User talk:Rockypedia/Archive 3

Big Disappointing from Big PIano Family
Dear Rockypedia.

I'm the assistant of Remo Saraceni, the inventor and we create the Big Piano page several years ago. We invented it and we have a trademark and a website with all the credits and information in the bottom of the page. DId you see it before change the name of our invention? Walking Piano is only a second name,like giant piano, gigantic keyboard and many more. But we have the trademark for BIg Piano and we want people call it BIG PIANO. Please do not change our deep wish! please help me to undo the change of the name.

King Regards Andrea Spina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigandreaspina (talk • contribs) 11:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there's no way to verify that you are, in fact, who you say you are. Even if there was, Wikipedia goes by reliable secondary sources, all of which (that I've found) refer to the piano as the Walking Piano. I searched for references to "Big Piano" in order to help you out, but all I found were primary sources, ie your websites. Please read WP:PRIMARY for more on why we use reliable secondary sources to guide article titles and content. I did add the line about the Big Piano to hopefully reduce confusion. Rockypedia (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I opened up a discussion on the article's talk page. Please feel free to contribute to that discussion. Rockypedia (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Money for Nothing
When would you stop messing around with the citation style used throughout the article ? It was already discussed and several users explicitly said you should achieve a consensus first before making your changes. Your edits don't help improving the quality of the article and are clearly disruptive WP:DE. You also violated WP:BRD and didn't even bother to start a discussion on the article talk page. Synthwave.94 (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also this kind of edit summary is not going to solve the problem. Synthwave.94 (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And to refresh your memory, "Imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles" is permitted per WP:CITEVAR. Synthwave.94 (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

"several users explicitly said you should achieve a consensus first before making your changes." - You're right - except that I added an entirely new citation, and you were the one making the changes from vertical format to horizontal. So, by your own logic, you needed to achieve a consensus before changing a citation from vertical to horizontal. The consensus in that discussion was "leave it alone." Another point that there was consensus on was that the ""Imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles"" referred to styles - such as footnotes vs. parenthetical references (which is right there in WP:CITEVAR) - NOT vertical vs. horizontal, which is a format, not a style, and consensus was that those two formats could co-exist on the same page.

Your arguments, Synthwave.94, are in support of leaving the citation as it was originally added. You left them alone after consensus was reached, which was the correct action. Then you returned to the page two weeks later to make the change from vertical to horizontal again. That was not correct, and makes it seem like you left it alone for two weeks to circumvent the consensus that was reached. I hope that was not your intent, but it sure appears like it was. Rockypedia (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I'm the main editor of this article (and not you, because you only added one reference after I entirely cleaned up the article by adding a consistent citation style), you're not supposed to impose a new style. You're supposed to accept my changes, no matter of your personal preferences; WP:CITEVAR perfectly apply in this case anyway. Changing a horizontal format into a vertical format is "an entirely clear breach" of the guideline, according to Johnbod, who also pointed out it's only "one view" and the guideline is only limited to some examples. As Pete correctly pointed out : "If someone "cares too much" about template format, and both formats are acceptable, then a strict interpretation of WP:RETAIN solves the difficulty without any third person having to make a difficult value judgement". In this case, it means the horizontal format should be kept throughout the article and, as you perfectly understood, you need to achieve a consensus if you want to introduce a new style. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I just reverted you and I hope it would be the last time I do so. Next time I will report you at WP:ANI with a link to this conversation and the archive you can access to above. I'm not here to waste my time with you. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that I'm glad you added a source to the article, but it's unacceptable to see someone like you edit warring over a standard clean up edit. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Last thing, the reason why I "waited two weeks" before restoring the correct format was because I first didn't realize that WP:CITEVAR could justify my actions (and also because I was a bit busy in real life). Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Connor Machiavelli
You might be interested in a discussion about this editor on my talk page. He was blocked last night after my WP:ANEW report. He's done 50% of the edits at Alt-right (well, slightly less since others have edited since his last edit). Doug Weller talk 14:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Creativity
Thanks. I'm being harassed by a sock using different IPs. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * yeah, noticed that. Rockypedia (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Big Mele, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Down By Law and Primus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Rockhal
Hi there,

May I know if it is acceptable for me to create a table for a list of all the concerts that were held at Rockhal? While I understood that it is important to ensure that information are sourced correctly with the right citations, there are many other articles that also presents the concerts that were held in the venue (i.e. Estadio_de_Fútbol_de_la_Universidad_Simón_Bolívar and Hipódromo de Asunción) without any citacions I felt that the article lacks sufficient information on the series of events that were held there so it needs to be updated as soon as possible. Do let me know your side of the story so that we can come to an agreement as soon as possible, thank you. - Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as you have reliable sources, you can add all the reliably sourced concerts that you want. As for those other articles, someone should either find sources for the concerts on those pages, or remove them. Rockypedia (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply
I do not care that you question it, we have valid sources stating it, and thus they are what I'll go by. One editors suspicions doesnt mean I should ignore valid sourcing. Rusted AutoParts 15:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What I learned from this: when someone starts their statement with "I do not care", any discussion after that with that editor is highly likely to be fruitless. Rockypedia (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

revert as Or
Hello.you revert my edition in [] according to OR. but I dont know that where is Or? I write the text myself and with my words.If you could verify your reason then there is no challenge.Thanksm,sharaf (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Code of Honor (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Flynn. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Cell (film)
What is your source for the statement that Cell (film) was universally panned? Because I don't see any source for that in the article. It looks to me like your own original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that all of the reviews (so far) have been negative, and overwhelmingly so. If that changes, then of course I would change that sentence. Rockypedia (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump Presidential Campaign
Greetings, you are currently in violation of the 1RR rule currently in effect at this article. I suggest you self-rv and resort to Talk. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're incorrect. I reverted a blatant attempt to whitewash the Trump-white supremacist connection, a white-washing that you yourself attempted to perpetrate. Based on your previous history at that article, in which each of your edits is an attempt to paint Trump in a more favorable light, I would submit that your suggestion to me here is painfully transparent. In other words, nice try. Rockypedia (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've also noticed that you were blocked for sockpuppetry back in 2013. Your first action once your block was lifted was to erase all mention of that block from your talk page. I just thought anyone reading your threat on my talk page should be aware of the kind of editor we're dealing with here. Rockypedia (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. CFredkin (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This response is to note that your spurious attempt at intimidation has been replied to, and the evidence shows clearly that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring was not violated. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out here that CFredkin (talk) has withdrawn his complaint after realizing he had been called out for formulating a baseless accusation. It's still my opinion that he should face sanctions for this action. I have not received any apology for his behavior toward me, despite him withdrawing his complaint. I'm going to let this exchange live here on my talk page forever, if only to point out that if you look at his own talk page history, you can see numerous examples of editors attempting to engage him about his edit warring, and his own erasing of all those attempts at communication. It's clear to me, at least, that this editor is not here to build a better encyclopedia, there's a mountain of evidence that supports that, and the previous block for sockpuppetry that was handed to him did not send enough of a message. Rockypedia (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions
Greetings, I wanted to make you aware that the discretionary sanctions currently in effect at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 require that "all editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". Pls self-rv this edit which restored content that has been challenged. If you have concerns about formatting issues, you can address them in a separate edit. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * CFredkin, please stop implying this kind of edit is not allowed. WP:1RR is the rule and you know it. --Neil N  talk to me 21:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:NeilN I don't believe that statement is consistent with the text I pasted above from the DS header, the discussion here with another admin, and these edits by another admin. However please let me know if my understanding of the DS requirements is mistaken.  I have no interest in continuing to adhere to an overly restrictive version myself if it's not universally applied.  And I think it would be reasonable to ask you to intervene in the future if another admin tries to enforce the more restrictive version against me.  OK?CFredkin (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * CFredkin, I came across too harsh and I apologize. I thought your revert included all of Volunteer Marek's edits (which would make you guilty of what you stated above as well) but they didn't. So yes, Rockypedia, please be especially careful when you are re-reverting back in material that has been challenged. --Neil N  talk to me 00:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Rockypedia, can you please reconcile the above with this edit this edit? --Neil N  talk to me 05:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MacGyver_the_Lizard
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MacGyver_the_Lizard. Lizzymartin (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter J. Liacouras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temple of Apollo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User Zaostao
I am aware of this neo-nazi connection with the alt-right movement and found a source which illustrates this. But this user has removed it and will probably do so again. He or she is trying to whitewash the article. --Donenne (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Mentioned at ANI
See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''This is mainly in reference to the edit summary you left here which has since been hidden by an administrator. Don't resort to name calling it never ends well and just proves to escalate a situation. '' --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

User Madsalty
When trying to explain the alt-right I used the words and writings from Milo Yiannopoulos and Matt Forney. Both are considered de facto spoke people for the movement. As the Wikipedia page stands now, it's basically allowing the media and others define a movement that many if not most, are not a part of. The first part of the entry is closer to an opinion piece instead of entry that deserves to be in a encyclopedia. --User:BW (talk) 10/20/2016 13:48 EST.   —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ketchup Heinz info
Hi - Yeah the info is relevant but not in the lede. We're talking about an internation condiment, with many variations and producers, and right there in the lede is one company and just two markets. If it's going to stay it's got to be moved to a different section, below the TOC. - 06:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Slap Shot
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I undid your edit at Slap Shot which removed Dick Roberge. I found him listed in the IMDB and also another book on the making of the film. At any rate, just wanted to let you know.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's great if you found a book that listed him as being in the cast; please add that as a source because I could not find one. Also, imdb is not considered a reliable source because anyone can add info to it and it gets published; see Citing IMDb. Rockypedia (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * All done. I added it to Roberge's WP page but forgot to include it on the Slap Shot page.  And you're right about IMDB, I've found some weird errors on there.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice work, I did not find that source when I looked, good job. Rockypedia (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)