User talk:Piano non troppo

Re.:Diahorrea "Vandalism"

That was NOT vandalism at all. The terminology came from the US military, and got picked up by the people at large. I was only answering another contributor who asked why "The shits" redirected to the article Diahorrea, and placing where that came from when you and someone else used the "V-word". 205.240.146.148 (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I should mention I'm trying a new tool, and it's not always giving me the options I want. I understand you weren't vandalizing. As I said on your page "good faith edit" would be closer to the mark.

However, about this particular term...the "shits" didn't come from the military, the term, meaning diahorrea, was known 1000 years ago, according to the OED. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you said you're a linguist, where did the food "shit on a shingle" come from? This is NOT bad language at all. It really is a food. 205.240.146.148 (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the online version of the OED, so I can't search on "shit on a shingle", specifically. But I just read a discussion about this a few weeks ago. (It didn't come to any conclusions.) But that phrase, if I had to bet good money, *does* come from the military. (Shrug. I could be wrong...but what's betting all about?) Evidence is: a) I've read that phrase in a number of military contexts, b) I can't ever remember reading it in a non-military context (I heard it in the Boy Scouts, but they are quasi-military, anyhow), c) the "prefab building" connotation that I get suggests that the term was invented after sophisticated mass production canning and preserving methods were introduced, that is, within the last 150 years or so, and, most flimsy of all, d) it just "sounds" military. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Piano non troppo

I am a resident of Zachary and I will tell you that Zachary is experimenting intensive growth currently. The report that is in the article that Zacharys growth was only a result of Hurricane Katrina is purely fictional.

Ok. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

what the fuck

you idiot? --84.234.60.154 (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because " a man allegedly with connections to the secret police" is not cited. You can't just make allegations without evidence. That's what the "bad guys" do, isn't it, now? Piano non troppo (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

you FUCKING idiot:

(years later, shortly before his death in 1990s, he said he was told to lie by his father and the men from the secret police).

The page you cited appears not to work. Also, the error message is in Polish. Foreign language references in any Wikipedia are not considered valid, because typical users can't check them. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

was ALREADY in the text 'in your "last known good version". --84.234.60.154 (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, either somebody does have connections to the secret police, or they do not. Either way, you need to provide a citation. Also, "allegedly" in Wiki is called a "weasel word", that means someone (you) is expressing bias about the "true" facts, without giving evidence. Personal bias is NOT allowed in Wikipedia.

This is all pretty much the same to me. Your edits are so bad, another editor will soon erase them. I'm trying to tell you you are wasting your time, and not doing the subject any good at all. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Bad"??? If you do something like this to people and edits costantly, I hope somebody will erase YOU, you stupid vandal fuck. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits seem either to make little sense, or to express your personal opinion, or to rely on references that can't be verified. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish, but you've failed. I'm finished discussing this, although I will consider having your IP blocked from editing (again). Piano non troppo (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Attic Thoughts

I'm confused as to why you reverted my edit, since the article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria. 71.204.176.201 (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a toss-up. There was some information beyond tracklist. Someone took a little more than the usual amount of trouble to create the article than some that clearly are contrary to WP:MUSIC. Without that article, there's less chance someone's going to casually add more material? Also, since the change was an anonymous IP, I thought it might be vandalism. Feel free to revert my edit.Piano non troppo (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. 71.204.176.201 (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Lifestyle Drug

I hoped my edits here would reorient the article to a NPOV, sharpen contasting issues, raise new ones, and add polish.

The resulting changes to its content and form are of fair variety. Your revert applies to edits according to my IP address, however, so it seems to have followed from a concern about the edits taken as a whole, rather than from editorial disagreement over particular change(s) taken in isolation.

So I feel like I should tread lightly here. I'd like to restore that work, at least in part, but I'd like to hear from you first, in case you have a global objection of some kind, or in case I've run afoul by accident of the guidelines.

Thanks in advance, 216.162.196.34 (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I latched on to philosophical statements about normality, profane, and evil...and assumed it was vandalism...but maybe it would be productive for you to continue down the path you were going, and put your edits back again...providing some citations from reputable sources can be found. The citations would be invaluable, for a couple reasons (besides the fact that Wiki requires them for "controversial" statements). 1) I suspect other editors will have a quite different attitude, so giving citations would provide a useful basis for discussion. 2) You may not be aware, but the drug companies do have an editing presense in Wikipedia -- they are liable to delete any edit that is critical of them, that cannot be defended. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take your point about the critique from cultural values and democratic norms, and either find roots for it from outside sources, or remove it entirely. Thanks also for the tip with regard to drug company editing presence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.34 (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Victor Hervey

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Victor Hervey, 6th Marquess of Bristol. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My edits were substantive, accurate and relevant (and consequently constructive) and your initial reversion I assumed equal to the notes on your talk page (where you state you are experimenting w/a vandalism software in response to other editors' asking "what are you doing"). If you have a personal problem or issue w/my edit the proper response is to raise that in the discussion section of the article at issue. Vandalism is something very specific and not at all the same as adding information from printed sources. 96.224.37.193 (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize on review that perhaps you are not familiar with the life of Victor Hervey and his children and that is why you reverted the edits; I suggest you review the embedded cites for the children's own Wiki pages in order to learn that the additions are in fact accurate addition of widely reported news items and not vandalism. (ie, his daughter IS the face of Playboy UK, that is not a vandalism, his son was gaoled several times on drugs offenses, etc.)96.224.37.193 (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's what's going on: It doesn't matter whether it's true so much as whether you can prove it's true, with proper references. I.e., when I first joined Wiki, I had non-controversial edits reverted about things I'd seen, in person, because there was no published source to prove I was right. Verifiability is one of Wiki's three "core content policies". See WP:SOURCE. The way to proceed is to find references.

The problem is that if you don't use references, somebody else with an ax to grind will put their own (incorrect) material in. (Or some prankster with a sense of humor will add a few words.) Without a way to tell whether something is factual, there's no way to keep Wiki articles on the straight and narrow. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But as is referred to above, the added material IS cited, is published, not viewed first hand. Again, see the pages for the children, or google the material. That the 7th Marquess of Bristol was a drug addict, eg, has been published about and in the public record - I think the link to his own web page is sufficient, rather than listing footnote cites as in a college paper for every item. If you feel citations are needed (and I am not sure they are, so would suggest a talk page query/vote), the thing to do is put in citation requested notation; perhaps, if you feel they are important and as they are readily viewable already on wiki through the embedded cites, you'd care to add them yourself, and thus reassure yourself of their accuracy and learn more on the topic? You should have done that before suggesting vandalism.

You made uncited statements. Their "strong" nature led me to suspect vandalism. Now that I've taken the time to track down one of the references at the bottom of the article, what I find is that you misrepresented what a source stated. It does not read "the face of Playboy", it reads "Isabella is the face of the Playboy adult TV channel". [1] I (correctly) questioned that statement you wrote , because it made no sense: There is no such thing as "the face of Playboy". It is not up to other readers to Google to figure out whether every phrase is factually accurate, it's up to you, the editor, to back up extraordinary statements (and to get them right). My original assessment was correct: your edits should either be cited, or removed. Piano non troppo (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Google hervey face of playboy; you will see MANY sites stating this, from virgin media, Telegraph, sopornia (?){I forget - it read like softporn w/a twist); one does say Playboy TV, others Playboy magazine - there's really not much difference - accurate is face of Playboy UK; that's what happens when there are so many sites that state this - ditto w/drug addict son, suicide son... There is nothing extraordinary about common documented knowledge by those in the know - everything doesn't need a cite; if it does, feel free to add it, but do the research first. You can cite Telegraph UK.

Charles Benny Hinn

I respectfully submit that you yourself continue to vandalize. Pastor Benny Hinn regularly wears white suits made of mixed cloth and linen. This is in express contravention of Leviticus 19:19, which you would know had you bothered to read the KJV before vandalizing my perfectly factual entry. You really need to take a less arrogant approach to your self-appointed duties, read the source material, and let the edit I submitted stand as is. It is ENTIRELY correct, though you may find it offends your theological sensitivities. Boo hoo. 75.157.202.114

It's your interpretation that this be treated literally. Many Jews, Christians and Muslims would not agree that the Bible should be treated literally in such instances. Your argument, applied literally, would defame many of the most famous recent religious figures, I doubt many of them see what they are doing as disobeying God by wearing modern clothes. I wonder why you single out Benny Hinn, when there are so many others.

You are making a statement that is not neutral, and does not conform to the general point of view. This is contrary to Wiki policy. See WP:NPOV.

You have now reverted edits by six different editors on this same issue within a couple hours. By Wiki policy, you are required to stop. You can complain about this to an administrator, but the argument you are trying is very old ground, and you will immediately lose.

If you continue making your change, what will happen is that your IP address will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(Note that this user was blocked from editing for 31 hours.) Piano non troppo (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

attack

Hi, just to let you know that I left a message for the (IP) user who left rude comments for you above. You shouldn't have to put up with that. Regards, — Alan^✉ 13:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I try to not take the comments in the spirit they were given. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree. His comments were inappropriate, to tell this politely. However his edits seem to be non-controversial and technical. A better way would be to discuss specific problems with his edits at the article talk page. Then other users like me and others could join the discussion of the article content. Thank you. Biophys (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I added details to my reasoning for reverting Kielce pogrom on that discussion page, if that will help. Reading that page, I think other editors are keenly aware of the nuances of the events in Poland, already, and they don't need rehashing. I reverted simply on the basis of unproductive, uncited alterations to the text, not to dispute the Polish events, themselves. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. His edits are obviously not vandalism. I replied. If you are interested in, you can continue at the article talk page. If not, this is fine.Biophys (talk)

I think it's probably best for me at this point to leave it in the hands of those who know the subject well, and who also can read Polish. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

keep up the fine work

		The Original Barnstar
		For all you do, keep up the good work Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and also...

Thank you for tirelessly reverting vandalism. Could you also place the standard vandalism notice on their userpages when you do? Thanks in advance. Miquonranger03 (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC) :D

I certainly have found similar situations. That's one of the problems that comes up with school computers editing Wikipedia: multiple, almost thousands, of people seemingly using the same computer to vandalize, and on some occasions (when I went to public school, this was the case for me) attempting to make constructive edits to Wikipedia that get targeted immediately due to the notoriety of that IP, or a block being put on. The easy solution for those people is to get a user account. It increases the amount that people on the wiki trust your edits many times over, and it prevents you from receiving responses to people's vandalism from the same IP. BTW, Wikipedia, at the moment, is getting hammered from vandalism to high school pages, from kids who are angry about having to return from school. I've counted about 15 so far. Miquonranger03 (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

barnstars!

looking at your talk page, and continuing to look at my huggle readouts, you deserve these.

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		in the face of insult, remains calm Miquonranger03 (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

		CVU Anti-Vandalism Award
		rollback expert, beating everyone to the punch Miquonranger03 (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

my edits at Dorje_Shugden_controversy

If you look to my edits in the external link section, there is no link to a Blog site I added - maybe you see About.com as a Blog? I have no problem to remove it as long as other blogs are also deleted. The Times is also no blogsite. There are a lot of links to anonymous websites, including a blog, like http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com/ which others added. This blog is also quoted in the article what I complained about at the talk page. I mainly wished to make clear who the authors of the plenitude of anonymous websites are. Your advise is most welcome. I tried to restore the Link section, which I mainly wished to balance. Maybe you can add your thoughts at the talk page? Thanks a lot. 79.171.63.246 (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are completely right. The tool didn't revert the article change I intended, but a different one (that's a "trick" it never did before). Please feel free to change article back to include your edits. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I corrected a bit and also it was me who initially added a blog yesterday after recognizing that the "external links" list blogs and anonymous websites. What do you think about the mentioned blogsite: http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com/ which is also used in the main article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden_controversy#cite_ref-69 79.171.63.246 (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm very uncomfortable with this controversy as a whole. Statements in the blog you cited, a Wikipedia editor would be out-of-line to write. E.g., "The Dalai Lama is lying again" and "this is a clear policy of discrimination against other Buddhists". Such statements sound less fact, than they are rhetoric. (After all, who doesn't lie on occasion?) Perhaps there's some reason that blog needs to be quoted in Wikipedia, but I have some difficulty imagining it. It would certainly be better to find other sources. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you here. Moreover, I think, it is personal judgement and somewhat misleading to claim the Dalai Lama lies just because he has a different view to those following Shugden. If we both have different views this doesn't qualify a judge that you or I would lie. I will not engage in the article, mainly I wished to balance the link section. I would appriciate if you can ahve a short look and maybe you leave a note on the talk page. Thanks again. 79.171.63.246 (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. I will read a little further tomorrow, but I find this whole subject painful. My limited goal was to remove an inadmissible citation and what I supposed potentially biased opinion from an even-handed discussion. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: no prob

There was an error alright - between my keyboard and my chair ;-) --Bachrach44 (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

as you like it

Want this to be a page of Italian American dishes like Marinara Sauce, Spaghetti Bolognese, Fettucine Alfredo?

Go right ahead, makes a great encyclopedia article!

213.156.49.142 (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(The above comment is about List of Italian dishes). The Wiki page on Bolognese sauce says the sauce does come from Italy, but implies the dish Spaghetti alla Bolognese does not. Ooooook. Is the situation then, that the dish was served in Bologne, but was not called Spaghetti alla Bolognese? If that's the case, would that fact be worth noting, or not?

Looking at Eggs Benedict, the Variations section, there are various ways the word "Benedict" is worked into related dishes, so seems that a name does not always imply a country of origin. E.g., "Irish Benedict", "Dutch Benedict"? So, on this particular account, would the fact be worth noting or not?

Your comment "( does not exist, never existed , in Italy)" would be suited for the discussion page. Very suited, actually. I read a comment from Justinc in Merge Tag saying that the Italian cuisine article needs work, but this one is a "stupid list of dishes". Lol. It seems as though your thinking meshes with Justinc. Try adding your comment to the Italian cuisine discussion. But, just as it stood in the article, it would need a citation, because it's making a strong statement that seems open to various points of view. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Bishop

The IP is correct, community councillors don't get "succession boxes". If you disagree please give reasons on talk page, no blind reverting without discussion please.--Troikoalogo (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I assumed choice of adding new infobox information on Jonathan Bishop was a matter of taste. And, if so, taking it out would be vandalism. I'm unsure what it hurts to add the extra information? Where else would someone be able to easily find a complete record? Piano non troppo (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The information is not verified and thus inappropriate anyway. Someone disagreeing with you "taste" is not a vandal.--Troikoalogo (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of guidelines on councillors and information boxes. It would be helpful if you could give a reference to understand the situation. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re.:Victoria of the United Kingdom "Vandalism"

It's true, part of Brown's penis was placed in Victoria's coffin. Why did you remove it?

Because no reference was given, and changes using indelicate language on an important subject generally require them. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely Best Questions

I got this message from you: Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Blog Quiz. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I did something inappropriate. I did not know I was doing something like that. I red the instructions in Finnish and understood that it is appropriate to add an external link - especially as the previous sentence in Blog Quiz has a similar kind of an external link. Would it be possible for you to tell me if I can add my two sentences without an external link? I would also appreciate an explanation why the other external link is allowed to be there. Furthermore, I would appreciate your opinion whether an article about Definitely Best Questions, if I wrote one, might be published in Wikipedia. Should I write it first and send it to editors for review? I would like to point out that there already are several other articles and mentions of commercial quiz products in Wikipedia. 88.112.13.75 (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I took a closer look at the Blog Quiz and the Online Quiz articles. You are right that the site you quoted, and also the way that you quoted it aren't different than the other sites mentioned.

However both those pages seem to be an opportunity for sites to advertise what would otherwise be disallowed in Wikipedia. Online Quiz is already tagged as needing citations, and Blog Quiz should be merged into it, and has the same issue. (That is, both need citations.) Neither states candidly what the quizzes are -- at least those quizzes that are referenced in the articles -- which is a form of online Trivial Pursuit to generate advertising money. That much could be said in a single sentence, for example in the Quiz article. I don't feel "Blog Quiz" has a meaning, and none is stated in the article. I'm going to recommend it be merged into "Online Quiz". That, perhaps, is the ultimate answer to your question. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Vladimir Lenin: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm using MTW, and it automatically pops up the user's page to allow comments. There are situations where I don't comment, one being when the tool crashes. Another is when there are already warnings of various severity, and the problem I'm commenting on is minor. In situations where there are already a couple "this is your last warning" vandalism messages, it seems to dilute the earlier messages to say anything at all. The next step might be to ask to have the user blocked, but that seems problematic, if the editor really is trying to reform. To confess, there are pages such as Lenin where I'm making a simple comment on a recent edit -- not taking a philosophical stance. In not leaving a warning on the user page, it seems to send the right message -- i.e., I'm not partisan in the dispute. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

using broken software is no excuse for not explaining edits. Eeekster (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was explaining, not excusing. There's no obligation to confront irrational editors. Anyone who is sufficiently interested in the situation would need to do a diff on the history, regardless of whatever I said the edit did. In this case, I reverted a Lenin edit that says in the edit history "Replaced content with 'jack is a gay boy". It's surely not too difficult to figure out why I did that. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep up your great work

Your well on your way to becoming a great vandal fighter after only a week or two on the wikipedia. When i first started i used to use MWT as well, it played up on me a tad so i ventured around and discovered a great tool called Huggle. If you like MWT, let me tell you Huggle will blow you out of the water! Remember when your ready and think your trustworthy enough apply for rollback which you will need to use Huggle. Happy Editing Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I should give it some thought somewhere along the way. Even some of the "mild" MTW warning messages seem a little severe and bureaucratic. For example, it's plain that the editor in "Definitely Best Questions" (above) was simply following what he imagined were Wiki conventions. (Also, as you can see above, some anti-vandal editors appear to want more detailed information.) Unfortunately, it seemed I'd need to edit and recompile the code to make the changes I'd like. I can do that, but if there's an existing tool that allows customizing warning messages.... Piano non troppo (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Gel "Vandalism"

In regards to User talk:128.138.120.79, the edit to Gel was absolutely NOT spam. It is the DOI of the pre-existing reference. Reign in your stupid bot. 128.138.120.79 (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's special use of the word "spam" may be confusing. You added an "External Link" to the home page of a commercial site, http://www.organo-tech.com. The brief paragraph in the article on that subject is already covered by six references, none of which seem to be at that URL. This is from the Wikipedia definition of spam: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed." There is no justification for the link that I can see. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Gel. I didn't add that external link, I only corrected formatting, thus making it visible to your bot. Check the revisions if you like. I've corrected the article again, hopefully for the last time. 128.138.120.79 (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

First, you're right. We were talking about two different links. Your good faith edit to an improper link focused my attention on that, and not the link you were talking about. The improper link is what I intended to revert. But second, a different issue, the "Nature" link you added isn't working. I tried clicking the link in the article, and cut-and-pasting it from the raw text, and using different browsers. An error reporting form appears instead; perhaps you'd be the best person to fill it in? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Creation of Female Name Norma

My official urgent request demands for somebody to create some articles about Norma-feminine names related-and please specify what the name really means. How to create it and to avoid vandal-related edits at the same time is tricky. Help me please.

Neurotic heart (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You've already got the Norma (female name) page started already, great. Let's talk about page development on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Norma_(female_name) ? I'll address vandalism here. There isn't a way to avoid higher-than-usual vandalism on a "name page". Happily, other editors will readily help keep it clean.

The Linda page has interesting examples of problems. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda&diff=prev&oldid=188440828. Notice:

1) Linda Yogeswaran has just been deleted. Although the editor does not give a justification, reasons might be that she is "red-linked", and that there is no other source given. Google investigation shows only a few entries for "Linda Yogeswaran", and none on first glance appear to be porn stars. That would lead one to suspect the statement "married to Melanie Phan" is also unfounded. (Vandals often make comments about a person's sexual habits.)

2) Linda River has been red-linked for months. But a quick search in Google shows it exists. (Was it named after a woman, or not? Hmmmm.) There are "list articles" that ask editors not to add red-link entries, and where red-links are immediately deleted. But in this case the justification that red-links alert other editors to missing material is apt. Interestingly, you can see from Google that someone's added an acceptable and instructive picture of Linda River in Wikimedia Commons. So, the justification to keep this link is strong.

3) Linda, Tasmania is more difficult. It's pretty much a ghost town. For some months now there has been a discussion about what qualifies a place to be notable. Most agree that being listed in a major atlas makes a place "notable" for Wiki purposes. However, not everyone agrees that abandoned towns are "notable". So, keep or not? "Following the Wiki guidelines blindly" in this case might provoke comment. Well, there's a nice Wiki article about Linda, Tasmania, with several references. So, even though it doesn't appear in The Times Atlas, this link looks like a keeper, too. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, Piano non troppo! I've seen you reverting vandalism during the past few days (I don't know if you've seen me though). Well, you are pretty fast for someone using MWT. Ever thought of using Huggle? I see you don't have rollback yet, so why not apply for rollback (which you are sure to get) and start using huggle? Looking forward to the day you join us ;) Keep up the good work. Cheers! Chamal ^Talk 15:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait... you've been on Wikipedia for only 11 days, and you've got 4421 edits!?! Don't you eat/drink/sleep? :o So maybe we'll have to wait for some time till you get rollback, since you are still new. Chamal ^Talk 15:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've definitely seen you around! Thanks for the suggestion, I've now been given rollback. (I'm afraid to use it, lol.) The next step is to summon the resolve to learn a new tool and its foibles. Piano non troppo (talk)

Sleeper bus

Regarding your continual removal of the 'Further Information' section and website. Your quote: " It's the commerical part which is not allowed. Either add material (and cite your page), or create a new article about your company.)" - unquote. First thing, I have no company! If you took the time to visit the website in question (www.freewebs.com/band-bus) you would see that its in no way a commercial venture. Its an information site only and as such has no revenue generating capability and is in no way affiliated to any operator or company. I started the site a couple of years ago as a source of information (incidently, I also started the wikipedia 'Sleeper bus' article) for people interested in the band bus industry. For people viewing the wikipedia article, a 'further information' website is a positive adition to the articlescancoaches (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I did take a look at the site...it's interesting, which is why I suggested you add material to body of the article text -- using your site as a reference. (The article possibly does cross over the "spam line" a bit with the http://www.freewebs.com/band-bus/operators.htm page, but an explicit quote of a couple sentences from your main page would appease just about any later editor that comes along.) The Wiki article has some reasonable photos but a couple of yours -- particularly the ones of the "mysterious" interiors would be nice -- if you would be willing to release your photos into the public domain. If you *do* decide to do that, let me know, because Wiki is tricky filling out the "paperwork" for submitting photos. If it's done "wrong", bots just come along and mark them for deletion. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for looking at my wee web presence! I agree that an 'interior' photo would be nice in the article but the 'interior' photos on my freewebs site actually belong to a someone else so I'll try get permission to use them. If not, I'll take some of my own and get them on there. Thanks for your help scancoaches (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nabih Berri edits

(Re: edits to Nabih article and to this page.) The edit page I saw showed only deleted material, by an anonymous IP, with no justification. In fact, deleted material was being restored. No serious harm done, I hope. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

V8 Supercar spammer

Is paying no attnetion to warnings. --Falcadore (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia

Dude, have you even been looking at what is contained in the links? They are extremely specific to the topic, with as much or even more information on the applicable topic than the official websites. I appreciate what you're doing, but in this instance I feel you are doing wikipedia users a major injustice. As you so rightly say, there is no search engine advantage to adding these links, there is however a massive Wikipedia user advantage. I'm only adding the external links because I couldn't find the info I wanted in the Wikipedia, but instead found all of it and more at these links. I'm really not sure what the problem is.

Would you please reconsider deleting my hard work? For everyone's sake?

Oh and fyi, that website is a non profit website, in fact it costs several thousand dollars a year to run. See how many ads there are on there? See how much it costs to sign up? See how, other than for Wikipedia and it's readers, there is no gain from adding links to it in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.135.130 (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(Comment in regard to reverting External Link on V8 Supercar Championships to [2].) Hi, I did look at your page before deleting the link, and saw that good work had been put in your site. The issue was two places on the page reading "Advertise with us", and at least one link that only worked with registration and log in. Here's a way to go that will probably work for you: Add a couple sentences to the Wiki article main text, and cite them with a footnote leading to your site. (Choose quotes from two of your pages, and you'll end up with two footnotes in the references.) In fact, the article really needs citations to back up statements such as "Australia's third largest sport". Another statement to support might be "Holden Racing Team, had a decisive competitive edge." Let me know if I can help getting those in. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this guy did same to my links to reviews of Agone, looks like trolling.202.82.171.186 (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Law School Outlines

Sorry to trouble you with this question. Can you please tell me why my site (Outlines.com) keeps getting removed from the links portion of search term "law school outlines." The site offers free registration and allows students to download free law school outlines if they upload one in exchange, to keep our database growing! The other option is for them to pay a nominal fee ($4.95) mainly to promote them to upload instead. I would not be opposed to having it listed under a category for paid site if you felt that was appropriate, but why not at all? With a site called Outlines.com that has an extensive law school database, it just not seem fully justified to merely remove it. I thank you in advance for your time and consideration.(UTC)

Thanks for showing interest in the process. There is a straightforward way to introduce your site in the article -- which is to add substance to the body of the text, using material from one of your articles -- then quote yourself. If, presumably, you want to generate traffic to your site, that would produce the best results.

The reasons why a number of Wiki editors have recently deleted External Links from Law School Outlines are complex. It's possible they'll wish to speak for themselves, however this situation is not unusual, and I can reasonably guess their motivations.

Wikipedia has created a hierarchy of rules, guidelines and suggestions. In this, rules such as those about copyright violations are strictly enforced with no appeal. Commercial use and self-advertising are not of the same order, but they are carefully monitored. The Wikipedia Foundation owns this site, is not directly interested in, and does not have the capacity to evaluate claims companies make about themselves. They have less ability to arbitrate between rival claims. Hence, when several "External Link" sites insinuate themselves into an article without contextual support, alarm bells sound.

Alarm increases when material is added by those with a strong vested interest, to the extent that they may not recognize other points of view. This is described in WP:CONFLICT.

Wikipedia is seeking to create an encyclopedia, not a "link farm" to every possible associated Web site. The burden of monitoring each External Link, for example to make sure it still is working, that it is relevant, that it is not blatant advertising, that it will not download spyware on users' computers, is beyond what Wikipedia can support. Hence, an External Link needs to justify itself.

Wikipedia references are not equally valued. Information from YouTube or blogs is treated as a last resort, if that. Highly valued references come, for example, from books printed by established companies or from professional journals, written by respected authors. In External Internet links, there is a tendency to "bait and switch": present respectable material alongside commercialism. It is up to the body of interested editors to decide whether there is too much advertising. Any at all in some strict sense is too much. Are you willing to strip all personal, corporate and university identification from the link placed in External Links? If not, then it's worth considering WP:NPOV.

I'm guessing you have more than enough to proceed in a way that Wiki editors will find constructive and sufficiently impartial. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate your response and understand the reasoning involved. Would you be willing to take another moment to explain just how I should properly use the citing method you mentioned in your response? Thanks again.(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outlines (talk • contribs)

(I added an example text change and a reference.)

I added a second reference and explained the danger involved with such sites and linked it to the legal disclaimer offered on Outlines.com I hope this is satisfactory. Thank you once again for helping with this process and feel that your are a true benefit to Wikipedia. Please let me know if/when Outlines.com will be considered for addition to the external links portion of the page or what can be done to allow this to happen. Keep up the good work! (UTC)

Well, life has moved on in a couple days, and two other editors have become interested. Neither removing the material you and I added -- so we must have accomplished something. If you have the inclination, it might be worthwhile following up on comments made by Mmmbeer on the Discussion page. Piano non troppo (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Book Scanning

Hi, why did you delete my addition about the new domestic book scanner ? I think it's a very useful addition, the Opticbook has opened up book scanning to a lot more people, your truly included. 92.237.186.252 (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Book scanning para had several problems: it seemed to be an advertisement, quoted no source, was written with peacock language, etc. (These are described in WP:SPAM, WP:V, WP:PEACOCK.) Finally the statement that "until 2005 books scanners were very expensive" doesn't encompass the entire market. I owned one a decade ago, and it certainly didn't cost over $100. I.e., as presented, there's nothing noteworthy about the Opticbook 3600. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it was a book scanner you owned and not just an ordinary scanner ? I was trying for years to find one to scan my Ring Record Books and I'm pretty certain the Opticbook was the first one on the market. Anyway it's your call but I feel that it's a useful development that should be mentioned. Maybe you could do some googling about it and rewrite the section without mentioning any brand names ? 92.237.186.252 (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The device I had was for document and book scanning, it included OCR software. I used it for material that couldn't be removed from libraries.

What you may be implying is that the Opticbook had a feature set that had an unusually low price? If the price change caused some "revolution" that could be documented from reliable sources -- such as the $100 PC for Third World countries -- that might be worth brief mention. Otherwise, wouldn't most readers assume, without making note of it, that a technical device becomes less expensive over the years? Piano non troppo (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It has an right angle edge which it scans up to, this means that the page is perfectly flat, that was what impressed me. Previously I had to press the books down and even then would get distortion at the centre near the spine. 92.237.186.252 (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that feature was long missing from many library copy machines, too. One can only imagine the number of books ruined on that account. It's curious that companies didn't choose to solve that problem optically, by changing the focus, but so it goes.

In terms of augmenting the article, at the moment section "Commercial book scanners" reads only that "Some models involve V-shaped book cradles". So the "right angle edge" approach is omitted there, and should be added. Whether it's important to mention a specific brand is debatable.

I notice other problems with this article's references and links. This may have been misleading to you? Two references are to a specific manufacturer and product, and could potentially be deleted (Atiz). The links to Kirtas were almost pure advertising: I just deleted them. Piano non troppo (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm with you although I still think that the Plustek "right angle edge" does warrant a specific mention not just because of the innovative technology but also because the price (about £150) has brought "proper" book scanning within the range of the home user ie me. Other dedicated book scanners cost an arm and a leg, several thousands of pounds. The rub is how to do it without it sounding like an advert. 92.237.186.252 (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have the inclination, the way to go might be to find an independent reference, and quote it. Or at least use the same language. That way, your good efforts are very likely to remain intact as other editors come across them. I looked up "book scanning" in Google Books and got a couple interesting results, just on the first page. ("The Whole Digital Library Handbook"...hmmm.) [3]. It sounds as though you are going in a good direction...have fun with the article. A couple of the other sections might make use your attention, too: "Cutting" seems to be a little narrow in its scope?

Piano non troppo (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of minor edits to Bran

These minor edits: [4] are impossible to confuse with vandalism nor are they the kind of statements that require references. Next time, try to make constructive contributions to wikipedia, thank you. 75.15.193.158 (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that brown and white rice were different plants. (Store packaging seems to suggest this.) Hence, my identification of the change as vandalism or needing a reference. Since I eat rice regularly, and had to read several Google articles to convince myself the difference lies in processing, the request for a reference seems reasonable. I imagine quite a few other readers will not know this, either. Piano non troppo (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Heron Marked Barnstar

The Heron Marked Barnstar I hereby award this Barnstar to Piano non troppo for their conspicuous effort reverting vandalism to The Wheel of Time article. Tai'shar Wikipedia! Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping an eye out for the Wheel of Time page and reverting those revolting edits. Wikipedia needs more people like you, and I wish that vandal patrollers got recognition more often. Please consider this Wheel of Time themed barnstar to be a small token of my appreciation for all your hard work. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

White Ajah? Well, I don't know about THAT... I'm more partial to the Grey, myself.  ;-) Glad you like it, though, and keep up the good work! Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you do that?

I've been busy for nearly 2,5 hours editing this article and searching/confirming additional information about my hometown Gorredijk during WWII (we HAD a rich Jewish history) and not even a minute after I had finished I saw that all my edits had been reverted by you. Now I want to know why you did that. If you see the Dutch version of the same article you can see that a large part there is about WWII aswell. Because our town had seen alot of action during WWII for such a small town. Please explain, because I don't know why you did that. --217.120.149.136 (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put your version back! Very rarely, the tool I'm using corrupts something I was looking at by mistake. I didn't mean to make any changes at all. Please carry on with your good work! Piano non troppo (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Thanks for the quick reply! --217.120.149.136 (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.126.138.140 (talk)

forum spam

Hello. I’ve reverted your rollback in Linux kernel, but couldn't find out which of the links there were the actual spam. --AVRS (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on this. There seems to be a strict Wiki policy regarding commercial External links, but another standard when it comes to free software, Open Source sites, etc.? The Linux kernel article has 41 references from footnotes, 20 other references, and 14 External links. That makes a total of 75 links. I'm not expressing an opinion, but rather asking: Doesn't that make Linux kernel far outside the guidelines of WP:LINKFARM? I've done professional programming in versions of UNIX, after looking quickly at the 75th link being added, nothing particularly noteworthy struck me. I'm not interested in making a political statement, but I am curious how editors are intended to apply Wiki guidelines to articles such as Linux kernel. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete valuable external links (Climate refugee)

I dont know why the environmentalrefugees.org links was deleted but please keep it on the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.104.148 (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted for several reasons. (uTube links that are liable to change and whose copyright status cannot be established are not allowed, it requires Java to work, it's just a song video placeholder to a site that doesn't exist, etc.) That you see it valuable does not determine whether it can be in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a "linkfarm" -- not every possible related page belongs in External links. Also, see WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. This link, in this article, is far outside what is allowed. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Missed vandalism

Hi, just a simple note about this article. On the 11th of September you undid an edit by a vandal, but you accidently reverted to a version by the same vandal. I reverted 4 edits including yours to get back to an older, cleaner version. Regards Ksempac (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, thank you. MWT seems to be smart about reverting some multiple vandalism edits, but lately I've noticed there are times it's best not to use the tool, but to wade back through the edits. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nipple - look twice?

I know that many people don't care for a statement like this as a 'reason', but it has had that caption for 2.5 years. So, while you might consider it much belated, I might think your change a bit precipitous? Not that it is a big deal, but I'd love for everybody to "think twice" about changes. Shenme (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice that the original photo in Wikimedia Commons does not describe it as an "erect" nipple -- that's an interpretation on someone's part. There are nipples that look that way in their non-erect state. I.e., the caption is original research, and it's misleading. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Muscle Worship Editor - What do you know?

(This comment is about article Muscle worship.) I'm curious about something. You claim to be a professional writer and editor. My guess would be that you spend most of your time professionally editing Wikipedia (judging by some of what I've read here). What do you know about muscle worship? Do you know enough about it to remove an external link to a site that contains content (free content) that would pretty much only be of interest to individuals who have an affinity for muscle worship? You must have, muscle fetish for men that nobody knows about, and are incapable of withstanding the sight of female bodybuilders. I can't think of any other reason you would go to the muscle worship article in the first place and then delete a link to a site dedicated to female bodybuilding. Many of the female bodybuilders featured in the galleries on that site do muscle worship sessions. So, why would you delete a link to a good resource for people interested in the topic? Seriously, what do you know about muscle worship that would precipitate your deletion of an external link that is pretty much a definitive (and free) resource for images and videos on the topic? I'm sure you have an answer, but I doubt it is a good one. But I can't wait to hear it anyways. So please; enlighten me. I'm sure you have the Wikipedia's policies memorized (more likely tattooed backwards on your ass), and have found some caveat to justify your deletion of that resource. And it IS as good resource on the topic. And if you don't believe that it is a good resource on the topic, just ask any of the 20,000+ individuals who visit the site every month to simply to browse the FREE galleries. Nobody spends a dime on that site, and it doesn't sell anything. And I can tell you, I certainly don't make any money from the site. So, if you're going to throw some commercial site bullshit at me, it's going hit the fan and fly back into your face. Think this one through before you answer. And when you answer, please include your expertise in the area of muscle worship to justify your actions. Because, my friend, this is only about what YOU think, and nothing more. But regardless of what you think, I've got my money on you not knowing a damned thing about muscle worship or what interests people who do. You say address the issue on the discussion page of the article. Who the hell is on that discussion page to discuss it with? Incidentally, that site is linked all the way through from the female bodybuilding article, and is within the categories of Bodybuilding and BDSM. Think Mink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazon1 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

First, your advertisements are in a banner across the top of the page, and again in a banner across the bottom of the page. The top leads to a page inviting me to have a public chat with a "Fitness Hottie" at 6.99 $USD per minute. (The bottom one is labeled XXX, and requires payment and login to do more than "tour"). The pictures that you claim to be free may be copyrighted -- by someone else -- and if not, then, are plugs to very commercial Web sites that are printed on the pictures (e.g., www.sheila-bleckrock.com). Second, even if your site was totally without ads, a link to it is still self-advertising. Did you contribute anything to the text of the article, or to Female bodybuilding, or to Strongwoman? Nope. You stopped just long enough to add links to your site, giving no explanation for your edit. This all fits with editors' decisions to delete External links: If they aren't necessary to understanding the topic in detail, and if they aren't the exact subject of the article (not just related), and if they are self-advertising -- they go. See WP:SPAM. Finally, I've deleted the link again, for the above several reasons. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazon1, the site is linkspam. A number of editors have removed it from various articles already (shouldn't that tell you something on it's own?) If the site continues to be added to Wikipedia it will be blacklisted and you'll be blocked. --Quartet 21:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you call it linkspam (whatever that is). Tell me what is the difference between www.amg-lite.com and the link in question? It seems to me, that there isn't a bit of difference between the two (other than the fact that www.amg-lite.com contains far more banners), but the external link to amg-lite never gets deleted, though it has far more ads. What is it? It certainly can't be banners on the main page, as www.amg-lite.com has perhaps 20 banners on the index page. It's an honest question that shouldn't be too difficult to answer.

And your insinuation in your message to me, that Amazon Muscle is somehow attempting to gain some type of ranking advantage in Google by linking from Wikipedia, is a quite presumptuous. The site is already ranked high enough in Google for the appropriate search terms, that the site doesn't require any help from Wikipedia.

If the idea is to have external links to sites that refer to bodybuilding or muscle worship, you won't find a single site on the Internet that contains relevant content, but lacks banners; just like amg and amazon are linked together. It's not about making money or spamming, it's about cooperation.

But tell me more about linkspam, and how amazonmuscle differs from amg-lite. Amazon Muscle is a free resource, just like amg, though with far fewer ads. The banners on that site are placed there as a free service to the owners of those sites. Amazon Muscle doesn't have a single affiliate banner in place, and it never has.

And then when you are done answering that question, perhaps you could advise me as to what the Wiki Police consider to be a page that would not offend their sensitivities. AMG and Amazon Muscle are the same model, but somehow, Amazon Muscle continuously get the shaft. Perhaps there is some sort of bias here. And if not, get your ass over to the female bodybuilding article, and start deleting GeneX and AMG as well.

And one other thing, take a look at GeneX, and tell me when you click on the very top link of the page the plainly states "Member", and tell me that you don't have to pay to access the resources of that site. Again, you just aren't going to find any relevant information on female bodybuilding, that isn't linked to some commercial site. That's just the way it is. I count 25 banners on amg's main page; all to paysites, including about 4 or 5 that link to sessions for 6.99 per minute, as does GeneX. Have a look, and then justify your bias against Amazon Muscle.

Oh, my God! Is that a link on the very top the girlgrip.co.uk link just below mine that you keep deleting? And where does it go? It goes to their page where they are selling 5 minute videos for $5. I'm not sure where your head is. I added the External links section to that page, and added my link, which is relevant to the topic. However, my link gets deleted, and some link that leads DIRECTLY to a commercial site that is selling video, stands in it's place. How do and your friends explain your actions?

Incidentally, I've removed my own links, as I just noticed that you and your fellow peons (And before you start freaking-out, no, that is not an insult or personal attack; simply a description of your status in this community.), yankee and quartet have issue similar "orders" to me as yours, threatening to block my account; no doubt in collusion with you. But you cats ought to have a little more sense than to go around harrassing people selectively. I certainly hope that you don't (though I highly suspect you do) get your kicks out of what you are doing. Take for example Elena Seiple's page; doesn't the only external link lead to a commercial site which only has the purpose of reeling in paying members? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Seiple How do you explain yourselves?

In the end, I believe that you will have some rational explanation for your bias. And keep something in mind, all of the people whose links I am mentioning are either friends or acquaintances of mine (in fact Elena has a nice gallery on the site whose link you and your cohorts continue deleting), so I am certainly not encouraging anyone to delete their links. I am mentioning them, as examples of your complete lack of judgment and fairness with reference to deleting external links.

I'm sure you're a nice person, but isn't there something better you could be doing with your time. Perhaps not. But if that is the case, then at least do your job professionally, and don't simply go around with a trigger-happy finger on the delete key, and arbitrarily seek out individuals to screw with.

And if you have something sane to say and don't want to continue having this out in public, send me a message and explain to me how we can resolve this matter in private, as there is no way for me to respond to the Wikigods messages to me. Sorry if I seem pissed. But I am, and you know why.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazon1 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For me, this isn't moral indignation, right? The Wiki tool I'm using brought up Woman on top (sex position) today. I looked at it, shook my head, and realized the article had to stay. Inappropriate for pre-teens? Or teens? Who can say? As far as I could see, it was pretty much straight arrow -- according to Wiki policies.

I understand that you took a look at GeneX and AMG, and thought "Well, that's just the same as what I'm doing". Problem is this: probably neither should be there. I'm going to look to see if they should be deleted as soon as I finish here.

Despite your good intentions, your site is strongly linked to sites that are purely commercial. It has nothing to do with the content, it has to do with the Madison Avenue motive.

There is, in fact, a way that you can get mention of your site into Wikipedia. It's not painful. Read the articles, and see what you think about them. Are they missing important information? Are they wrong in places? You're obviously articulate: so contribute. Then cite your own statements to statements made on your own Web site. (Or better yet, find another reputable source to quote WP:SOURCE.) If you've got something worth saying, say it. You're going to get argument, sure. But that's the way to go. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Madison Avenue Motive is, though I did do quick search but turned up empty handed. And I must say at this point, that Wikipedia is becoming a very weird site. Your link to Women on Top is a bit much for a site like this in my opinion; graphically that is. If there is information of an academic nature, then I can see the point, though the images, I believe, go a bit to far. But I guess images have there place in information as well (a picture being worth a thousand words and all).

Seriously, though, I don't really care about having our site referred to on Wikipedia anymore. Honestly, it doesn't do anything for us in a commercial sense. I simply don't accept the lack of fairness with which we were deleted. And I'm not the only one in the female bodybuilding community that has taken issue with this. Perhaps Wikipedia is simply growing out of control, with no possible way of applying policies in a fair manner, due to the sheer volume and scattered nature of information, exacerbated by the variety topics and the inability of editors/administrators to moderate topics because of insufficient knowledge reference a particular field.

Wiki is a big site, and I don't know how matters such as this can be handled. It's simply too big, and the administrators cannot know everything there is to know about how external sites on a particular topic operate in the real world. I can tell you though, that it is highly unlikely, if not, downright impossible, to find a site on female bodybuilding, that does not have some sort of commercial sponsorship associated with it. It's just not. That is the reality. People have to work very hard and travel all over the world to gather images of these girls at competitions and whatnot. Nobody can do that for free. I'm not saying that they are making a killing, but they must have a way to support their efforts. And this includes the bodybuilders themselves. Some of them spend thousands of dollars preparing for a contest. And even if they win, they usually do receive cash. And if they did receive cash, as in the world's largest competitions, it will probably not be enough to even cover the costs of their contest preparation.

I don't know what else to say, but this is a conundrum that is certain to grow as Wikipedia grows.

That was me changing, "Oh, shit." to, "Oh, my God". Simply and attempt to maintain a little more of a moderate tone, maintain a civil tongue, and be less offensive.

Regarding the girlgrip.co.uk site, that would be in Strongwoman article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strongwoman Again, I'm not bashing that site or saying that the link should be deleted. I'm simply saying that if the issue here is the commercial nature of these links, then this is just another example of the problem of having female bodybuilding links with no commercial activity associated with them. Amazon1 (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazon1 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I was called out above, I'm going to explain why I've been removing this spam link from numerous pages - and close this discussion once and for all. We are getting more and more of these requests every week across every subject, including all related to bodybuilding. And predictably, all the users who add their own websites cry foul when they're removed with the argument "but my site is non-commercial" or "but look, this site is linked and it has a banner ad, so mine should be linked too!" Well, I looked at the site "Amazon Muscle" when it was linked the first time and found that it fails Wikipedia's External Link Guidelines, in 3 instance.

1 - Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article..

4, Links mainly intended to promote a website. (also see Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Guideline).

13, Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject:.

The tired argument presented above that because another site is linked, means that this site should be linked too is irrelevant. The bottom line is, the website that Amazon1 and his/her numerous IP sockpuppets are trying to add, does not contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; or any information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic and no page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable.

Ask yourself:

1. Does the site provide information (not just pictures) above and beyond what is already in the article, and that could not reasonably be incorporated in the article? NO

2. Does the site serve as a referenceable source for information in the article? NO

3. Does the site have an official affiliation with the sport, and is there not a separate Wikipedia article where it would be better placed? NO

In addition, not every editor can be expected to explain why some links are still in any particular article and not removed, while others are allowed to remain, as the site is simply too large to expect every editor to be able to watch every page, however the reasons for not allowing this particular link to remain are clear and therefore I'll continue to remove it. And since Amazon1 has not contributed anything meaningful other than to spam Wikipedia with a link to his/her website and argue with long-standing editors about it, I'll remove it without prejudice, the same way I toss out the trash on garbage day - not because I'm bias, but because it needs to be done. --Yankees76 (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Icon

I thought that the article was a bit inconsistent because you had helpfully noted "in Spanish", but had left an icon (Template:Es icon) in place. However, I don't claim to be an expert on the guidelines and you are welcome to revert my changes. --Alan (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Glosas Emilianenses looks fine the way you have it now. My limited goal was to avoid having someone come along and clobber them as being non-English External links. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

hey

since-you-are-such-a-sailor-moon-fan-want-to-help-with-a-new-sailor-moon-wiki[[5]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.172.161 (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Good anti-vandal work!

Hey, PNT. I've seen your vandal reversions with MWT, but have you ever considered using Huggle or Twinkle? Huggle is, I believe, more faster than MWT, although I've never used MWT. Just voice your opinion here if you want to give Huggle a try or not. I still appreciate your anti-vandalism work. SchfiftyThree 21:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the supportive words, SchfiftyThree. There are two features about MWT that don't work well for me. One is that I can't tailor the canned warning written to user pages -- more a few people have been upset at the implication that they are "vandalizing" -- when they are actually acting in good (if misguided) faith. Also, other anti-vandalism editors have mentioned that the message left by MTW in History is uninformative. Can Huggle or Twinkle can solve either of those needs?

Also, a philosophical question? MTW works quickly enough for me that I believe I "shut out" other anti-vandalism editors. (Notice the comment on the CVU Anti-Vandalism Award from Miquonranger03 that I "beat everyone to the punch".) I get to the article faster than they do, so my edit goes in, while theirs does not. That seems like a waste of time for them -- everybody should have a chance to swat the baddies, right? So, I'm not really sure I need a "faster" tool, which might not work to the overall good?

What do you think? Let me know, I've been deliberating on these issues for a couple weeks, now. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to the first paragraph: Twinkle has a vast variety of warnings, not just for anti-vandalism purposes, and some of which relate to Wikipedia-related policies (e.g. adding original research, removing speedy deletion templates, making personal attacks, etc). Huggle is more of an anti-vandalism software that is very powerful, capable of reverting at the speed of within a second. I've gotten barnstars for reverting ever since January, until July, when I acquired Huggle. If you still believe that MWT will do the job, feel free to continue doing so, although you might see more 'Hugglers' out there. :-) SchfiftyThree 22:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Kretek

125.163.214.241 continually changes links in the Kretek article to an advertisement. I saw that you had posted on his "Talk" page, so I'm just wondering what the process is to ban this guy from doing those edits any more. Jehnidiah (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I looked over their edits: They also added a commercial link to Batik, and removed a commercial link to electronic cigarettes in Smoking ban.

There is a process for non-administrators to ask administrators that someone be banned...however administrators are already on the watch. Once it becomes clear that the editor is not responding to repeated warnings, they will be blocked. You don't need to do anything at this stage. But to get a big picture of what's going on, browse the links on this page in "Report abuse": [6] Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Jehnidiah (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User page protection

Hi Piano non troppo, I reverted vandalism to your user page by an IP recently, and I would suggest that you consider having your page indefinitely semi-protected in accordance with the Protection Policy, reducing the likelihood of vandalism in the future. Thanks =) Cflm001 (Talk) 03:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I just read through the protections pages, then paused to consider: 1) A reason there are a dozen or so "vandal revisions" on my pages is the number of my edits in the last few weeks -- in the 1,000s. (The number of my changes that are reverted, however, is about 1 in 300, so the percent of "angry customers" is rather low.)

2) I don't mind doing the work reverting vandalism on my own user and talk page. Is there some way, is it practical, to alert anti-vandalism editors not to make changes to my pages?

3) A number of times, angry editors acting in good faith have added comments on my user page, rather than my talk page. (I've simply moved those to the talk page.) So, unless it's a big problem, is leaving my pages unprotected a pressing problem or...what do you think? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

1) Personally, I think page protection is more of a precaution, and it may not be needed ever again, but to have it would just keep you on the safe side.

2) Would you rather... an RCP reverting changes to your pages... OR... your user page saying something like this?

3) Well, maybe you can add a polite comment asking less experienced editors to direct questions to your talk page. Like... <!--Please direct all comments and queries to my user talk page.-->.

But in the end, the decision is ultimately yours. Thanks, =) Cflm001 (Talk) 14:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove links to reviews on the Agone page?

I added links to reviews and additional resources. I could see your point that my internal wiki links may have been unecessary, but the links Iadded in the 'external links' section should have stayed, if you have not deleted my hard work, please put them back on.

By the way I am not a college kid in a dorm room, but a professional copy editor and journalist who also happens to know about the article subject. Josh 202.82.171.186 (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am also a professional copy editor, and I've worked for Fortune 500 companies. I reverted because you were not following Wiki guidelines or practices. 1) Wiki is not a link farm, not every associated topic belongs in External links. See WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. 2) Two of your links didn't work. 3) The two that did are in foreign languages, which is generally not acceptable in Wiki. 4) Glancing quickly at the French link, it didn't seem to add a great deal to what the article said. 5) You added Wiki links to common English words, which is contrary to WP:CONTEXT. 6) Statements such as "not like most RPG characters" are vague, original research, which generally is not helpful. WP:OR

Piano non troppo (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Fortune 500? Are we having a contest as to who edits for the best company? Mine's a global TV network that's a household name. Ihear you on broken links, cheers for that. Ditto non-English. However, you miscredited me for this:

"not like most RPG characters"

Because as you can see from Agone's discussion page, I removed that line for the reasons you state.

As for Wiki not being a link farm, agreed, but in this case there is a box on the page saying it needs notability. One of the ways to establish that for a book is to show that there are reviews of it. No matter, I added my links to the discussion page; another editor can determine their suitability.

By the way, at my company we believe in full transparency; we even asked Jimmy Wales why he edited his own page. .202.82.171.186 (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I explained the reasons why your edits were deleted. Notability: I didn't understand your motivation, thank you for explaining. I don't feel the Notability tag is warranted, so I removed it. (It was added by a new Wikipedia editor, so they can be excused for being a little strong in their tagging.)

FYI, I had very negative experiences when I first started editing in Wiki: it took some time to realize that I wasn't following the guidelines that the Wikimedia Foundation established. Read the guidelines, consider them, then come back and get into the swim. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. One way to solve the "translation problem" is to do some translation yourself, citing the original text and your translation in the body of the article. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just coming back to remove my email as I've already gotten some spam. Thanks for removing it. Have linked and cited what I think is fair in the article, and I think improved it greatly.202.82.171.186 (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Agone article is looking good. (It now seems appropriate to remove that editor's tags for Internal Links, Need References, and wikify.) Keep up the good Wiki work! Regards! Piano non troppo (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly the rest of the info for this article would all be in German or French, which I don't speak. What are the rules, if any, for translating and citing foreign-language sources?202.82.171.186 (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You've done well by the article. As a guess, the editor who added the tags for citations assumed Agone was an RPG developed in someone's garage, and that they were self-advertising using Wiki. You've demonstrated that is not the case. Now, the field is somewhat open to what you please. (I'd be interested in what "sneaky subtle spells" and "touchy-feely spells" mean, and that sort of thing -- but that's just me.)

In terms of translation, the first choice is a published professional translation from a reliable source. Second choice, a less reputable source or a bilingual Wiki editor. Third choice is somebody like me, who knows enough to spot big errors in French translation, but isn't fluent enough to catch nuances. Fourth choice, last resort, generally only good for short phrases, and sometimes not even that -- an automatic translator. They often make significant mistakes, though, so it's not good to quote them.Piano non troppo (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Re.:Paul Giamatti Vandalism

Removing other users' vandalism is barely vandalism. (71.244.215.164)

You're right, I missed that those are "Upcoming films" that you removed. The reason I deleted, however, was also on the basis of what you added "in this thread, we discuss the merits of being a member of the gaming-age forums". Wiki articles aren't threads, editors don't discuss in the article (but on the discussion page), and "gaming age" forums doesn't have any obvious meaning. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		Hey Piano non troppo! Lately, when I am following the feed of the linkwatcher bots, and I decide that something may be spam, I often see that you already are there as well, reverting and warning the same editor! Compliments, and thanks for the hard work. I don't know if you have access to IRC, but maybe you'd like to join us there in the 'spam fighting channels' #wikipedia-en-spam and #wikipedia-spam-t! In any way, your help is very welcome! Happy editing! Dirk Beetstra T C 10:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Anti-vandalism patrol is new to me. I haven't decided my long-term goals, but I'm definitely feeling the need to talk with other anti-vandalism editors. IRC sounds like the way to go to keep up-to-the-minute. I didn't realize they existed, so it was useful for you to mention them.

Happy editing! Piano non troppo (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The 'cookies' are here: #wikipedia-en-spam (if you have an IRC client (MiRC, the chatzilla plugin in firefox, etc.), that link should get you right to the right channel), we discuss in #wikipedia-spam-t. You'll find me, the others, and the bots there. Hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confussed...

you claim that I've edited a page without citing... the thing is I've never edited a wiki page in my life ._. I do not mean to be offensive in anyway, and I'm not even sure if this is where I should be posting stuffs I want you to see? I'm sorry if it's the wrong place o_o just thought I should tell you though. and thanks for anti-spamming =) 124.158.17.69 (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'm the right person, and you picked the perfect place to comment. I took a look, and if I am guessing rightly, you were reading a message that I sent to someone else. How could that happen? Does somebody else use the computer you are writing from? Because I intended the message to go to the person who changed the Nick Twiney article. They added this: "He is currently dating Penny Harnett, who attends Ravenswood School for Girls."

Maybe that doesn't ring any bells at all, lol!

Anyhow, Wikipedia calls a lot of things "vandalism". It's a bad thing to say about somebody in real life, but in Wiki, it often doesn't mean much. I wrote a warning to that person, because people often write rude things about who is dating. Unless they can prove it, well, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

Let me know if you have any more questions! Piano non troppo (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Because you really are good at fighting vandalism! ɷ i m b u s a n i a 07:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you deserve it, I think you've beaten me to reverting an article about, say, 15 times? ;) ɷ i m b u s a n i a 07:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose it's like shiftwork. ɷ i m b u s a n i a 07:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Acer Aspire One

Why are you editing articles that you have no knowledge of? If you actually bothered to read them you would have noticed that you removed links to a BIOS fix which fixes a not so uncommon problem that renders machines useless. It's posted on a blog, but not available elsewhere. Same is true for the forum which is an invaluable ressource for all new users. And why was a link to one review removed but not the other one? Seems like pretty random vandalization to me. You might also want to check for ref names, so that a few other links are not rendered useless by your vandalization. Also check the history next time to see who actually contributed to the article. You surely didn't. 88.152.211.79 (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Acer Aspire One is a mass of commercialism and self-advertising. In the past it's included blogs, forums, press releases, etc. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. It doesn't matter that somebody might find a BIOS fix. They might not. Who knows? That's not Wiki's responsibility to evaluate and monitor. It's the company's problem, and Wiki is not the company's site. The editors of this article are ignoring the guidelines of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, WP:SPAM, WP:SOAP, WP:CONFLICT.

Wiki editors remove what they see is wrong. There's no requirement that articles be comprehensively reviewed each time they are vandalized. Read the guidelines above, and it will be clear why these links are removed. And also why you repeatedly replacing the material without explanation for the edit, or without discussing the changes in the discussion is major vandalism, and unacceptable behavior.

Piano non troppo (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I did actually remove all commercial links (to Amazon etc.) when i started to edit the article if you had bothered to check. I don't see any harm in price lists that only list the official MSRP with no address or anything to actually buy it. Did your vandalization improve the article? Going by your arguments it probably shouldn't even exist in the first place. You still didn't explain the randomness to me. 88.152.211.79 (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You have been making dozens of changes for weeks to Aspire One. And have no other contributions to Wiki at all. If you are associated with the company, you should read WP:CONFLICT, before you are banned from editing entirely.

There's no requirement that an article be completely reviewed. I.e., one can "randomly" delete anything that violates WP:LINKSTOAVOID, WP:SPAM, WP:SOAP. Read them. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not associated with the company. It's the only article i'm editing, is there a rule that says you must edit at least two? You still didn't answer any of my specific questions. 88.152.211.79 (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:LINKSTOAVOID, WP:SPAM, and WP:SOAP. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Can i make further edits now without your bot autoreverting them or Wikipedia banning me? Not that i'm very motivated to make further contributions to the article now but i'd like to at least clean up the mess you created by randomly breaking links. 88.152.211.79 (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we don't seem to be making progress at this point, perhaps you can describe, as you make changes, what you doing on the discussion page, and let other editors (besides me) consider what is warranted. Also, perhaps your edits would be less likely to be changed (by other editors) if you considered examples of other computer pages, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_Inspiron or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_Satellite Piano non troppo (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok i did check the Dell Inspiron article and it actually contains quite a few links to blogs and forums. One of them is even about a BIOS patch. Here are a few of them: http://www.thelostbrain.com/post/2007/12/Raid-0%2c-1-%2c-5%2c-0-1-support-Dell-Vostro-200--400-and-Inspiron-530--530s-machines!-(Finally).aspx, http://www.diefer.de/i8kfan/index.html, http://www.geocities.com/i5100dustproblem/ and http://www.dellcommunity.com/supportforums/board/message?board.id=insp_general&message.id=184349&query.id=471133#M184349/. I feel like i'm wasting my time here, sorry. Please tell your bot to not revert any changes so that people who are actually interested in contributing to the article can do so. I agree on the sometimes lacking descriptions, but a small notice about that instead of mass editing the article would've been a better way to communicate it. 88.152.211.79 (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that you are not willing to continue to waste the time of three people over this i will revert your revert and then remove all links i added, good and bad ones. The article can then continue from there. The link to the BIOS fix was not posted by me. It was there before i even edited the article, so i will not remove it. You can discuss that with the person who added it, there is a post about it in the discussion page. 88.152.211.79 (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Those two articles are both about long-established ranges of products. Neither of them are as timely, nor as technically tweak-dependent, as an article on a recent, specific and less-stable single product, such as the Aspire One. For that reason they have less need of ELs such as the less-formal or blog-hosted ELs you were complaining of. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If objective decision making about what makes a good article has been replaced by spouting bits of the wikipedia namespace, then might I suggest a look at WP:3RR? You appear to be engaged in a one-bot revert war against the consensus that these ELs are useful and add something to the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that those four edits were all in a day. My error.

However, there is no "concensus". Anonymous IP 88.152.211.79 is making a large number of changes, and not justifying his edits. While I am. There are rules for External links, and I'm following them. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Whenever I hear "I'm just following the rules", I reach for my clueiron. 88.152.211.79 is adding content as they see fit. It may even be bad additions of ELs that aren't good ELs, and they may be against policy, but I think we can all clearly WP:AGF here. You OTOH aren't even trying to play by any sort of consensus and now you're off on some sort of rules-based high horse. Throwing WP:SOAP around is farcical. That makes it very difficult to try and sort out what's actually a good set of content to be adding, for the purpose of making good articles, for the purpose of making a better encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the discussion page before making my edits. Notice there are two long sections discussing whether prices should be in the article at all. I'm representing both the community and the rules. Your comments suggest you represent neither. End of discussion. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read it, you'll be aware that it only discussed the pricing issues, not the many other ELs you removed. Also that there hadn't been any discussion in there for two weeks, certainly not in relation to your recent flurry of removals and reversions. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

South Dakota Highway 26

What in the world are you doing reverting my edits on South Dakota Highway 26? I didn't put "external links" in--I simply added information about what was on the road. Get a grip.24.14.33.171 (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(Deleted text was reference to a steak house in a town on highway.) User deleted my vandalism report on their talk page (where there was a pre-existing final warning before being blocked from another editor). User has a vandalism history (most of their edits are vandalism). Piano non troppo (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Modesto edit deleted The Fruit Yard

I remarked to one key visitor site in the town area and it was NOT allowed. The Fruit Yard is our local Knotts Berry Farm or Disneyland. and no one deletes their references- who is anyone kidding- to be so hippocritical - it has as much a right to be there as any of the others it has been a big deal here for Modesto for over 30 years. Replace what was done. At least they do not charge to park or picnic- try getting that at Disneyland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.77.73 (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Knott's Berry Farm. Disneyland. These are notable places with major Wikipedia articles. The Fruit Yard, no article, no references in Modesto article to indicate notability. Adding links to non-notable businesses is contrary to WP:SPAM.

You have two options to have a reference included: 1) Write a new Wiki article about The Fruit Yard. 2) Find a reliable, independent third-party source that establishes The Fruit Yard as any more significant than 1000 other businesses in the Modesto area. See WP:SPAM, this explains it. Thanks, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dow Jones

This edit was actually correct, and sourced. Why did you remove it? Corvus cornix_talk 20:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a mistake, thanks for catching it. I didn't intend any change to the article. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)