My2cents

Hello, My2cents, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments. You can sign your post like I did by using 4 tildes (~~~~), which will leave your username and time you posted the comment.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial, which can be very useful later.
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary
• Check out Redwolf24's Bootcamp! Redwolf is a very friendly user, and this page might prove useful to you.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make mistakes at some point, here is what Wikipedia is not, which might help you out. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to ask me, check the help pages, or add {{helpme}} to this page, and someone'll be along shortly.

Happy editing! -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{00:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)}

Piano Tuning Schools/Tool Manufacturers

You wrote the following over at User_talk:Antandrus, and I wanted to respond as well:

(I don't yet have a talk page, so perhaps you can add your thoughts here - or on the discussion page)

Firstly, your insight (I presume unbiased as to the links involved) is most welcomed. I wish to ask your opinion on how it is that we can elect to delete any and all references to schools/manufacturers who specialize in this field, but at the same time allow links to websites which are oftentimes written by novices who lack proper training or experience within the scope of the subject matter (i.e.How to Tune a Piano Yourself)?

In speaking to several members of the PTG (I too have been in this profession for 25+ years) there is a consensus that bad information is much worse than no information at all. Simply put, unqualified opinions on instructional matters is dangerous (particularly given the topic). In order to assure that information is held to a much higher standard, how might you suggest to reconcile this very important issue?

I submit that in order that anyone offering a treatise on piano tuning (or any subject requiring a learned skill) at least pass some sort of communal test of competency before being able to add or modify instructional input. For Wikipedia to thrive as a valid repository of information, it seems only logical that a basis of experience be the "trial" for which any scholastic or instructional links be allowed as a guide to the subject matter.

My2cents-

It might be better to continue this discussion on Talk:Piano tuning, but at the moment I have two questions for you regarding your comments above: 1. If you think the detwiler link has bad information, why have you not explained specifically what misinformation it contains on the Piano tuning talk page? 2. Yes, of course it would be beneficial to have information written by experienced piano tuners on the Wikipedia article about piano tuning. If you feel very strongly about this, why don't you contribute some of your expertise to the article itself?

If there's something wrong with the article, you have the ability to explain what is wrong with it and why. "This was written by a novice" explains nothing. I would really love to hear your thoughts on what specifically is wrong with the wikipedia article, or even the detwiler article. With 25 years of practice, you've got to know a lot about piano tuning, but you haven't left any of your knowledge on the wikipedia page yet. (By the way, you can sign talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~, which when you save your edit will automatically insert your username and a timestamp as you see at the end of this message.) - Rainwarrior 05:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Piano link

Hello! I was not asking anyone to do anything, merely describing what I was doing in my edit! I rather liked the page when I followed your link, and agree with you it is instructive, so I simply moved it up and rephrased it. To explain my edit summary: SEO = "Search engine optimisation". As you had phrased the link, I thought it read rather like one of those links put on a web page to attract search engine web crawler programs rather than people - and thus increase its ranking on search engine pages. I expect this is why a previous contributor removed it as "spam". I think it now fits in rather better with the other links on the pages, and has a better description of what the link is. By the way, if you just type ~~~~ (four tilde characters) on talk pages it will get replaced with your user name and a helpful date stamp (Wikipedians call this your "signature"). Hope you enjoy editing around Wikipedia, and thanks for your contributions. --RobertG ♬ talk 18:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your phrasing for the link: I think it's much better. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 07:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)