![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
You seem to have spotted numerous issues with this article- if it's not looking as if the issues are being resolved soon, I advise you nominate the article at featured list removal candidates. J Milburn ( talk) 22:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and apologies if I appeared snippy. There was no call for that, particularly since the image was, indeed, nominated for deletion and partially a copyvio. Skinny87 ( talk) 19:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I note your interest in the subject of micronations.
Wikipedia always welcome a diversity of opinion, so you might wish to consider registering as a member of the WikiProject Micronations:
I look forward to working with you over coming months to improve and significantly extend Wikipedia's micronation content. -- Gene_poole ( talk) 01:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm shortly going to propose that this site be added as an WP:EL to both List of micronations and Micronations.
As the site includes the most extensive, up-to-date listing of micronations currently available from any source, I believe that it is directly relevant to the subject of those articles, and that its inclusion within them would significantly complement the existing content, and enhance their usefulness and the level of informativeness they communicate to the general reader.
However, before I iniate that discussion I firstly wanted to disclose that I'm the owner and primary author of www.listofmicronations.com. Secondly, in order to avoid any suggestion of WP:COI I intend to refrain from adding the link myself, should the eventual consensus support my proposal. -- Gene_poole ( talk) 02:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi; saw your warning and reversion, just wanted to note that it's not only that article that Thmc1 has been waging his little NYC-is-the-mostest campaign - see this edit at Chinatown, Manhattan, which is clearly an effort to downplay even the existence of the San Francisco, Vancouver and Toronto Chinatowns. One problem with patrolling such edits is the wide panoply of "Chinatown" articles; see my comments about this on Talk:Chinatowns in Canada and the United States re the difference between ChinaTOWNS and Chinese immigrant/commercial districts of the modern era etc.....Somewhere maybe on Talk:Chinatown I wrote something on " Chinatown Overburden" too, about the reduplication/replication of overlapping materials across way too many redundant pages.... Skookum1 ( talk) 17:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're an admin, but if so thmc1 has reached 4RR, as he's now reverted twice on User:Emarsee, the same reversion he did on me twice....I'll also notify others who've posted on his talkpage who seem to be admins. This silliness has go to stop; his latest edit comment is "letter sent to Editorial Assistance requesting preservation of this fact and removal of inaccuracies". I don't think he really realizes what "editorial assistance" means around here...... Skookum1 ( talk) 20:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Message from Thmc1 to User:Emarsee which copied in formatting text.
Hi, Piano_non_troppo! Peace, Wiki brother (or sister)!
Below is my response to "Emarsee":
Hi, Piano_non_troppo,
Thank you so much for your insightful and very helpful response! I greatly appreciate it, and I will do my best to follow your advice.
May I now please be permitted to make the integrally accurate and entirely benign change to the Chinatown, Vancouver article as I proposed in the message forwarded to you? I believe that I have justified my statements and rationale appropriately.
Could you please also advise me as to HOW to check the edit history on any random article which I may come to edit?
Best regards, and Respectfully so,
Thmc1 Thmc1 ( talk) 19:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Thmc1, I've answered your question about how to check edit history here [6]. I find the third technique is useful to find out who is making a limited change, perhaps based on a particular guideline, vs. those who have invested considerable effort in the article, and may have a deep understanding of its editing issues. Piano non troppo ( talk) 04:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen you in a while, Piano, but can you please block that IP who keeps vandalizing your page. I just reverted some vandalism he put on your page & i noticed he's on his final warning, which came prior to the vandalism I just reverted. Please block him. Cheers AndrewEnns ( talk) 05:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Good day! :) You are very welcome Piano non troppo. To my knowledge WP:3RR doesn't apply when reverting vandalism... but your mention of it makes me feel like I should look into that again, just to make sure. On the article in question, the spammer was editing just as fast as I was reverting, so I suspect I may have to wait awhile, and go back to clean up the mess once they are gone. It's been great to finally hear from a name I see so often! ;) Happy editing :) -- WikHead ( talk) 08:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Piano_non_troppo. No apparent response from "Skookum1" to my message to him, after approx 48 hrs. Will refrain from surmising any reason. Can I bother you to look at my detailed message to him about the line in question in the "Chinatown, Vancouver" article on his talk page? I'm interested in your take on the situation :) -- Just FYI, there really is no "campaign" for any vested interest at this point - but I do honestly feel, and indeed firmly, that accuracy deserves a higher priority here than trying to fathom scintillating comparisons.
I'm also curious, is there any editorial hierarchy involved in this situation? I don't want to put you in a difficult situation.
Thanks much.
Thmc1 Thmc1 ( talk) 04:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Wisely stated, piano_non_troppo. I will respect that advice and check back in a couple of weeks or so. And as you said, who knows - maybe some editor in the Wikisphere will understand my point and decide that I am right.
Thanks again,
Thmc1 Thmc1 ( talk) 02:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I have reinstated your recent edit to this article. Your claim was that the phrase "A world-class hotel" was unsubstantiated. The claim is valid, and is referenced in the first paragraph and cited reference #5. If you would like to add clarity to the paragraph in question, I suggest that you re-add the cited reference a second time. Hotel del Coronado. Ljmajer ( talk) 03:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Today, At 17:39, you made several edits to Slysoft and some of there products. You claim that these products are criminal. This does not agree with them to remove them. Although anyDVD is illegal in Germany [1] and possibly America (see Digital Millennium Copyright Act), this does not account to other Country's. The legal status in many other European countries is unknown and certain counties (like The Netherlands; Dutch copyright law) it is allowed to make (digital) backups. Iran on the other hand does not have any law about it ( Intellectual property in Iran), making Anydvd a perfectly legal product.
Multiple users have complained about vandalism, please, restrain your self next time and don't remove entire entry's.
Tell the truth, don't cloak it... Eonfge ( talk) 18:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
No additional reference given because the existing refence itself indicates a net worth of $1.8b, not $400m as given in the article. Click on it and see : http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/HZC2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.165.57 ( talk) 03:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Piano non troppo - Thanks for letting me know about the additions to Manupatra and for re-writing the copy-paste. I've been keeping an eye on the page, but missed the the most recent addition of copyright text, as I was away at the time. Regardless of whether they release it under Creative Commons or not, I don't think the company's website verbatim makes a particularly good Wikipedia article. Hopefully, the editor(s) will be happy with your, much better version, and will leave it be; otherwise perhaps the only way to go may be another semi-protection. Thanks again! --☇ Kateshortforbob talk☄ 22:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I probably should just give up and unwatch this article, but I spent a lot of time on it a few days ago and I hate to have wasted all that effort. Could I ask you to look carefully at the article the way I left it on October 2, and see if you really think it is worse than the present version? The main change I made, other than removing some POV stuff, was to move much of the introduction to a separate section, Usage and legal status. My reasoning is that those 2 issues--where and for what indications it is used, and where it is banned or restricted--belong together, and the information is too extensive and detailed to be covered in an introduction. I have also found that when there is a lot of vandalism, keeping the introduction short and neutral sometimes reduces the meddling. Rose bartram ( talk) 11:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Since every person has "mental powers" this category has no encyclopedic meaning, and should be deleted
You are wrong. We arent' talking about the power of thinking, dreaming or remember, but it's about fictional paranormal abilities like Telepathy (used by Professor X and Jean Grey) or Mind Transferral (used by Doctor Doom). Brazilian Man ( talk) 18:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
(I'm suggesting moving this discussion to the article's discussion page [18].) Piano non troppo ( talk) 06:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the original ArbCom remedies were revised into a more relevant form a few months later, involving proscriptions on only the reversion of the linking or unlinking of dates (and for some parties, the discussion of date linking).
As far as the temporary injunction on the mass linking/unlinking of dates, the definition of what "mass" means was always indecisive, but apparently refers only to determined, sustained, automated means of removing the old date-autoformatting (of triple-item dates, such as "3 January 1999". Where it is part of gnoming activities, it appears to be fine: User Colonies Chris and many others remove autoformatting as you do in passing as the gnome on a variety of clean-up issues, without trouble. On my occasional gnoming activities, I unlink them. I'm not even sure of the status of the injunction, which states that it will end if there's a community-agreed program for bot unlinking (there is—the RfC for such was in ?June, and the bot is undergoing testing at the Bot Approvals Group; the bot managed by User:Harej).
The unlinking of date fragments and other chronological items, such as "1980s", "20th century", "2001", and "17 July" is subject to community-agreed relevance tests set out at MOSNUM (and probably MOSLINK using the same wording). I find it hard to locate any chronological itema of this sort that are sufficiently relevant to an article, and usually unlink them when I encounter them, which is not often nowadays. Chronological articles themselves are exempt from this relevance test, to keep the peace. Unlinking "20 November" in an article on the Thai calendar, or in "2004 in basketball", therefore, will probably be met with resistance, so it's best not even to attempt it.
In other words, there has been a culture change, but it's wise at this stage to avoid participating in multiple reversions. Does this answer your question? Tony (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
PS I believe that common-term overlinking is now the big problem. Tony (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
...between listing a STATE in which a restaurant operates, and listing the address of each location? If you do understand that these are completely different things, why do you keep trying to remove the list of states from Roy Rogers with edit summaries that indicate this is a list of specific restaurant locations? (Yes, I'm so sure that if we let this article list 10 states, other articles will list 200 states! No logical flaw in that reasoning!)
Every single article about a business will list the location of that business. Every single article about a chain will indicate what regions the chain operates in. It is one of the most basic facts imaginable in describing any company. In what universe could this possibly serve any promotional or directory purpose? Do you have any idea how big most states are? You might as well oppose mentioning what country a business operates in. Propaniac ( talk) 13:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. I now agree with your . -- Ec5618 ( talk) 18:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
User:Piano non troppo has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Regarding The Art of War. At best the statement that "CA used Sun Tzu's strategies to program their AI" is ridiculously badly worded. At worst, the person who posted that is making it up. Now, I think the person actually meant they used aspects of Sun Tzu's texts in the storyline/gameplay, not the AI. (from editor Intranetusa)
So far I am neutral to the issue. What I would do is start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:BLP or something like that. WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I looked over your edits to Miller's article and restored many of the changes you made, as they were unexplained and made little apparent sense. As I said in my edit summary, why unlink Griffin Guess, who clearly has an article, then link Ashley Degenford, who clearly doesn't? Why remove a Commons link? Why change EL formatting? Why remove a Rolling Stone magazine ref and a sourced quote? You cited policy in removing the official forum link, so I didn't reinstate it, but as for your other changes, I can't see what policy could be behind any of it, and you didn't provide any. In the future, if you want to make these changes again, please go to the talk page and let's reach a consensus before any more removals/changes as responsible Wikipedians. Thanks! Mbinebri talk ← 14:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Change of measurments? Link to the diff. -- Horkana ( talk) 17:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Please, have a look before cleaning some interesting data, is there anybody to control your control!!!! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.137.0 ( talk) 10:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Was this a failed attempt to clean up spam from the page? Your edit seems to have only moved things around, rather than deleting anything. -- Soap Talk/ Contributions 01:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank's a lot for the review, I thought about that edit for a few seconds (max time anyone ever really spends thinking on huggle), but still hit before it really hit me. For mistakes like that feel free to talk to be on my talk page in the future, Happy editing!-- SKATER Speak. 02:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I am new to this. I want to make clean up. That is what I am doing. ( 159.91.151.97 ( talk) 03:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC))
Hi, you edited the article, mostly in a better direction (thanks!). However, you removed a sentence from the start of the special effects section, which said: "While the budget was among the largest ever in a South Korean production, by international standards it was more modest." I remember writing parts of that article, and that was specifically included to link it with the previous section---which ends saying how the budget is really big for a South Korean film---and I think the article gets confusing without it. The next ref in the text (sort of) provides a citation for that part too; in it, the director discusses the budget limitations of the film and the effect they had on the special effects. Simply saying that the budget was limited doesn't help in clarifying anything, thus the explanatory text describing why there's no contradiction. Does it need some tweaking if I want to restore something to that effect in the text? Thanks. (October 23, 2009 by Bobet)
I was not aware of the fact concerning Lyrics Download.com. I have removed its name from the two songs in norwegian Wikipedia. Thank you very much for letting me know! It as allowed to cite Metrolyrics as a source? Best wishes! Mbakkel2 19 October 2009 14:45 (CEST)
I wonder if you can do me a favour? Is it allowed to cite Diggiloo Thrush as a quote (Some English Wikipedia articles do so)? Its content is a mixture of lyrics and information about the Eurovision Song Contest-entries from 1956, the performers, backing vocalists, conductors, composers and lyricists. Thank you very much. Best wishes! Mbakkel2 17:36 (CEST), 20 October 2009
Sorry, I was not aware of that, I was the one that had added the link to the band's official website to the related articles. Won't happen again. Suede67 ( talk) 10:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to
WJLA-TV, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use
the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the
welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
NeutralHomer •
Talk •
23:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 23:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
KCWY-DT. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
NeutralHomer •
Talk •
23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
As you know, I consider your edits vandalism and will revert them and warn you for that vandalism. If you are going to remove information, you MUST get consensus from WP:TVS first and then after getting that consensus remove the information from all pages, not just two. Consensus first. Also, don't threaten, just makes you look like the bad guy. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The protection given the page has expired, and the same anonymous users and Unending247 have simply reinstated their edits without addressing the concerns. They've also been vandalizing my talk page. Perhaps you can help me with this? Thanks. Rmcsamson ( talk) 06:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I've spent the past six weeks overhauling the hip hop dance article and now that I've finished, I posted it for peer review here. I decided to invite you because you're entire user page shows all the qualities that a good editor has (you're a writer, you like to contribute to an article's integrity, you provided helpful links for finding sources, etc.) and your contribution history is varied enough to tell me that you're well rounded and would probably approach a new article in an unbiased manner. In my eyes, those are good enough reasons to invite you. I would appreciate your feedback. Be forewarned that this is a long article. Not including refs/external links, templates, and categories it's 7 pages printed. If you accept my invitation to review you may want to print it first and make your edits that way. I found it easier to read and to correct when I did this. Although long, it makes for a good read during a lunch break, a bus ride, or pure boredom. I learned a lot myself while rewriting this article. If you like to learn, this could be an incentive for you. Gbern3 ( talk) 18:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You might want to look at the page Ballia, I think you're on the trail of a persistent vandal. Same pattern going on there. Anniepoo ( talk) 23:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, that's a great response!
I'll try to give them some wikilove as well, you're right, they might end up a great editor.
Anniepoo (
talk)
22:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
andyzweb (
talk) has given you balloons! Balloons are meant to uplift the morale of people with an illness, and has hopefully made your day a little better. Spread good health by giving someone else who is a bit ill a balloon.
Spread the good health by adding {{ subst:Balloons}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
just spreading the wiki love! andyzweb ( talk) 08:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Please add the article of Brenden Adams.
Brenden Adams born: September 20, 1995 height: 7'4.6" location: Ellensburg, WA, USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 ( talk) 07:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Along the same vein, just randomly saw an edit of yours and had to say - what an awesome name!! -- Cpt ricard ( talk) 04:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I already blocked 89.105.29.146 more than twenty minutes ago (informing you since I assume you thought the report was just being wiped without being handled). Thanks, though. :-) -- Menti fisto 13:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The challenges I thought would be self-evident given the place is thousands of miles from the nearest government centre and has a grand total of 50 people which is less than some elementary school Grade 8 classrooms. I just felt the article needed some context and an introduction. Feel free to reword it. 68.146.81.123 ( talk) 17:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
User 82.99.29.112 is continuously posting comments about subject in violation of NPOV without verifiable sources. Longstanding article with long history of editor and admin review is being vandalized and user is posting irrelevent and unsubstantiated changes. I am considering requesting page protection and would appreciate your advice. User is posting from other IP addresses all in Sweden. J araneo ( talk) 06:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey ther Piano non troppo,
I saw you were working to defeat vandalism lately. Thank You! But I saw one of your warnings to a user 208.125.2.58 and I wanted to give you a bit of advice. In general, we give vandals 4 warnings before we threaten to block them. What most do is either use a vandalism program ( like twinkle) or use templates. For the first warning use {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article Name}} for the next use {{subst: uw-vandalism2|Article name}} and so on, until you get to vandalism 4.
However, that is just to make it easy for vandal-fighters. It really does not matter as long as it gets reverted. However, the most important thing is that you do not feed the vandals. That means that the only interaction you should have with them is telling them that their edit was reverted. Otherwise it just encourages them to come back and vandalize again.That means that this edit was not the best type of response. In all cases, if its just one vandal, you should have them blocked by reporting them at WP:AIV. Again thank you for your help! Tim1357 ( talk) 12:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
So its an edit war then? There is no rule against removing maintenance templates, so what's the problem? And who are the socks? Tim1357 ( talk) 01:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you fix the infobox the IP broke as well? Thanks, I can't due to 3RR. Sach ( talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for your message. I've reviewed your new request at RPP (and rescued it from the bottom of the page before the bot filed it!), and I've declined it again. Essentially, as there's now an editor, in a couple of days semi-protection won't work. Most of the tag removals are probably valid now, but I have re-added the orphan tag, and told the editor not to take it off until there are some links. If he persists, take it to WP:AVI. If the page goes haywire again, let me know or go back to RPP. Thanks. Ged UK 09:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
... for this edit - nice to have a user who save us time! See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#backloged too often. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 18:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Due to the economic importance, the article should have substantial content about IT industry in Pune, although the earlier (unsourced) laundry list was unacceptable. I have added a revised section (with citations) in its place.
SPat talk 16:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to report that user Thmc1 is vandalising the Chinatown pages once again with his Pro-New York/Anti-San Francisco Chinatown propaganda. This time he's falsely citing website sources. In an edit on the "Vancouver, Chinatown" page, he claims that a San Francisco promotional website (www.hoteltravelcheck.com/sfo/Chinatown-San-Francisco.html) advertises its Chinatown as "second largest", presumably behind New York. This is clearly untrue, as the website reads "THE LARGEST", not "second largest". I wonder what the logic is behind his latest actions? Maybe calling other people's bluff assuming that nobody won't bother to check?? Anyway, he's already been warned by you and another editor for the same offense. Thought I'd let you know. IanEddington ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC).
I've been mostly observing, but his NY vs. SF ranting is becoming a bit tiring. I am also quite familiar with the site in question, and to the best of my knowledge it hasn't been updated in a long while. Most of the sites out there blurbing SF Chinatown as 2nd largest are usually pro-NY sites. IanEddington ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC).
Thank you for fixing my incredibly dumb mistake. I can't believe I was so distracted I missed the blatantly obvious. After seeing that, I moved to a quieter place from which to edit. I'm glad you were on top of things. Happy editing! 152.16.16.75 ( talk) 11:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Piano, I've just noticed you left this message on the scientist Sammy Lee's page: "This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged or deleted. (November 2009)". I see that the matter of notability has already been previously established - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sammy_Lee_(scientist). I am a WikiEditor who has been absent for some time (I've been busy writing books), and while I was updating his site, adding his Conference on Older Mothers which he held at the UCL on 18 September 2009, I thought I would add other citation ref links, all of which are fully reliable secondary sources (i.e. Observer/Guardian, The Times, BBC etc.). Frances Lynn, author 19:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Cheers! 80.177.220.23 ( talk) 13:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I've explained on the article talk page why your removal is not justified and is not supported by the references. If you are unwilling to discuss and find consensus prior to removal of sourced information, I may need to report you to other forums. Gimmetrow 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me credit for my edit of "Space colonization" on the 26th of November. NASA, JPL and the others who actually did the work deserve the credit. Now and then a significant fact will slip by people who are actively maintaining articles. The continued maintenance deserves credit. Anyone can throw in an added fact now and then. I help when I can.-- Fartherred ( talk) 17:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thanks for your anti-vandalism work. Please do try to avoid situations like this, though. You have to check what you're reverting to. Enigma msg 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Personnel sections are supposed to include wiki-links even if the person has been linked prior to the section in the article. That is per music project guidelines. — John Cardinal ( talk) 16:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I MADE A JOKE AND 2 MINUTES LATER IT WAS CORRECTED!?!??! WTF???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.241.45 ( talk) 10:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Piano non troppo - Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to your message: I haven't been as active as I'd like on WP the past couple of weeks!
I'm not sure how useful any advice I have might be, as I don't have a great deal of experience with dispute resolution on Wikipedia. If you've tried mediation and RfCs and have brought it up at the appropriate Wikiproject with no success, the best thing to do might be to lay out the problem(s) on one of the noticeboards; I have had very good experiences with them before: the editors who respond are generally knowledgeable in the area, and having fresh eyes on a matter is generally beneficial. I would think either the Content Board or Admin's Incident Board would be appropriate. I notice that User:Neutralhomer is currently under under a short block, apparently for not following policy on non-free images on TV station articles. If there is a pattern of non-adherence to Wikipedia policy, that is a concern, and I think that some action would have to be taken there ( ANI would probably be best for that). Neutralhomer's ability to respond to any report will be limited (his responses can be copied/transcluded from his talk page) until his block expires tomorrow or is otherwise lifted.
Apologies again for the delay in replying! -- Kateshortforbob talk 14:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate, i have been translating this article from Arabic and French sources and i feel like I made a huge mess. When it is read, you can obviously deduce that the editor (myself) was translating his arabic/french thoughts into English. Would you take a look at it and maybe gimme a lil advice on how to better organize my writing process ( you being a professional editor and all) Don't mind the works list i will move it. thanks Eli + 15:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Just what is it about you that makes you extraordinarily competent to remove someone else's edits? It is an informative page, not an advertisment. Eye Disagree ( talk) 16:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is a detailed technical and historical description of a homebuilt aircraft. Perhaps you don't know anything about that topic? Furthermore, there is not a hint of solicitation in the article, which would merit your editorial. In conclusion, if your other 10000 edits are of this quality then they should all be removed. Like this one.
Eye Disagree ( talk) 11:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It would help if I had some idea of what article you are talking about. Piano non troppo ( talk) 11:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
After research, now I know what article you are talking about, Dyke Delta. Phrases such as "marketed for homebuilding", and "The plans are available from John Dyke, who now resides in Fairborn, Ohio" strongly indicate, not only advertising, but conflict of interest. According to WP:COI, I am asking you to "declare your interest" in this article. Piano non troppo ( talk) 12:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
anything about. Using your example the article about New York Times must be marked an advertisment since it is available to people in various ways.
editor; a member of the selfproclaimed anti-spam people, then edit it to your satisfaction. But don't just state that it's an ad. It is e.g. useful to us who are interested in homebuilt aircraft to know wether it is avilable or if it is not available anymore. I found this article via Google, of course, and I learned lots from reading it, and I found useful source material from its links. Ergo, it is a useful article. Btw, what reference do you find questionable? Jane's? EAA Publications? Do you know anything about either? Maybve you should look them up? E.g. in Wikipedia.
Phonology? I'm Swedish. I know lots. I could discuss that article but what did you contribute?
Wikipedia article about that...
Eye Disagree ( talk) 13:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I'll take it elsewhere. As soon as you stop editing articles you don't know anything about. Or start editing them, rather than just labelling them. If you are an EDITOR then EDIT the article you find in error. Otherwise I suggest joining a book-club. But then, you'd just complain about the books, not have any actual opinion, wouldn't you?
Eye Disagree ( talk) 13:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed the perfectly inoffensive "flag carrier" from Korean Airlines with the comment "What is a flag carrier?" As the phrase was wikilinked, and appropriate, I'm a little surprised that you removed it. Perhaps you should take a little more care when deleting material. cojoco ( talk) 11:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Please accept my advanced Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.I will not be able to wish you on those days as I will be taking a Wiki break for one month starting tomorrow. Also wishing you a Happy editing.. :) arun talk 07:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Wiki user rating: for the time you invested: 1 point. Helpfulness: 0 point. Makes 1 out of 5 points in total. --Hans Joachim Koerver 14:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Contre-bass, I have to correct: 0 points in total - I see you started already this morning to mutilate pages of mine SM U-109. Pack "Coyote", or pack "Burned Soil", I assume ? --Hans Joachim Koerver 22:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC). Check my talk for details. --Hans Joachim Koerver 22:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh Gott, what a slimy and false snake you are. You are telling LIES behind my back about me
[52]) to others, that you wouldnt dare to repeat on my talk page, where all your subjective and emotional arguments didnt score any point in discussion. You are really disgusting. Its because of black charactered people like you, that Wiki goes down. You MUST be 5th column.
AchimKoerver (
talk) Hans Joachim Koerver
12:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
More or less greasefully, I think. How many time they take at Wiki to make down Newbies ! And what a joy it is - look here - [53].
AchimKoerver ( talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 12:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your editing of [[Legally Blonde (musical). I would never have picked up on all those! Here's to GA eventually haha Mark E ( talk) 14:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Your comments welcome! -- Jubilee♫ clipman 04:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Piano non troppo (?, interesting 'name'),
Concur entirely with you on lack of notability as per my comments on the articles talk page. There is already a
2009 Espoo shopping mall shooting article. Do you know how to start the ball rolling for mergeing, at least, with the other article? --
220.101.28.25 (
talk)
14:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This> {{ uw-spam1}} has a talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I added the Advert tag to the PEER 1 article because *some* of it seems like advertising, not all. In addition, it does seem, to me anyways, to be written from a pro-company point of view. 74.214.250.169 ( talk) 09:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm somewhat confused by your edit summary in Swanepoel's article in returning the notability tag. Saying "She's somebody who does a job. That, alone, doesn't make anybody notable. Or is someone claiming that being a model is more important than being a doctor or a professor?" makes it seem a lot like you're judging her notability based on your opinion of her profession's merit. That's not what notability is about. I mean, hell, Paris Hilton has an article and she's absolutely useless to society—but that doesn't mean she's not notable. Mbinebri talk ← 14:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Danish_poets -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 14:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there! Thanks for taking over the watch on that little escapade. I think you were a little harsh on both of us. This is clearly a newcomer and I suspect a youngster. Ev responded positively to the suggestions I made about grammar and sourcing (appearing at one stage to enlist an adult's help with formating refs). S/he showed a desire to understand and comply with our styles and constraints which are neither intuitive or familiar to your average child. We cannot assume that the distinction between the promotional terms that he/she would be familiar with in the "real" world and the neutral tone we require would be immediately apparent. My view was to encourage someone who may develop a taste for the task and become a valuable editor. Threatening an early ban is hardly encouraging. And if it ends up a pig's ear, there's always the option to revert.
My last edit to her/his page was at 00:03, 3 January. You then added that I was "not being to the point" regarding the peacock and promotional language introduced in this edit made more than 2 hours after my last comment. Did I miss the loopback in the time continuum?
Anyway, no hard feelings on my part, and thanks again for taking over.
Oh, and thanks also for your support on my talk page. Occasional flippancy is one of my vices :)
All the best for 2010 -- Timberframe ( talk) 17:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
See what you think of it now. -- hydrox ( talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
What is your real name? For whom do you do your paid work? I like the fact that your pseudonym evokes moderation rather than god-like vigilante empowerment (e.g. Tyrennius). In general, however, I would have more confidence in Wikipedia if its editors didn't hide behind pseudonyms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimmer40 ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm self-employed. I have various university degrees, have worked in a number of fields, and am (or was) considered an expert in three fields (with professional "peer-reviewed" publications, i.e., not Wikipedia). None are related to art or sociology.
Being on Wikipedia's anti-vandalism patrol, I do a lot of work with vandals, so I prefer not to give my real name, except to administrators. Perhaps mercifully, I don't have a "public face", so unlike you, I get to avoid the personal confrontations with the less rational.
As for my pseudonym, well, quite apart from working on vandalism, I enjoy a good joke, even if it's on me. Regards, Piano non troppo ( talk) 13:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your attention at Dignity. I much appreciate your help. PYRRHON talk 17:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't recall having ever heard her or seen her on anything, but that's no reason to let unsourced claims into the article. Woogee ( talk) 22:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment and maybe I should have dicussed first- but well most edits are done withour discussion. I never considered it controverisal to mention that the group witch formed allways one of the 3 most numberous groups (and is today considered the most numberous group) was an integral part of forming the American society and identity , which is of course disticnt form the German society. The actual article liments the influence to such unimportant things like christmas trees and Baron von Steuben. Tradition in sience, cultur, protestant philosophie and and and are far more important then a christmas tree. But maybe you are right and things like this belong to the Americans-article. And most likely you are right and the edit was not that good, but well 195.243.51.34 ( talk) 09:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Is flawed. Any author, may at any time, release their copyright to the public domain. Wjhonson ( talk) 09:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Piano non troppo! Thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an
Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The
biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure
verifiability, all biographies should be based on
reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current
869 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{
unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 21:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed user Scottycrum1 has vandalized the page for Magenta, and I undid his/her change, but I missed tagging it as vandalism. I apologize, I am not very familiar with editing on Wikipedia. I didn't know if the page was on your watch, so I thought I'd report it personally just in case, especially since you have already gave him a formal warning about vandalizing that page. Roundchild ( talk) 22:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on procedure. I really don't spend enough time on Wikipedia to know what to do about such things. TripEricson ( talk) 02:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
hello Piano non troppo,
I am sorry but you have got the wrong guy. I did not edit Jean-Baptiste Maunier. your dealing with a hacker here. the only page I would ever edit is Leo Deutsch. and that's only because he is my great, grand, grandfather's brother. I am sorry to bother you. I just wanted to let you know.
your friend, -- 75.18.198.98 ( talk) 06:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Babene
hello Piano non troppo, that might be difficult because this information is family knowledge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.198.98 ( talk) 07:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
hello Piano non troppo, that might be difficult because this information is family knowledge
your friend,-- 75.18.198.98 ( talk) 07:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Babene
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
You seem to have spotted numerous issues with this article- if it's not looking as if the issues are being resolved soon, I advise you nominate the article at featured list removal candidates. J Milburn ( talk) 22:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and apologies if I appeared snippy. There was no call for that, particularly since the image was, indeed, nominated for deletion and partially a copyvio. Skinny87 ( talk) 19:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I note your interest in the subject of micronations.
Wikipedia always welcome a diversity of opinion, so you might wish to consider registering as a member of the WikiProject Micronations:
I look forward to working with you over coming months to improve and significantly extend Wikipedia's micronation content. -- Gene_poole ( talk) 01:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm shortly going to propose that this site be added as an WP:EL to both List of micronations and Micronations.
As the site includes the most extensive, up-to-date listing of micronations currently available from any source, I believe that it is directly relevant to the subject of those articles, and that its inclusion within them would significantly complement the existing content, and enhance their usefulness and the level of informativeness they communicate to the general reader.
However, before I iniate that discussion I firstly wanted to disclose that I'm the owner and primary author of www.listofmicronations.com. Secondly, in order to avoid any suggestion of WP:COI I intend to refrain from adding the link myself, should the eventual consensus support my proposal. -- Gene_poole ( talk) 02:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi; saw your warning and reversion, just wanted to note that it's not only that article that Thmc1 has been waging his little NYC-is-the-mostest campaign - see this edit at Chinatown, Manhattan, which is clearly an effort to downplay even the existence of the San Francisco, Vancouver and Toronto Chinatowns. One problem with patrolling such edits is the wide panoply of "Chinatown" articles; see my comments about this on Talk:Chinatowns in Canada and the United States re the difference between ChinaTOWNS and Chinese immigrant/commercial districts of the modern era etc.....Somewhere maybe on Talk:Chinatown I wrote something on " Chinatown Overburden" too, about the reduplication/replication of overlapping materials across way too many redundant pages.... Skookum1 ( talk) 17:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're an admin, but if so thmc1 has reached 4RR, as he's now reverted twice on User:Emarsee, the same reversion he did on me twice....I'll also notify others who've posted on his talkpage who seem to be admins. This silliness has go to stop; his latest edit comment is "letter sent to Editorial Assistance requesting preservation of this fact and removal of inaccuracies". I don't think he really realizes what "editorial assistance" means around here...... Skookum1 ( talk) 20:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Message from Thmc1 to User:Emarsee which copied in formatting text.
Hi, Piano_non_troppo! Peace, Wiki brother (or sister)!
Below is my response to "Emarsee":
Hi, Piano_non_troppo,
Thank you so much for your insightful and very helpful response! I greatly appreciate it, and I will do my best to follow your advice.
May I now please be permitted to make the integrally accurate and entirely benign change to the Chinatown, Vancouver article as I proposed in the message forwarded to you? I believe that I have justified my statements and rationale appropriately.
Could you please also advise me as to HOW to check the edit history on any random article which I may come to edit?
Best regards, and Respectfully so,
Thmc1 Thmc1 ( talk) 19:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Thmc1, I've answered your question about how to check edit history here [6]. I find the third technique is useful to find out who is making a limited change, perhaps based on a particular guideline, vs. those who have invested considerable effort in the article, and may have a deep understanding of its editing issues. Piano non troppo ( talk) 04:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen you in a while, Piano, but can you please block that IP who keeps vandalizing your page. I just reverted some vandalism he put on your page & i noticed he's on his final warning, which came prior to the vandalism I just reverted. Please block him. Cheers AndrewEnns ( talk) 05:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Good day! :) You are very welcome Piano non troppo. To my knowledge WP:3RR doesn't apply when reverting vandalism... but your mention of it makes me feel like I should look into that again, just to make sure. On the article in question, the spammer was editing just as fast as I was reverting, so I suspect I may have to wait awhile, and go back to clean up the mess once they are gone. It's been great to finally hear from a name I see so often! ;) Happy editing :) -- WikHead ( talk) 08:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Piano_non_troppo. No apparent response from "Skookum1" to my message to him, after approx 48 hrs. Will refrain from surmising any reason. Can I bother you to look at my detailed message to him about the line in question in the "Chinatown, Vancouver" article on his talk page? I'm interested in your take on the situation :) -- Just FYI, there really is no "campaign" for any vested interest at this point - but I do honestly feel, and indeed firmly, that accuracy deserves a higher priority here than trying to fathom scintillating comparisons.
I'm also curious, is there any editorial hierarchy involved in this situation? I don't want to put you in a difficult situation.
Thanks much.
Thmc1 Thmc1 ( talk) 04:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Wisely stated, piano_non_troppo. I will respect that advice and check back in a couple of weeks or so. And as you said, who knows - maybe some editor in the Wikisphere will understand my point and decide that I am right.
Thanks again,
Thmc1 Thmc1 ( talk) 02:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I have reinstated your recent edit to this article. Your claim was that the phrase "A world-class hotel" was unsubstantiated. The claim is valid, and is referenced in the first paragraph and cited reference #5. If you would like to add clarity to the paragraph in question, I suggest that you re-add the cited reference a second time. Hotel del Coronado. Ljmajer ( talk) 03:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Today, At 17:39, you made several edits to Slysoft and some of there products. You claim that these products are criminal. This does not agree with them to remove them. Although anyDVD is illegal in Germany [1] and possibly America (see Digital Millennium Copyright Act), this does not account to other Country's. The legal status in many other European countries is unknown and certain counties (like The Netherlands; Dutch copyright law) it is allowed to make (digital) backups. Iran on the other hand does not have any law about it ( Intellectual property in Iran), making Anydvd a perfectly legal product.
Multiple users have complained about vandalism, please, restrain your self next time and don't remove entire entry's.
Tell the truth, don't cloak it... Eonfge ( talk) 18:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
No additional reference given because the existing refence itself indicates a net worth of $1.8b, not $400m as given in the article. Click on it and see : http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/HZC2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.165.57 ( talk) 03:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Piano non troppo - Thanks for letting me know about the additions to Manupatra and for re-writing the copy-paste. I've been keeping an eye on the page, but missed the the most recent addition of copyright text, as I was away at the time. Regardless of whether they release it under Creative Commons or not, I don't think the company's website verbatim makes a particularly good Wikipedia article. Hopefully, the editor(s) will be happy with your, much better version, and will leave it be; otherwise perhaps the only way to go may be another semi-protection. Thanks again! --☇ Kateshortforbob talk☄ 22:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I probably should just give up and unwatch this article, but I spent a lot of time on it a few days ago and I hate to have wasted all that effort. Could I ask you to look carefully at the article the way I left it on October 2, and see if you really think it is worse than the present version? The main change I made, other than removing some POV stuff, was to move much of the introduction to a separate section, Usage and legal status. My reasoning is that those 2 issues--where and for what indications it is used, and where it is banned or restricted--belong together, and the information is too extensive and detailed to be covered in an introduction. I have also found that when there is a lot of vandalism, keeping the introduction short and neutral sometimes reduces the meddling. Rose bartram ( talk) 11:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Since every person has "mental powers" this category has no encyclopedic meaning, and should be deleted
You are wrong. We arent' talking about the power of thinking, dreaming or remember, but it's about fictional paranormal abilities like Telepathy (used by Professor X and Jean Grey) or Mind Transferral (used by Doctor Doom). Brazilian Man ( talk) 18:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
(I'm suggesting moving this discussion to the article's discussion page [18].) Piano non troppo ( talk) 06:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the original ArbCom remedies were revised into a more relevant form a few months later, involving proscriptions on only the reversion of the linking or unlinking of dates (and for some parties, the discussion of date linking).
As far as the temporary injunction on the mass linking/unlinking of dates, the definition of what "mass" means was always indecisive, but apparently refers only to determined, sustained, automated means of removing the old date-autoformatting (of triple-item dates, such as "3 January 1999". Where it is part of gnoming activities, it appears to be fine: User Colonies Chris and many others remove autoformatting as you do in passing as the gnome on a variety of clean-up issues, without trouble. On my occasional gnoming activities, I unlink them. I'm not even sure of the status of the injunction, which states that it will end if there's a community-agreed program for bot unlinking (there is—the RfC for such was in ?June, and the bot is undergoing testing at the Bot Approvals Group; the bot managed by User:Harej).
The unlinking of date fragments and other chronological items, such as "1980s", "20th century", "2001", and "17 July" is subject to community-agreed relevance tests set out at MOSNUM (and probably MOSLINK using the same wording). I find it hard to locate any chronological itema of this sort that are sufficiently relevant to an article, and usually unlink them when I encounter them, which is not often nowadays. Chronological articles themselves are exempt from this relevance test, to keep the peace. Unlinking "20 November" in an article on the Thai calendar, or in "2004 in basketball", therefore, will probably be met with resistance, so it's best not even to attempt it.
In other words, there has been a culture change, but it's wise at this stage to avoid participating in multiple reversions. Does this answer your question? Tony (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
PS I believe that common-term overlinking is now the big problem. Tony (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
...between listing a STATE in which a restaurant operates, and listing the address of each location? If you do understand that these are completely different things, why do you keep trying to remove the list of states from Roy Rogers with edit summaries that indicate this is a list of specific restaurant locations? (Yes, I'm so sure that if we let this article list 10 states, other articles will list 200 states! No logical flaw in that reasoning!)
Every single article about a business will list the location of that business. Every single article about a chain will indicate what regions the chain operates in. It is one of the most basic facts imaginable in describing any company. In what universe could this possibly serve any promotional or directory purpose? Do you have any idea how big most states are? You might as well oppose mentioning what country a business operates in. Propaniac ( talk) 13:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. I now agree with your . -- Ec5618 ( talk) 18:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
User:Piano non troppo has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Regarding The Art of War. At best the statement that "CA used Sun Tzu's strategies to program their AI" is ridiculously badly worded. At worst, the person who posted that is making it up. Now, I think the person actually meant they used aspects of Sun Tzu's texts in the storyline/gameplay, not the AI. (from editor Intranetusa)
So far I am neutral to the issue. What I would do is start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:BLP or something like that. WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I looked over your edits to Miller's article and restored many of the changes you made, as they were unexplained and made little apparent sense. As I said in my edit summary, why unlink Griffin Guess, who clearly has an article, then link Ashley Degenford, who clearly doesn't? Why remove a Commons link? Why change EL formatting? Why remove a Rolling Stone magazine ref and a sourced quote? You cited policy in removing the official forum link, so I didn't reinstate it, but as for your other changes, I can't see what policy could be behind any of it, and you didn't provide any. In the future, if you want to make these changes again, please go to the talk page and let's reach a consensus before any more removals/changes as responsible Wikipedians. Thanks! Mbinebri talk ← 14:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Change of measurments? Link to the diff. -- Horkana ( talk) 17:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Please, have a look before cleaning some interesting data, is there anybody to control your control!!!! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.137.0 ( talk) 10:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Was this a failed attempt to clean up spam from the page? Your edit seems to have only moved things around, rather than deleting anything. -- Soap Talk/ Contributions 01:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank's a lot for the review, I thought about that edit for a few seconds (max time anyone ever really spends thinking on huggle), but still hit before it really hit me. For mistakes like that feel free to talk to be on my talk page in the future, Happy editing!-- SKATER Speak. 02:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I am new to this. I want to make clean up. That is what I am doing. ( 159.91.151.97 ( talk) 03:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC))
Hi, you edited the article, mostly in a better direction (thanks!). However, you removed a sentence from the start of the special effects section, which said: "While the budget was among the largest ever in a South Korean production, by international standards it was more modest." I remember writing parts of that article, and that was specifically included to link it with the previous section---which ends saying how the budget is really big for a South Korean film---and I think the article gets confusing without it. The next ref in the text (sort of) provides a citation for that part too; in it, the director discusses the budget limitations of the film and the effect they had on the special effects. Simply saying that the budget was limited doesn't help in clarifying anything, thus the explanatory text describing why there's no contradiction. Does it need some tweaking if I want to restore something to that effect in the text? Thanks. (October 23, 2009 by Bobet)
I was not aware of the fact concerning Lyrics Download.com. I have removed its name from the two songs in norwegian Wikipedia. Thank you very much for letting me know! It as allowed to cite Metrolyrics as a source? Best wishes! Mbakkel2 19 October 2009 14:45 (CEST)
I wonder if you can do me a favour? Is it allowed to cite Diggiloo Thrush as a quote (Some English Wikipedia articles do so)? Its content is a mixture of lyrics and information about the Eurovision Song Contest-entries from 1956, the performers, backing vocalists, conductors, composers and lyricists. Thank you very much. Best wishes! Mbakkel2 17:36 (CEST), 20 October 2009
Sorry, I was not aware of that, I was the one that had added the link to the band's official website to the related articles. Won't happen again. Suede67 ( talk) 10:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to
WJLA-TV, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use
the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the
welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
NeutralHomer •
Talk •
23:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 23:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
KCWY-DT. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
NeutralHomer •
Talk •
23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
As you know, I consider your edits vandalism and will revert them and warn you for that vandalism. If you are going to remove information, you MUST get consensus from WP:TVS first and then after getting that consensus remove the information from all pages, not just two. Consensus first. Also, don't threaten, just makes you look like the bad guy. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The protection given the page has expired, and the same anonymous users and Unending247 have simply reinstated their edits without addressing the concerns. They've also been vandalizing my talk page. Perhaps you can help me with this? Thanks. Rmcsamson ( talk) 06:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I've spent the past six weeks overhauling the hip hop dance article and now that I've finished, I posted it for peer review here. I decided to invite you because you're entire user page shows all the qualities that a good editor has (you're a writer, you like to contribute to an article's integrity, you provided helpful links for finding sources, etc.) and your contribution history is varied enough to tell me that you're well rounded and would probably approach a new article in an unbiased manner. In my eyes, those are good enough reasons to invite you. I would appreciate your feedback. Be forewarned that this is a long article. Not including refs/external links, templates, and categories it's 7 pages printed. If you accept my invitation to review you may want to print it first and make your edits that way. I found it easier to read and to correct when I did this. Although long, it makes for a good read during a lunch break, a bus ride, or pure boredom. I learned a lot myself while rewriting this article. If you like to learn, this could be an incentive for you. Gbern3 ( talk) 18:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You might want to look at the page Ballia, I think you're on the trail of a persistent vandal. Same pattern going on there. Anniepoo ( talk) 23:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, that's a great response!
I'll try to give them some wikilove as well, you're right, they might end up a great editor.
Anniepoo (
talk)
22:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
andyzweb (
talk) has given you balloons! Balloons are meant to uplift the morale of people with an illness, and has hopefully made your day a little better. Spread good health by giving someone else who is a bit ill a balloon.
Spread the good health by adding {{ subst:Balloons}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
just spreading the wiki love! andyzweb ( talk) 08:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Please add the article of Brenden Adams.
Brenden Adams born: September 20, 1995 height: 7'4.6" location: Ellensburg, WA, USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 ( talk) 07:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Along the same vein, just randomly saw an edit of yours and had to say - what an awesome name!! -- Cpt ricard ( talk) 04:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I already blocked 89.105.29.146 more than twenty minutes ago (informing you since I assume you thought the report was just being wiped without being handled). Thanks, though. :-) -- Menti fisto 13:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The challenges I thought would be self-evident given the place is thousands of miles from the nearest government centre and has a grand total of 50 people which is less than some elementary school Grade 8 classrooms. I just felt the article needed some context and an introduction. Feel free to reword it. 68.146.81.123 ( talk) 17:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
User 82.99.29.112 is continuously posting comments about subject in violation of NPOV without verifiable sources. Longstanding article with long history of editor and admin review is being vandalized and user is posting irrelevent and unsubstantiated changes. I am considering requesting page protection and would appreciate your advice. User is posting from other IP addresses all in Sweden. J araneo ( talk) 06:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey ther Piano non troppo,
I saw you were working to defeat vandalism lately. Thank You! But I saw one of your warnings to a user 208.125.2.58 and I wanted to give you a bit of advice. In general, we give vandals 4 warnings before we threaten to block them. What most do is either use a vandalism program ( like twinkle) or use templates. For the first warning use {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article Name}} for the next use {{subst: uw-vandalism2|Article name}} and so on, until you get to vandalism 4.
However, that is just to make it easy for vandal-fighters. It really does not matter as long as it gets reverted. However, the most important thing is that you do not feed the vandals. That means that the only interaction you should have with them is telling them that their edit was reverted. Otherwise it just encourages them to come back and vandalize again.That means that this edit was not the best type of response. In all cases, if its just one vandal, you should have them blocked by reporting them at WP:AIV. Again thank you for your help! Tim1357 ( talk) 12:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
So its an edit war then? There is no rule against removing maintenance templates, so what's the problem? And who are the socks? Tim1357 ( talk) 01:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you fix the infobox the IP broke as well? Thanks, I can't due to 3RR. Sach ( talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for your message. I've reviewed your new request at RPP (and rescued it from the bottom of the page before the bot filed it!), and I've declined it again. Essentially, as there's now an editor, in a couple of days semi-protection won't work. Most of the tag removals are probably valid now, but I have re-added the orphan tag, and told the editor not to take it off until there are some links. If he persists, take it to WP:AVI. If the page goes haywire again, let me know or go back to RPP. Thanks. Ged UK 09:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
... for this edit - nice to have a user who save us time! See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#backloged too often. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 18:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Due to the economic importance, the article should have substantial content about IT industry in Pune, although the earlier (unsourced) laundry list was unacceptable. I have added a revised section (with citations) in its place.
SPat talk 16:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to report that user Thmc1 is vandalising the Chinatown pages once again with his Pro-New York/Anti-San Francisco Chinatown propaganda. This time he's falsely citing website sources. In an edit on the "Vancouver, Chinatown" page, he claims that a San Francisco promotional website (www.hoteltravelcheck.com/sfo/Chinatown-San-Francisco.html) advertises its Chinatown as "second largest", presumably behind New York. This is clearly untrue, as the website reads "THE LARGEST", not "second largest". I wonder what the logic is behind his latest actions? Maybe calling other people's bluff assuming that nobody won't bother to check?? Anyway, he's already been warned by you and another editor for the same offense. Thought I'd let you know. IanEddington ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC).
I've been mostly observing, but his NY vs. SF ranting is becoming a bit tiring. I am also quite familiar with the site in question, and to the best of my knowledge it hasn't been updated in a long while. Most of the sites out there blurbing SF Chinatown as 2nd largest are usually pro-NY sites. IanEddington ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC).
Thank you for fixing my incredibly dumb mistake. I can't believe I was so distracted I missed the blatantly obvious. After seeing that, I moved to a quieter place from which to edit. I'm glad you were on top of things. Happy editing! 152.16.16.75 ( talk) 11:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Piano, I've just noticed you left this message on the scientist Sammy Lee's page: "This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged or deleted. (November 2009)". I see that the matter of notability has already been previously established - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sammy_Lee_(scientist). I am a WikiEditor who has been absent for some time (I've been busy writing books), and while I was updating his site, adding his Conference on Older Mothers which he held at the UCL on 18 September 2009, I thought I would add other citation ref links, all of which are fully reliable secondary sources (i.e. Observer/Guardian, The Times, BBC etc.). Frances Lynn, author 19:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Cheers! 80.177.220.23 ( talk) 13:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I've explained on the article talk page why your removal is not justified and is not supported by the references. If you are unwilling to discuss and find consensus prior to removal of sourced information, I may need to report you to other forums. Gimmetrow 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me credit for my edit of "Space colonization" on the 26th of November. NASA, JPL and the others who actually did the work deserve the credit. Now and then a significant fact will slip by people who are actively maintaining articles. The continued maintenance deserves credit. Anyone can throw in an added fact now and then. I help when I can.-- Fartherred ( talk) 17:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thanks for your anti-vandalism work. Please do try to avoid situations like this, though. You have to check what you're reverting to. Enigma msg 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Personnel sections are supposed to include wiki-links even if the person has been linked prior to the section in the article. That is per music project guidelines. — John Cardinal ( talk) 16:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I MADE A JOKE AND 2 MINUTES LATER IT WAS CORRECTED!?!??! WTF???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.241.45 ( talk) 10:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Piano non troppo - Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to your message: I haven't been as active as I'd like on WP the past couple of weeks!
I'm not sure how useful any advice I have might be, as I don't have a great deal of experience with dispute resolution on Wikipedia. If you've tried mediation and RfCs and have brought it up at the appropriate Wikiproject with no success, the best thing to do might be to lay out the problem(s) on one of the noticeboards; I have had very good experiences with them before: the editors who respond are generally knowledgeable in the area, and having fresh eyes on a matter is generally beneficial. I would think either the Content Board or Admin's Incident Board would be appropriate. I notice that User:Neutralhomer is currently under under a short block, apparently for not following policy on non-free images on TV station articles. If there is a pattern of non-adherence to Wikipedia policy, that is a concern, and I think that some action would have to be taken there ( ANI would probably be best for that). Neutralhomer's ability to respond to any report will be limited (his responses can be copied/transcluded from his talk page) until his block expires tomorrow or is otherwise lifted.
Apologies again for the delay in replying! -- Kateshortforbob talk 14:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate, i have been translating this article from Arabic and French sources and i feel like I made a huge mess. When it is read, you can obviously deduce that the editor (myself) was translating his arabic/french thoughts into English. Would you take a look at it and maybe gimme a lil advice on how to better organize my writing process ( you being a professional editor and all) Don't mind the works list i will move it. thanks Eli + 15:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Just what is it about you that makes you extraordinarily competent to remove someone else's edits? It is an informative page, not an advertisment. Eye Disagree ( talk) 16:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is a detailed technical and historical description of a homebuilt aircraft. Perhaps you don't know anything about that topic? Furthermore, there is not a hint of solicitation in the article, which would merit your editorial. In conclusion, if your other 10000 edits are of this quality then they should all be removed. Like this one.
Eye Disagree ( talk) 11:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It would help if I had some idea of what article you are talking about. Piano non troppo ( talk) 11:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
After research, now I know what article you are talking about, Dyke Delta. Phrases such as "marketed for homebuilding", and "The plans are available from John Dyke, who now resides in Fairborn, Ohio" strongly indicate, not only advertising, but conflict of interest. According to WP:COI, I am asking you to "declare your interest" in this article. Piano non troppo ( talk) 12:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
anything about. Using your example the article about New York Times must be marked an advertisment since it is available to people in various ways.
editor; a member of the selfproclaimed anti-spam people, then edit it to your satisfaction. But don't just state that it's an ad. It is e.g. useful to us who are interested in homebuilt aircraft to know wether it is avilable or if it is not available anymore. I found this article via Google, of course, and I learned lots from reading it, and I found useful source material from its links. Ergo, it is a useful article. Btw, what reference do you find questionable? Jane's? EAA Publications? Do you know anything about either? Maybve you should look them up? E.g. in Wikipedia.
Phonology? I'm Swedish. I know lots. I could discuss that article but what did you contribute?
Wikipedia article about that...
Eye Disagree ( talk) 13:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I'll take it elsewhere. As soon as you stop editing articles you don't know anything about. Or start editing them, rather than just labelling them. If you are an EDITOR then EDIT the article you find in error. Otherwise I suggest joining a book-club. But then, you'd just complain about the books, not have any actual opinion, wouldn't you?
Eye Disagree ( talk) 13:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed the perfectly inoffensive "flag carrier" from Korean Airlines with the comment "What is a flag carrier?" As the phrase was wikilinked, and appropriate, I'm a little surprised that you removed it. Perhaps you should take a little more care when deleting material. cojoco ( talk) 11:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Please accept my advanced Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.I will not be able to wish you on those days as I will be taking a Wiki break for one month starting tomorrow. Also wishing you a Happy editing.. :) arun talk 07:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Wiki user rating: for the time you invested: 1 point. Helpfulness: 0 point. Makes 1 out of 5 points in total. --Hans Joachim Koerver 14:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Contre-bass, I have to correct: 0 points in total - I see you started already this morning to mutilate pages of mine SM U-109. Pack "Coyote", or pack "Burned Soil", I assume ? --Hans Joachim Koerver 22:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC). Check my talk for details. --Hans Joachim Koerver 22:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh Gott, what a slimy and false snake you are. You are telling LIES behind my back about me
[52]) to others, that you wouldnt dare to repeat on my talk page, where all your subjective and emotional arguments didnt score any point in discussion. You are really disgusting. Its because of black charactered people like you, that Wiki goes down. You MUST be 5th column.
AchimKoerver (
talk) Hans Joachim Koerver
12:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
More or less greasefully, I think. How many time they take at Wiki to make down Newbies ! And what a joy it is - look here - [53].
AchimKoerver ( talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 12:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your editing of [[Legally Blonde (musical). I would never have picked up on all those! Here's to GA eventually haha Mark E ( talk) 14:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Your comments welcome! -- Jubilee♫ clipman 04:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Piano non troppo (?, interesting 'name'),
Concur entirely with you on lack of notability as per my comments on the articles talk page. There is already a
2009 Espoo shopping mall shooting article. Do you know how to start the ball rolling for mergeing, at least, with the other article? --
220.101.28.25 (
talk)
14:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This> {{ uw-spam1}} has a talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I added the Advert tag to the PEER 1 article because *some* of it seems like advertising, not all. In addition, it does seem, to me anyways, to be written from a pro-company point of view. 74.214.250.169 ( talk) 09:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm somewhat confused by your edit summary in Swanepoel's article in returning the notability tag. Saying "She's somebody who does a job. That, alone, doesn't make anybody notable. Or is someone claiming that being a model is more important than being a doctor or a professor?" makes it seem a lot like you're judging her notability based on your opinion of her profession's merit. That's not what notability is about. I mean, hell, Paris Hilton has an article and she's absolutely useless to society—but that doesn't mean she's not notable. Mbinebri talk ← 14:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Danish_poets -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 14:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there! Thanks for taking over the watch on that little escapade. I think you were a little harsh on both of us. This is clearly a newcomer and I suspect a youngster. Ev responded positively to the suggestions I made about grammar and sourcing (appearing at one stage to enlist an adult's help with formating refs). S/he showed a desire to understand and comply with our styles and constraints which are neither intuitive or familiar to your average child. We cannot assume that the distinction between the promotional terms that he/she would be familiar with in the "real" world and the neutral tone we require would be immediately apparent. My view was to encourage someone who may develop a taste for the task and become a valuable editor. Threatening an early ban is hardly encouraging. And if it ends up a pig's ear, there's always the option to revert.
My last edit to her/his page was at 00:03, 3 January. You then added that I was "not being to the point" regarding the peacock and promotional language introduced in this edit made more than 2 hours after my last comment. Did I miss the loopback in the time continuum?
Anyway, no hard feelings on my part, and thanks again for taking over.
Oh, and thanks also for your support on my talk page. Occasional flippancy is one of my vices :)
All the best for 2010 -- Timberframe ( talk) 17:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
See what you think of it now. -- hydrox ( talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
What is your real name? For whom do you do your paid work? I like the fact that your pseudonym evokes moderation rather than god-like vigilante empowerment (e.g. Tyrennius). In general, however, I would have more confidence in Wikipedia if its editors didn't hide behind pseudonyms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimmer40 ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm self-employed. I have various university degrees, have worked in a number of fields, and am (or was) considered an expert in three fields (with professional "peer-reviewed" publications, i.e., not Wikipedia). None are related to art or sociology.
Being on Wikipedia's anti-vandalism patrol, I do a lot of work with vandals, so I prefer not to give my real name, except to administrators. Perhaps mercifully, I don't have a "public face", so unlike you, I get to avoid the personal confrontations with the less rational.
As for my pseudonym, well, quite apart from working on vandalism, I enjoy a good joke, even if it's on me. Regards, Piano non troppo ( talk) 13:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your attention at Dignity. I much appreciate your help. PYRRHON talk 17:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't recall having ever heard her or seen her on anything, but that's no reason to let unsourced claims into the article. Woogee ( talk) 22:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment and maybe I should have dicussed first- but well most edits are done withour discussion. I never considered it controverisal to mention that the group witch formed allways one of the 3 most numberous groups (and is today considered the most numberous group) was an integral part of forming the American society and identity , which is of course disticnt form the German society. The actual article liments the influence to such unimportant things like christmas trees and Baron von Steuben. Tradition in sience, cultur, protestant philosophie and and and are far more important then a christmas tree. But maybe you are right and things like this belong to the Americans-article. And most likely you are right and the edit was not that good, but well 195.243.51.34 ( talk) 09:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Is flawed. Any author, may at any time, release their copyright to the public domain. Wjhonson ( talk) 09:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Piano non troppo! Thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an
Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The
biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure
verifiability, all biographies should be based on
reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current
869 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{
unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 21:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed user Scottycrum1 has vandalized the page for Magenta, and I undid his/her change, but I missed tagging it as vandalism. I apologize, I am not very familiar with editing on Wikipedia. I didn't know if the page was on your watch, so I thought I'd report it personally just in case, especially since you have already gave him a formal warning about vandalizing that page. Roundchild ( talk) 22:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on procedure. I really don't spend enough time on Wikipedia to know what to do about such things. TripEricson ( talk) 02:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
hello Piano non troppo,
I am sorry but you have got the wrong guy. I did not edit Jean-Baptiste Maunier. your dealing with a hacker here. the only page I would ever edit is Leo Deutsch. and that's only because he is my great, grand, grandfather's brother. I am sorry to bother you. I just wanted to let you know.
your friend, -- 75.18.198.98 ( talk) 06:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Babene
hello Piano non troppo, that might be difficult because this information is family knowledge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.198.98 ( talk) 07:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
hello Piano non troppo, that might be difficult because this information is family knowledge
your friend,-- 75.18.198.98 ( talk) 07:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Babene
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |