User talk:Piano non troppo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

How Green was My Archive

Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Your professional experience of wikilinking[edit]

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[edit]

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.


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)

Need your opinion on some photographs[edit]

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 [2]. 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)

Kangaroo court?[edit]

You removed reliably sourced information. The text makes it clear that it is an allegation, not that the allegations have been proven. You'll need to come up with a reason supported by actual policy in order to remove reliably sourced information. Please respond on the article's talk page. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will do,[3] but for ease of reading, I strongly disagree that any pending lawsuit is appropriate material for Wikipedia. We are not legal judges, and giving airplay to cases that will eventually be dismissed has, in itself, a pernicious effect on an innocent party. It's essentially defamation. I tend to remove any pending legal suits -- except for extenuating circumstances, such as Mona Vie where it appears the company has many outstanding legal suits on similar issues, and may be stalling the court system to avoid judgment. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Most Beautiful[edit]

As "The World's Most Beautiful Man" I feel it's important that this be relayed to the public. (Sourced to my mother.) Eudemis (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Smile. I have a friend who says that kind of thing about me, but I think I can prove they're wrong. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Correcting a Typo is vandalization?[edit]

You accused me of vandalizing the Bias Tee article by correcting an obvious error where it says "Bas" instead of "Bias". You might wanna check that again. (

Your edit did not make that change. It changed the correctly spelled word "capacitor" to incorrectly spelled "capacitoir".[4] Piano non troppo (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sry about that. Will try again. (


Ohh what you going to do. Block meh? ;)

Try discussing it on the on talk page for Zakir Naik before you make an edit. That way you can spare me time reverting your contentious edits. (Unsigned comment by from Rome, Italy.)

Green check.png Done. You are blocked from editing. [5] Piano non troppo (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Michael Ricketts[edit]

I had offered Micheal a job as a development manager at a chain of Franchised restaurants, due to your attitude I have decided to withdraw the offer and Michael is now unemployed, congratulations on your good work. (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism edit.[6] Main articles aren't the place for humor (and neither is joking about edits that are vandalism, if I may say). Piano non troppo (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Mass notability tagging[edit]

Whoa, whoa, slow down for a second. A ton of these articles you've been tagging definitely meet criteria. Second Nature (film) won three awards, one from the Mammoth Film Festival. Christian Jouanin discovered a new species of petrel, named after him, and described many others. And The Frail Tide is an album by a band with notability already established. Hold the tagging for a second. ALI nom nom 19:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What I'm doing is working through the backlog of New Pages patrol. The purpose of tagging for notability is to open a discussion. If I was suggesting the articles be immediately deleted, I would use a different tag. In any case, your response is not to:
1) Remove the tag without giving a valid reason, as you did here [7] (Saying something is "unquestionably notable" is not a reason.)
2) Make personal comments about my motivation for adding the tags. In the case of the Mammoth Film Festival, I was suggesting that it was essentially a glorified wine tasting underwritten by local wineries.
Your deleted edits runs at 13% [8], whereas mine are 1%.[9] I suggest that you consider the validity of your own process, rather than mine. Piano non troppo (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Edit counts are irrelevant. I'm a new page patroller. My deleted edit count is that much higher because I've CSD tagged that many articles which are then deleted. I'm not coming from the background that you're assuming I am.
And I did give a valid reason in my removal of the tag- several, in fact. You just didn't read it slowly enough. The Sonoma Valley Film Festival is the article you have a problem with, not the Mammoth Film Festival, which is the international festival that Moviemaker Magazine described as "American Idol for moviemakers."
My only speculation about your motivation for adding the tags referred to your rational in this edit summary, which you have now confirmed. But that's all specific to the Sonora Film Festival. I'm sure that your tagging is in good faith, but you should slow down a bit. ALI nom nom 21:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
As I pointed out, your reasoning was personal, and did not cite Wikipedia guidelines. You edits are reverted at 10 times greater rate than mine. I suggest you ask another editor for advice and/or mentoring. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
What? Where did this come from? Where are these statistics coming from? I'm telling you up front that I think that your edits are clearly in good faith but that I disagree with them, and you're telling me to seek mentoring? I'm taking that as nearly a personal attack. If you're actually being serious, I was adopted by User:Damërung when I first got here. But if you're merely trying to insult me, I'm going to ask you to retract that statement. ALI nom nom 21:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I sited the statistics from the two links given above. Read them. 13% of your edits are reverted. I don't wish to continue this discussion. You are simply being argumentative. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Sigh... neither do I. I'm not seeing any statistics related to reverted edits in the edit counter links. I don't think it's a good way to judge people, I think my work as a vandal fighter has something to do with it, and I don't think it matters. But I don't like the way you've talked down to me, and I'm sure you don't like the way I've talked to you. I'm just going to let your other tags sort themselves out. ALI nom nom 21:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your Post to Drmies[edit]

Since I can't post on his page, I will respond here. Exactly how was directing you to get consensus (hey, didn't happen, not my fault) on your removing of sections on the WBAL-TV page considered "manag[ing] to rig the system to continue their behavior"? Everything we do from AfDs to putting a new system in place is done on the basis of consensus. That isn't my rule, that is the main rules the founders of Wikipedia put together when they started the site.

What I am hearing from several people is that my telling them to get consensus is being a "dictator" and not being "responsive"....what exactly would you like to be able to do? Be dictators yourself? You want to control me, but then you yourself would be the dictator. So, essentially, you are wanting to turn the tables. Don't work that way. We ALL (me, you, Drmies, everyone) gets consensus. I have it on my side with WP:TVS's rules (which have been backed up by consensus). If you wish to change those, you need to take it to TVS or RfC. Otherwise, things remain as they are. You are wanting to get your way and prevent me from keeping long established sections. That is yourself being a dictator and controlling. Can't have your cake and eat it too, my friend. - NeutralHomerTalk • 17:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I did post my views on WP:TVS about these TV article lists arbitrarily including non-notables. As recommended, by you, among others. There was no response.[10] On that basis, alone, it would seem that I am correct in my views, and may now proceed to delete the uncited lists of non-notables from TV station articles. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it would seem that no one posts to TVS anymore (which is true, readership is waaay down, same with WP:WPRS). I would recommend in taking this one step further and going to RfC, which is far and above more viewed that TVS is, get responses from all users (not just TVS members) and then take it from there. Cause everyone is wanting to jump the gun and just go on a deletion spree without going through the proper channels. RfC first, then delete after getting consensus. If the RfC is archnived with no consensus, that means just what it means, no consensus either way. If you do get consensus to delete, delete the whole thing, not just the ones with articles (looks poorly done that way) and make sure you delete ALL the pages, not just some. Also, make sure you post the reasoning on the respective talk pages. Only fair. - NeutralHomerTalk • 18:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, don't be surprised if these sections don't pop up almost immediately or get reverted. - NeutralHomerTalk • 18:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Yet more evasions on your part. You told me to take the issue to WP:TVS, here:[11]. I did. Now you claim that "no one posts to TVS anymore". So ... what? ... you told me to go to the wrong place? Piano non troppo (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I didn't misdirect you. I told you to take it to TVS in 2009 (when this all took place) and people still did go to TVS, now they don't. I feel just for the sake of being through, you should go to the now more watched RfC and take it there. What is it going to hurt to be through? Will it kill ya? Cost you money? Nah, just a couple extra days the information stays on there. Oooh, big deal. If you start deleting now, people will say you weren't through in getting consensus, do it this way and you will literally have done all you could. So, seriously, what is it going to hurt? - NeutralHomerTalk • 18:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


Piano, if you wish to give it another try at TVS, I'd be interested, if only to do away with some of the specious arguments recited above: 1. there is broad consensus for the inclusion of unverified and often trivial information; 2. if one deletes non-notable people one should delete notable ones as well; 3. if one cleans up one article one must do them all. I think TVS could do with an explicit rule along the line of what you proposed there earlier. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So, you want to post at a WikiProject no one looks at anymore instead of going to the highly viewed (by admins too) RfC? Why exactly? - NeutralHomerTalk • 18:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Halkett boat FAR[edit]

Hi Piano non troppo - I have removed your FAR nomination of Halkett boat because it is premature. This article has been a FA for less than a month, and the normal time between promotion and FAR is generally three to six months. As there were also multiple non-involved editors who disagreed with your FAR nomination, I have closed the review. I would suggest that you continue discussing your issues on the talk page of the article or the talk pages of the involved editors (I believe Iridescent (talk · contribs) was the main force behind this article. If, in a minimum of three months, you feel the article still has problems, please feel free to bring it back to FAR. Dana boomer (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A group of editors wrote an article, nominated it for FA, and then voted to approve their own work. The article was improperly assigned FA status. Nothing will change in three months, the article will still have been promoted in a flawed process. That editors have promoted their own article should not exempt them or the article from criticism.
I have reverted your closure as improper, since I am questioning the validity of allowing an arbitrary grace period. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Piano, I have reverted your re-opening of the FAR. Please do not edit war with me on this. If you still wish to open the FAR, please take it to the main FAR or (even better) FA pages, to discuss what you believe to be an inappropriate FAR. Several editors, including those that didn't participate in either the article's improvement or the FAC, have already disagreed with you, and if nothing else, the FAR could have been closed as a speedy keep, regardless of the time period.
Second, I'm not sure where you are coming from with accusations of an improper FAC. The FAC included supports by, among others, Parrot of Doom, who has four edits to the article, all of which are minor copyediting; Hamiltonstone, who has two edits to the article, one of which was a vandalism reversion and the other of which added one sentence with a reference; Jappalang, who had no edits to the article; Johnbod, with one edit to the article that was the addition of a category, and Anoddname, who had one edit after the FAC closed, on the main page day, and was a reversion of unsourced material. The FAC was closed by Karanacs, an uninvolved party with no edits to the article, who felt that there was enough uninvolved reviewers to create consensus.
As I said before, please take your accusations to the FAR or FA talk page. If you can get serious support for bringing the article back to FAR, then so be it, but at this point, consensus is against you. Dana boomer (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
What authority do you have have to stop the discussion? I stated my initial case, and have not had an opportunity to answer any of the responses. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Dana boomer is a FAR delegate, appointed by the featured article director, Raul654. She is completely within bounds to remove an improper FAR, per the instructions at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruption of WP:FAR process[edit]

Disruption of WP:FAR process

This behavior is disruptive in nature. Further disruption of the WP:FAR process, may result in a block on this account. -- Cirt (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What your authority to make these threats? You are not an administrator. You simply appear to be someone who is heavily involved in the very Featured Article process that I am calling into question. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, he is an administrator. While I'm not, I also don't approve of your actions on FAR. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I was challenging FA status for an article. This is something I've done only once before, in many years on Wiki. I'm not familiar with the process. What I've been subjected to is a barrage of abuse. I note that the people actually involved in the article discussion did not ask to have the discussion closed -- perhaps because I haven't had a chance to answer their comments. In this situation, I am a newbie, and I would invite those with a heavy hand not to bite. I am acting in good faith. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel our comments imply a "barrage of abuse". They are not meant to be that way, but reverting delegates on the FAR (or FAC, for that matter) page tends to make admins a bit jumpy. We are not trying to supress your criticism of the FA process, but enough people uninvolved in writing the article have disagreed with your assessment that there is really no point in the FAR being open. We have not tried to stop your discussion on the article page, the FAR talk page or the FA talk page, and instead have encouraged you to explore those areas for discussion. I'm also not sure where you are getting the idea that "people actually involved in the article discussion did not ask to have the discussion closed". Skinny87 specifically asked for the FAR to be "dismissed", while Johnbod and anoddname stood by their support of the article's FA status. Bencherlite questioned both the timing of the nom and your accusations of improper FA conduct, and RangerSteve said he "[didn't] understand this FAR nom". None of these comments (all posted within 2.5 hours of your nomination) show support for your nomination, and in them I read, as is my discretion as delegate, support to close the review as unneeded with the article remaining at FA status. There is nothing wrong in nominating an article for FAR, it's just that in a short period of time many other uninvolved editors disagreed with you, and so the review was closed. Dana boomer (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments and reasoned tone, Dana. I'm going to let this matter drop. I don't have an issue with the editors you just named, and I have some hope they will not take undue offense. I do have an issue with being abused by an administrator, and threatened without explanation of authority. I am not a junior editor either in Wiki or outside. I had intended to make a couple points challenging the FA status, but I see that some processes in Wiki are essentially unfixable. I.e., that amateurs are allowed to promote their work as being excellent. As I pointed out on my page, professional publishing houses and academic presses are hardly fooled. And now, on to the next Wiki edit. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You presume too much Piano. Let me suggest that even if your claim to be a professional editor is true, which I fully admit I doubt, you may not be the only one who gets paid for writing. You appear to have adopted an "I'm right and the rest of the world is wrong" attitude, which is hardly either helpful or healthy. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You will provide an apology for your original abusive statement to me, or I will report you to ANI. My status as an editor is easily confirmed. On the basis of this one encounter with you, without investigating your past, you should be removed from administration. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Will I? Dream on. BTW, I've got no idea why you think I'm an administrator, when you've already been told that I'm not, I never have been, and I never will be. But go to ANI if it'll make you happy, I really couldn't care less. Malleus Fatuorum 02:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Quote your page: "In November 2007 I accepted a nomination for administrator, perhaps the biggest mistake I've made on Wikipedia to date." Unquote. Bye. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Just because he accepted the nomination doesn't mean he was granted with the tools. He shortly withdrew the nomination for adminship.[15] So in short, he wasn't an admin for a second. Now you said you're not a junior editor (which I agree based on the "age" of your account), but I have to ask myself how a senior editor be not able to distinguish who is and who is not an administrator. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't expect there's a need to investigate the background of every editor I correspond with. Note that is 10,000s. In this case, I assumed after a casual scan that Malleus Fatuorum was an administrator, not just someone bragging about how they could have been one. Oppositely, administrator Cirt didn't feel it necessary to identify themselves, or to explain themselves according to Wiki policy, when threatening to block my account, above. Happily, I really am a professional editor. I've heard all this kind of shit before in professional settings. What practical difference it makes to me? None. I know who pays my salary — or in this case, what the Wikimedia Foundation has asked for in their core values. I'm not intimidated by people who think they can get their way contrary to the betterment of Wikipedia by being offensive. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Admins don't necessarily advertise the fact on their user page. Conversely, some non-admins have been known to claim that they are admins. WP:LA shows how to find out who really are the current admins.
Anyway, back to the point. You state "the very Featured Article process that I am calling into question" - if you disagree with the FA process itself, the place to discuss it is surely at either WT:FAC or WT:FAR, and not on a page which is specific to one article? Further, you state "This is something I've done only once before, in many years on Wiki. I'm not familiar with the process." - in which case I would suggest reading up on the process, also watching what others do at the various stages right through from original nomination to ending up at WP:FFA. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The FA process is a self-important farce. That makes it a difficult to take a "measured" approach to it.
The intention of the FA process is not honest criticism, but rubber-stamping gold stars that editors can place on their pages to aggrandize themselves. "Self-evaluation" has pernicious various forms in Wikipedia. Up until now, however I've never encountered a mechanism that arbitrarily allows dismissing, not only a particular editor's criticism, but any criticism at all for a period of three months.
What Wikipedia excels in is creating a maze of bureaucracy designed in part to improve content quality and thwart vandalism. That same bureaucracy promotes mediocre work within social cliques in a way that would never be allowed in a professional setting where a company or institution's reputation and success is based on honest assessment.
The FA process is a farce, because it protects editors against criticism. It's as if students in a class graded their own papers with impunity. What should happen is that no one involved with the article, the topic, or associated with the writers is allowed to nominate an article. Similarly, none of the FA reviewers should have had anything to do with creating it. Then? You would discover a very different quality to FA articles. I.e., a professional quality. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
If you don't like the FA gold stars, ignore them - they don't prevent articles from being improved: FA does not mean WP:PERFECT.
Articles may be nominated for FA by anybody, it is true; and I don't see a problem with that: basically, the nom is asking "Here's an article, I think it could be an FA, what do others think?" They then make no direct assessment, although they may (and should) respond to the probing questions of the assessors. It would be difficult to select assessors on the basis of "no one involved with ... the topic", because in so doing, you're excluding the experts on the subject, and so limiting the assessors to those without the ability to spot errors of content, so WP:FA Criteria items 1b and 1c (possibly 1d and 4) could not be enforced. As for "no one ... associated with the writers", what is "association"? The very fact that we're having this discussion makes me associated with you, so on those grounds, should you nominate an article for FA, I would not be permitted to comment on it.
The FA process doesn't protect editors against criticism; on the contrary, it opens them up to criticism. Articles which would ordinarily go unnoticed become exposed to the careful scrutiny of those with nits to pick. See, for example, copyediting (1, 2) by Parrot of Doom and his comments here. Would he have carried out that copyedit, or posted similar comments (but on the article's talk page) if the article hadn't been a FA nominee?
The FA process may well be a farce, but it has been agreed by consensus; however WP:CCC, so if you want changes, it's best to make your suggestions at the appropriate place. There, they can be discussed, and the FA process may well be altered. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand the reasoning RedRose64, and in another Wiki circumstance I might well take the suggestion. However experience suggests that those involved in the FA and GA are firmly invested in the worth of a process which makes them appear more important to Wikipedia than they would be otherwise. I.e., there's little chance that self-promoting editors would agree to have an independent assessment of the value of their work. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't like FA? Come to GA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) You mean like the independent review made of the Halkett Boat article by an academic expert in the area in his blog, which lavished praise on it? Skinny87 (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Q + A[edit]

Per your user page Q + A, I'm in an odd mood tonight. Odd enough to attempt to engage you.

Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is revolutionary because it puts knowledge into the hands of anyone who has an internet connection. It's free. No tuition fees. No library fines. No other costs associated with it.

No singular entity, no highly educated genius is on staff to tell us what to cover. We just cover it. There are some dangers to this, but it is the model Wikipedia is based on, and the community of which you are a part. The model and this community does not wait for or defer to a single authority to assign what important topics are. Some people don't like that. They stick to halls and cough in ink. Props to the people who pointed me to this poem recently, OR et WW.

So the only reason why the best scholarly summary of the topic you love the most does not exist here (or anywhere) is because you haven't written it. So write it. You may have doubts about the FA process and it's not a perfect system, but write one. Top to bottom. Go make yourself a highly educated genius, prepare yourself to sit with the guy who wrote the Britannica article on the same topic, if it exists at Britannica, and meet him as his level. Do it for readers, but most of all, do it for yourself.

If you are unwilling to understand exactly what writing an FA entails by going through the process of creating one, however, I hardly see how your criticism of it is valid. It seems more a question of what you are doing here. --Moni3 (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

1) The FA process is a farce. Social cliques write articles, evaluate their own work, then give themselves awards that cannot be contested by others. Far from being democratic or revolutionary, it's a return to the worst of fascism. It's people promoting themselves and censoring truth about article quality that they don't like. It is fascism, in action, right here on the Internet, and right now. Quote Wiki fascism article, "They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism."
2) The "Well, why don't you write the articles yourself" argument is well-used in Internet forums. Seen, for example in adolescent jibes, "If you don't like it, then leave", and "I suppose you could do better". Common elements of these statements are the assumptions that what exists is what "the group" wants, that dissension is not wanted. The "I suppose you could do better" challenge is interesting, because in fact, I often can do better. So, does that mean that I have a right to criticize? That's not really what they're saying, is it? It's just not in their imagination that I actually could do better. So what they're effectively saying is: shut up, we think it's great.
The message is similar: Our social group isn't interested in criticism except from people within our group. We have established turf, and we want control over what is done in our turf. Gangdom, fascism, old-boy network, the same motivations, all have the same disinterest in quality or objective truth. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, no, that does not summarize my thoughts accurately at all. The FAC process, like all human systems, is flawed. Calling it fascist is ... well, laughably hyperbolic. There are some groups that work together to pass articles, this is true. There are individual editors who write articles simply because they love the topic they write about, ask nothing from anyone else, and give of their time to review other articles freely because the topic interests them or they respect the amount of effort that goes into article construction. To taint the entire system of FAC by characterizing it as rife with corruption is short-sighted and I can only suggest that comes from your unfamiliarity with the goings-on at FAC.
You're free to characterize my points any way you wish, but my challenge for you to write an FA was not meant in the middle school sense of "don't like it, leave" (and I don't understand how that is comparable) or "I suppose you could do better". Because you can do better. Anyone can do better. Just, you it. It's a system that avails itself to your participation at any time. No one is excluding you from participating in the process as would be required to by definition in a fascist system. Personally, I was unaware of what I was capable of doing until someone challenged me to do it by indicating the articles I had written were incomplete and could be much better. I think it's cheap and easy to criticize without ever having participated and I often post that only difficult things are worth doing, just because they're difficult.
You don't like the social group? Then bust on in there and get up all in their faces with an article of your own. Participate at WT:FAC. Challenge other editors and be prepared to be challenged yourself, not only by what others ask of you, but by what you try to accomplish. --Moni3 (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 21:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Everett Bleiler[edit]

I apologize for bothering you. My nomination for worst punctuation on Wikipedia is here.[16] User:Deor edited away an otherwise readable article.[17] The "year's best" in the article refers to the "Year's Best Science Fiction Novel" series. Science-Fiction: The Early Years in 1992 and Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years in 1999 [18] are the two Hugo Award nominees. His Guide to Supernatural Fiction is simply "massively learned." The article is short. If you could work your magic, I would be most grateful. Eudemis (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarion Writers Workshop[edit]

Dear Piano,

You twice removed references to the Clarion Writers Workshop from an article I was working on. The second time, you admonished me not to repeat it.

You called it "commercial or promotional." When I said it was not, you responded by pointing out that its application fee is nonrefundable. You then said, "Paying money = commercial."

Since the application fee for every college and graduate school in America is also nonrefundable, or at least was when I was applying to college, by your logic those references should be deleted as well.

Clarion is run by the 501(c)(3) Clarion Foundation, which is about as close to the black-letter definition of "noncommercial" as you can get in the United States. Seventy-five writers are now engaged in a "write-a-thon" to raise money for the Foundation this summer. It regularly awards scholarships (sometimes full scholarships, as in the case of the Octavia Butler grant) to students who cannot afford the tuition.

Clarion is also the oldest (and arguably the best respected) training program for writers of fantasy and science ficiton in America. It was founded by Damon Knight and Kate Wilhelm, and has among its alumni (and current instructors) some of the most prominent names in the field. It is commonplace for writers to list it, not only in their published biographical statements, but also in their submission letters to publishing houses, magazines and literary agents.

I am (1) a published writer of science fiction and fantasy; (2) a Clarion graduate myself; (3) a member of the Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America; (3) a licensed attorney who has worked with nonprofits to obtain their 501(c)(3) status; (4) a senior university professor with expertise in contracts, discrimination and copyright. While I respect your judgment, in this particular instance I think you don't know what you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kschneyer (talkcontribs) 03:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Piano non troppo[edit]

Hello Piano non troppo It says I have vanandalised a wikipedia page. I havent even been to that page you moron. What is wrong with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the date at the end of the message, you'll see that Piano left it in November 2008. IP addresses do change, and somebody who happened to have that IP address back then did make two edits to Syllable, as you can see by checking the contributions for your IP address --Redrose64 (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dark Shadows[edit]

It doesn't seem to matter because I've been a victim of IP bias and someone rejected my edits anyway. "Unique challenges" is self-explanatory - there were more than 1,200 episodes produced. And as I said in my edit, most TV shows have no more than 200 episodes. Do the math. Incidentally I'm actually an administrator editing Wikipedia anonymously out of protest over changes to rules that I do not agree with. It's given me new appreciation for the bias against anonymous editors... (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Just to clarify, I'm the one who reverted his edit. The edit was not constructive. I left reasoning on his talk page. And I promptly told him that snarky comments won't win him favor, no matter if he's anon or has a username. Nicholasm79 (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

External links in footnote references won't be clicked at all.[edit]

What a load of rubbish! They're often the most interesting part of an artcle - after the external links. Just my opinion (and experience), of course. --Michael C. Price talk 15:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

IP addresses and messages to users[edit]

heres what i wrote in reply to your message to the ip address : User talk:

"Please understand that your statement, aimed as it is at an Ip address, serves no purpose. In the United Kingdom most Ip addresses are Floating not Fixed. So the individual who made that edit will prob never see this statement. If you wish to make the source and verification requirments clear about this article a better place would be in the disscussion page on the article. Presumably the individual who edited will then see your reverts and, i hope, your encouragement to provide sources and become a better user but to direct a complaint directly to an Ip is probably a waste of time! teknotiss (forgot to sign in)"

hope it saves you some time and effort in future —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Charles Robinson (referee)[edit]

I saw from the history log that you previously edited the article, Charles Robinson (referee) in one capacity or another. I am only, for the record, contacting registered users who have edited the page as editors possessing an IP are subject to change at any point. This is a small notification to inform you that it has been nominated for deletion and a discussion is presently taking place on whether or not it should remain. If you wish to, please feel free to contribute any opinions you may have to the discussion. Thank you. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 22:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Actions of 5/6 May 1945[edit]

A process argument has opened on this page, to which you have contributed. Your comments are requested. The discussion is here (duplicated to all editors of this page) Xyl 54 (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


Got a random message from you, saying "Don't edit pages about Trundle, NSW". But I've never even heard of trundle, and I was looking up habitat fragmentation when I got the message! I think you have me confused with someone else. I haven't done anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit[edit]

As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

James Madison[edit]

Bold text,, he is a founding father and it is hard trying to learn about him — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jigme Lodro Rinpoche[edit]

Nomination of Jigme Lodro Rinpoche for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jigme Lodro Rinpoche is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jigme Lodro Rinpoche until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

I have included you in this notice as an editor of the article. —Geoff Capp (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

RE: Do not add commentary or personal analysis[edit]

I just got this message from you:

"Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Megatar. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you."

I don't think I've ever edited a Wikipedia article; I'm just a lurker :) You must have gotten my IP mixed up with someone else's... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md5fungi (talkcontribs) 17:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)