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

                                                                                                              It Came from the Archive

                                                                                                              Plan Archive from Outer Space

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 [[1]]. 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)

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)

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. [2]. 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)

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)

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" [3].

Listing some sauces as "Competitors" as you did here [4] 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)

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."

Brands of laundry detergent

• All
• AlmaWin
• Ariel
• Arm & Hammer
• Biokleen
• BioWashBall
• BIOSINAR (Malaysia)-5in 1 Concentrated Laundry Detergent
• Biz
• Bold
• Bounty
• Brusmann
• Bluuz ( Biodegradable Indonesia Detergent
• Charlie's Soap
• Cheer
• Claudia's Choices Ultra Phosphate Free Laundry Powder
• Clear Spring Laundry Liquid UK (approved by BUAV, Vegans and Ethical Consumer, fully biodegradable, free from paraben, sodium lauryl sulfate, genetically modified, enzymes, bleach, phosphates, chlorine, artificial fragrance and colours)
• Clorox
• Comfort (detergent/fabric conditioner)
• Country Save
• Daz
• Downy
• Dreft [5] (specially formulated for baby clothing)
• Dropps
• Dynamo
• Ecover
• Ecolaund Laundry Detergent Indonesia
• Era
• Everyday Elegance (Great Value)
• Everyday Living
• Fab
• Fairy Nonbio
• Fresh Laundry Concentrate (Shaklee)
• Glad
• Gain
• Greenz Laundry Detergent Indonesia
• Liby [6]
• Launsafe ( Greenz by Indonesia Detergent )
• Method
• Moon Works - All Natural Laundry Soap
• Mr. Clean (Philippines)
• New Hampshire All Natural Laundry Soap
• Omo
• OxiClean
• Persil
• Purex
• Prosoak (Greenz Laundry Detergent Indonesia)
• Radion
• Rinso
• Rockin' Green Cloth Diaper & Laundry Detergent
• SA8 Bioquest
• Safeway Select
• Sears Ultra Plus
• Seventh Generation Inc.
• Simplicity
• Skip
• Snap
• Soap Nuts Laundry Detergent
• Sun
• Starwin
• Sunlight
• Surcare [7] (for sensitive skins)
• Surf
• Tide
• Trend
• 20 Mule Team Borax
• Ultra
• Wisk
• Wonderful
• Woolite (Enzyme Free)
• Xtra
• Nirma
• Text
• louie

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, bottle type. 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)

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, thank you for asking. I'm really quite taken with this one of yours [8]. If I knew who she was, I might print it and put it on my wall! Lol. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

re User:Kateshortforbob#Where to take a dispute

Hi Piano non troppo - Regarding the dispute you are having, I'm not sure how useful I will be, but I'll give it a go anyway! Without getting into the content issue for the moment, I think arbitration would not be useful at this stage. Arbitration is, as I understand it, the final step in dispute resolution. From what I have read, the Arbitration Committee doesn't like to take on cases unless and until other efforts have been made first. Also, arbitration cases seem to be large, lengthy, complicated, and often messy, so it might be best to go for a more lightweight process first.

I see that the editor with whom you are in disagreement is currently the subject of a WP:ANI report (1) which appears not unrelated to this. User:Neutralhomer has also announced his/her retirement. I would agree with some of the editors there that reverts made due to content issues should probably not be labelled as vandalism, but if the editor has retired, that is no longer the immediate problem.

While mediation may not be necessary or possible at this point, I would suggest one of the dispute resolution mechanisms, such as a Request for comment or third opinion would be helpful to gain consensus on the talk page of one of the articles concerned. Once consensus has been tested on the first article, I imagine it would make it easier to gain consensus on other articles, perhaps through the TV stations Wikiproject. If you or other editors are concerned about the how the project deals with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then I would bring it up on the Wikiproject's talk page for discussion first of all (if this hasn't been done already), and if that doesn't get anywhere, the content noticeboard or one of it's sub-noticeboards, depending on the specific issue concerned. --Kateshortforbob _talk 13:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a star coming your way, as soon as I can figure out which to give you. I had no idea anything was going on in ANI, thank you. I particularly appreciate your research and clarification. I got involved in this after making changes to a few articles which (I imagined) removed non-notable bio material. When it seemed to spiral out of control, I had no clear concept how to proceed at various points, or whether to do anything at all. You provided much-needed timely advice. With Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I've alerted WP:TVS of possible pending changes.[9] I'm hoping that will foster some minimal agreement along the lines of the RfA. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ballia and user:159.91.151.97

You might want to look at the page Ballia, I think you're on the trail of a persistent vandal. Same pattern going on there. Anniepoo (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Editor 159.91.151.97 has made improvements to their technique since I first observed them adding unencyclopedic material from unreliable sources. There's still some way for them to go, but they are responding occasionally to criticisms about their edits. I just checked a dozen recent ones, and they were mostly useful, that I could see.

With people who are making a very large number of edits, something to consider is whether one particular edit reflects their overall contribution. 159.91.151.97 is prolific -- often dozens of edits in a day. If that energy can be channeled, 159.91.151.97 could be a very useful long term contributor. Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's a great response! I'll try to give them some wikilove as well, you're right, they might end up a great editor. Anniepoo (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

balloons for you!

andyzweb (talk) has given you balloons! Balloons are meant to uplift the morale of people with an illness, and has hopefully made your day a little better. Spread good health by giving someone else who is a bit ill a balloon.

Spread the good health by adding {{subst:Balloons}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

just spreading the wiki love! andyzweb (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Brenden Adams

Please add the article of Brenden Adams.

Brenden Adams born: September 20, 1995 height: 7'4.6" location: Ellensburg, WA, USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The article was marked for "Speedy Deletion". To be the subject of a Wikipedia article, a person must be notable. This might be established, for example, by citing an article about the person in the "New York Times". A name, birthdate, and birthplace alone don't say anything about notability. (As this edit after mine confirms [10].) Piano non troppo (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What's in a name?

Along the same vein, just randomly saw an edit of yours and had to say - what an awesome name!! --Cpt ricard (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Smile. Thanks. I Latinized the endless struggle with grandmother's piano. Unlike Wiki editors, pianos do not improve with age. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Your report

I already blocked 89.105.29.146 more than twenty minutes ago (informing you since I assume you thought the report was just being wiped without being handled). Thanks, though. :-) -- Mentifisto 13:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I thought there must have been a crossed-wire there, someplace. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Pitcairn Islands

The challenges I thought would be self-evident given the place is thousands of miles from the nearest government centre and has a grand total of 50 people which is less than some elementary school Grade 8 classrooms. I just felt the article needed some context and an introduction. Feel free to reword it. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering whether such places tended to be "laws in themselves". There was something to that effect said about crime in the Channel Islands in the news when there was a scandal a couple years ago. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Omar Amanat

User 82.99.29.112 is continuously posting comments about subject in violation of NPOV without verifiable sources. Longstanding article with long history of editor and admin review is being vandalized and user is posting irrelevent and unsubstantiated changes. I am considering requesting page protection and would appreciate your advice. User is posting from other IP addresses all in Sweden. J araneo (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. In a nutshell, I think semi-protection is necessary. But this is not a completely straightforward situation, and you should be aware.

As you observed, anon editing with IP's 212.112.167.85, 94.140.36.202, and 94.140.36.142 are all from Sweden. Is it probably the same editor? Yes; either that, or more than one person with the same goal. Are they trying to deceive Wikipedia? Not necessarily. There are areas where IPs change frequently, without warning. It could be one person simply be using different computers that are available to him, as he checks in.

You each have goals. You often present Omar Amanat in a good light, while the Swedish IP's often presents accomplishments in a poor light. (an example, your use of "co-found" vs. his of "provided feedback".) However, you both are sticking to (some) Wikipedia rules.

Where you both fall afoul is not being provably neutral. See WP:V For example, in this edit, he replaces your "has been profiled in Fortune Magazine" with "has had his name mentioned in Fortune Magazine". Consider the position of the reader! The statements are not quoted, nor is a reference given that can be checked. Therefore the reader (or the Wikipedia editor) has nothing to judge whether your version or the Swedish version is more exact.

This reference I checked supports your version, but not the additional material by the Swedish editor.[11] However, again, caution. The Swedish editor may have made a common Wikipedia editorial mistake — writing a sentence to read nicely, without considering the implication that the change is not supported by the reference.

Occasionally, the Swedish editor goes too far, and is clearly not being neutral. He agrees that Amanat was one of the "Top Ten Most Influential Technologists" -- but adds that it was "nearly a decade ago". This is WP:WEASEL which "damns with faint praise". A reader can easily discern that the award was a few years ago. And it doesn't make his accomplishments any less worthwhile.

Who is "right"? Generally, you are closer to Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and the Manual of Style. As a new editor, you may not be able to successfully ask for semi-protection. I'd like to learn your response to the above before I ask for semi-protection on your behalf? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hiya

Hey ther Piano non troppo,

I saw you were working to defeat vandalism lately. Thank You! But I saw one of your warnings to a user 208.125.2.58 and I wanted to give you a bit of advice. In general, we give vandals 4 warnings before we threaten to block them. What most do is either use a vandalism program (like twinkle) or use templates. For the first warning use {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article Name}} for the next use {{subst: uw-vandalism2|Article name}} and so on, until you get to vandalism 4.

However, that is just to make it easy for vandal-fighters. It really does not matter as long as it gets reverted. However, the most important thing is that you do not feed the vandals. That means that the only interaction you should have with them is telling them that their edit was reverted. Otherwise it just encourages them to come back and vandalize again.That means that this edit was not the best type of response. In all cases, if its just one vandal, you should have them blocked by reporting them at WP:AIV. Again thank you for your help! Tim1357 (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, I see you were right there to catch them when they replaced their edit again!

Generally I go for several gradually escalating warnings. An exception is when the vandalism is extreme. Several IPs are vandalizing the Kobi Arad article in a similar way, possibly working together: 24.39.156.23 [12], 74.72.122.244 [13], 08.125.2.58 [14].

I left the last IP vandal a personal message to alert them that there was an intelligent Wikipedia editing process in place, and that the persistent vandalism wasn't likely to succeed. In fact, reviewing, I didn't realize it had been going on quite so long. Time for a semi-protection, do you think? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

When there is more then one 1 vandal, that is the situation to use protection. However, there is no reason to tell the IP that you are doing so. Asking them "what is your preference" is not very appropriate. If they vandalized after their final warning, then have them blocked. Also, it is widely believed here that saying anything to the vandals, other then the standard user warning templates, is not needed. There is no need to show that there is a process, they will see that when you make true on your promise to block them. Tim1357 (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I went back and reviewed the IP's edits and they did not, in any way, constitute vandalism, or any other types of editing that would merit a block.

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia...Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism.

I know that the warnings do not mention vandalism, but the fact of the matter is that their edits were in good faith. It is NOT appropriate to threaten to block when the user is trying to do good. Please have a conversation with them, instead of making threats. Remember to stay out of an edit war, and to stay nice (and don't be meant to the newbies). Ask me if you have any questions. Tim1357 (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between not biting the newbies, and three months of editing vandalism by sockpuppets with no explanation and no response to several established editors undoing vandalism. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So its an edit war then? There is no rule against removing maintenance templates, so what's the problem? And who are the socks?Tim1357 (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday Was a Lie

Could you fix the infobox the IP broke as well? Thanks, I can't due to 3RR. Sach (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. The new anon IP's edits need an explanation, not a legalism about how many times you've reverted. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Now one of the 69.23x.xxx.xxx IP's is edit warring to remove the COI tag, and also deleted the COI discussion on the talk page. Got an admin you're friendly with? Sach (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just been dealing with a similar problem on Omar Amanat (see directly below and above). I've come to the conclusion it isn't worth bothering with, because few readers look at the page. The same isn't true of Yesterday Was a Lie, it's getting several hundred hits a month. Another difference is that the IP's you are dealing with are not innocent editors, but experienced ones, hiding behind IPs. (This comment from an editor with four edits is suggestive: "deleting AGF violations; alias and sockpuppet allegations may not be made unless proven".[15]).

69.231.207.238's deletion of your talk page COI discussion could an admission that COI is involved, or it could be just trouble-making (consider how experienced the editor is).

It seems there is enough evidence here to put a semi-protection on the article, at least for a few days. You, I and now User:Wildhartlivie are all saying that the COI tag needs to stay for the moment. (I see you just did that!) I'll add my voice. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I also filed a COI complaint, for whatever good that will do. At this point I think semi-protection is the most important thing to get, since it will provide a bit of calmth. Sach (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Page protection at Kobi Arad

Hi there. Thanks for your message. I've reviewed your new request at RPP (and rescued it from the bottom of the page before the bot filed it!), and I've declined it again. Essentially, as there's now an editor, in a couple of days semi-protection won't work. Most of the tag removals are probably valid now, but I have re-added the orphan tag, and told the editor not to take it off until there are some links. If he persists, take it to WP:AVI. If the page goes haywire again, let me know or go back to RPP. Thanks. GedUK  09:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I do appreciate your time on this. I'll chalk it up as an interesting learning experience — perhaps earlier decisive action would have avoided work on the part of a number of editors. In terms of "what to do" ... "cut our losses"? (Consider the daily article traffic.[16].) Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's one of those fiddly ones. I don't doubt that some admins on RPP would have protected it for a day or so, maybe a few hours. But we now have a new editor, and who knows what they'll go on to produce! GedUK  12:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Full marks...

... for this edit - nice to have a user who save us time! See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#backloged too often. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Software and IT in Pune

Due to the economic importance, the article should have substantial content about IT industry in Pune, although the earlier (unsourced) laundry list was unacceptable. I have added a revised section (with citations) in its place.

SPat ^talk 16:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit was just to "put the brakes on" a bit ... the idea of listing all businesses in India's eight largest city! You've got a more constructive approach going now. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thmc1 appears to be vandalising once again...

I would like to report that user Thmc1 is vandalising the Chinatown pages once again with his Pro-New York/Anti-San Francisco Chinatown propaganda. This time he's falsely citing website sources. In an edit on the "Vancouver, Chinatown" page, he claims that a San Francisco promotional website (www.hoteltravelcheck.com/sfo/Chinatown-San-Francisco.html) advertises its Chinatown as "second largest", presumably behind New York. This is clearly untrue, as the website reads "THE LARGEST", not "second largest". I wonder what the logic is behind his latest actions? Maybe calling other people's bluff assuming that nobody won't bother to check?? Anyway, he's already been warned by you and another editor for the same offense. Thought I'd let you know.IanEddington (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC).

Hi. You've got a new editor name, but I'm guessing we've talked before? I spent a few minutes mulling the Chinatown, Vancouver article. It occurred to me that if the article was improved, the unadorned population figures might assume less significance. Here's my comment on the talk page [17]. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been mostly observing, but his NY vs. SF ranting is becoming a bit tiring. I am also quite familiar with the site in question, and to the best of my knowledge it hasn't been updated in a long while. Most of the sites out there blurbing SF Chinatown as 2nd largest are usually pro-NY sites. IanEddington (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC).

There are definitely the issues of bias and poor sourcing.

One problem, the "meta-problem" as it were, is that the Chinatown, Vancouver article as whole reads like a Chamber of Commerce brochure. Much of the history is simply to promote tourist spots or to encourage business investment. Phrases such as "unofficial boundaries" and "spectacular signs to changing times" are WP:PEACOCK, and a fair part of the rest is uncited original research.

If this was a scholarly, detailed article, Thmc1 and others would be focused on more important things than superficial innuendos that "who's biggest" is somehow "who's best". In a formal complaint it would be difficult to single Thmc1 out — in a sense he's largely doing what other editors are in that article — promoting a special interest.

Another example of this type of Thmc1 edit is Demographics of New York City [18]. Notice he's taken an existing statement, and put a "spin" on it. On top of the factual census data about "American Indians", he's added that it's "the largest ethnic Indian community". My attitude is largely "so what". I don't value the US Census' dividing people into arbitrary categories. It smacks of those who like to make dubious over-generalizations. Even of racism. Thmc1 wants to put a spin on already somewhat dubious information? Both the material he's working from and what he is changing are a combination of promotional and superficial. They are birds of a feather. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for fixing my incredibly dumb mistake. I can't believe I was so distracted I missed the blatantly obvious. After seeing that, I moved to a quieter place from which to edit. I'm glad you were on top of things. Happy editing! 152.16.16.75 (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. Enjoy your peace and quiet! Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability Guideline

Hi Piano, I've just noticed you left this message on the scientist Sammy Lee's page: "This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged or deleted. (November 2009)". I see that the matter of notability has already been previously established - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sammy_Lee_(scientist). I am a WikiEditor who has been absent for some time (I've been busy writing books), and while I was updating his site, adding his Conference on Older Mothers which he held at the UCL on 18 September 2009, I thought I would add other citation ref links, all of which are fully reliable secondary sources (i.e. Observer/Guardian, The Times, BBC etc.). Frances Lynn,author 19:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sounds reasonable. I removed the tag. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! 80.177.220.23 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

WBAL/WMAR

You know it is really sad when I am pulled out of retirement by concerned users and have to come back to fix your vandalism....continued vandalism. Your ideas were immediately shot down in RFA, ANI, TVS, and mediation just plain wasn't needed, but you seem to think that you have the approval to go and delete things you don't. You can't quote policy cause there is none about this topic, you can't cite any post where there is consensus with you cause there is none, it takes concerned users emailing me and me coming out of retirement to address this. This is sad.

Now you have one of two options...1) stop or 2) be blocked. I will no deal with your overriding the system, blatantly lying, and blatant vandalism, especially when it brings me back to a place I left and feel happy about leaving. So, you have your choices. I would pick number 1 if I were you. - Neutralhomer (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been identified as a sockpuppet.[19] [20]. You have been blocked for disruptive editing. Your use of editing tools has been removed. You make random, unfounded accusations. What I don't understand is why you haven't been permanently blocked. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You dig something up, that everyone knows from 2008 that has nothing to do with your blatant vandalism of numerous pages in numerous areas of Wikipedia including Rachael Ray, which I took the liberty of reverting. You will be blocked soon enough for your actions, even if it is just 24 hours for 3RR. Ya see, I have nothing to lose. I don't care about Wikipedia or what goes on here. If I did, I wouldn't have retired in disgust at people like you. Stop, or be blocked. The choice is yours. - Neutralhomer (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What you are is an editor who believes that by abuse and intimidation, you will be allowed to add material that is contrary to Wiki guidelines. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Still, has nothing to do with your blatant vandalism....and isn't true. Also, what Wiki guidelines? You can't cite any, because they don't exist. I pray for you, I really do, cause you need it. - Neutralhomer (talk)

You continue your vandalism, do you want to be blocked? You are a clear vandal with nothing better to do than edit war. You will be blocked. - Neutralhomer (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ray

I've explained on the article talk page why your removal is not justified and is not supported by the references. If you are unwilling to discuss and find consensus prior to removal of sourced information, I may need to report you to other forums. Gimmetrow 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Get your facts straight. I removed incorrect material and explained why on the talk page. You reverted, giving only this explanation in the Edit Summary: "Undid revision 328276171 read the reference".[21] You did not contribute to the talk page at that point, or otherwise discuss your reasons. Subsequently I again reverted your edits, but only then did you decide to discuss on the talk page.

The only reliable reference -- the very one you quote -- suggests that the representative of the "American College Dictionary" was wrong in ascribing the coinage to Ray. I don't see what your point is. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The facts are that you removed the info a second time without a reply on the talk page. Take care what is ascribed to whom. The reference says the OAD representative ascribed coinage. Then the reference says "some lexicography buffs" dispute that the word should be in the dictionary (because an acronym is not a word), and "then there are those who gripe" that the word predates Ray. The reference does not endorse these views. On the contrary - it obliquely characterizes them as "hateration toward Ms. Ray" (apparently using another word added to the dictionary). Gimmetrow 03:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are the dates and times:

November 27, 22:27. I make this edit [22], with this Edit Summary "Removes claims about words she's coined that are highly contested, even in one of the references given. See discussion."

November 27, 22:44 to 23:09. I add this section to the Rachael Ray talk page [23]

You have made no contribution to the talk page.

November 28, 00:50. You make this edit to the article [24]. As I said above, your only explanation was in the edit summary "Undid revision 328276171 read the reference".

November 28, 00:50 to 00:53. You answer on the talk page.

November 28 00:52. Not seeing that you have answered on the talk page (probably because there was nothing there when I started my edit), I redo my edit with this Edit Summary "Address the issue on the discussion page, or I will file a complaint against your edits as vandalism."

Therefore:

• 1) You are flatly wrong saying "that you removed the info a second time without a reply on the talk page". I changed the information once.
• 2) You ignored my request in the Edit Summary to contribute to the talk page discussion. But instead waved it off with "read the reference". (I obviously had.) I.e., I was following process, and you were not.
• 3) Since I did not realize that you had responded on the talk page before the second edit, I was only responding to the situation as I understood it at the time. I.e., I was again following process.
• 4) Your attitude, that taking part of a single reference out-of-context, to support promotional statements in the article — statements that the reference itself suggests are dubious — is a fine example of how a Wiki editor can support falsehood under the guise of WP:V. Pat yourself on the back for a great day's work. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The given source says that an OAD rep credited her with coining, and that's what the wiki article says. That's not out-of-context. I've suggested what you could add that would be in-line with the source. Gimmetrow 13:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually an apology from you would be what I was most interested in, at this point. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If, as you say, you didn't see any answer on the talk page "probably because there was nothing there when [you] started [your] edit", then you started your edit (a pure revert with no other changes) within 30 seconds of my edit to the article, and didn't finish it until at least 1:18 later, during which you wrote an edit summary accusing me of vandalism [25] for restoring information you removed - a removal you should have expected would be opposed. So OK, I'm sorry I didn't drop a note on the talk page before reverting your removal of sourced information instead of doing it 30 seconds after. Gimmetrow 20:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for giving me credit for my edit of "Space colonization" on the 26th of November. NASA, JPL and the others who actually did the work deserve the credit. Now and then a significant fact will slip by people who are actively maintaining articles. The continued maintenance deserves credit. Anyone can throw in an added fact now and then. I help when I can.--Fartherred (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

MWT

thanks for your anti-vandalism work. Please do try to avoid situations like this, though. You have to check what you're reverting to. Enigma^msg 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation, it does help some days.

Ah, I see what happened. MWT shows the current version, and the next most recent version. A revert takes out every edit that the editor just made. But comparing, I only looked at the trailing IP numbers, both were 130. So I reverted from one "130 vandal" to a different "130 vandal". Thanks for noticing this. (Another potential improvement for MTW, if I ever get around to playing with the code.) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The good news is that both 130 vandals and the other IP are all blocked. :) Enigma^msg 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Personnel sections and "over-linking"

Personnel sections are supposed to include wiki-links even if the person has been linked prior to the section in the article. That is per music project guidelines. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Oh, I see, you're talking about a few edits I made in passing while removing lyric copyright violation external links. E.g., this one.[26]. That's makes a certain sense, and it probably looks stylistically better, anyhow. In those cases, I feel your edit is best, but you might want to take a quick look here [27] to see some pragmatic issues that aren't always factored in linking considerations. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sure WP:ALBUMS took the pragmatic issues into consideration when they specified the guidelines. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's something I've written on, and been asked to comment on in WP:LINKING. Most people are utterly unaware that links are rarely used and more often more of an editorial burden and reader inconvenience than a help. Very few Wiki editors have been web masters for large public knowledgebases, so there's no way they would know. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

I MADE A JOKE AND 2 MINUTES LATER IT WAS CORRECTED!?!??! WTF???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.241.45 (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

KOBRA

Do you really know so much about KOBRA (roller coaster) to contiually re-add the deletion tag? I don't think so. So stop being a contrary little bullcrap and leave the article alone.

--82.34.173.149 (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)