User talk:Piano non troppo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Click here to create a new topic section on the page.

                                                                                                              Archive: Here be monsters!

                                                                                                              Archive: The Sequel (smaller monsters)

                                                                                                              The Mother of Archive

Contents

[edit] You need to block User:209.66.221.210

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

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

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

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

Paste to the bottom of the edit window.

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

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


[edit] June 2009

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

The article is about a TV station. As explained in my edit summary, it isn't "an opportunity for anyone associated with station to promote". Some station articles, such as this, are being used by otherwise non-notable people to promote themselves, their latest professional associations, their websites, etc.
Reverting an article because "information is same as other TV station pages" is not directly relevant. Even so, most other radio and TV station article do not include such information. Even if they did, it doesn't mean that the pages are correct according to Wikipedia rules, guidelines, and policies.
Also, I note that you completely reverted a few other edits related to TV stations, which had different edit justifications. You gave no reason in all cases, except that it was "vandalism" -- which, as I have explained, it was not.
Btw, your "edit status" says you are offline, otherwise I would have completed this explanation before making the revert. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Saying where a reporter is currently, is not "an opportunity for anyone associated with station to promote". This is standard for all television station articles to say where a reporter/anchor/meteorologist is now once they have left a certain station. If you are going to remove any of this information, you will first have to get consensus from WP:TVS and remove the information from ALL pages after receiving that consensus, not before. Otherwise, you will find not just myself will be reverting you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The standard is for an article to stay on topic. That includes all manner of material about station programming, sponsorship, ownership, equipment, finances, and controversy. But there are things it does not include; Wikipedia articles are not free association on any related topic. If anyone who was associated with a station was allowed to add a Wiki bio of themselves, then it would be an excuse for any janitor, executive or secretary to promote themselves. The article is about a TV station, not about what happened to people after the TV station. Does that make sense? Piano non troppo (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been a member of WP:TVS for 3 1/2 years, I know how what does and doesn't go into a television station article and this information is SOP for all telvision articles. I mean all of them. You would need to get consensus from WP:TVS to delete this information. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Please cite the section of WP:TVS that you believe supports your reversion of my edits. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Under Article Structure...."information on its personalities, past and present". It is in the actual structure rules of WP:TVS. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
"Information" means "aspects of their history that contributed to the station". Not promotion of people's careers after they've left the station. It's the station that is the topic of the article.
The opinions in WP:TVS do not negate comprehensive Wikipedia guidelines such as those in WP:SPAM and WP:BIO. External links to "Former personalities", such as this one which you replaced in WBAL-TV probably would be spam:[4]. (Except that the site doesn't mention even "Rudy Miller". (Update, the site has now been changed to show her photo.))
The material you replaced is almost entirely uncited. There's no easy way to check whether it's true, or up-to-date, or vandalism. That is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Look, it is in the rules...I can't help it if you don't like it, but it is in the rules for WP:TVS and the information is fine. Period. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It isn't "the rules". I'm citing the Wikipedia rules. You are saying effectively "That's how we do things in our part of Wikipedia". A group does not own articles in Wikipedia, nor do I see that WP:TVS makes claims that back up your statements. You can expect to be called into arbitration about this. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, very nice, threaten me with ARB. I cited the rules, you didn't like them. Now after a couple of days you threaten me with ARB. I can see this conversation is over. Take Care. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Third and fourth opinions are welcome. I would ask that good faith be given that all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines were taken into account when the guidelines for WP:TVS were drawn up. If you don't like the current setup with the former reporters/anchors/meteorologists/etc, I welcome you to open a thread on WT:TVS and discuss it with the users there. Consensus should be achieved first before removal of any information, regardless what it is. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Taking a quick look over, I do see that WP:TVS articles do use this "where are they now" practice a lot. However, this doesn't mean it's right. Regardless of how commonly used it is at a WikiProject, I still believe it violates Wikipedia policies, which take precedence over any WikiProject practice. Further action needs to be taken, but I will defer to Piano's wisdom as to how to proceed. Vicenarian (T · C) 06:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Works for me. I have started a post on WT:TVS about this if you would like to respond there as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, Vicenarian. Precedent has no bearing here. The "guidelines for WP:TVS" I don't think are relevant here. This information just doesn't go on the station articles. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Where are they now

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

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

[edit] Mediation Cabal

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

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


[edit] Tours

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

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

[edit] Re: U2 360° tour dates

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

See the above discussion that's been opened in [6]. There are several reasons not to include this information in Wikipedia. It's also worth noting that this tour information was added by an anonymous IP, who has no other Wikipedia edits except to add touring information. So far, they have not explained their edits at any points. I.e, apart from being inappropriate, the edits seem to be WP:SPAM.
I've added my two cents. For the record though, the IP who added the U2 360° tour dates has made edits to more than just touring information. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, a different IP: 189.104.102.104 [7]. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Cemeteries

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

Keep that shovel handy! According to this BBC article today, if zombies existed, they would lead to the collapse of civilization [8]. Now that's newsworthy news! Piano non troppo (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Zombies?! Where?! Vicenarian (Said · Done) 03:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned that when Michael Jackson is buried he won't stay buried. There was talk at one point that the family would dig up the coffin and move it if its location became known (or if the permits for Neverland burial are approved). "Final resting places" can be more like dilatory domiciles.   Will Beback  talk  09:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Didn't bones of the saints occasionally make tours around the countryside in times gone by? I didn't suggest this. An evil marketing person had a checkbook held to my head. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Saints, mummies, outlaws, it's a whole traveling show. Even a dead pope was disinterred and put on trial. (He was found guilty. He didn't have anything to say in his defense.) The dead can be restless. (Not to mention the way that coffins tend to pop up and float away during floods.) One of my grandfathers had a complicated post-life travel experience, but at least he's stayed put (so far).   Will Beback  talk  10:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This reminds me, if I may, of a line in poem I wrote about my deceased Theosophist grandfather: "I'd call you dead / but for my fear / to prove me wrong / you'd reappear." Piano non troppo (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Lovely.   Will Beback  talk  15:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


[edit] from Academic Challenger

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

[edit] Re: My edit to Droooling

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

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

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

Ah, I see what you are talking about. Took me a minute. The original link looked correct, and what I thought was a change to a different article looked incorrect. I didn't realize they directed to the same place. (Not that it makes a difference to your point, but why change the link, if it goes the same place?)
The template message sent (which I will strike out, with explanation on your page) is a boilerplate. An example of a "seriously wrong" message is just above it: a "last warning" message. The one I sent is more of a "the information doesn't look correct, are you sure it's right?" message. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Your professional experience of wikilinking

Hi Pnt, you have knowledge of the extent to which users actually hit links. I wonder whether you might be in a position to make a contribution [[9]]. There are moves afoot to mandate repeat links within sections ... basically, everywhere an item occurs, although I suspect that extreme view will not succeed. Some editors seem to be under the impression that readers hit links a lot. Tony (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this baby really needs to be put to bed, and I added a commentary, as requested. There's a kind of "common wisdom" that since links are a feature, they must be always be useful. Unfortunately, this common wisdom is based on the experience of people who are not webmasters of sites with thousands of pages. On a site with a couple dozen pages -- and no other way to navigate to children pages -- sure the links are heavily used! Wikipedia is a different situation. Duplicate article links in a vast encyclopedia are almost entirely negative. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Peter LaBarbera

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

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

i love you98.215.33.129 (talk)

Let's keep it between us and the other hundreds who read this page. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha, you have an admirer, Piano! Vicenarian (Said · Done) 09:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
You beat me to it! Eeekster (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
By accident, my 40,000th edit was humorous. Maybe that's a sign, and I should get back to my Wiki roots improving articles about humor? But it's so much more lively bandying words with vandals. My regards to Vicenarian, Eeekster, and...98.215.33.129. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Myth World Cup page edit

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

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


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

Cyberathelete has 500,000 registered players; the cash prizes are $3 million dollars. Myth World 2007 prizes are $1,200. I reviewed several pages on the Myth World site, and saw no evidence there was any review.
Many Wikpedia articles were created before the latest standards. And many slipped through the editorial cracks. This is not to do with how worthwhile the Myth tournament is -- chances are I'd enjoy it. But it is a matter of not being encyclopeic. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

One of the saving graces of Wiki is that no one has to do any more than they want. In fact, that's why I didn't do any more to Myth World Cup. I had a point to make, I made it, and now other people who are more involved can decide what to do (if anything).
It's a common notion that because Wikipedia is free people can write about whatever they want. In fact, it's a formal encyclopedia, owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, and hundreds of articles are deleted every day, and the additions of 100,000s of other editors are removed. One of the five pillars includes:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Content should be verified with citations to reliable sources. Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory."
So, in fact, "not being encyclopedic" covers quite a lot of stuff people would like to put in. In the case of the Myth article, I'm more or less alerting the folks writing the material that it's pretty close to the edge, and...maybe...they might not want to spend too much time on it, in case it is severely cut down, or perhaps deleted. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Which anti-vandalism is faster

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

[edit] List of micronations

You seem to have spotted numerous issues with this article- if it's not looking as if the issues are being resolved soon, I advise you nominate the article at featured list removal candidates. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Doing anti-vandalism, the article was shown at random, so I don't have an established position on the subject. After questioning the validity of three reference links, and looking at other article problems, I decided to change the article rating from "Featured" to "C class". (I've never changed an article status in my years in Wiki, so this was quite a step.)
Apparently I've been drawn into a protracted dispute, and received a message from an administrator supporting my position. I found the answer as interesting as the article's issues themselves.[10] I'm unsure how to proceed. It wasn't my intention to get into a firefight. Direction or any advice would be welcome. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, firstly, you can't unilaterally delist a FL- that's what the link above is for. Personally, I'm completely with you- the article has severe issues. I myself became involved with it because of it's shocking use of non-free and copyvio images- many now removed or deleted outright. It should not be listed as featured- if it was to be nominated for removal, it would hopefully be drastically improved. J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You didn't mention that it would take two hours to complete the process! Lololol. I'm adding a notification for anyone who has been a major contributor this year. Thanks again for your advice. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] LInking as wallpaper in infoboxes

Hi Piano

Thought you might be interested in this discussion, to which I have added a link to your post at WP:LINKING on your webmaster perspective.

Although no one has reverted the link audits I've conducted in the main text of popular culture articles (a dozen or so), and one editor even expressed ample thanks on my talk page, recently a few zealots have started reverted the infobox links. The examples given on the template overleaf treat linking like wallpaper.

Tony

I've added a little something to the discussion. Nothing too radical.
I have another passing thought, though. I'm trying to decide whether it would be worthwhile to ask someone at the Wikimedia Foundation to create a report that gives the statistics for Wikilink clickthoughs. Editors would be a lot less interested in adding Wikilinks (and external links), if they realized how infrequently they're used.
My reservation is that this would be the ideal tool for spammers to place spam where it was most effective. (Most of it now is a waste of their time, but don't tell them!)
Perhaps if the Wiki system admins were just to produce a few example "Clickthrough Reports" for general consumption. That would help immeasurably not just in understanding Wikilink use, but also external link use, and the "Languages" links to foreign Wikis. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RE: WWII Collage

Thanks, and apologies if I appeared snippy. There was no call for that, particularly since the image was, indeed, nominated for deletion and partially a copyvio. Skinny87 (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken! In fact the wording rather clued me in that I should fix my edit right away. Given the earlier comments criticizing the collage by Sole Flounder, I had assumed that the collage involved some complicated decision-making that I wouldn't readily be able to unravel. Proved not to be the case. Thanks! Piano non troppo (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Far Eastern University Article

The protection given the page has expired, and the same anonymous users and Unending247 have simply reinstated their edits without addressing the concerns. They've also been vandalizing my talk page. Perhaps you can help me with this? Thanks. Rmcsamson (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I know. As it happens, I was looking at the Far Eastern University earlier today in something approaching disbelief.
This article is subject to a huge range of misbehavior, from outright fabrication of a reference source and reverting questions of copyright violation without explanation ... to more mild rudeness and refusal to address issues raised by other editors.
In this recent edit, you removed an image without property copyright justification. [11]. Let's leave that aside for a minute.
First, though. You and 120.28.82.197 are way over the rule against reverting changes more than three times in a 24 hour period. (See WP:3RR) You need stop even if it means leaving incorrect information in the article. Edit warring is a behavior that can get you temporarily blocked from editing.
If it was a clear case of copyright violation, then your reverts would be more or less correct, and we should just appeal to an administrator. Unfortunately, there are three problems. 1) The site that I mentioned in my copyright violation notice has been changed. All the copyright violation material is now gone. That doesn't mean the Wikipedia article isn't a copyright violation, it just means that we can't check that source to see if it is. 2) Two other references that one would naturally turn to -- the university's official page, and the IABF Bulletin are both problematic. The official page reads "The FEU Website is currently under construction". It reads that the new website and format will be available in August, but here we are in September, and the existing website has almost no historical information. The other major article reference is a student publication that does not appear to be available online. 3) Next -- don't yell -- even though the material is gone, there's other material around that suggests ... I may have made a mistake in calling the article a copyright violation. At the moment, I have no justification for replacing the copyright violation tag on the article text. That's too bad, since it's an easy argument to win.
The arguments that we're left with are much weaker. Several of the paragraphs in the article conclude with a reference to the offline "IABF Bulletin of Information". Without that reference, it's not easy to question anything appearing in the whole paragraph before the reference. We would have to find another reference that contradicts the statements. Even you attempting to remove the mascot symbol is not entirely straightforward. That image has a complicated editing history that ends with FairuseBot labeling it as "not compliant", then seven days later removing its own tag !!
Let me know if I'm missing other major aspects of this. But it seems to me that we're putting a lot of effort into this. Effort that might be better spent improving other articles. There are lots of fish in the sea. With regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I replaced the copyright tag because it was removed without any change to the content that was claimed to be copyvio, and reprotected it because there was no progress being made on that front. In light of your above comments, please let me know how to proceed. At a minimum, the article is indeed a pile of unverifiable peackery. Even more interestingly, I can find numerous examples of copyvio of this wikipedia article on other sites... DMacks (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've put together a new temp page. It retains most of the page as it was before the anons started working on it, but I've gone over one of the PDF files they're using as a source and tried to incorporate that and other edits which are not incompatible with Wikipedia's policies. Maybe we can start from there? Thanks. Rmcsamson (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to delay getting back. I was going to ask where the page is, but it seems Moonriddengirl, a member of WP Copyright Cleanup, has rewritten herself and republished already, because she still had copyright violation concerns.
Also, since then: 1) Undending247 has replaced the suspected copyright violation material, 2) Moonriddengirl has blocked Unending247, and 3) I've replaced Moonriddengirl's version. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I've spent the past six weeks overhauling the hip hop dance article and now that I've finished, I posted it for peer review here. I decided to invite you because you're entire user page shows all the qualities that a good editor has (you're a writer, you like to contribute to an article's integrity, you provided helpful links for finding sources, etc.) and your contribution history is varied enough to tell me that you're well rounded and would probably approach a new article in an unbiased manner. In my eyes, those are good enough reasons to invite you. I would appreciate your feedback. Be forewarned that this is a long article. Not including refs/external links, templates, and categories it's 7 pages printed. If you accept my invitation to review you may want to print it first and make your edits that way. I found it easier to read and to correct when I did this. Although long, it makes for a good read during a lunch break, a bus ride, or pure boredom. I learned a lot myself while rewriting this article. If you like to learn, this could be an incentive for you. Gbern3 (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You just made my morning better, thanks!
I'm not an expert in the cultural movement, but I'd be happy to add a few comments that aren't related to having intimate knowledge. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Those comments would be welcome. I'm more concerned about the flow and grammar of the article rather than an expert opinion on whether or not it's valid. Just to clarify, I don't feel that anything in the article is invalid. I did a lot of research (from actual books, magazines, and newspapers—not just websites) and I added soooooo many references/citations. I'm just saying I can appreciate a set of "fresh" eyes; it brings a new perspective. Especially if there's something in the article that you don't understand; it would show me what needs to be clarified for other readers. Gbern3 (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to join Wikiproject Micronations

I note your interest in the subject of micronations.

Wikipedia always welcome a diversity of opinion, so you might wish to consider registering as a member of the WikiProject Micronations:

I look forward to working with you over coming months to improve and significantly extend Wikipedia's micronation content. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Gene, it's tempting. To this point my Wikipedia anti-vandalism and copy editing are similar to aspects of my professional work; it's relaxing to come here and "knock off" a few straightforward issues.
I've written a couple novels, and am convinced the worldview created there has a "real" component, and potentially a "real" effect. Therefore, I'm quite sympathetic to the notion that even a frivolous micronation might be a valuable social experiment. Perhaps an invaluable one. Be that as it may, I have strong reactions to fiction writers who pretentiously overestimate their command of the craft — the majority. How have the novelists failed? They haven't convinced me they believe what they are saying. I have a similar problem with some micronations.
Some micronations are like school clubs. I belonged to the Existentialist Guild at university. We had a pragmatic agenda: confront people's complacency. And we did, more than once getting into trouble. Was it worthwhile? Decidedly. Is a specific micronation worthwhile? I'm uncertain of my ability to ascertain, or whether there are sufficient facts to judge. Without facts, without notable action, one runs into difficult questions of whether a specific micronation is "Wiki encyclopedic". With Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your considered response.
In terms of micronations in WP, I take a prosaic, policy-based approach. When dealing with entities that may be ephemeral, tongue-in-cheek, whimsical or quixotic, I feel that is all that we can properly do. To do otherwise risks falling into the error of subjectivity and personal value judgement.
In my opinion, the only micronation content that should ever be in WP, is that which establishes its notability by virtue of being the subject of reportage in multiple, reliable third party sources - which are properly cited in the relevant article/s. There are a very great many press articles on the subject, along with several recently published books, and at least one academic conference paper that I'm aware of - so there's no shortage of reference material available.
Needless to say this approach automatically excludes the vast majority of "virtual" micronations, schoolboy clubs and other lesser, non-enduring, unsubstantive manifestations of the phenomenon. --Gene_poole (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Heads-up

Hi there. I'm shortly going to propose that this site be added as an WP:EL to both List of micronations and Micronations.

As the site includes the most extensive, up-to-date listing of micronations currently available from any source, I believe that it is directly relevant to the subject of those articles, and that its inclusion within them would significantly complement the existing content, and enhance their usefulness and the level of informativeness they communicate to the general reader.

However, before I iniate that discussion I firstly wanted to disclose that I'm the owner and primary author of www.listofmicronations.com. Secondly, in order to avoid any suggestion of WP:COI I intend to refrain from adding the link myself, should the eventual consensus support my proposal. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nina Girado

Hi, sorry for the late response. Been kind of busy. User:EugeSer 14 is still blocked btw, I haven't unblocked him. See [12]. I will look in more detail at User:Kristelzorina, from a first glance it does look like an obvious sock. Although I don't see copyright violations anymore, which was the reason for the original block. That File:Nina - Renditions Of The Soul.jpg was taken from a copyrighted source is not so important here since the image is being used under WP:NFCC. Garion96 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

np, I just didn't know how to proceed. At a guess, User:EugeSer 14 / User:Kristelzorina is working from valid information, they just don't care to follow any Wiki policies and guidelines that inconvenience them. (Such as: providing any explanation for their edits.) I'm uneasy. If the information all comes from Billboard, why can't they just say so? If it doesn't, is this some private (e.g. COI) source? As I recall, at one point User:EugeSer 14 was introducing factual errors about sales. Amongst the hundreds of edits that they do, how do we know when they will decide to alter some key fact?
I suppose one option is to rollback everything they do. Regardless of whether their changes look reasonable. At least that would presumably force them to justify themselves. And if they did have a good source, well not too much harm would have been done (?) Piano non troppo (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mickey Finn

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

That's probably best.
I've just been considering what cultural references might possibly be relevant. One section of the Mickey Finn (drugs) article says a Mickey can be chloral hydrate, but another antimony combined with potassium tartrate, and another ethylene (a gas). They can't have the same effects. The gas doesn't even agree with the statement in article's opening paragraph. Hmm. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The cultural references (and I still like the W.C. Fields one) are indeed trivial compared with apparently not having the basic straight facts correct! Unless there's more than one kind of knockout drop that's generically called a "mickey". I confess I am not an expert on this subject. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should do some practical investigation...
I'll find a detective to knock out. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Marinara

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

Hi. You are referring to this edit [13].
To be honest? You might want to just let this drop, because there are so many issues. Wikipedia is not a forum where people can just say anything they want. It's not a problem to add information that most people will agree with, but when you delete a reference that someone else added, and replace it with another -- giving no explanation why you have done so -- then in Wikpedia's policy, your edit is closer to vandalism than helpful.
There are several other problems with your edit, as well. If you are interested in contributing to Wikpedia, I suggest you start by looking over [14]. If you are just interested in advertising your site, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. It's not a place for free promotion (it is governed by the Wikimedia Foundation) and people who try to use it that way are blocked from editing. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are headed the right direction, and make some valid points. (It wasn't you who Wikilinked "herb", and labeling the "AllAboutSpaghetti" page as WP:SPAM is open to interpretation.)
Understand that when my editing tool shows deletion of a source, with no explanation, by an anonymous editor, I revert. That's the basis for my change, not an expert knowledge of marinara.
Change of subject (more or less). I went to a number of references I have, hardcopy, looking up "marinara". "Webster's 3rd" doesn't mention the sauce. The "OED" (Oxford English Dictionary) doesn't mention the sauce. "The Cambridge World History of Food" doesn't mention the sauce. At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if there are common reliable sources. The wiseGEEK article makes what is probably a common mistake -- which is to assume that because a word originally meant something (500 years ago!), it still means the same thing now. As a consumer who assumes restaurants use any language that appeals to customers, I would guess, seeing "marinara" in a menu, that seafood was involved. But even the statement in the Wiki article "is a type of tomato sauce" says next to nothing. The "AllAboutSpaghetti" article says "traditional Italian marinara sauce often has seafood in it". That, too, says very little. What is "traditional sauce"? What does "often has seafood" mean? When it's in season? When there are leftovers? In certain countries? Lacking any more reliable source, my inclination is recommend the article be entirely deleted from Wikipedia. At any rate, I have tagged it for needing a reliable source.Piano non troppo (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Whole page changes

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

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

[edit] Thmc1

Hi; saw your warning and reversion, just wanted to note that it's not only that article that Thmc1 has been waging his little NYC-is-the-mostest campaign - see this edit at Chinatown, Manhattan, which is clearly an effort to downplay even the existence of the San Francisco, Vancouver and Toronto Chinatowns. One problem with patrolling such edits is the wide panoply of "Chinatown" articles; see my comments about this on Talk:Chinatowns in Canada and the United States re the difference between ChinaTOWNS and Chinese immigrant/commercial districts of the modern era etc.....Somewhere maybe on Talk:Chinatown I wrote something on "Chinatown Overburden" too, about the reduplication/replication of overlapping materials across way too many redundant pages....Skookum1 (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(Having read the Thmc1 edit you cited.) Actually, heh, in some ways it is refreshing to see an article that *doesn't* announce that its subject is getting bigger and more popular all the time. (Where are the articles about songs that dropped *most quickly from* #1?
Before I made my change, I did notice the discussion in Chinatown, San Francisco. You wrote a couple hundred words, working through issues with Thmc1's edits. The practical points you bring up are cogent.
When anti-vandalism "boilerplate" messages are sent to anon IP editors, they go overboard interpreting an action in the most favorable light: "You may not be aware, but your edit deleted a large amount of text...blah, blah...please continue to enjoy editing Wikipedia." Those messages seem to "work", avoiding rousing anger. So...writing that Thmc1 is "behaving like the First Qin Emperor"....
A senior Wiki editor wrote: "Argue with a person only three times, if you haven't convinced them by that time, you never will". I must say I've really regretted some occasions not following that advice.
I will drop in on Thmc1's edits, though. Ha. And respond, if I can muster the stomach for confrontation. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Just apprising you of an edit this morning, reversing a deletion/censorship/change of context/meaning on Chinatown, Vancouver. The material he deleted, and I put back in, are "standard fare" in writeups about Vancouver's Chinatown and its history, though I had not cites for them; but it's a gross oversimplification to reduce it just to "Canada" vs the comparison to SF and NYC. Part of the problem is that the onigoing confusion between a city's Chines population and the population of its Chinatown are problematic and difficult to define; by the loosey-goosey standard that he's been applying to the NYC Meta-Chinatown, Vancouver's Chinatown by his way of defining things actually takes in large chunks of other parts of the city, and some of its suburbs; i.e. both physically and demographically; but in terms of the local usage of the word, "Chinatown" only refers to a specific area, and doesn't have that many residents - it's a commercial district drawing on various residential neighbourhoods, eincluding hte suburbs. All the Chinatown articles are problematic in this regard, as well as in their ongoing pissing congtest on who's bigger, fatter, which types of Chinese live in each one, and so on. I've been to Manhattan's Chinatown, it's nowhere near the size of VAncouver's, as sween with my own eyes.....no doubt he'll accuse me of "propaganda" but it's always intereting how practitioners of that art revel in accusing others of it in order to accomplish their campaigns; somethng similar went on at Hollywood North quite a while ago....Skookum1 (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep. I'm local to SF Chinatown, and Chinese friends and I used to visit regularly as teens. There's another one across the Bay. There's a Japantown in SF that was consciously built (as I remember) to rival SF Chinatown. There's a lot of posturing going on (in Wiki and RL). My local Chinese market has started carrying Thai ingredients, and I never fail to get a comment from the owner if I'm buying lemongrass and coconut milk instead of cloud ears and Chinese rice vinegar.
As a schoolchild, our class was guided through underground passages in SF Chinatown that were used for illicit purposes such as smuggling Chinese women slaves. (In 1900, SF had whole blocks that were turned over to gambling and prostitution.) The Chinatown, San Francisco article is in part tourist information, and in part semi-politically correct history about immigration. But I wonder if non-Americans are equally aware that in the last decades Chinese and Japanese aren't considered minorities — are ineligible for aid programs that seek to redress discrimination — because they aren't underprivileged. Chinese communities are still strong (I worked for a Chinese company in the US), but they aren't nearly so focused on localities. The article seems to go from missing central criminal historical considerations to missing the changed role of modern Chinatown. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the preceding; a lot of Wikipedia copy about this, and of webdsites supported by Chinese organizations/activism, is both sanitized and (especially re modern conditions) very fuzzy and vague; in Canada national history now has only the refrain about the railway and the head tax, and the wealth and prosperity of Chiense merchants and gold miners throughout is downplayed in preference for portraying them as underprivileged hard-working people persecuted by evil whites etc (while not in the US, in Canada Chinese adn Japanese are still eligible for what would be called "employment equity" in USian and other race-baseed favoritism, especially in government hiring....and cultural funding programs...)....it's all politics and very little reality, and it often seems to be the newcomers who have the most cartoonish versions of North American history and also of non-Chinese (and cmedian Mark Britten, aka "the Chinaman", commented to em in email that the people who make the most stink about his nickname are the newcomer elements, while those raised in North America treat it is a joke)...that being said, Thmc1 has been at it again, though user:Emarsee has since reversed that, as I couldn't - well, I could, but it was on a 3rr-path if I did so. When I get a chance I'll line-cite both contestible items. Though frankly they're largely frmo Vancou er Chinatown's own promotional material and I don't know how statistically accurate they might be nowadays. Between precise geographic definitions and the difference between Chinese population of a city and how much is in a Chinatown, it's not a precise science....Chinatown, Vancouver, though, has precise legal boundaries, whereas Thmc1's version of Manhattan's is entirely unrealistic and includes lotsf non-Chinese areas....(and Chinese areas which are not considered to be Chinatown historically...). To me, the application of the term "Chinatown" to areas which are only Chinese commercial/residential but not called Chinatown is something like ethnocultural imperialism, ditto with the proliferation of Wiki content claiming that such and so an area is a "Koreatown". If Thmc1's definitions were applied to Vancouver, most of the city could be considered Chinatown; only a few areas do not have a noticeable Chinese presence, ditto with South Burnaby and nearly all of Richmond....and much of Toronto and, in fact, Calgary...anyya there's a certain Vancou er editor who I'll enlist to find proper citations/wording for these passages and there are some WP:Canada editors who are actually Chinese, including I think Emarsee....but Thmc1 bears watching; his complaint that "he doesn't know who is reverting" bespeaks someone who doesn't look at edit histories, or care about the reasons for previous edits; but only sees his own agenda, i.e. I gather he's new....I was going to send this to you last night as it was a reversion I didn't want to get into, being at 2RR already....looks like there's another watchdog on the case...but in general the whole swathe of Chinatown articles has had a lot of this type of edits and editors and they all need cleanup and factual-accuracy checks....and the removal of lots of directory/peacock type content....Skookum1 (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 4RR with Thmc1

I'm not sure if you're an admin, but if so thmc1 has reached 4RR, as he's now reverted twice on User:Emarsee, the same reversion he did on me twice....I'll also notify others who've posted on his talkpage who seem to be admins. This silliness has go to stop; his latest edit comment is "letter sent to Editorial Assistance requesting preservation of this fact and removal of inaccuracies". I don't think he really realizes what "editorial assistance" means around here......Skookum1 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically it's 3RR, since the first edit he did on the Chinatown Vancouver page doesn't count as a revert. I'll definitely report him if he reverts again.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 21:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thmc1 just made a request for editor assistance here [15]. Administrator User:Jayron32 responded that his issue needed to be discussed on the Chinatown (San Francisco) talk page.
It might be appropriate for Skookum1, Emarsee, and others to focus on Thmc1's: 1) Removing sourced material, 2) Removing existing factual material, as in the edit recently reverted, 3) Edit warring, and 4) Their tendency to make good faith (if unconstructive) changes, giving no explanation, unless challenged, as in several edits with a couple days to New York City, for example here [16], 5) Making unsupported, subjective, and unencyclopedic contributions such as adding that one Chinatown does not "have the activity" of another [17].
I just read some historical hardcopy material (on another subject) from a source that is written with the quality of a casual blog; I suspect part of the problem is that Thmc1 doesn't recognize why statements that they "know are true", and for which they have respectable support are any less valid than anyone else's statements. Speaking as a sometime professional editor -- where I actually have to confront such people and get a resolution -- it's quite possible that Thmc1 won't change their attitude much in the short term. Why should they -- they reason -- when they know they are right, and the articles already have other material that is less reliable? It's going to be a case-by-case confrontation, where weight of editor opinion will need to be regularly applied.
(Btw, recent edits to Chinatown (San Francisco) were by a new editor with no other edits. They supported the reason given for my edit, and they admonished Thmc1; the sophistication of their reasoning suggests they are not actually a new Wikiedia editor. A WP:SOCKPUPPET is not going to help our position.)
Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Message from Thmc1 to User:Emarsee which copied in formatting text.

Hi, Piano_non_troppo! Peace, Wiki brother (or sister)!

Below is my response to "Emarsee":

[18]

Hi Thmc1, it sounds to me like you're on the right track. When I came to Wiki, I found the endless rules and guidelines extremely frustrating. (Especially since I'm a professional editor, right?) The "easy road" is to make minor changes to a few articles, then see how other editors respond. Another "easy road" is to get a mentor -- they'll help you from running into unexpected situations. The less easy road is to read the basic guidelines and make (and try to defend) major changes. But as you stick around reading guidelines is something you'll end up doing, anyhow. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hot sauce changes

Hello:

You wrote:

"Hi. The changes you are making to "See also" is not what that section is for. "See also" is used to link to other related information on the same subject. It is not an opportunity to WP:LINKSPAM Wiki articles with every brand of hot sauce. The only links that should be added should relate directly to the article topic. Not to a similar product. Thanks, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)"

You are incorrect in misreferring to the addition of internal links as spam WP:LINKSPAM. Spam refers only to External link spamming; there is no internal link spamming, and Wikifying articles with high relevance links to article topics is never spamming. Per Wikipedia guidelines "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."

Per the See also section guidelines located at Wikipedia Layout, "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Wikipedia is about knowledge and learning; a learning resource, and not about the prevention of learning. Section titles such as "Related products", "competitors" and "additional brands" are very common in many, many articles, and as such, inclusion of additional related products in the See also section is absolutely valid, absolutely relevant and vital for the completeness of the online encyclopedia.

68.116.43.92 (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

By "linkspamming", I was referring broadly to any gratuitous list of companies, products, rock bands, etc., which are not integrated into the article text. "See also" is meant to provide a limited number of links to articles which treat the topic in more detail (or are more general). So the link you were adding to Scoville scale, was appropriate, since it helped understand the topic of the article itself: a brand of hot sauce.
But the other sauces are not appropriate. By your logic, any fan could insert their favorite rock group as a "See also" indiscriminately into literally thousands of articles. And rock star articles would have thousands of "See also" links. That wouldn't be to anyone's benefit.
In my local stores, there are literally scores of commercial hot sauces. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a "collection of internal links" [19].
Listing some sauces as "Competitors" as you did here [20] implies that Wikipedia does not regard other sauces as competitors.
The place for an exhaustive list of hot sauces would be an article called "List of hot sauces". (Which actually sounds like a good idea, btw.)
Piano non troppo (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] An example (Hot sauce continued)

Here is part of the text from the article Laundry detergent. Per what you wrote above, this data should (erroneously) be omitted. It is better to include data for users. Per the See also section guidelines located at Wikipedia Layout, "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question."

[edit] Brands of laundry detergent

Ambox globe content.svg The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page.

Worldview and perspective is very important.68.116.43.92 (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a couple things going on here. The more I consider, the better I like the idea of creating a new page List of hot sauces. It would have a sortable table with these items: Sauce name, Sauce ingredients, Sauce taste, Scoville scale, Country of manufacture. This would be helpful for those going to a store and thinking "I wonder what this is like?" (I have a "Eaton's Jamaican Scotch Bonnet Pepper Sauce" which I bought and tasted. It's fantastic, but it's the hottest sauce I have ever tasted, and I'm afraid to use it.)
Next. Wading through the endless Wiki guidelines often isn't as time-effective as finding a good example article and copying what it does. This technique runs into difficulty when the article that's copied itself has problems. If a method appears in a "Featured Article", then there's a strong chance it follows all the rules. Laundry detergent is not a Featured Article. In fact, looking at the discussion page, it's never been given a classification, and the comments come from anonymous editors. No working group claims it. The article has five requests for citation. So, it's about as far from a Featured Article -- in terms of being reviewed -- as it gets. It's better to talk straight to the Wikipedia rules, policies and guidelines ... but in lieu of that, a high quality article.
Aaaaannnnddd next. The list in Laundry detergent has almost no citations. Some of the products have no Wiki links either. That means they are possibly non-notable, unencyclopedic. Speaking as an editor who emphasizes anti-vandalism, this detergent list has warning signs written all over it. If a vandal added "Piano non troppo's Super Soap" ... how would other editors ever figure out it was wrong? (Note that "Clear Spring Laundry Liquid" has taken the opportunity to describe their detergent in detail, and to give a generic external link to their website. That's spamming.)
If you are any kind of authority in hot sauces, I'd encourage you to start the List of hot sauces article. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Response regarding editing the Chinatown, Vancouver article

Hi, Piano_non_troppo,

Thank you so much for your insightful and very helpful response! I greatly appreciate it, and I will do my best to follow your advice.

May I now please be permitted to make the integrally accurate and entirely benign change to the Chinatown, Vancouver article as I proposed in the message forwarded to you? I believe that I have justified my statements and rationale appropriately.

Could you please also advise me as to HOW to check the edit history on any random article which I may come to edit?

Best regards, and Respectfully so,

Thmc1Thmc1 (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you haven't justified your statements, nor have you provided citations proving that the material you tried to remove is incorrect; you HAVE made continued references to your own edits/information on the NYC article, but those are also suspect as people on various talkpages have pointed out (specifically Talk:Chinatown, San Francisco albeit re Manhattan). You are not making a "benign change", you are deleting information based on your own interpretation/bias. Stop painting yourself as some kind of noble crusader, and STOP imputing to others suspect motives when your own data is much at question. I totally resent your description of me as wanting to get even for you "correcting" me in the course of your edits; I do n ot edit based on such childish motives and have over 40,000 edits to my credit. That you have come to piano non troppo for approval of your intended edits without even trying to discuss the issue, or to provide the information that I and others have asked for ,is just plain silly (as well as rude). You have also misrepresented your one-sided and repeated edits as "proposed" when they were not proposed at all, but made over and over despite objections by other editors. And if you're looking for edit history, DUH, it's at the top of the page, where it says "history".....polite language is no cover for rude behaviour.....your claims about Manhattan are not supported by critics of your edits, yet you continue to assert them as if they were obvious truth. Maybe to you they are, but evidently you don't care much about what other people think or know.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thmc1, I've answered your question about how to check edit history here [24]. I find the third technique is useful to find out who is making a limited change, perhaps based on a particular guideline, vs. those who have invested considerable effort in the article, and may have a deep understanding of its editing issues. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Yo

I haven't seen you in a while, Piano, but can you please block that IP who keeps vandalizing your page. I just reverted some vandalism he put on your page & i noticed he's on his final warning, which came prior to the vandalism I just reverted. Please block him. Cheers AndrewEnns (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, thanks for reverting that. (And the Edit summary, lol.) The anon IP is on his way to a block, right now. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome :)

Good day! :) You are very welcome Piano non troppo. To my knowledge WP:3RR doesn't apply when reverting vandalism... but your mention of it makes me feel like I should look into that again, just to make sure. On the article in question, the spammer was editing just as fast as I was reverting, so I suspect I may have to wait awhile, and go back to clean up the mess once they are gone. It's been great to finally hear from a name I see so often! ;) Happy editing :) -- WikHead (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Me again. I just took a look at WP:3RR#Exceptions to 3RR, and though I was indeed correct about the rule not applying to vandal-reverts, spamming (i.e. edits against consensus) is not an exception as I'd assumed. Thank you kindly for the heads-up on this... I'll be a bit more conservative from now on with persistent vandals. Regards :) -- WikHead (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chinatown, Vancouver article - first line

Hi, Piano_non_troppo. No apparent response from "Skookum1" to my message to him, after approx 48 hrs. Will refrain from surmising any reason. Can I bother you to look at my detailed message to him about the line in question in the "Chinatown, Vancouver" article on his talk page? I'm interested in your take on the situation :) -- Just FYI, there really is no "campaign" for any vested interest at this point - but I do honestly feel, and indeed firmly, that accuracy deserves a higher priority here than trying to fathom scintillating comparisons.

I'm also curious, is there any editorial hierarchy involved in this situation? I don't want to put you in a difficult situation.

Thanks much.

Thmc1Thmc1 (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nodding and smiling. Phrases such as "no 'campaign' for any vested interest" suggest you are becoming a "Wiki citizen".
May I suggest that you go on a hunt for reference resources? If you find related material, it will defuse the confrontation, maybe make for an interesting conversation. Google books can be excellent for this. (And maybe the online Britannica? Maybe another encyclopedia?)
But let me tell you a story. Once I saw an actor live do something. I read their Wiki article, and added what I had seen (it agreed and emphasized a point that the article already made). The editors who monitored that article politely told me I couldn't add the material, and removed it. I was new to Wiki, and I was ... annoyed. In fact, after being harassed by some idiot (when I *correctly* changed the number of movies in a series in another article), I left Wiki for years.
Then I realized that one of the big, important things that's going on here is a socialization process. We editors get socialized into a new way of thinking. But also the articles get "socialized" -- big business can't always just come in here and flat out lie. Movies that have negative reviews ... those reviews often enough show up. Some Wiki bios have quite unpleasant, negative information that no doubt the person would prefer not have widely known and discussed.
Consider accuracy and verifiability WP:VERIFY both critical. And...maybe consider your social role. We all get a certain percent of our edits reverted. Are there related articles to contribute to? Where you don't have to wrangle with other editors? Escalating this sort of thing can take weeks -- and some times one just starts a firestorm of comments -- where more and more people express their opinions, counter-opinions endlessly.
In your shoes, I'd look for references, as well as "greener pasture" articles. You've said your piece. One of the surprising things that happens in Wiki is that...days...weeks from now...some other editor will read the discussion page...and decide you are right. It happens all the time. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Response to last message to Thmc1

Wisely stated, piano_non_troppo. I will respect that advice and check back in a couple of weeks or so. And as you said, who knows - maybe some editor in the Wikisphere will understand my point and decide that I am right.

Thanks again,

Thmc1Thmc1 (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hotel del coronado edit.

I have reinstated your recent edit to this article. Your claim was that the phrase "A world-class hotel" was unsubstantiated. The claim is valid, and is referenced in the first paragraph and cited reference #5. If you would like to add clarity to the paragraph in question, I suggest that you re-add the cited reference a second time. Hotel del Coronado. Ljmajer (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "world class" is WP:PEACOCK in this context, i.e., it "merely promote(s) the subject of the article without imparting verifiable information". In this case "world class" has no meaning whatsoever. Citing a meaningless phrase, from a web commercial page promoting the hotel and providing reservations simply means the reference is WP:PEACOCK too, wouldn't you think? Piano non troppo (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Piano_non_troppo"