User talk:Piano non troppo

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

and also PISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS                                                                                                               Archive: Here be monsters!

                                                                                                              Archive: The Sequel (smaller monsters)

Stop removing official MySpace sites.

WP:EL#What should be linked: a link to a social networking site may be included when it is the official website for a business, organization, or person. --Kmaster (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure what article you're talking about. MySpace is specifically named in WP:LINKSTOAVOID as being not wanted, except in exceptional circumstances. An exceptional circumstance is when, for example, there isn't any other official Web site. (But if that MySpace site has material violating copyright, for example? It cannot be included under ANY circumstance.) Piano non troppo (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like a clarification on this specifically that The Cure and The Smashing Pumpkins has links to both (Myspace and official sites). MegX (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that you've already got an opinion from WhatamIdoing on The Smashing Pumpkins, but most of what's on both that and The Cure's MySpace is either commercial, contrary to WP:SPAM, or is for social purposes (blogs, forums, etc.) WP:LINKSTOAVOID. What little else is there that is encyclopedic could be added to the Wiki articles, as described in the opening of WP:LINKS. Adding excellent content to Wiki (instead of pointing to content somewhere else that may disappear next month or next year) is, unsurprisingly, often preferred.

Occasionally an artist has no other Web page except their MySpace page available. In that case the MySpace page is generally allowed. However, there's nothing to say a Wiki article needs any external links; using Wikipedia to link to a site that violates the law puts the Wikimedia Foundation in a position where courts may find the Wikimedia Foundation is, by extension, violating the law.

External links are well-covered in Wiki discussions. There are a couple aspects to this which usually do not arise. The external links to MySpace probably don't get more than 1-in-50 readers clicking them. (This is something I know as a Webmaster for a Fortune 500 company.) So if an article only gets 50 "hits" in one day (and very many probably don't get that), only 1 "click-through" is generated. And how many people aren't going to guess that Googling on "myspace band X" will find a result? It would probably be better than following whatever happens to be in the Wiki external links section. I.e., I wouldn't use Wiki to research external links for bands I'm interested in. So, ignoring Wikipedia policy entirely for second, there may not be much pragmatic point to adding what would occur to anybody as obvious external links, anyhow. Knowing this, myself, I don't bother to add external links unless they are somehow not obvious. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes reverted: why?

Why were my changes reverted? It now again states an opinion rather than the facts.

Weasel terms like "some people" and "many others" maybe? Who are these people? How is their opinion any bit objective? The only real content was that the DVD was released in 2006 so just add that as the rest is merely opinion. treelo _radda 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Treelo got it.

There was another thought, though, when making this edit, which was to open a discussion about what the original editor meant -- whose comment you were responding to, IP 85.148.224.110. What in a useful sense does the original statement "McNichol's career took a dip" mean? Was it because the film "flopped"? But that's apparently original research. Maybe the dip was due to poor marketing, or a weak McNichol appearance on a late night show. Who knows? But most especially, what does it mean for a movie to "flop"? You liked it, didn't you, 85.148.224.110? It wasn't worth making because some people didn't like it? Piano non troppo (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Who are these people ("some people")? - I don't know. The original editor apparently. It does not matter. The point is that apparently there are different opinions about this, not only one. I think this should be reflected if there is to be a page on the person at all. (Does she agree with this?)

I am not stating that opinions are objective. But I think it is objective to state that there are different opinions.

What is the meaning of 'career'? What is the meaning of 'dip' and 'flop'? More than 10 years ago, when Wikipedia was not even in its craddle, and about 15 years after the movie was made, there were many privately owned websites dedicated to just this movie and its main actress - full of praise. That is to say that the movie is more than a 'flop'.--85.148.224.110 (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with many of your points. I'd be happier if Wikipedia required every article with a critical review to include at least one dissenting opinion. I'm uncomfortable casually labeling any art a "flop", and even more uncomfortable with assuming that because it was a flop, it hurt someone's career. Wild assumptions that fans and Hollywood critics adopt are, often enough, too superficial for an encyclopedia.

Another movie phrase that's often bandied about is "stood the test of time". Somehow, the implication is that such a movie is better than another. But if a movie was very topical -- and the topic is forgotten -- then the movie that didn't stand the test of time might well have been excellent -- in its day. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a quick response! :-) Next thing: who decides on the contents of the pages?--85.148.224.110 (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's deep water...something I adore. For Wikipedia, there is, in part, a superficial answer: Since contentious statements need citation, article contents are largely based on prevalent references. Did a marketing department discover that a movie broke the all-time record for first night ticket sales in the Cayman Islands? And they were quoted in "People"? Well, great! Let's put that vital information into Wikipedia!

As a historian, I'd prefer articles written from a range of material -- but how many Wiki editors have the esoteric books that I own? If I write an article based on a book that 1-in-10,000 editors have read, another kind of bias is placed on the article contents: I've chosen a source, and chosen a way of representing that source, and in the process, what I write is difficult for others to gainsay. It's another kind of systematic bias. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So, there is no dispute resolution system and we end up deleting each other's changes? For the next person disapproves the improvements of the previous.--85.148.224.110 (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why sure we do! treelo _radda 22:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

If one is an established editor, on the side of right and love, and has lots of friends, AND is making reasonable edits, one has a fairly good chance of making edits "stick", at least in some form. But there are corner situations that are not so benign, and it was those I was thinking about in referring to a bias. One case: the Wiki page of a best-selling historian who had made pivotal, well-documented discoveries is "academically trashed" -- apparently by someone in the military who has a personal grievance with him. I could fix it, but to do so, I'd have to read at least one long book on a military incident I'm not interested in. (That is, I know the author's works, just not the specific one that's being attacked.) Another case: an established Wiki editor has added a cutting, documented criticism to a book that is otherwise highly regarded. The problem? The quote is about the movie adaptation. I don't consider that valid, and have removed the quote a couple times, supplying a justification. His answer? "I think it's appropriate, so it's staying". He has the page watched, and even after months, reverts any change to his contribution within a few hours. Could I confront him in a lengthy resolution dispute? Sure. Would I "win"? Probably. Is it a cost-effective use of time and emotional energy? I rely on Dilbert for this: "Avoid meetings with time-wasting idiots". But the upshot for Wikipedia is that a pettish, irrelevant edit persists in an otherwise balanced and professionally polished article. In the real world, it's rather like not taking a justified case to court, because it's too expensive to win. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

American Girl Wikipedia

Responding to your talk message...you're right, my efforts on the American Girl page are primarily focused on holding back the tide. One of the biggest problems we've got with it is that there are a lot of ill-informed young girls who keep adding info, varying from made-up spam to copious details about beloved doll characters which have no place in what I see as an overview article. We also get adults who are passionate collectors who post on collector forums and who come here to add that kind of speculative content. Most of my edits have been geared toward streamlining these additions. You're right; I get sloppy in my edit summary rationales and frankly, most of that is due to burn-out. Sourcing is an issue, because there are some details which don't have a written source for back-up, and often they do fall in the realm of insider info. So mostly I try to remove such when I catch them, with the rationale that it's speculative and not verifiable. For example, I can perosnally vouchsafe that a new historical doll named Rebecca Rubin is indeed going to be released in a few months, but the only verifiable source info right now about her are the pending publications of her core books series which are listed at online booksellers like Amazon, et al. I have tried to source that info accordingly but at some point it was removed, so I've mostly given up on trying to add info about this new character line (even though it is a huge step for the company) until some other more acceptable source appears to back it up.

I'd like to see this article streamlined a lot more, so your guideance is welcome. It's a mess.

FYI that "Facemold" is a collector term. The face mold/face-mold/facemold issue is an important one to the American Girl world, so I did want to make sure some of that information remained. But yes, a standard spelling is needed and I was sloppily going with that which I most often use elsewhere. No quarrels there and my apologies for the inconsistency.

AG stores are central to the "AG experience" and I think that is why that section gets so cumbersome and overloaded with information that varies from factual to rapturous. I think it could be condensed with some basic history and a summary line that makes mention of the experiental nature of the store visits without all the detail.

Adjustment for inflation versus actual price increases for the dolls over a 22 year history is behind the statement mentioned, but you're right, it is commentary and not appropriate.

Heidi Laura

Heidilaura (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have any ideas of how I can help, let me know. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not about HG

Nothing going on with HG right now as you know but that's not why I'm here. Amalthea has recently (as in earlier today) been given the admin bit and should anything arise he'll be the first person to tell if action needs to be taken. treelo _radda 12:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good. I guessed the nomination would succeed. But, um, I see everyone write "him", but isn't Amalthea is a woman? Piano non troppo (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I... forget. treelo _radda 18:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I guess I'll have to ask. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Oh, just so you know, all is done with the whole HorseGirl thing, she and her IP addresses have been blocked but gallingly because she requested it, not because she was being a WP:DICK. Stupid yes but dealt with, I didn't tell you at the time but this is just in case you didn't already know. treelo _radda 21:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning. I didn't realize until spending some time reviewing her history that she was making edits with a political motivation -- articulating the stance of a particular group. When I was able to "put her words into the mouth" of someone I know quite well, it became clear that she wasn't just childish, she was, effectively, a junior mouthpiece for a cause. That seemed trivially innocent when considering her edits to a children's show, but the obstinacy, the unwillingness to explain herself, and dishonesty about her behavior are part of a mentality that believes that people who disagree with your own position aren't due respect. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What group would that be because I seem to run into very obstinate types who always seem to be teens with a religious background quite a lot. treelo _radda 23:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My acquaintance, at least, is a teenage home-schooled evangelical. But one hears the same claptrap from other groups (and professions). Part of the big broad canvas that makes up our world. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm, is this evangelical Baptist? Seems to be a running thread from what I've seen. treelo _radda 23:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

West Ridge Academy

An anonymous obvious role account has been inserting POV into the West Ridge Academy and Chris Buttars articles. You reverted him once, but he's still going at it. I could use some help dealing with this. Thanks. -R. fiend (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a message to one of the IPs. I'm thinking there might be a certain extent of good faith edit going on. That, in conjunction with other things, perhaps. In any event, I'll follow up. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

External link - Quart festival

Piano,

I added an external link to Quart festival which you removed. I am an english speaker living in norway and have created a totally free with no advertising tourist website for people visiting Kristiansand. One of the main attractions in kristiansand is the Quart festival and it is imposible to get info on the festival in english. A lot of tourists come over for it and so i created a page with up to date info on the festival in english.

I am aware of the no follow rule, but the link was added purely to give people english info on the festival. Is this not helping them to be able to see that link from wiki? I believe it is.

Adam

You know, I looked at the page one way, and it came up "Tourist Information on Kristiansand Norway", but when I clicked in another, I got the music festival. Hmm. It's still a little "iffy", but it's not the tourist page I thought it was. Let's put the link back, but change the name so it doesn't look so strongly commercial. Ok? Piano non troppo (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Yeah the title you have is a lot better 'Latest news'. I have been living in Kristiansand for 3 years and was so sick of not being able to find out info on the city, I decided to make the site in my spare time. The quart festival is great for the city and thankfully it is back on this year. cheers, Adam

Re: Interesting edit on Amy Macdonald (singer)

Hi!

I'm shuddering just thinking about the possibilities you raise!

I think any such list would be far more valuable as a "List of number ones in X" (which I believe already exist). More general lists, applying to an act or artist, would potentially quickly takeover popular acts with little history (for example, a one-hit-wonder with international success would have an article that consisted mostly of "see also" links). I'd also be concerned about verifiability - as it currently stands, verifying and referencing chart success is already difficult - certain countries are straightforward (e.g. US, most of EU, etc) whereas other countries lack agreed sources (Chile is one example that I've encountered recently). On the other hand, I suppose that such lists would bring into sharp focus exactly which countries' chart sources are unreliable...

Interesting question! I suppose I'm opposed at the moment, but my opinion could change as more information becomes available.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Promotional plug/spam?

This mention about Sarah Warn from AfterEllen.com in the Marissa Cooper article was not a promotional plug or spam. It is quite routine and allowed on Wikipedia to specify who made a statement about a subject, especially when that someone or site is notable/has their own article here. Perhaps mentioning what AfterEllen.com is was promotional-like, but mentioning that Sarah Warn made the comment is very valid. I've added back that she made the comment and who she is (as in an editior from AfterEllen.com); after all, that part in the article is argued by her. I left out what AfterEllen.com is, of course, since people can simply click on the link to that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your change. It's unusual for a web site in a reference, not the subject of the article, to be given an extended opportunity to promote itself. That, and the WP:SPAM external link, were the focus of my edit. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll see you around. Take care. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Posner (musician)

He is a real musician. If you Google "Mike Posner", he is the first result — [1]

[2]

He just released a mix tape and has been featured in numerous blogs.

[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.83.173 (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I just Googled him, and he's nowhere on the first page.

The deal is: he needs a reliable reference. That www.mikeposner.com web site redirects to MySpace -- where people can say just about anything they want. Same for a blog. So, for Wikipedia? Not a reliable reference. He needs a reliable, independent, third-party reference. Not his own website. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the Duke Chronicle work?

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2008/10/23/Recess/Mike-Posner.The.Brain.Trust-3502247.shtml http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2008/12/03/BusStop/Mike-Posner-3565438.shtml http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2008/12/03/BusStop/Mike-Posner-3565438.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazamos (talk • contribs) 07:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the reference by Kanye West: http://www.kanyeuniversecity.com/blog/?em3106=221403_-1__0_%7E0_-1_1_2009_0_0&em3298=&em3282=&em3281=&em3161=

Additionally, Big Sean, who already has a Wikipedia page, is on Mike Posner's mixtape (hosted on Duke University's iTunes U) http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/new.duke.edu.1926121494 Blazamos (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)blazamos

Thanks, Blazamos, you addressed the problem directly by creating a Wikipedia article for him. I wasn't going to make that suggestion to an anonymous IP editor with no other edits, since it's a difficult thing to do for a typical new editor. If there's any discussion about notability, that new page you created would be the place. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Greater Lowell

Hello, I put back the edits you had made to remove the employers section from the Greater Lowell article. In the context of, say, Greater Boston, having the same exact section, why is this any different? Certainly the section could use improving to be more useful, but I don't think it should be completely deleted.... CSZero (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A list of businesses doesn't belong in either article. This is specifically addressed in WP:SPAM#LINK. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it can't serve as a replacement for a phone book, and it is not a promotional platform. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

But if you're talking about a regional economy, don't you agree that there is value in saying, especially in a non-arbitary list like the one in the Lowell article (the Boston one drives me nuts, people add and remove to it all the time), what people do for work, has some value? They aren't external links, either. They're pointing to Wikipedia articles. Now, granted, that list could be replaced with prose and it would probably should be, although I don't have the time to do it today. CSZero (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, when you put it that way: An accurate portrait of regional economy is hugely insightful. And it's sorely lacking in the majority of Wikipedia articles that deal at a local level. I'm intrigued when I travel to smaller communities to discover they are sometimes supported by a couple industries. Some are practically company towns -- for better or worse that's "who they are" in a sense.

What I'm not sanguine about is the ability for businesses to view their value to their community in a dispassionate light. Or for a community to necessarily even understand itself. A failing that Wikipedia commonly falls into is focusing on recent history. If a town's 500 year history was mostly agricultural, presenting it in light of a new manufacturing plant is misleading -- even if that's how the town chooses to see its future. Piano non troppo (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course. I love looking at lists of "major disasters in x" and 90% somehow happened after 2006! As for the Greater Lowell article, it's sad to see Wal-Mart ranked high on that list and it does seem wrong to have it there. That's recent history and certainly not unique. After all, Lowell is the *original* company town. 100 years of pioneering textile manufacturing, and Wal-Mart is on the list, and not a single consumer manufacturing concern - good amount of military stuff there. Then again, Market Basket, while a massive grocery store chain so seemingly non-notable, was born and bred in Lowell and is headquartered in Tewskbury (next town over) today. There is certainly value in mentioning things like that. CSZero (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

AudioMulch page tagged as an advertisement

Hi there - I contributed to some updates to this page a little while back. Since then, a few others have added in some info which may or may not have attracted your tag (I believe a user cut and pasted info from the website about version 2); or perhaps my own content did? As someone who had really good intentions to write a comprehensive and neutral page for AudioMulch, I'd love some feedback on which language/sentences may be inappropriate. I spent a lot of time reading the neutrality policy and also the "verifiability" and "no original research" policies before I added my edits in. Are you able to give feedback on where I may have gone astray here? I'm curious as I'd like to get more involved with Wiki edits and pages in general, and I certainly don't want this page to be pulled.

Many thanks!

GirlMadchen —Preceding unsigned comment added by GirlMadchen (talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I should add that I'm going to make a few changes now that a wiki savvy friend has suggested, and look over the page again for any changes I can make... _______________________

Have made these edits now. Any feedback appreciated! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GirlMadchen (talk • contribs) 03:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. In fact, you just made some of the changes I had in mind! A quick answer is that if one went down to the local R&R music store, and asked for the glossy handout to prospective customers, the material in the AudioMulch Wikipedia article would be what one would expect to see. I.e., it isn't the way encyclopedia articles are written.

There's a fair amount of WP:PEACOCK (much of which you just removed!): "wide range of styles", "wide range of processed sounds", "software responding instantaneously to changes that the user makes", "a number of more sophisticated units", "constant development", "other software and programming environments have influenced the development and design". None of this actually means much: similar statements could be made about 1000s of applications.

Although I'm not a recording professional, I have used some sound processing software and equipment: I'm somewhat puzzled what makes AudioMulch different than other products. Terms such as "real-time" processing and modification are thrown around -- but that's been available in some form for decades. (In fact the article seems to confirm that in some sense it's a cheaper version of what was available 10 years ago.)

The "Notable artists" section ... well ... what does it mean that "they use AudioMulch"? Someone sent them a demo copy, and as far as you know, they're still using it? That's quite different than saying, for example, in a published quotation in a reliable, independent source, that it's been one of their primary tools for major commercial albums and concerts. (Guitar Player, The New Yorker, and Keyboard Magazine are all good sources, but they aren't directly quoted.)

Fixing the above problems would probably be sufficient to remove the advertising tag. Providing you have the magazine article as hand, this might only be a few minutes' work. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Much appreciated. I suppose I should strive to use less poetic (!) language in future. The peacock link is interesting. Will go in and tidy up a few more you've mentioned. In regards to the Notable Artists section - the references about these artists using AM are posted at the bottom of the page. They've all referred to their (often) frequent use of the program in both print and online articles and interviews. Hence the list, and the references. Is this enough, or do I need to also reference each artist's name in the list, linking them to the reference at the bottom? To the best of my knowledge, no one was sent a demo as they all use and choose to mention the software in these articles/interviews themselves. I didn't realise that lists like this had to be directly referenced - please let me know if this isn't the case! As for comparisons with other software, I might have to leave that to someone else who has more knowledge. In regards to your tag, who can/will remove that once the article looks in better shape? Thanks again! Most helpful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GirlMadchen (talk • contribs) 03:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You're making positive changes, and for the right reasons. One can't ask for much more. (In fact, you could could fruitfully give instruction to other contributors!) It wouldn't hurt to make at least one direct quote from those magazines. The reason being -- and this is behavior apparently quite apart from the edits on AudioMulch -- a large number of Wikipedia references, when checked, not not confirm statements in the article. With rock stars and commercial entities the percent of misrepresentation sometimes reaches 100%. But at this point? The changes are sufficient: Remove the advertising tag.

One final thing: add a brief sentence on the article's discussion page describing your connection to the product. I assume you aren't just an enthusiastic user, but represent the product in some way. This will avoid the remote possibility of an editor adding a "conflict of interest" tag to the article -- that, you really do not want. A 30 second scan of WP:CONFLICT will give you an idea.

I do hope you decide to contribute to other Wikipedia articles in the future. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much - your suggestions have been most helpful :) I'll consider adding a line or parag somewhere with a direct quote from the articles about the musicians that use the software. It can only add to the strength of the page.GirlMadchen (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

External Link not spam ptII

Just wanted to present my pov that the links you removed from the Rightmove article point to significant and distinct sub-sections of the business, particularly in the case of holidaylettings, so would ask you reconsider the edit. (Brotherharry (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

Both links removed are purely commercial. One is a listing of real estate properties, and the other a page with dropdowns to select holiday locations for rent. They are utterly contrary to WP:SPAM. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Spanish and Russian links at xkcd

Re this edit of yours: [4], which I have reverted. These seem perfectly fine to me. It's only two links, they're directly related to the topic, and they're non-commercial. If you really feel they should be removed, may I suggest discussing that on the article's talk page? Cheers! Mark Shaw (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't read Russian, and not much Spanish, and I imagine that most other English Wiki editors can't check the references either. (I was surprised to see, looking more closely, that this matter has been brought up in discussion.) It's a somewhat small matter one way or the other, but actually, in this case, I was responding in specific to what seemed to be general problems with this article. There's a lot of original research, and the "Activities inspired by xkcd" section is mostly trivia that belongs on a fansite. The main idea was to rein in the promotional and unencyclopedic direction this article seems to be taking. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Les sacres au Québec. Québec Swearing

I would like to know if you are looking for the article to be completely re-written or just have some sources for what is there. It is sometimes difficult to cite sources for unwritten rules like slang and local language usage. Ce qu'on disait au Québec dans les années 80 et 90 n'est pas nécessairement ce que les jeunes disent aujourdhui! Please let me know if the couple of books I have listed is enough or if you need me to re work the article. (Not what I really want to be doing, writing vulgarities and swear words!) :}--Mrboire (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's great that you added references, thank you. In my experience (at least offline) books on slang and vulgar language are difficult to come by, and the level of scholarship is often low. I understand your reluctance to be associated with profanity, but it's worthwhile precisely exactly because professional scholars avoid the topic. (I wonder if you have heard of the journal "Maledicta", where scholars wrote, sometimes under assumed names.)

It *would* be good to have a few key concepts given a specific citation, if for no other reason than to stop the article from "wandering" at the hands of later, casual editors (cf notes in Joual as an example of useful footnotes). In particular, the "History" section indulges in original research and bias with sentences such as "The sacres originated in the early 19th century in a time when the social control exerted by the Catholic clergy was increasingly a source of frustration." I'd be interested in the evidence given for this "increasing frustration", but even more, proof that there was a tie between this frustration and the (questionable) "source" of words.

I was tempted to delete two paragraphs in the section "Sacres outside Quebec French", since they deal with Italian and Spanish, and more broadly, suggest that there are interlingual patterns in the use of "sacres". However they *seem* factually accurate, and by implication suggest that the theory about the sacres' origin in the 19th century is demonstrably incorrect.

I'm unsure what direction to take this article, and my French isn't strong enough to make critical judgments in a number of places that such are needed. The article Profanity does a relatively good job of covering the related topic; perhaps material or structure can be borrowed from there. Piano non troppo (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hannes Vanaküla

You're obviously unfamiliar with the situation at Hannes Vanaküla, an article of a cult reader which is attacked by a devoted cultist. Please revert your revert. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the unexplained removal of a tag reading: "Accuracy and/or neutrality dispute This article may violate Wikipedia policy as it contains unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims about a living person." The edit was done by an anonymous editor with no other Wikipedia edits. That part of my edit was correct. I have no objection to a cat as "Conspiracy theorist", but I assumed that since part of the edit was vandalism, the whole was. Feel free to re-add the cat, of course. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The blpdispute tag is invalid, too. It concerns Wikipedia:BLPN#Hannes Vanaküla -- a quite obvious no-go. Basically, the SPA User:WorldReporter is unhappy about the noncomplimentary facts regarding his idol and prefers presenting claims from Vanaküla's autobiographical writings in the article. Considering that stuff like "mage abilities" doesn't belong to Wikipedia, there isn't any dispute there. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I had a quick look at your discussion reference. As you say, it's a subject with a history. I think I'll just bow out and let you carry on. Cheers. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

why you revert my edit? my edit is not vandalism, it is wikifan edit is vandalism. look at sources, you see my edit is correct, wikifan edit is not NPOV and is not accurate. sources say what my edit says, wikifan is not right. i revert again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.29.236 (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As the editor whose changes you reverted observed, the matter is being dealt with on the discussion page. Insisting on your edits without explanation is vandalism. [5] Piano non troppo (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

look at history, he insist, he revert other editors edits many many times, no discussion on discussion page. please look at sources and see if he is wrong for insisting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.29.236 (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that editor is talking about this page [6]. I don't know the details, but usually language such as you added is considered biased and political, and inappropriate to Wikipedia. "to executions of Palestinians suspected of collaboration with the Israel Defence Forces by Hamas, as well as members of the Fatah political party."

"suspecting" someone is what Wikipedia calls a Weasel word. For example, in this case, there are people who "suspect" them of collaboration. Ok, so what's the point? There are people do not suspect them, too. Just because somebody "suspects" something doesn't mean they are right. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

article about people hamas killed, why not say whay hamas says they killed them? hamas killed them because hamas suspects them of collaboration with israel against hamas. sources say this, not just killed palestinians. 166.217.29.236 (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

and other editor no discussion on page you link. 166.217.29.236 (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Good Oil

I can see your point on some of the lines but a lot of it is not opinion but well accepted facts, in his area he is 'questionable' and within the media and wider community these are statements that most would agree with. Unless you were to understand the circumstance yourself I dont think you can make a judgement on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.199.199 (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits, none of which included a citation, included calling someone a "questionable journalist" and noting "when he is rewarded by his bosses for not losing as much audience share as usual". This is straight vandalism. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If somebody is 'questionable' within their field how is wikipedia ever able to report it if that term is not allowed to be utilised. Surely it can not remain one sided, always on the side of the subject of its articles, then what about hitler and Osama, despite the fact its well accepted their evil shall we leave that out of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.199.199 (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Using terms such as "enough said" may be appropriate to a blog, but would not be used in an encyclopedia. [7] Nothing about your edit meets Wikipedia standards, and it was reverted. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2009 (UT

Yet you did not respond to my query on the use of "questionable", quite frankly your wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.199.199 (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to block User:209.66.221.210

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

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

This is something you can do. Go to [8]. Copy-and-paste the line there reading

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

Paste to the bottom of the edit window.

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

Common reasons for block requests failing: 1) The editor has not been given a "final warning" on their talk/discussion page about being blocked. 2) The editor has been given a final warning, but has not made vandalism edits since the warning. 3) The situation is "stale" -- it happened hours or days ago -- and it's not clear that it's still a problem. 4) It's an IP used by hundreds of people -- where only some of the edits are vandalism. In this specific case, recommending a block will probably fail because there haven't been than many recent vandalism edits by the "San Diego County Office of Education", in fact, the second-to-most-recent, although a little odd, seems more misplaced than anything [9]. (Specifically re: "Animal piercings", Google returns 141 hits, some of which are apparently about real situations (see [10])). Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

CE

Sorry, I thought it stood for Common Era(which is what I was told in school as an alternative to BC and AD as these were religious as well), instead of Christian Era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.237.167 (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. (Looking at Common Era.) I feel you're right that the dates in the Chinese history articles do need to be qualified somehow. The best solution might be to include both Chinese dates and some other format. I'm not sure how that's done, or whether it's appropriate to Wiki MOS. But anyhow, thanks for responding. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

ToyPedia

I followed your suggestion and put the link for discussion on the Talk:Hot Wheels page and propose to have the discussion there. I also replied to the comments made on my earlier user page User talk:87.194.32.54. I have now registered. Being in the same position as you on our wiki (ToyPedia) I think you are doing a great job (just think you are wrong in this matter ;-) LaToya Giocattola (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I was somewhat of two minds about ToyPedia. What tipped the scale was that links are being added to the site in many Wiki articles, at least one of which, as I remember, had nothing directly to do with the topic. Discussion would be useful. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, if you can remember which link was the one that you felt was inappropriate I can check. Also, is it possible to get email notifications on replies (like yours above)? LaToya Giocattola (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The inappropriate external link is to [11]. There are actually multiple problems with this link, but the most straightforward to deal with is that while the existing Wiki article Hot Wheels is relatively well-written and quite detailed, the external link to toycollector is brief, adds almost no encyclopedic information to the Wiki article, and does not quote sources. This alone is sufficient: it's not a good or useful reference.

Your email question. I'll let you know when I reply. Another common way to handle this situation would be for both of us to "Watch" one another's pages for a few days. Regards, Piano non troppo 10:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful. LaToya Giocattola (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SL Shakespeare Company

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article SL Shakespeare Company, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

A virtual Shakespeare company--virtually no independent sources to establish notability.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the prod tag, with explanation. Conventional media sources typically do not cover significant events in virtual worlds, even ones such as Second Life, where 1.4 million people logged on in two months. In the SL Globe Theater professionals from several countries created an environment with productions that have been ongoing for some months. One original play has already been performed. This has as much, or more theatrical significance, than, for example Wikipedia articles including one-off, non-professional high school drama productions, and as much encyclopedic weight as articles on places, events, and characters in computer games that have not been sold for years, are rarely played, and have no particular cultural legacy. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Amalthea (moon of Jupiter) external link

Good morning. I saw that the "external links" section for this entry includes an artist's rendering of the moon from Jupiter. I am a musician that wrote an ambient song inspired by Amalthea (the moon of Jupiter) and hoped to add the song to the external links section. However, the link keeps getting removed. As mentioned, the song is based on the moon of Jupiter and contains references to it. Is this considered an inappropriate external link, unlike a painting? Thank you. --J Criss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.223.108 (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the link isn't appropriate, as it happens. External links are not intended as a linkfarm to all related topics. This practice is confusing to those who are thinking "Well, readers might be interested in this, too." External link guidelines are described at length in WP:EL, but the nub is that external link material should include encyclopedic content that is directly relevant to understanding the topic. However, there's actually a more critical difficulty, which is that Wikipedia may not be used for self-promotion, except in special cases. Otherwise...(as a professional writer)...if I wrote a story called "Amalthea", I could use Wikipedia to promote myself. I might decide to write only stories that I could advertise in Wikipedia. Given the thousands of writers out there, you can imagine where that would quickly lead. What you might consider is creating an entirely new article about the piece of music under discussion. If it's been played by the London Symphony Orchestra, or Mz. Spears, it would be considered notable. If it's something that has not been played by notable artists, or reviewed by notable publications, then, according to Wikipedia policy, it probably isn't appropriate material for its own article. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. --JC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.223.108 (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove +10 links off Melbourne Shuffle?

just as the title says You're just killing the article

83.81.113.116 (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As I explained in my edits, those were links to blogs and forums and are specifically mentioned as generally inappropriate for Wikipedia. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID, point 10 under "Links normally to be avoided". Piano non troppo (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Systems analysis

Hello. Re: this article I will defer to whatever course of action you think is best. I have a conern about your reference to "max number of edits", though. Was I wrong in thinking that blanking sections without an edit summary was vandalism? Should I have undid the edits rather than rolled them back? I have been rolling back blankings that had no edit summaries, but I'll stop that if it's improper (or even impolite). I'm just looking for guidance...any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Tiderolls 14:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You were steering the right direction with Systems analysis. Have a look at WP:3RR, which is something the vandal or another editor might throw in your face. (This happened to me once, when I slept overnight, woke up, didn't realize 24 hours hadn't passed since my previous edits, and made a fourth edit: someone took the opportunity to give me my only block warning...cute.)

Text blanking by an anonymous IP -- especially one that has no other edits -- is always suspicious. However, many of those edits are perfectly correct, and overall, constructive. Blanking text without an explanation is *not* necessarily vandalism. Blanking the same text four times in 24 hours without explanation *is* vandalism. So the concept of vandalism is tricky (not to mention defined inconsistently in Wikipedia, but let's pass on that discussion). If an editor is acting in good faith or if they are new, they may not understand that "being right" isn't good enough reason to make any change they want. They may not intend to be a vandal. On the other hand, there are earlier edits by 158.123.187.121 that most certainly are vandalism [12].

In terms of warning the editor, you were correct: You gave three warning messages of increasing severity. The next step would be to block them, as described above in [13]. Now, however after our trouble, the vandal has stopped -- and a request to block them will fail. So, now, I'm going to put a watch on the page, and see whether they return. Regards, Piano non troppo 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to go into more detail on your original post. I agree 100% with your assesment that the concept of vandalism is tricky. Since we don't live in a black and white world, that trickiness is not really a problem for me. I just hope that more experienced users are patient as I negotiate the minefield. I must say that I have been very fairly treated, even helped along, as I learn the ropes. I'm asking all the editors that offer advice to please let me know if they come across problems with my edits. I'll be happy to address any concern. It is a process, after all. :) Tiderolls 15:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Camp Tamakwa

The subject regarding Michael dying after the required swim test is an important part of what has occurred at camp just like all the other events good or bad. The OPP investigation is still ofpen and there may still be a coroners inquest. Just because the ministry of labor dismisseed their charges does not let the owners or the camp off the hool David Greene —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.179.90 (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, not a place to debate political positions. Wikipedia cannot be a log of every lawsuit, every death, every shooting. Your Wikipedia edits over the last months are all about Camp Tamakwa, which suggests you have a conflict of interest, see WP:CONFLICT; from the discussion page, it appears that you are related the the person who died. Other editors have explained carefully why Wikipedia is not the place to bring up these issues. This has gone on long enough. I am going to suggest that you be blocked from further editing on this article. Piano non troppo 10:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your signature...

... appears to be broken, possible. It's not providing the required link. Looks like it was a recent change. Just an FYI. :) لennavecia 14:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(Laughing) Thank you! I was trying to figure out how that happened. I was playing with my preferences for email contact at about the same time I believe a change to the signature went into play. But in the end, I thought I hadn't changed anything. Ideas?? Piano non troppo 14:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Figured it out. If "Edit Raw Signature" is checked -- with no other changes, the talk link in the sig disappears. Thank you for prompting me to fix this! Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)