User talk:LivingMuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, LivingMuse! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

October 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Katia Tiutiunnik has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXIyDTiluZg (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

February 2010[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Symbolic Dimension: An Exploration of the Compositional Process, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ridernyc (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet[edit]

Please read my comments here User_talk:GoldbergEva#Sockpuppet. This is getting silly and childish. Ridernyc (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Information.svg Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Symbolic Dimension: An Exploration of the Compositional Process. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ridernyc (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

AN/I[edit]

I have started an AN/I discussion about your actions tonight, please respond here [[1]]. Ridernyc (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest?[edit]

Information.svg If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Over-linking and other issues[edit]

The Katia Tiutiunnik article has some severe problems regarding over-linking and repeated linking, which other editors are trying to resolve. I noticed that you reverted them without explanation. First of all, this is a bad idea as they were trying to make the article adhere to Wikipedia's Manual of Style; secondly, it makes it look like you are exerting ownership of the article, and that's frowned upon. Favonian (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

AIV report[edit]

Please do not report users who are not vandals (see the first paragraph this page for our definition of vandalism) to AIV. henriktalk 10:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Katia Tiutiunnik[edit]

User:Playmobilonhishorse continues to vandalize the article Katia Tiutiunnik, which has been up for over three years and which has never attracted any negative feedback. On the contrary, every piece of information contained therein is backed up by multiple, credible references. Could someone advise and/or assist us? LivingMuse (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

1-Read Wikipedia:Vandalism.
The book published by Lambert is not even mentioned in the Wikipedia page. Please read Katia TiutiunnikLivingMuse (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012[edit]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Katia Tiutiunnik. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but User:Playmobilonhishorse continues to vandalize Katia Tiutiunnik, in addition to posting untrue, libelous comments regarding the page.LivingMuse (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Don't refactor or delete other editors' talk page comments, and stop labeling the actions of editors with whom you disagree as vandalism. You have been warned about this before. Favonian (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if you disagree with my actions. However, User:Playmobilonhishorse continues to make libelous comments regarding Katia Tiutiunnik. Could you please take a moment to read the page? If you do, you'll see that it does not even mention Lambert Academic Publishing (which that user claims it's promoting) and is backed up by many more credible citations/references than numerous other Wiki pages. Could you please help me improve the article, if that's your intention? It's been up for over 3 years and quite a few editors (including yourself) have contributed to it. I'm sorry, but I've acted in good faith.LivingMuse (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page. Furthermore, I reverted yet another deletion of your opponent's talk page comments. Consider this your "final plus one" warning. Next time you will be blocked. Favonian (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Katia Tiutiunnik, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. There are legitimate concerns over this article, and, whether you agree with those concerns or not, attempting to suppress statements of those concerns by other editors is unconstructive. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Katia Tiutiunnik. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please take a moment to read Katia Tiutiunnik.If you do, you'll see that it does not even mention Lambert Academic Publishing (which that user claims it's promoting) and is backed up by many more credible citations/references than numerous other Wiki pages. Could you please help me improve the article, if that's your intention? It's been up for over 3 years and quite a few editors have contributed to it. I'm sorry, but I've acted in good faith.LivingMuse (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I have answered the message you posted on my talk page, and now find you have duplicated it here. I will likewise duplicate my reply here, but on the whole having duplicate copies of messages is unhelpful, and can sometimes cause confusion. I don't know whether Lambert Academic Publishing is relevant or not, but without a doubt the tone of much of the article is promotional. If you sincerely can't see that, then I can only assume that you are so closely involved with the subject that you are unable to stand back from it and see how the article looks to a neutral observer, in which case you should not be editing the article. However, that is not the point: whether you or I or anyone else agrees or disagrees with the characterisation as promotional, you should not be repeatedly removing the template. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, essentially, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think you are right". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I am also copying your further comment from my talk page to here. (Your posting there while I was posting here is an excellent example of why fragmenting discussions on different pages is unhelpful.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your advice and feedback. However, I humbly request that you look at the list of references backing up Katia Tiutiunnik and compare it with other Wikipedia articles. If you do, you'll see that Katia Tiutiunnik has many more references than numerous other Wikipedia articles. Anyway, if you have time to improve the article, I'd be grateful.LivingMuse (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
My previous comments referred only to the promotional aspect, because that is the issue that you raised in your messages to me. Now you are referring to the question of references. I confess I have not checked them all, but I have looked at a substantial sample of them, and I have not found one that gives more than a passing mention of Katia Tiutiunnik. At least one of them does not mention her at all. Having "many more references than numerous other Wikipedia articles" is no guarantee of quality: two good references can be much more useful than 100 poor ones. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Have you really looked at the references on Katia Tiutiunnik? By what you've stated, it seems that you have not. It is true that some of the links are out-of-date, however, most of the references give ample discussion to Katia Tiutiunnik. Please have a look at them again, when time permits.LivingMuse (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem was that you were edit-warring to revert *all* maintenance templates - I have now removed the "refimprove" one, but have left the "cleanup" one, as it clearly does need to be reworked to make it more balanced and encyclopedic, and less promotional. (But even if the "refimprove" one was left, it wouldn't do any harm - it would be removed when someone gets round to doing the cleanup.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I could, of course, spend my time looking at all of the references, but I don't intend to. Whether you or I or anyone else thinks the references are adequate is a side issue. The central point is that you were edit warring. Wikipedia works by collaboration, with editors being willing to discuss things, and to accept that they won't always get things the way they want. Wikipedia does not work by individual editors deciding that their view of an article is going to "win", and simply endlessly reverting everything they don't agree with. If you want to know what issues I would give next priority to, after that central point, I would go for the promotional tone of the article and the very strong impression that you are editing with a conflict of interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I was considering cleaning up the references and replacing the out-of-date ones with valid ones and including page numbers in some of the PDF references so that the part which mentions Katia Tiutiunnik can be found without undue delay. I was then considering changing the tone in parts of the article to make it more dispassionate. I do hope you and other editors can assist. However, I should say that I have read many more articles about composers in Wikipedia, which seem to be even more promotional in tone.LivingMuse (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Block[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Katia Tiutiunnik. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, over at Talk:Katia Tiutiunnik, you say "Could someone advise and/or assist us?" Bearing in mind that Wikipedia accounts are personal and accounts representing groups, companies, etc, are not allowed, who is "us"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and as one final comment, when you are involved in a content dispute, you must not label the other person's edits as vandalism - if you check WP:VANDALISM, you will see that Wikipedia has a very strict definition of what it is -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning Up Katia Tiutiunnik[edit]

I have just begun the job of cleaning up Katia Tiutiunnik. I have removed outdated references and replaced them with better ones--and there are many more to be added. I have also put page numbers in large PDF references, to prevent difficulty in finding Katia Tiutiunnik. I have also begun to modify some of the sentences to make them sound more dispassionate. Could anyone assist me with this? It would be good to get the "promotion" tag removed from the page as there are many other composers' biographies that sound far more promotional than this one.LivingMuse (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done as much as time permits to improve and clean up Katia Tiutiunnik. If you look at the biographies of other composers you'll see that many are more "promotional" in tone and far less well referenced than this one. I'd be really grateful if you could take a look at Katia Tiutiunnik and consider taking down the "promotional" banner. If you decide not to, I'd really appreciate some more advice and feedback. Hopefully other editors will work on the article as well--even though, as I mentioned, many other composers' biographies need far more attention than this one does.LivingMuse (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Lambert Academic Publishing is NOT mentioned AT ALL on Katia Tiutiunnik. Hence, Katia Tiutiunnik is NOT promoting Lambert Academic Publishing, nor anyone else. For this reason, there should not be any promotional banner on Katia Tiutiunnik. This page is now far less promotional than many other composers' pages on Wikpedia.LivingMuse (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Katia Tiutiunnik, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, LivingMuse. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)