User talk:Piano non troppo/Mother

Changes reverted: why?
Why were my changes reverted? It now again states an opinion rather than the facts.
 * Weasel terms like "some people" and "many others" maybe? Who are these people? How is their opinion any bit objective? The only real content was that the DVD was released in 2006 so just add that as the rest is merely opinion. treelo  radda  00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, Treelo got it.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * So, there is no dispute resolution system and we end up deleting each other's changes? For the next person disapproves the improvements of the previous.--85.148.224.110 (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why sure we do! treelo  radda  22:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


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

Self-Directed IRA
Hi. Thank you for keeping an eye out for copyright infringements in this article. The particular source identified is okay; it's a Wikipedia mirror. (Fortunately, one of the Wikipedia mirrors that makes things easy. By the time I got there, they had updated their page to include the copyvio notice! If only they would all make my job so simple. :)) But I note that you indicate other infringement as well, and I wanted to stop by for more information. I've currently restored the text, but if there's reason to believe that older versions of the article infringe on something will want to look into it further. You said ask with questions, so I wanted to see what more information you could provide. Since I hope that that CP page will be archived soon, I'll watch here. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you could discern the dependency! You gave me a smile: "By the time I got there, they had updated their page to include the copyvio notice!"


 * Looking for copyright infringement is something I did professionally for some years. (Reviewing articles submitted to a knowledgebase for publication.) But here, we've done "due diligence". We tried to discover the source, and couldn't. I'd write the contributor, asking where they got their information: Aston.myers . However, they have no other edits, and added the material 2 1/2 years ago.


 * If someone offered a 1-to-3 bet that the material added by Aston.myers is a copyright infringement, I'd take that bet. But the article now is twice as long, with changes made by many editors, including reworking of parts of the Aston.myers material. So it looks like Wiki is clean on this one. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It gave me a laugh, too. :) You should come hang out with us at WP:COPYCLEAN. We could use more educated eyes. Of course, if you would rather not do here what you did professionally, I wouldn't blame you. As it happens, I do exactly that, and sometimes I wonder why. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Links removal
Some links have been deleted and its said they're came from social sites "Removes external link to social sites" I totally agree with you when the links really come from social sites

{ 10 - Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook),[2] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists. }

but some of those deleted links doesn't belong to any of this categories. There are huge differences between real websites and a social network

hope you understand :)

Kreukmail-new (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a different item in WP:LINKSTOAVOID. "11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority". The "Unofficial fansite" is not written by a recognized authority, and it is not ok to include in Wiki external links. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against you but do not remove my link to a Yelle supported fansite (talk) 06:43 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Think about it, though: If Yelle's fansite was an exception, then most singers' Wiki pages would also have fansites. All kinds of people might like to put their favorite fansite as a link in Wikipedia, but that is not what the Wikimedia Foundation is trying to accomplish with Wikipedia. Take a look at Wiki pages for Lady Gaga, Britney Spears and Hannah Montana. Notice none have a fansite listed in external links. Right? Ok? Piano non troppo (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Upadhayaya
Hi I did not add any external links: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Upajjhaya&diff=292189371&oldid=290945504. It was already there. I just added "References" section because there were references but it was not mentioned. Thank you. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please learn to assume good faith and show some civility. Did you even bother checking what are you reverting?
 * Have a look at the diffs. I did not add the link www.star-sense-vedic-astrologer.com. It was already there! I cleaned up the article by adding wikilinks such as dharmic religion and you're calling it vandalizing. Ridiculous! 202.54.176.51 (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was focused on you replacing a WP:SPAM link, and removing a valid request for references. I see what you mean, now. You were adding material, and trying to make the reference work. The problem is that the reference itself is not good, it's to an application form to get a psychic reading. (WP:SPAM) Can we delete that, and replace the tag asking for references? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's OK! Happens once in a while when you keep fighting spammers all the day! You're doing great work of fighting spammers and vandals! I removed the spam link and added a better one. Thanks. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for understanding -- the police were in the process of making an arrest outside my place. (How's *that* for a good excuse!) It does tend to distract one's attention! Go well! Piano non troppo (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Link removal again
Official Myspace pages and the artist's page at their label's site are both acceptable links. Please do not remove these or I will have to block you to prevent further damage to these articles. Hope you understand. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only are they explicitly listed as being generally unwanted by, but XLinkBot deletes them without exception when added by new users and IPs . Furthermore, I make many exceptions Piano non troppo (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It says in big bold letters at the top: Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject. This is exactly that.  Stop now. Thank you.  weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  13:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider the footnote on WP:LINKSTOAVOID please:


 * Note that under WP:External links#What should be linked, a link to a social networking site may be included when it is an official website for a business, organization, or person. However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website, and more than one official website should be listed only when the additional links provide unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." Piano non troppo (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually Myspace does provide more content. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  13:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In the many MySpace pages that I have checked, very few provide additional encyclopedic content above the article and official page. Moreover the footnote says "not prominently linked from official website". MySpace links are common on official pages, for example, on the first example I chose of my edits which you just reverted http://www.juniorjack.biz/   Piano non troppo (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

<- Fine then, I shall revert my reinsertions. Apologies for my haste. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am interested in this process, btw. I have an open question to the XLinkBot programmer, asking whether the rules that it enforces are too strict. My guess is that it's operating off "pragmatic" experience -- maybe it deletes 1-in-50 MySpace links that really should be there. Is that a good ratio? I don't know the answer. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the process it uses, unfortunately. You may be best off asking the bot operator personally.  weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  14:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you immediately change an edit that I made ??
I edit very rarely on Wikipedia. When I do, I try to be correct, brief, and to the point. Therefore, I take offense at you constantly deleting language I'm modifying on the "list of regional nicknames."

I added this term - FIB - U.S. - An acronym for "Fucking Illinois Bastard." This is frequently heard at sporting events between sports teams in Wisconsin and Illinois.

and I modified this --> (additions in bold). Cheesehead - A person from Wisconsin, from the many dairy farms and cheese factories there. Also extended to fans of the state's National Football League team, the Green Bay Packers. This term is widely used by people from Illinois, a bordering state and frequent sports rival, although many Wisconsin sports fans embrace this name by donning large triangular blocks of cheese on their head during sporting events.

These are correct and clearly add to the page. I'm from Wisconsin originally, and again, take offense at why you keep deleting them. What's up with that?


 * No offense was intended. Those messages are just boilerplate, they come from a Wiki tool.


 * The reason they were reverted is because you didn't provide a citation. See . You need a reliable reference in a published source, not something you personally know to be true. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reverting to my edit. On a general note, however, there are 77 regional nicknames on this page but only 9 references.  That should have been looked at before initially before taking it upon yourself to delete my edit within about 5 seconds of my editing it in the first place for "not having a citation."


 * If an item has a reasonably good wikipedia article, then it does not need a citiation in the list. - Altenmann >t 15:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally understand your reasoning. You look at an article and think, "I'm adding exactly the same kind of information that other people already have done." It's by far the easiest way to contribute to Wikipedia..no question. It runs into problems when the example you choose is incorrect somehow. This is not obvious, I admit, but the best articles to imitate are "featured" articles, described here.


 * Anyhow, getting back to your edit. If you use a swear word, or if you write something that someone is likely to object to, it will be removed by some editor or another -- sometimes right away, but usually within a few days. But adding a reference from a published source will stop that from happening to your edit. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to point out that Altenmann is mistaken about citations in lists, WP:LIST explicitly says: "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.". There are no special exceptions to verifiability for lists. Beyond what policy says if you actually look at those articles you will see many are not cited themselves. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and linking to a Wikipedia article does not satisfy verifiability. I would say you were right for removing content lacking citation if you found it dubious.


 * I know I am commenting some time after the conversation ended, but I felt it relevant because I am now undertaking to ensure the list is brought up to standards. Chillum  15:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I read the survey, thank you for asking. I see problems not as specific to climate change, but with how statistical modeling is employed and understood. (Faulty among even those whose livelihoods involve statistics on a daily basis. See, for example "Judgment under uncertainty: heuristic and biases" by Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky.) People aren't good with the Gambler's Fallacy, and 95% of PhDs aren't clear on the basic conceptual use of a Bell Curve. In an example, I explained to the PhD lead on the simulation we were developing that the computer-generated number called "random" was not random for our purposes. She couldn't understand that the concept of "randomness" itself was being invalidly applied to what she was doing; she finally agreed not to use the computer numbers: deciding that the random number generator itself was broken (!!)


 * Except waiting for sea levels to rise three feet, the most productive approach to resolving the issues is not, I believe, better academic studies. But rather compulsory high school statistics classes. If the vast majority of people can't understand basic statistics, it doesn't matter what the studies show. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you very much for this. I understand that you feel frustrated by the lack of basic research understanding/skills even with PhD students. But hey, inappropriate use of stats can also be seen in published research beyond PhD level. No wonder why media and general public struggle with these... I have to agree with you that there is probably a serious weakness in academic curriculum at all level - starting with encouraging pupils not to be scared of numbers.


 * Anyway, back to encyclopaedia, what do you think of the use of numbers, statistics, modelings, etc. in articles for general public such as Wikipedia? What are other/better alternative to introduce the concept of probability, uncertainty to the public? Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a peculiar tension between people's natural curiosity and their equally natural reliance on what, for them, is usable folklore and "common knowledge". I had a grandfather who wrote an article published in the Britannica on a strictly technical subject. Yet he also believed in Atlantis, UFO's, magic and ghosts -- on little or no hard evidence, except that he felt that they were true.


 * In terms of what's efficacious in the big picture? That's probably directly addressing the fallacies with the folklore itself. Since much folklore doesn't have a solid or scientific basis, it wouldn't take all that much. For your purposes, however, it's problematic. And perhaps this is precisely what you're attempting to address in your survey. People won't believe a scientific study that flies in the face of "what they know to be true". I did a "desert island" study in college. I posited that two scientists in the same field, but with conflicting theories, needed to come to an agreement to survive. I asked in the questionnaire how this would be resolved. I wasn't happy with the answers, but my fellow students were adamant, and insisted that I faithfully record their responses. Nearly all answered that the scientists would physically fight it out. I.e., hit each other until one gave up. That's, if you will, the academic problem that needs to be addressed. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect competition for fundings, race for publication, debates, etc. are form of fights. Winning the fight is probably a matter of endurance... I suspect there must have been studies on how to win arguments in Wikipedia (if no formal studies, there are tips may be?) Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Fighting" is part of many models, others such as Wiki emphasize cooperation. I discovered as a kid that I didn't enjoy winning sports competitions. I prefer cooperative situations. That predisposition is not aided by the curious inability of highly competitive people to understand why competition isn't fun for me (that includes some close friends). Seemingly their underlying, unspoken, assumption is that I'm not good enough to beat them. In fact, it's because there isn't a need to hurt their feelings. (But from their perspective, I suppose, if I beat them it's been determined to be a fun game and they want a rematch.)


 * I don't know of compelling studies about how to win arguments in Wikipedia. (But see WP:DR.) There are those who enjoy the Wiki fighting. It's an out-of-court debate with sides flinging Wikipedia rules, guidelines and practices at one another. Later, in extreme situations, Administrators may act as judges.


 * Alternatively, in the spirit of cooperation, I try to "grok" tone of articles and the community supporting each kind. Standards differ quite radically between articles on sport teams, rock groups, TV shows, companies, and train lines. To contribute to articles, I balance four things: 1) Is there something important to say? 2) Is the tone appropriate for this kind of article? 3) What Wikipedia rules, guidelines and practices have strong relevance? 4) How would an edit contribute to the overall direction Wikipedia has been recently heading? The last, for me, is critical to my interest (and an impetus behind my tens of thousands of edits): Wikipedia is a dynamic social process where something of major social consequence -- and I'm not sure what -- is in the process of formation. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link! I skimmed through the Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. There does not seem to be any case involving GW&CC article, may be no GW&CC discussion have escalated that far and consensus have always been reached?
 * This makes me think that it may be interesting to look at Wiki-fighting and and Wiki-collaboration in a few examples of GW&CC articles. To which extent those guidelines to avoid/resolve disputes are respected or if everyone is mostly relying on one's own judgment and personality?


 * Also, when you wrote: "How would an edit contribute to the overall direction Wikipedia has been recently heading?", I can see the importance of it... though I do not see how to capture this quantitatively. I think I have seen somewhere studies looking at how long does a particular edit last, but I am not sure that such approach would necessary tell about the actual impact of the edit on the overall content of the article or on Wikipedia's heading. I wonder if the change only come from thousands of continuous edits?


 * I am interested in these issues but I do not know yet which ones I will be focusing on for my PhD. As I am focusing on the perspective of contributors, I will probably mostly discuss issues that they these contributors tell me as beeing the most important from their point of view. Anyway, I will see what comes out from the email survey and from the follow-up interviews. Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Prove me wrong.
I hope you like science. I also hope you hate nazis. If you hate both...we can be friends. Why do you like abotion so much? Let me know. My wife and I pray for a kid of our own everyday, so as much as you care to insult me...no problem...we just want a child...please, any woman considering an abortion...we, a good family will do whatever it takes to bring that child to term....just give us a shot...please...Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.168.132.210 (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * User is referring to this edit, where I reverted the edit "kill a baby or other such choices" back to "right to exercise such choices".


 * 74.168.132.210, as you know, many people do not agree that abortion always is killing a baby. I would have reverted the change if it had read "right to control their own bodies", too. What I was doing was removing the non-neutral language. I was not expressing my opinion on abortion.
 * Society has such a terrible time resolving such issues -- that worries me. The answer probably lies in reforming the question. It would be nice if both sides could read "Why Elephants Weep" . A different issue that's "life related". Maybe if we could get a little perspective, society might make some progress. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From zero to Godwin's Law. WP:NPOV is absolutely essential. Without it, I think the entire project would collapse. Vicenarian  (T · C) 17:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate Links
"Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product."

You removed a link I just added today on the Arial page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arial. I understand your comments, but I was trying to provide a link to additional content on the topic. I was only following other links that were also going to a business website.

You chose to remove the link that I added, however, the link that was directly above that: Arial Font Family - by Robin Nicholas, Patricia Saunders, which goes to http://www.linotype.com/145867/arial-family.html was left on the page.

The Linotype page directly shows products and prices, which goes against your explanation of the removal of my link as stated in the quotation at the beginning of this message.

Please explain why you decided to keep the Linotype link which also broke the guidelines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.221.115 (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia warmly welcomes contributions from knowledgeable professionals, and looking at your site, it seems likely you'd have something to contribute. However, Wiki isn't a linkfarm (See ), what's strongly desired is improvements to the articles themselves. You're in a position to improve the Wiki text, perhaps giving an inline reference to your site. By contrast, what is not considered helpful is adding the same external link to several articles -- without making any other contribution to Wikipedia: that qualifies as WP:SPAM.


 * Although there's a pragmatic logic to "I was just adding what other people did", it's Wiki guidelines, rules and policies that experienced Wiki editors follow. Those practices, for example, are to immediately stop someone vandalizing Wikipedia -- without other consideration -- but do not require the editor to "fix all errors in an article, or don't edit it at all". The other links you mention are also probably inappropriate. If you were to contribute improving the articles on fonts, one thing you'd want to consider is removed those very external links. I hope you decide to contribute. It can be a satisfying experience. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Links
There are a number of Links over a variety of pages to websites with the types of food/other examples of the articles subject matter. Please do not vandalize these articles. 96.27.38.63 (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Examples" are not what Wikipedia wants in this context. All the links that I checked were blatant advertisements for restaurants, adding little or nothing encyclopedic to the article. Wikipedia is not a free promotional platform. See WP:SPAM. If there is information in those links the reader should know about, add it directly to the article. Not the links to the advertising sites. Thanks, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be mindful of WP:3RR. The items listed are of local sites that are related to the type of restaurants not nationally known, let alone by a world-wide audience.  It is for that reason these links should remain.  96.27.38.63 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) You are out-of-line citing WP:3RR. I made three changes total to Coney Island (restaurant).


 * 2) External links (picking one at random) such as are WP:SPAM, and have no encyclopedic content. Furthermore, that link requests that Javascript and pop-ups be enabled. See Point 8 in.


 * You have no valid argument for adding the links, while there are several Wikipedia guidelines contrary to them. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Window treats inc
Yeah, I tagged it again and it has been deleted. Cheers, Otis  Jimmy  One  20:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Beatles: Rock Band
One of the links, I suspect the one that sent your browser into a loop, wasn't spam but a reliable source that noted that the "All you need is love" song was a time-limited Xbox exclusive, which is rather important here for this game. Yes, the Gamestop link was spammy and I did remove that later. But the other links there were information about how the game's content would work (or this case, wouldn't work) with the other "Rock Band" games, so again, that needed sources.

"DLC" is short for "downloadable content". --M ASEM (t) 20:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

An Issue Roy Rogers Restaurant
(NOTE: Moved from user page. Vicenarian  (T · C) 14:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

I have an issue. I do not work for Roy Rogers Restaurants or have anything to do with the company. I have worked very hard to make a good wikipedia page. There is no bias and your accusation of that is totally unfounded. I appreciate your editing, but make sure you are accurate. contact me at davejonesmd@aol.com or facebook jonesdr77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesdr77 (talk • contribs) 09:44, June 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. My only change was to remove external links. The issue was that editors, including you, had added 20 external links (in addition to other references). I removed, for example, links to Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube videos. These are a combination of WP:LINKSTOAVOID and WP:SPAM. As I wrote, almost all your hundreds of edits are on Roy Rogers Restaurants, so I just wondered whether you represented the company. Thank you for responding to the question.


 * There are other issues with the article. In particular, it seems that the remaining links to YouTube copies of commercials are copyright violations. Wikipedia may not link to video where there is a strong question of the legality of the link.


 * Also phrases such as "SmithGifford, a nationally recognized advertising agancy and one of the fastest growing ad firms in the Washington, DC area is selected as the agency of record for Roy Rogers Restaurants" are out-of-place in Wikipedia, not just because they are off-topic promotional plugs but because "nationally recognized advertising agancy and one of the fastest growing" is WP:PEACOCK.


 * Statements such as this are original research, or need citation: "Popular items on the menu are roast beef sandwiches and fried chicken, which is very similar to the "Pappy Parker's" recipe".


 * Before you put a lot more hard work into the article, you might want to request feedback from editors who often have useful input . Yours Truly, Piano non troppo (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion recommendation for Gable article.
I noticed on the history of the Jeremy Gable page you brought up the question of deleting the article. I was going over the Fullerton, CA article when I came across his listing as a notable person from the city. I deleted that listing in the Fullerton, CA article and followed it back to the Gable article which looks like a self-serving page intent to list his plays and productions, none of which are notable.

I would appreciate it if you could Prod-2 the Gable article if you agree. Thanks Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, Vnarfhuhwef. It's a modest publicity attempt on the part of someone who seems to be a legitimate artist. In isolation, I'd be inclined to let it pass, but as a largely unsupported artistic assessment, as a systematic attempt to alter a number of articles, this has no part in Wikipedia. The article you mention was tagged when I just looked. Please let me know if other input would be useful. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be more careful when you revert edits in the future
Capolago is no longer a municipality. (evidence).--93.45.84.81 (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What didn't seem correct is that what it was called changed, once it was no longer in existence. A ship that is lying on the bottom of the ocean, that doesn't float anymore, is still called a ship. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Links
I responded on my talk page. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Geology of Azerbaijan
It was a while ago, thank you for your nice comment :) Neftchi (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Heidi Klum
First, let me clear this simple fact that I am not scared with you blocking my IP address. All I would have to do is to restart my Model and I will back on again. Oh and BTW I do have multiple ISPs in my house. So, good luck with that. Stop threatening me.

Now the real topic. I have three more links to satisfy you. You still keep deleting the text. Of course I left the links I initially had in the text in there. Point out a problem, if you have any, with them. You seriously think that her becoming a naturalized citizen is a big deal. However, her disrespecting another religion is not important. Let me ask you--would you react in the same way if Heidi Klum dressed as mother Mary and drank alcohol and danced in a club all night. As reported in one of the citations, when Heidi heard Nelly's song "hot in here" she said "I want to take my arms off." Did you know that is very symbolic for goddess Kali. It is similar to Heidi getting up on the stage dressed as Mother Mary and saying "I am tired of being a virgin."

To fascinate you even further, I have added even more links. One of the links shows a rather small, but important, news where multinational company Bayer's CEO apologized for disrespecting Goddess Kali. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.51.40 (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You claimed you were adding new external references, but the ones I checked were the same as before.


 * Several editors have removed this material about her party costume, and given their reasons. The place to make your comments is on the discussion page, not here, where the other editors will not see it. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

List of songs about London
Hi, I see you just removed 'linkspam' from 'Blessed' by Simon and Garfunkel. For info, someone placed this link there to demonstrate that the song is about Soho, London and not about SoHo, New York, after the song had been removed by someone else who did not believe this. Pterre (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Sounds like a good reason to include it. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Insadong‎
Care to join the discussion about the links that you removed but were immediately restored as "official links"? --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your perspective and patience --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. I don't know whether you are aware, but another contributor to the Korean pages challenged the block that admin VirtualSteve placed on 112.222.74.196 (block at my request). . The admin (or I?) is being accused of cultural bias toward America, or perhaps against Korea. You have to wonder...the admin has been to Korea, my Father served there, and I shop at a Korean market on a fairly regular basis. All this because I removed external link WP:SPAM from an article presented to me at random by MWT! (And then undid a dozen of the vandal's edits.) Lol. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware, hence my admiration of your patience. --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

chesnoff
Your comment on notability has already been decided. Look at the comments of the editors.

Per WP:Deletion, outside of things like copyright violations with legal issues, the role of quality of the article is irrelevant to the question of keeping or deleting--the question is whether it can be cleaned up. To address your question about NOTINHERITED--I want to point out that (1) NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a guideline, and it has been disputed (in particular by me) due to what I have seen as its mis-use in arguments, in cases exactly like this one. For example, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Cynamon, it was argued that a lawyer is not notable if "the subject's notability arises from his actions in representing his client". I think this is an argument that is used in an attempt to override WP:N, to argue to delete material even when sufficient coverage exists in reliable sources to write an encyclopedic article on the topic. And as a side note, I also want to point out that there is one article I showed above that stated that Chesnoff was a suspect in a murder case, and that article was written directly about him. Cazort (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's very interesting, thank you. I only came across the article in the process of going through the backlog in the "Recent changes patrol" for new articles, and assumed there was no significant discussion. So my tag was just a comment in passing.


 * I'm rather more interested in what way you have disputed WP:NOTINHERITED. Do you have a couple links you'd share? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any off hand, but can you remove that tag? Thx. Letsgetit136 (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)