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)

re User talk:Kateshortforbob/Archives2009/December#Advice again on where to take a dispute

Hi Piano non troppo - Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to your message: I haven't been as active as I'd like on WP the past couple of weeks!

I'm not sure how useful any advice I have might be, as I don't have a great deal of experience with dispute resolution on Wikipedia. If you've tried mediation and RfCs and have brought it up at the appropriate Wikiproject with no success, the best thing to do might be to lay out the problem(s) on one of the noticeboards; I have had very good experiences with them before: the editors who respond are generally knowledgeable in the area, and having fresh eyes on a matter is generally beneficial. I would think either the Content Board or Admin's Incident Board would be appropriate. I notice that User:Neutralhomer is currently under under a short block, apparently for not following policy on non-free images on TV station articles. If there is a pattern of non-adherence to Wikipedia policy, that is a concern, and I think that some action would have to be taken there (ANI would probably be best for that). Neutralhomer's ability to respond to any report will be limited (his responses can be copied/transcluded from his talk page) until his block expires tomorrow or is otherwise lifted.

Apologies again for the delay in replying! --Kateshortforbob _talk 14:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi mate, i have been translating this article from Arabic and French sources and i feel like I made a huge mess. When it is read, you can obviously deduce that the editor (myself) was translating his arabic/french thoughts into English. Would you take a look at it and maybe gimme a lil advice on how to better organize my writing process ( you being a professional editor and all) Don't mind the works list i will move it. thanks Eli+ 15:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Great job! It's interesting, factual and sourced. My goodness! Please continue!

In writing, there are are always small matters for possible improvement. (Arthur C. Clarke, after years, rewrote one of his fine stories, but didn't improve it in any substantial way, imho.) At some point, a writer needs to be "internally directed". I think you're there. With Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks mate your are too kind, your compliments almost convinced me. I have always thought my english writing skills were "Fringlishy". I truly appreciate you taking the time to take a look at Emily's page and thank you for you kind words of encouragement, they meant a great deal to me. Eli+ 16:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Who can edit

Just what is it about you that makes you extraordinarily competent to remove someone else's edits? It is an informative page, not an advertisment. Eye Disagree (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

From your formatting, which was HTML, but not Wiki-specific, I take it you are a new editor. I don't know which edit is under discussion -- let me know.

Anybody can edit Wikipedia. Material is often removed, and "tags" are often placed even by editors with a couple weeks experience. (I've done 10,000s of Wiki edits over years, and in the real world I've been a professional editor for major companies.)

Often enough people come to Wikipedia with the expectation that because it's free and accessible, they can write anything they want, but in fact there is material that is 100% unacceptable. Promotional material is not always unacceptable ... but often it is. Some promotional guidelines are set out in WP:SPAM.

In the Wiki world, marking an article as an advertisement, or removing promotional material is common. If I was representing a business, I would do a couple things. First, I would explain my relationship on the discussion page, as described in WP:COI. Second, I would organize my priorities. The worst thing that can happen to a Wikipedia article is for it to be deleted. A less bad thing is having several tags at the top suggesting that the material is questionable. Having a single, mild tag and having some small amount of text removed ... that's closer to the "I can live with it" situation. The Wiki rules, guidelines and policies can be daunting for a new editor. A shortcut is to use featured articles as templates.[28] Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read the WP:SPAM section and have no idea how you got there?

The article is a detailed technical and historical description of a homebuilt aircraft. Perhaps you don't know anything about that topic? Furthermore, there is not a hint of solicitation in the article, which would merit your editorial. In conclusion, if your other 10000 edits are of this quality then they should all be removed. Like this one.

Eye Disagree (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It would help if I had some idea of what article you are talking about. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

After research, now I know what article you are talking about, Dyke Delta. Phrases such as "marketed for homebuilding", and "The plans are available from John Dyke, who now resides in Fairborn, Ohio" strongly indicate, not only advertising, but conflict of interest. According to WP:COI, I am asking you to "declare your interest" in this article. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My interest in this article is to get people like you to stop editing what you don't know

anything about. Using your example the article about New York Times must be marked an advertisment since it is available to people in various ways.

If you are such a high-caliber

editor; a member of the selfproclaimed anti-spam people, then edit it to your satisfaction. But don't just state that it's an ad. It is e.g. useful to us who are interested in homebuilt aircraft to know wether it is avilable or if it is not available anymore. I found this article via Google, of course, and I learned lots from reading it, and I found useful source material from its links. Ergo, it is a useful article. Btw, what reference do you find questionable? Jane's? EAA Publications? Do you know anything about either? Maybve you should look them up? E.g. in Wikipedia.

I looked at your editing history and your are all over the place. What do you know about Swedish

Phonology? I'm Swedish. I know lots. I could discuss that article but what did you contribute?

Korean Airlines? What do you care?

Are you one of these self-proclaimed Wiki-Gods whose opinion is always the right one? There is a

Wikipedia article about that...

Eye Disagree (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I.e., you're someone who likes a fight. Take it elsewhere. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that is rich. Dismiss me as argumentative because I dare defy YOU, the Wiki-God.

Sure, I'll take it elsewhere. As soon as you stop editing articles you don't know anything about. Or start editing them, rather than just labelling them. If you are an EDITOR then EDIT the article you find in error. Otherwise I suggest joining a book-club. But then, you'd just complain about the books, not have any actual opinion, wouldn't you?

Eye Disagree (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange you should mention it. I have a number of Jane's annuals, hardcopy, on my shelf. They make nice browsing.

You, like many critics, are under the impression that no one but a "self-proclaimed" expert has a right to express an opinion. Welcome to Wikipedia. And to a public view where aggressive assholes can be put properly in their place. Piano non troppo (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Flag carrier

I noticed that you removed the perfectly inoffensive "flag carrier" from Korean Airlines with the comment "What is a flag carrier?" As the phrase was wikilinked, and appropriate, I'm a little surprised that you removed it. Perhaps you should take a little more care when deleting material. cojoco (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I don't think the term has a fixed meaning that's worth noting in an encyclopedia. If I understand correctly, it's like labels on jam jars reading "by appointment to her majesty the queen". Royal Warrant I.e., it's some nebulous business deal of no fixed status, and no particular note to the general public. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should nominate "Flag Carrier" for deletion. I doubt you would succeed. cojoco (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, an analogy might be companies adding their trademark and copyright to Wiki articles — contrary to the MOS. The Flag carrier article is heavily marked with tags requesting references and claiming it's original research — not an article I would link to, myself. Finally, speaking of MOS, "&" is not used in place of "and" in formal writing, except, for example, in company titles. So, all-in-all, you might be the one to "take a little more care" editing? Piano non troppo (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bye and Happy Christmas

Please accept my advanced Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.I will not be able to wish you on those days as I will be taking a Wiki break for one month starting tomorrow. Also wishing you a Happy editing.. :)  arun  talk  07:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Your unwelcomed and destructive help.

Wiki user rating: for the time you invested: 1 point. Helpfulness: 0 point. Makes 1 out of 5 points in total. --Hans Joachim Koerver 14:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Contre-bass, I have to correct: 0 points in total - I see you started already this morning to mutilate pages of mine SM U-109. Pack "Coyote", or pack "Burned Soil", I assume ? --Hans Joachim Koerver 22:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC). Check my talk for details. --Hans Joachim Koerver 22:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Burned soil"? You asked an administrator to delete all the pages that you created! That is "burned soil". I demonstrated in a single article example, largely for the administrator's benefit,[29] that it would be simple to produce a Wiki version of the topic. (I note that another editor has already accepted the substance of my change, and begun to work with my version.[30])

Your bizarre logic again: I created the articles, but the project idea was rebuffed by people like you, and now me as cretor should not have the chance to retire my work, as I will not waste a minute more in Wiki articles ? For what reason should they stay here in a form that you rated not Wiki-conform ? Do you want to overwork all 110 artickes concerned ? Please feel free to do so. I will not do your work. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 12:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"Constructive" in your frame of reference means being allowed to spam Wikipedia with dozens of trivial new articles referencing your book. Piano non troppo (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"dozens of trivial new articles". Yes, yes: all 75 were rated start class or stubs for “Military history WikiProject”, “WikiProject Ship”, and “WikiProject Germany”" AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 12:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"referencing your book." : yes, the info comes from my book. What else should I reference - the Bible ? The same logic as in your arguments, that I used "too many" references and links in my articles. Saw that you already started to delete this at SM U-109. Dont forget the other articles between SM U-6 and SM U-117 ;-))) In any case, a nice joke between historians, I will note it down. Its like one musicians says to the other that he uses too many music notes in his pieces. Or physicians: too many formulas. Ok, you seem to have changed your mind now. Very wise, my arguing with you seemed to have helped to give you some clearer ideas, as yours showed to be all quite subjective and emotional. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 12:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh Gott, what a slimy and false snake you are. You are telling LIES behind my back about me [31]) to others, that you wouldnt dare to repeat on my talk page, where all your subjective and emotional arguments didnt score any point in discussion. You are really disgusting. Its because of black charactered people like you, that Wiki goes down. You MUST be 5th column. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 12:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes its really hard to slow the momentum of a new editor gracefully.

More or less greasefully, I think. How many time they take at Wiki to make down Newbies ! And what a joy it is - look here - [32].

AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 12:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Contre-Bass, soo much time invested in pure negativism, only to try to make down a newbie ? Why didnt you from the beginning try to propose ameliorisations to a Newbie, which you start now a little bit, after I have retired (bad conscience?). In any case its a nice devote byzantian style, in which you try now to justify yourself before the seniors. What a roaring sergent-major fun it must be to make down newbies ! Ha, ha, ha. Such, such were the joys ... You are really a great Des-tributor before the Lord. And an obvious LIER, who denounces others behind their back with non-existing or false proofs. Shame on you. --Hans Joachim Koerver 18:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks very much for your editing of [[Legally Blonde (musical). I would never have picked up on all those! Here's to GA eventually hahaMark E (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD of Kobi Arad and sockpuppetry of its creator Knoblauch129

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knoblauch129

Your comments welcome! --Jubilee♫clipman 04:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but profanity is disallowed in Wikipedia. Lolololol. All right, all right. Thank you, I'll have a look. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ibrahim Shkupolli

Hi, Piano non troppo (?, interesting 'name'),
Concur entirely with you on lack of notability as per my comments on the articles talk page. There is already a 2009 Espoo shopping mall shooting article. Do you know how to start the ball rolling for mergeing, at least, with the other article? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This may be a bit of a hot topic. It's already been nominated for speedy deletion. I threw out my 2 cents, and planned to let it go at that. Unless you enjoy confused conversation, you might want to just let matters take their course? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

tb

Hello, Piano non troppo. You have new messages at Seb az86556's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This> {{uw-spam1}} has a talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. One is never quite sure about the proper place for "one off" comments. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer1

I added the Advert tag to the PEER 1 article because *some* of it seems like advertising, not all. In addition, it does seem, to me anyways, to be written from a pro-company point of view.74.214.250.169 (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Right as rain. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Candice Swanepoel

I'm somewhat confused by your edit summary in Swanepoel's article in returning the notability tag. Saying "She's somebody who does a job. That, alone, doesn't make anybody notable. Or is someone claiming that being a model is more important than being a doctor or a professor?" makes it seem a lot like you're judging her notability based on your opinion of her profession's merit. That's not what notability is about. I mean, hell, Paris Hilton has an article and she's absolutely useless to society—but that doesn't mean she's not notable.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with exactly how notability is determined in this situation. If you could cite a couple guidelines, that would be helpful. According to the article, her claim to notability is that she appeared on a single magazine cover, in Nike ads, and was on a catwalk with four designers' dresses. A reference that I just now checked, however, states she has done considerably more.[33] But even so, it would still be nice to know where the "cut-off" is for model notability. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no firm cut-off point for notability—is there ever? Some people make the "all models are just pretty faces and not notable" argument; others claim one magazine cover alone is enough to assert notability, regardless of coverage (or lack of it, I should say). The WP:ENT policy is what covers models, but I usually just go by what's in the model's Fashion Model Directory profile. If she's had several major magazine covers (like Vogue) and several ad campaigns for commonly-known designers (Chanel, Gucci, Prada, Hilfiger, etc.), I usually leave the article alone. (I ignore runway appearances because that's the entry point for most models and usually not at an indicator of notability.) In the case of a model like Swanepoel, appearances in the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show or Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue are almost always enough to establish notability because each are widely considered career highlights in modeling and receive a lot of press. In particular, Swanepoel looks to have become a Victoria's Secret Angel recently, the Angels being a group that gets a lot of attention in the US, a la Gisele Bundchen, Adriana Lima, Marisa Miller, etc.

That all said, and sorry to be long-winded, most models on Wiki are probably non-notable or borderline (I can't even recall how many I've PROD'ed or AfD'ed), so in most cases if you nominated the article for deletion or tagged it as non-notable, I probably wouldn't disagree, and lack of sourcing would make it an easy deletion.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that was a very clear explanation. Your "runway rule of thumb" seems workable.

I tagged the article in passing when it appeared in the anti-vandalism tool showing changes by anonymous IPs, and assumed (incorrectly) that the article was representative of her accomplishments. Reading one of the references, it appears that the Wiki article has perhaps less than half of of what she's done. (She needs a new agent, or maybe new fans.)

On impulse, I just checked Playboy models, and was able to find some Wiki articles about those who accomplished nothing except posing for one issue. Those, it seems to me, do cross the line into non-notable. Swanepoel isn't in that class, she's a successful professional. But...I don't think I'll take the Playboy advocates on today. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with the "adult" models when you take that on. To save you the trouble though: all Playboy covermodels/"Playmates of the Month" are considered notable, regardless of coverage, from what I've gathered. The other models are fair game!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

How disappointing. You aren't intrigued by a protracted, vitriolic, and futile confrontation with Playboy Enterprises and supporters? Then perhaps I'll suggest that you are oriented toward a pleasant and productive New Year! Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Band official sites as spam

Hi, you've been deleting external links to official band sites from the articles of musicians who are members of those bands. I see that removal may be appropriate, but I don't agree with you're rational; it should be WP:ELNO (item#13 specifically), not WP:SPAMLINK. Here is why: these types of external links are not advertising for unrelated parties, they are actually related to the musician's direct and substantial musical efforts AND they are offical sites. It is not "SPAM", it merely "ELNO". Per ELNO item #13 if the official band site has a page about the musician it could be externally "deep" linked. BTW, here are is another article you may consider: Jon_Bon_Jovi which has an external link to the band site Bon Jovi. - Steve3849 18:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but you did the same with Miley Cyrus pages. It seems fair remove an artist's official website but not a song's lyrics. I think that is not any violation since the ones that were on those pages were licensed by MTV. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, two types of issues:

Issue A: removing external links to sites with copyrighted lyrics. Strictly following international law as stated by the Berne Convention, Wikipedia should not reference an external link where copyright has not been explicitly proved. Effectively, for example, that means all current English language "lyrics only type sites".[34] There are musical groups that do not own the publishing rights to their own songs, so, being very strict and careful, even lyric links to a group's official site are not allowed in their own Wiki article. (I think that's going too far, and I never delete those ... since ... after all ... who loses? The group? The copyright holder? Aren't they likely to have similar financial interests? Is anybody *really* going to complain about the free publicity? Let alone sue Wikipedia? Unlikely.)

However MTV, like YouTube, is not necessarily connected to the artists and copyright holders. What I found suspicious was, for example, on Ready, Set, Don't Go, the external link page didn't actually have any lyrics, but "Apologies! We're now working on getting lyrics from another provider onto MTV.com. Please check back soon." A day after our discussion, going back to check the exact wording for our discussion, I found the page has now been entirely removed by MTV.[35]. At the moment, three days later, the "apology message" is back. (But not the lyrics.)

Maybe we might wait to see what reappears on the MTV site, when that happens?

Issue B: Picking the correct rational for link removals. You're right Steve3849, that WP:ELNO might be a better choice for an explanation, and I'll probably change that in the future.

It's been quite a long time since I changed my "basic" set of justifications. Early on, I learned which Wiki guidelines were complicated and ambiguous for the new anon IP editors that I often meet with Mike's Wiki Tool. A couple Wiki guidelines, as I recall, were instant kindling for a flame war. So I just avoided them. The open question is: What purpose does the edit justification serve? And, of course, its serves many purposes. The one I choose to emphasize is giving a simple answer to new editors that is likely to be readily comprehended without ruffling feathers. But, since you found it disconcerting, I'll shift to an explanation that more solid grounding for experienced editors. Regards to you both, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

O.K. I see your point but I think that MTV is licensed since it is a channel and it lists Hollywood Records as the label, well at least before the lyrics went missing. I'll check back with you if they have re-appeared. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

::I found a copy of a version of that page *before* the one we've been talking about, reading "We are looking for a source". That the page that was removed had lyrics, and read "©LAVENDER ZOO MUSIC", "Lyrics provided by Gracenote". The company MTV was working with appears to infringe artistic copyright "Much of the information in the Gracenote Music Recognition Service (originally known as CDDB) was initially submitted by users ". I.e., they appear not to have checked copyright status before they used material. In fact, they don't mention the word "copyright" anywhere on their FAQ page.[36] Regards, (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For those of you following this, I got an opinion from the admin who often deals with copyright violation that MTV and Gracenote *both* were probably acting properly, etc. (The same admin suggests in passing that it might be best, as Ipodnano05 and I were agreeing, to leave the links out until they have valid information.) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, another postscript (for Steve3849). There's a certain question of intent, with these external links. Were they placed by a marketing department or advertising agency representative? Then probably they are WP:SPAM, i.e., the intent was not to contribute helpful encyclopedic information, but to insert external links to commercial sites. Are we always likely to be able to reasonably determine the intent? Probably not. But a fan who places exactly the same link on a dozen Wiki pages can be assumed not to be making a thoughtful contribution, either. True, their motivation isn't commercial, but it too is WP:SPAM, likely being promotion. On the whole, I'm inclined to stick with WP:SPAM. It deals with motive, rather than forcing later editors to constantly review external links to ascertain whether the content is still sufficiently on-target. "Motive" works for me personally, because a large proportion of my edits are anti-vandalism — new anon IPs, where I can discern quite regular patterns. Examining the history of named editors, it's often true that they work in patterns as well. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Try to work with me on this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Danish_poets -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. The citations will be very helpful to other readers. (I did retain the cited additions you made.) This type of list page is regularly used for self-promotion. I don't expect you'll have more problems, but if you do, consider putting a message the top of the article, "This page is undergoing major revision." Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Several of the "List of [nationality or language] poets" pages were created by editors from the categories in various language wikis. I understand the problem with notability and verifiability with this -- we risk importing the self-promoting going on in the other wikis (direct self promotion across languages is very unlikely, although I suppose it's possible). I vastly prefer to have footnotes on everything, but I've been more lax with lists like these for national or language poets because the benefit to readers seems much greater than the problem for readers due to the garbage that gets inserted -- but I have to admit, there's not a huge amount of harm. English Wikipedia lacks a lot of biographies on quite a few poets that turn out to be kind of important in their own national literatures (see the redlinks on the Danish page that are footnoted to the New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry, which mentions the top 30 or so poets from Denmark). If you feel strongly about this, ultimately you've got policy on your side, but please keep in mind what it says over at the fifth regular paragraph at WP:V on the possibility that some verification could be postponed. Please think about just how much we'd gain or lose in these particular situations. One area where removing redlinks has been very useful is at List of Indian poets, although it's in pretty good shape now. In the past, a lot of IPs were adding uncited redlinks there that didn't seem to be notable at all. A lot of India-related literature pages have problems with style and footnoting, so please consider taking a look in that area. Thanks for the comment. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A comprehensive and experienced summary.

I was simply dealing with the article on the level — as apparently you surmised — of those countries who have had less experience with Wikipedia and have some difficulty adapting to Wiki standards of notability. You seem to be improving List of Danish poets significantly and substantially. Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

EvieEvEv and Noah Cyrus

Hi there! Thanks for taking over the watch on that little escapade. I think you were a little harsh on both of us. This is clearly a newcomer and I suspect a youngster. Ev responded positively to the suggestions I made about grammar and sourcing (appearing at one stage to enlist an adult's help with formating refs). S/he showed a desire to understand and comply with our styles and constraints which are neither intuitive or familiar to your average child. We cannot assume that the distinction between the promotional terms that he/she would be familiar with in the "real" world and the neutral tone we require would be immediately apparent. My view was to encourage someone who may develop a taste for the task and become a valuable editor. Threatening an early ban is hardly encouraging. And if it ends up a pig's ear, there's always the option to revert.

My last edit to her/his page was at 00:03, 3 January. You then added that I was "not being to the point" regarding the peacock and promotional language introduced in this edit made more than 2 hours after my last comment. Did I miss the loopback in the time continuum?

Anyway, no hard feelings on my part, and thanks again for taking over.

Oh, and thanks also for your support on my talk page. Occasional flippancy is one of my vices :)

All the best for 2010 -- Timberframe (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a vague intimation you might take "not being to the point" as a reflection on you, rather than what I intended, which was to alert EvieEvEv that there were other issues with her editing than just what you had mentioned. I could have soft-pedaled on EvieEvEv a bit; I should have been clearer that she needed to respond to editors, and perhaps ask before making changes. At the rate EvieEvEv was going, she really was a few edits away from being blocked, though. You (reasonably) reverted several of her edits in one day.[37] Even after several corrections, EvieEvEv didn't seem to understand that replacing your version with phrases including "upcoming actress following her big sister" and "slowly expanding in the acting world" probably wouldn't be encyclopedic, even if references were supplied. The only response she gave to the three editors removing her additions was "I have just expanded the introduction and given a summary on Noah Cyrus". No other words at all.

In the "anti-vandalism Wiki world" it may be important (as it definitely is in the real world with grafitti) to catch vandals quickly and remove their work, otherwise they get an emotional attachment to the amount of effort they have put in. I had an experience last year with a young editor who was politely corrected by many editors, and finally mentored by someone who just about to become an admin. Over a period of months, all the young editor did was grudgingly make corrections when she thought people were watching, then put similar material back again. Often with apologies, accusations, etc. Finally, she started a sockpuppet, imagining we wouldn't be able to figure out. It would have been better, I feel, to slap her down hard right at the beginning. She had no respect for the Wiki guidelines or other people's opinions. She wanted to turn the Wiki articles into her personal blogs. I sensed the same type of "fan content" addition here in Noah Cyrus, and was responding in part to that experience. As you imply, I probably should have qualified her situation to her more carefully. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

John Doe

Through a Wiki update error, my edit justification was lost. I removed: extraneous language, a (female!) picture having little relevancy, and pointless trivia, among 1000s of cases

See what you think of it now. --hydrox (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

pseudonyms

What is your real name? For whom do you do your paid work? I like the fact that your pseudonym evokes moderation rather than god-like vigilante empowerment (e.g. Tyrennius). In general, however, I would have more confidence in Wikipedia if its editors didn't hide behind pseudonyms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimmer40 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Swimmer40, those questions could constitute outing, please tread lightly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm self-employed. I have various university degrees, have worked in a number of fields, and am (or was) considered an expert in three fields (with professional "peer-reviewed" publications, i.e., not Wikipedia). None are related to art or sociology.

Being on Wikipedia's anti-vandalism patrol, I do a lot of work with vandals, so I prefer not to give my real name, except to administrators. Perhaps mercifully, I don't have a "public face", so unlike you, I get to avoid the personal confrontations with the less rational.

As for my pseudonym, well, quite apart from working on vandalism, I enjoy a good joke, even if it's on me. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The article Dignity

Thank you very much for your attention at Dignity. I much appreciate your help. PYRRHON  talk   17:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Noah Cyrus

I don't recall having ever heard her or seen her on anything, but that's no reason to let unsourced claims into the article. Woogee (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ga review of Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)

It does not seem to be appropriate for you to undertake this review as you have been involved in disputes about it. I am asking you to withdraw, and I undertake to conduct the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I had only questioned external links:

1) Whether an lyrics link site was in violation of international law,

2) Whether it is appropriate to add an external link to a Web page that does not mention the song.

I addressed external links first, because they are the least subjective. The article as a whole has significant problems, which I started to address in the review. The body of the text is 3700 words long, only 64 of which discuss the composition, instruments, production of the song. ("The song has a moderate electro-synth groove and it is composed in the key of C minor with a tempo of 116 beats per minute.[8] The song is set in common time, and Gaga's vocal range spans from the high-note of G3 to the lower base of E♭5.[8] The song has the following chord progression, Ab–Cm–Fm–Db–Ab–Cm–Fm–Db–Db.") Only Lady Gaga is mentioned as having any significant artistic role, i.e., it's a PR piece for Lady Gaga.

It is so long and excessively detailed, it's unlikely that more than 1 in 50 readers would read the entire thing. That is, it is an example of one of the least useful song articles that I am aware of in Wikipedia. It is bloated with critical reviews, inexplicable and unexplained details about dozens of remixes, and other intricate detail that would not appear in a full-length published biography of Lady Gaga. It is unencyclopedic and unuseful.

I'm a professional editor, and have no difficulty separating editing guidelines from my personal taste. If Lady Gaga were paying me to write the article, I would make the same comments. This article is no service to her, or to readers, the existing material needs to be trimmed by about 75%, and the article expanded to include central issues of song production. Your request is refused. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well in that case continue. Your review will be (is being) watched closely by other GA reviewers. Pyrotec (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an interesting option, it may not be practical, but ... contact Lady Gaga's agent, or get her opinion, directly. I sincerely don't believe the current article is to well-suited to the benefit of Wikipedia, its readers, or to the artist. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

One contact that may not be directly involved with fan mail: "Phone: (310) 235-4700 Fax: (310) 235-4900 Contact: SONGS OF UNIVERSAL INC. ATTN: COPYRIGHT MANAGER 2440 SEPULVEDA BLVD STE 100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90064-1712" Piano non troppo (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The opinions of Lady GaGa's agent don't mean a thing here, but the opinions of other GA reviewers who are watching this review do. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

An interesting aspect of being a professional editor in a large company is that the opinions of other professional editors are often quite similar. This article fails the basic purpose of writing it: to be readable. Check with another professional editor at a major publishing house, or a Fortune 500 company, if you will. I suggested that if professional editorial judgment doesn't suit you, you consult with the artist's representative. You apparently decline to do this, also.

Given that you, Jezhotwells, decline either professional editorial standards or the wishes of the artist, and that it's unlikely that most readers will read more than a small part of the article, I honestly wonder what it is you think this article accomplishes. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent what I said. I suggest that you review the article against the criteria at WP:WIAGA. I look dforward to reading your review when you get around to it. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I read it, and reread it, before adding my comment. Only 2% of the article describes the song itself, and there is almost no mention of instruments, artists, equipment or process of making the song or video. It is wildly unbalanced. That is in the criteria. It fails criterion 3, under "What is a good article?".

You are walking down a established and dead-end road. That you can demonstrate an article follows "criteria" doesn't mean it's readable or interesting. Do a survey, not of your group of reviewers, but of random people who have read the article. I will bet you hard cash that less than 10% read the whole thing. What is the purpose of an article that is not read? Piano non troppo (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And I absolutely decline your review and your biased attitude and comments. I request you to step down from reviewing the article again becuase this matter and your biased attitude as a fellow editor has been notified to GAR. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not shown bias. I'm a professional editor, I have professional standards, and I use them. That you *perceive* bias in constructive comments, and even in objective statements of fact indicates that I can't work with you. I'll leave you with this: The writing for which you pat yourself on the back[38] (videos) is fair at best, and in the article in question is weak, and shows a superficial understanding of the topic that is gleaned from fan and public relation sources. When my many acquaintances in the academic community scorn Wikipedia content, rest assured, they are referring to unprofessional work such as yours which admits of no professional criticism. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"... unprofessional work such as yours ..." What? So you're saying that 33 Good Articles, 1 FA and 2 FL's is not good enough? Correct me if I'm wrong but you have none of the above to your credit and say your criticism is "professional". Please tread water more carefully. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What Piano non troppo says about the article is true of many articles. However, this article was being considered for GA, not FA. It is a work in progress, and GA criteria are far below professional work. Piano non troppo is entitled to dislike anything here, but not entitled to lay blame for it on any one editor. As a contributor to the article and its talk page, Piano non troppo bears a share of responsibility for whatever quality the article has. Finally, calls for Piano non troppo to step aside are out of order; they amount to ownership. --Una Smith (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

German Americans

Thank you for your comment and maybe I should have dicussed first- but well most edits are done withour discussion. I never considered it controverisal to mention that the group witch formed allways one of the 3 most numberous groups (and is today considered the most numberous group) was an integral part of forming the American society and identity , which is of course disticnt form the German society. The actual article liments the influence to such unimportant things like christmas trees and Baron von Steuben. Tradition in sience, cultur, protestant philosophie and and and are far more important then a christmas tree. But maybe you are right and things like this belong to the Americans-article. And most likely you are right and the edit was not that good, but well 195.243.51.34 (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course Germans have had a major impact on America. I still find it fascinating that there was debate which side the US should join in WWI. If it wasn't for the Germans, the US might not have landed a man on the moon. The issue is rather the unverifiable claims, the WP:PEACOCK. For example "one of the most important", that's a matter of opinion about what's "important". Many ethnic groups are important to the US, in different ways. I'm not sure I would care to identify one that *wasn't* important! Piano non troppo (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Most likely my motivation was a little bit patriotic in nature, which should not go into an encyclopaedia. But I had no bad or even arrogant intendions. I only think it is an important fact often forgotten, that the Germans next to the Irish and English are the central groups in the development of the "typicaly" white Americans. The influence of the African Americans is for example often highlighted and seperate mentioned here in Europe. Especially in the case of Anti-Americanism, which is not so seldom found under European "intelectuals" under the keywords of McDonald, Cars and Republicans the Europeans and others should know this developments are very close to use. :-) 195.243.51.34 (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Piano non troppo! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 18:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of copyright

Is flawed. Any author, may at any time, release their copyright to the public domain.Wjhonson (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is not incredibly deep, it mostly focuses on two areas where my job as an editor requires professional acumen. (I'm picking up Wiki-savvy as I go.) But what comment were you referring to?

The most common problems in Wiki are 1) Contributors not understanding that most of what's on the Internet is copyrighted, and cannot be freely used, and 2) People who do own the copyright to material, but don't understand that doesn't automatically mean they can use the material in Wiki. (E.g., companies cut-and-pasting from their company web sites.) Those people, I point one of a couple general directions, without getting into details. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Piano non troppo. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Piano non troppo. Looking into the WQA, I feel I must say to you that "pulling rank" by referring to any status or position you may have outside Wikipedia will intimidate some editors, but also will tend to antagonize many more. Some editors here may well have far greater status than you do. Also, that in some cases you may be dealing with children. Please, refrain from personal comments. --Una Smith (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Una Smith. I'm sensitive to the several points you made. In Wikipedia, editorial status is based on ... I'm not quite sure. Social jockeying? That has no interest for me. Wikipedia has a deep flaw allowing social cliques to dictate terms contrary to the core values. I "pulled rank", but as an experiment to see whether there was any way to stop a headlong rush into accepting marketing publicity as encyclopedic. I want to be clear. I am not only an editor, but I have peer-reviewed articles in professional and academic publications. When I say that the article in question does not meet standards, I mean that no one I worked for would accept it for publication. Wikipedia has a fundamental dilemma: How to allow contributions from non-professionals without causing the result to be unprofessional. In the case of articles for rock stars, the situation is out of control. Anything written by a publicist or reviewer becomes practically incontestable. As a result, 3700 word articles that simply parrot popular culture. Wide-eyed idolatry for a single star. Or to put it in the word of a Wiki editor some years ago, "Hagiography". Not a reflection on religious saints, but those who imagine that media stars are. The article topic is a song, not "Every Wonderful Precious Moment of Lady Gaga On Stage". Somehow what I find most unpalatable? A GA social clique in dazed tunnel vision. They aren't, or aren't representing, professional musicians, or sound engineers, or video engineers. There's no recognition for the substantial contributions many artists made to the song's success. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I do understand. Many articles about pop culture are written by consumers of pop culture, not creators, and not academics who study pop culture. This creates significant POV problems in many articles and it is an uphill battle to be the minority voice for another POV. One of the hallmarks of POV is that those who hold the local majority POV often cannot see their own POV. There are ways to handle a content dispute, but pulling rank is not one of them. At least not pulling rank from outside Wikipedia. What matters to many editors here is the number of edits, articles worked on that have met DYK, GA, FA. Number of friends made by trading favors, if you are into that. Number of people impressed by your poise, good sense, good work. Sound familiar? In some projects there is a tendency for editors to declare credentials, and for editors with declared credentials to close ranks against others. I have been told anyone who doesn't declare credentials doesn't have any. Yeah, right. To handle a content dispute you can use any noticeboard devoted to content issues, you can use mediation, you can use tact and clear writing to persuade others of your point of view. Most of all, you can provide sources. For articles about popular culture, behind the scene sources are particularly scarce. Many Wikipedia editors seem unaware that trade magazines even exist. The bottom line is that unless someone brings those sources to the discussion, pop culture articles necessarily are limited to what consumers see and hear. --Una Smith (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)