User talk:Piano non troppo

                                                                                                                        Archive: Here be monsters!

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]] [1] - 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: [2])

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",[3] 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.[4]

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 [5] 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 [[6]] 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)