broadly Wiki editors would want to be careful not to indulge in original research: Articles don't need to be filled with speculation that "Because so-and-so died, such-and-such set burned down, etc." a sequel is less likely. On the other hand, if Gilliam said the deaths were an important factor in not making a sequel, then by all means that should be noted in the "Sequel" section.

(I just remembered the line that G. Harrison especially liked, the devil saying: "Tell me again about ... computers." hahaha) Piano non troppo (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ashwin K

I have just nominated it for deletetion.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The article certainly needs discussion. Also, if it is the case that Ashwin himself is editing and defending the article and discussion page, that needs to stop. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please learn to read

If you had actually read the changes that you are complaining about, you would see that I made a grammatical correction, and did not add any external link. 12.76.157.0 (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the tool I'm using gave me misleading information. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Peary

Greetings Piano, I too am a professional editor, so I'm curious as to why you edited out my link to the Navigation Foundation's website in the Robert Peary article. Insofar as the Navigation Foundation is mentioned in the introductory line to the article as validating Peary's claim, it seems to me that readers might have a reasonable expectation of a link to that organization. True, perhaps it's better to put the link in a reference, but I can't do that without messing up someone else's footnote. Generally speaking, the Peary article is a bit "breezy" for my taste anyway -- needs a serious academic edit. RLM1961 (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)RLM1961

Thanks for writing. I did take a look at the Navigation Foundation's site, and was of two or three minds how to proceed. Many times I've invested energy in querying an edit, only to discover I've been whistling in the wind -- I decided to work on the assumption that you wouldn't be back!

You're right that readers will have an expectation to see a reference, since any claim about whether he reached the North Pole seems controversial. A footnote would be invaluable, and "messing up" the article in some fashion to include one is a secondary concern. That footnote would go directly to the Navigation Foundation's argument supporting Peary's claims (rather than the Foundation's home page, which makes the external link appear as spam. See WP:SPAM).

This article has been edited by many "editors", which accounts for the irregular writing and lopsided focus. However, note that on the discussion page [17] the Wiki "task force" overseeing the article has already passed it on four out of five criteria for being elevated to a B-Class article. That suggests a "serious academic edit", if you felt drawn to that, should be accompanied by a careful explanation on the discussion page. I don't have an opinion to express myself, but if I was being paid cold cash to "fix" the article, I'd proceed cautiously, because the process here has "incipient edit war" written all over it. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Soundscape

Yes, it appears I am up to my daily limit. I considered the links added to be WP:SPAM, but I know I can't consider that obvious vandalism, so WP:3RR applies. I waited to remove the link the last time in hopes that someone else would, but no one did, so I used my last one. Glad to know you're keeping an eye out, though. Cheers. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 09:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Hainan

I feel I deserve an apology :-p -Guy who de-vandalized a page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.214.65 (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, sorry! My editing tool switched away from the Wiki article I was trying to revert -- then Wikipedia decided it was going to be painfully slow, when I went back to fix it. My neighbors got to hear some choice language! Piano non troppo (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Daft Punk edits by possible vandal

Based on the most recent edits, it's possible that the user isn't being altered by talk page messages for some technical reason. The user does seem to be aware of other editors making changes to his/her contributions, though. just64helpin (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Lingerie Football League

This was a valid article and in my opinion should not be removed.. regardless you are the expert so it's your call.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.139.141 (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was only removing the external link, which is contrary to various Wiki guidelines: Article - Melissa Berry. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

François Rabelais

Thanks for the assist. I kept rolling back, and there was more! --Chasingsol^(talk) 20:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Smile. Gotta keep Rabelais clean, he can't defend himself any more. Piano non troppo (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Decipher

It is common practice on Wikipedia for details of works of fiction to be explored when relating to real world events.

And since I am the author of the said novel. Kindly leave my page alone. Otherwise, you are engaging in vandalism. (unsigned from 76.89.226.240 about Decipher (novel))

Various problems: Understand that while Wikipedia is open to public access, it is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, and you must follow their rules and guidelines to contribute. Specifically:

1) You do not "own" any Wikipedia article. They are all in the public domain. In the course of time, dozens of people may well edit the article on this book.

2) You have a conflict of interest. Please read WP:CONFLICT and WP:SOAP.

3) In relation to the edit that I removed, apparently your intent was to back up the novel content by providing a source for the information. I had no way of knowing that you were speaking from personal experience. However, Wikipedia is not a forum to defend personal positions, and the commentary probably does not belong in Wikipedia, anyhow.

Be aware that there is no question that I will review your material and modify it (with justification) as I see fit, and that if there are uncertainties, I will consult with other editors who are likely to make many of the same points. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Miller

Your edit summary may at first look harsh, but actually it's an understatement. Welcome to the world of professional photography, where hype, promotion and simple vanity are endemic and shameless. (Although it doesn't have to be that way.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. How does he even know he was published in all those publications?? There are over 300! Does his agent keep a database of automated sales? Or maybe those are on the basis all the copyright infringement suits he has started. Ok, I shouldn't joke. It would be nice if he could gift one of his apparently limitless creations to the public domain, to improve the article. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The strange thing is, he seems to be (at least partly) legit. So why resort to this blatant, laughable puffery? Also, as I looked at this thing today, I had a strong sense of already-flagged. A look in the history reveals all: somebody (often me) flags the more salient assertions with {{fact}} flags; then an IP comes along and sources some with links to Miller's site (yeah, right) and simply removes the flags from others. And again. And again. I'm losing my patience with this thing; "dsphoto" is looking more attractive (as it does for Graham and Pete). -- Hoary (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you give more details?

Hi, Piano non troppo! Can you be more specific about this edit you made to Lasantha Wickramatunga? I've been trying to improve the article since a few hours ago. I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate more on this on the talk page (or here or my talk page - whatever is convenient). Thanks. Chamal ^talk 14:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for asking. I removed the tone tag that I added. This wasn't an appropriate moment to discuss the minor wording changes I had in mind. People have other, more important things to say. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to be done, then? I think the lead needs a bit of fixing, so I'll get to it soon. If you think there's anything more to be done, your input will be welcome. Chamal ^talk 02:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Emanuel pleitez

Hey Piano non Troppo , you flagged my article for notability , I am still working on it but, I think I might have established notability through references as of my last update. Please let me know if I have not done so. Thanks for the Help ^talk 10:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I did understand you were still working on the article. A notabilty tag is more to alert people concerned with the article and the topic, than a request to have the article deleted. Have a look at [18] to get an idea of what makes someone "notable" according to Wiki guidelines. I'm guessing that you represent Pleitez in some way? If that is the case, you would want to be *extremely* careful not to generate negative publicity by working against Wikipedia guidelines! The thing you absolutely do not want to do here is to support Pleitez outside the guidelines of notability. Somebody running for office does not make them notable, in this situation, in my opinion. And the rest of Pleitez's accomplishments probably do not qualify as "Wiki notable". Caution would be helpful. Example? The repeated commentary about his immigrant status. That smacks of electioneering, which is not acceptable for Wikipedia, which very specifically asks that it does not be used as a political platform. See WP:SOAP on this. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture

Regarding my edits at D. B. Cooper in popular culture—"popular culture" lists are merely a relabeling of what were openly called trivia lists until sometime around 2006. I believe that citing cultural references to secondary sources is an effective and objective way of keeping this material encyclopedic, based on core Wikipedia policy. However, sometimes I fall back on the "whole work" vs. "passing reference" distinction when I run into editors who think secondary sources shouldn't be required, just so I can get some cleanup done. WillOakland (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)