User talk:Piano non troppo

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

                                                                                                              Archive: Here be monsters!

                                                                                                              Archive: The Sequel (smaller monsters)

                                                                                                              The Mother of Archive

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)

Your user page heading

Why did I delete something that's completely true?Probably because it wasn't cited. Even if you saw something with your own eyes, if it contradicts what other editors put in the article, your statement needs a reference. Got to have that, or a month from now some editor will come along and just undo it — having no idea where the idea came from.

• It's just as possible that someone will come along and put in the correct reference. I know that I've done this many times. Luminifer (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, reasonable point. I'm writing an article now where I don't want to pay $10.50 to get the reference, but I can see from an abstract that the reference exists. Someone else can add it later, if it's that critical.

This Wiki account is mostly used for anti-vandalism from anonymous IPs, and the message was targeted toward them. It's not unusual for new editors to come to Wikipedia with high expectations they've found something important to contribute, only to immediately have their edit removed by Huggle, MWT, or one of the bots. They come to an anti-vandalism editor's page, and they're not in a happy mood. Rather than recite an endless string of rules — a practice that I found annoying when I was a new contributor — I suggest the practical consequences of *them* adding uncited material, which is simply that it's likely to be erased. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

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)

Talkback

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

Please will you chip in here with a further comment? --VS ^talk 01:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You must be a mind reader! I saw the block at my request, and decided to read your personal page. Then I drifted over to your discussion, and was surprised to see someone questioning the block. I was just in the process of answering. Best regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

All fine at my end - although thank you for your offer.--VS ^talk 03:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Sustainable Living External Link

I noticed shortly after I made an edit from an IP address that you deleted the entire external links section on sustainable living, and advised users to say why they felt a link was of note. I felt that you justified the deletion quite well, and consequently felt encouraged to finally make an account after a long history of Wikipedia use. I also did exactly as you advised and posted on the article's talk page stating why I felt that particular site was worthy of note. However, the Talk page as a whole seems to be suffering from inactivity. I was wondering if you could comment on my proposition at your convenience, as you are clearly an exemplary user. Jscpowser (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, heh. Unwarranted compliments. Grin.

My concern about the external links was that various entities, with various interests, some inappropriate to Wikipedia, were feeling free to add their external links.

I've no issue with you replacing external links that have some special significance to the article, and are according to Wikipedia policy.

What I do have something of an issue with is the conception that because the subject of an article is virtuous, that anyone can chip in. That the rules don't apply any more. The article was presented to me by an anti-vandalism tool, at random. It showed me an external link that was just added, to www.2b4theworld.com. I examined that site, and wasn't impressed that it was essential to the article. Wikipedia, for better or worse, is not a linkfarm for all interesting, related subjects. See WP:NOTLINK on this.

At any rate, I wasn't making a definitive statement, or taking a stand about any particular external link. I was hoping to attract the attention of some reasonable and constructive editors. It appears I succeeded. Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)-

Right place, right time, followed by initiative: Providence in a nutshell. Sustainable living is something I've recently taken a strong interest in, and the deplorable state of that article along with your well-placed interjection has moved me to take a more active role on Wikipedia as a whole. I'm currently trying to get some sort of outline and citations together for the improvement of that page. When I was initially placing the link, it felt like something of a cheap shot- even though my intentions were good- to add something like that while leaving the rest of the article to standards I felt were inadequate. It will consequently be my Wikipedia starting point, and I hope to expand on many more things in the future. Thanks for the nudge; I am a firm believer that the smallest of pushes in the right direction can go the greatest of distances. Jscpowser (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

American Girl

I saw you left a note on the talkpage a while ago. I started pruning a little bit, but don't know how far to go. As far as I am concerned, 80% of the article ought to be cut, but there's so many articles on WP full of unverified, detailed information on anime characters etc. Any advice? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies, thank you for asking. I also had issues with American Girl months ago. It's an interesting, but not overly difficult situation. The article is regularly targeted for change by...girls, unsurprisingly...but also by commercial interests. I've had conversations with User_talk:Heidilaura, who is, in a manner speaking, the article's guardian angel. This is a topic of interest to her, and she has worked long to keep the excessive unencyclopedic material out. Not being keenly interested in the topic, my feeling was that Wikipedia was lucky to have her -- irrespective of the article's excessive length. Heidilaura is pleasant, and you might enjoy addressing your issues to her. I'll also note that a frequent contributor to the article is User:Woohookitty, who is not just a Wiki administrator, but a very senior one. So, if there are opportunities for article improvement, there are also forces at work to keep the article in check. Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your response. I've made some more edits to the article and dropped Heidilaura a note; I proposed a list article for all those dolls and she agreed, adding some suggestions (she's knowledgeable enough to sort out what to me looks like a mess (is it about dolls? books? both?), so I think we're making progress. I'll keep you posted. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fanta

Hey mate, I had to revert your edit as it deleted Montenegro from the list. In Montenegro, all Coca-Cola products are the same in Serbia as Coca Cola Serbia is responsible for Montenegro. Rave92^(talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I was attempting to revert the work of a vandal. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok :). Rave92^(talk) 21:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions about Wikipedia Etiquette

I'm new to editing Wikipedia pages and I have a question about etiquette. I noticed that someone removed some content that had been inserted by myself & improved by another editor. I'd like to find out why the person removed that content, and restore it, but I don't want to get into a situation where the content is restored, removed, restored, etc. What is the etiquette on such a matter and who referees such situations?

Thanks, from Palomar444 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palomar444 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking! You are referring to edits you made on Camp Merrimac, here [5]?

An editor removed this material you added:

"In 1975 Tony Bond met Debra Silvermen at camp -- they were married in 1976 and now have five children, four boys and a girl. They are one of many Merrimac couples from the 1940s to the 1990s. In some instances the children of Merrimac couples attended the camp. One curious case involved Michael Bertin, who was a camper, waiter and counselor at Merrimac from 1953 to 1962. In 1962 he was joined at camp by his girlfriend, Barbara Bunin. They married in 1964. In 1992 Michael returned to Merrimac for 3 summers as a group leader. When he approached Bob and Werner about this possibility Bob had to speak to Barbara to make sure Michael wasn't a bit crazy. It was the ultimate walk down memory lane."

Ask the editor personally, if you choose, but that material is far enough outside Wikipedia guidelines that I can explain. To get your hands on the basic problem, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's trying to be like the Encyclopedia Britannica, not someone's diary. Statements such as "The ultimate walk down memory lane" and "make sure Michael wasn't a bit crazy" are ok for magazines and blogs, but they are not strictly, demonstrably factual. They are in the language of poetry and fiction, and not the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia has three core policies. They are that information must be verifiable WP:SOURCE, that information must not be an editor's own, original research WP:OR, and that a neutral perspective should be maintained WP:NPOV. Bob talked to Barbara? Who says? When did the conversation happen? Was it video recorded? Can other Wikipedia editors and readers check the video recording to see what it says for themselves? If not, then everyone has to take your word for it. And that's not what Wikipedia is about. You don't write about what you saw yourself, but quote what other, reliable, published sources said. (Seems a little weird at first, I grant you.)

On the other hand, this material that you added is constructive and factual. There is no "slant", no personal opinion. (Notice that later editors did not delete it.)

"Both boys and girls attended the camp from after World War II until 1998."

You are headed generally in the right direction. It does take some time to learn the basic Wikipedia guidelines! I'd encourage you to stick around and learn the ropes! Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Westmoreland Mall

First of all, I don't work for the mall, so I'm not promoting anything, I'm just posting what I thought was useful information. Secondly, how is this crystal ball speculation? The site plans are legitimate and township officials have discussed this expansion.