User talk:Noyster/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Andrea Centazzo

extended discussion

Hi Andrea Centazzo here. You are keeping removing my text from the page. Beside that the text is not copyrighted by me or anyone else (it's just a bio for the lord sake!), It's not copied from my web site but from a bio made for teaching applications. From there I copied on my site. So at this point we shoudl decide if was born first the hen or the egg... :-) In any case I authorize the use of that text, more detailed and precise than the original text in the Wiki page. Fro any communication please reply to andreacentazzo@andreacentazzo.com Thanks you very much Andrea Centazzo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gong Master Andrea (talk • contribs) 03:05 am, 25 January 2018 (UTC) User:Gong Master Andrea Firstly, I should explain that we do not regard a Wikipedia article about a person as "their page". It is "an article about them" and may be edited by any contributor, in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Among these policies are: "Conflict of interest" If an editor has a "conflict of interest" concerning the topic of an article – for example, being the subject of an article about a person – that editor must declare that conflict of interest on the talk page of that article. Further, the editor is strongly discouraged from editing the article at all, and should instead propose any changes on the talk page of that article, giving details of the proposed changes supported by references to independent sources. Copyrights Editors must not copy text from other sources (other than brief quotations giving attribution). Even if the source is your own website, that website would have to be explicitly licensed for free use in the public domain. Please refer to this guidance. Verifiability Articles should include sources for the information they contain, sufficient for the reader to verify the accuracy of what they are reading. Neutrality Wikipedia articles have to be neutral in tone, not praising or promoting their subject to a greater extent than duly reflected in independent published coverage. Biographies of living people We pay particular attention to articles of this type, ensuring that they are accurate, verifiable and neutral in tone. Your statement "it's just a bio" is the reverse of the attitude taken on Wikipedia. I hope this has made our position clear. The article has now been protected in respect of editing by new accounts and unregistered editors, due to previous violations of the policies above: Noyster (talk), 09:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC) From Andrea Centazzo Dear Noyser (I would like having a person to talk to about this not a fictional figure hiding under a nickname) Thanks for your reply. Your sequel of rules are really in this case NO-sense at all. It looks more as a self-indulgent "dictat" looking to the point of your finger and not to the Moon. I guess that you just copy and paste all this and as in the case of my page you don't bother verifiyng and considering. let's take a look. You don't regard Wiki page as a personal page: I agree and it should be in that way. So let me understand why the fact that I reported details enriching this page is conflicting with the fact that is a service to the readers about an artist career? Where did you see the conflict? Conflict of interest? I just added real plain data to the article already existent that was a lame incomplete coverage. How stupid could be publishinga an incomplete filmography of a musician and not his discography for example???? Or quoting fact of 20/30 years ago leaving out the most important contemporary facts? is this the service you want to render to the readers?? incomplete imprecise information?? There's nothing self-indulgent in my editing, I just report FACTS in a detailed way and the only laudatory phrase comes from a well known US magazine (Drum magazine) that published a 8 page feature article... and I got from the author Gino Robair the permission quoting it. Copyright. You knowledge of the copyright is quite vague. How you can consider a text copyrighted just because appears in a web site, unless is explicated with a copyright warning??? If I put out a book or an album, I have to quote "copyright by" in order to stand the fact that that work is mine. Thats' how it works in the real world. Verifiability: this is the most lame point of your reply. How a reader can verify that your text and not mine is real???? Both are but yours is a generic incomplete and with mistakes one, mine is the real one with all kind of possibilities to be verified. You have just to do e google search and you'll get your verification. But it seems that you are just censoring and not verifying before censoring otherwise you'll agree with me. BTW did you verified the information??? I'm pretty sure NOT. That's why this is not a serious point. Neutrality: the tone of that bio is MORE than neutral. No self laudatory terms, just plain information about the last years activity. Ot it seems to you that the fact that somebody has an activity is something self laudatory?? For the Drum! Magazine article see "conflict". If is that bothering you, instead of censoring in Goebbels style the entire editing just mention that and I'll take out. Biography of living people. So since I state that it's just a bio is conflicting with the fact that is complete accurate and verifiable????? you must be kidding. What kind of interest I would have putting out a fake bio? and BTW your old imprecise article is just in the same line just incomplete and with few mistakes. All this seems to me simple overlooking to the real state of this affair. You just deleted my editing without any verification of the contents, without any eventual editing and just considering that since I quoted a web site, the entire information was a fake. IF THIS IS THE SERVICE THAT YOU WANT TO RENDER TO THE READER I CAN JUST SAY THAT YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB. I'LL TRY TO EDIT ONCE AGAIN THE PAGE ADDING DATA WITHOUT USING THAT COMPLETE BIO. IF YOU REJECT EVEN THOSE DATA, AT THAT POINT YOU CAN DELETE MY PAGE. NOBODY WILL CRY AND PROTEST. I'm pretty sure. Better No information that inaccurate and incomplete information. Thanks. Regards Andrea Centazzo— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gong Master Andrea (talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC) PS: it's pointless that you write in your page "I'll reply here if not otherwise requested" or similar and when I indicate an address to write to, you ignore that. Just stay with this page and not pretend to be a kind person. OK Andrea Centazzo, let's see how we can resolve this. My tone was very "official" in attempting to explain what had happened to your edits. (You'll be aware that similar edits in recent weeks have been removed by three other experienced editors, so this is not just some personal whim). Yes, we consider that the person who is the subject of an article is not the best person to be editing that article. It seems to fly in the face of common sense: surely that person must know better than anyone else? That's not our approach, and our approach certainly does not imply mistrust, just that it's exceedingly difficult to remain truly neutral in such a case. That said, we do recognize that the subjects of our biographies may frequently have valid concerns about the articles. If information is inaccurate or there is more to add, we want to know. We don't expect anyone to become an expert editor or to study a raft of policies before they can influence what our articles are saying about them. So, here I have linked a (comparatively short) advice page intended for such situations. It's expanding on my advice to "go to the article's talk page" and say how you would want to improve the article. Let me add that we have developed our policies (verifiability, neutrality and so on) over the past 16 years in our endeavour to create this unique open-access online encyclopedia. In particular, we are quite "hot" on copyright. Anything we copy from has to be explicitly released for free use. It's not enough when it's not explicitly protected. Even then, if it's your own website that would be regarded as a "self-published source" (oh dear, there's another link to a policy page) and we would much prefer backing from an independent source. Isn't there a music magazine or other publication where your works have been listed? Now on your PS: Unless there are exceptional legal or privacy considerations, we prefer to keep discussions within Wikipedia, so that they can be linked to and seen by other editors. I can see that my message box "I will reply elsewhere" was unclear, so I have changed that. I'm a real person. Yes, I use a pseudonym. Like other Wikipedia editors I encounter many people less reputable than yourself. In the end we both want to see good information on at least this bit of Wikipedia, so I see no need for this adversarial tone to continue. Please post again here if you need me to clarify any of this: Noyster (talk), 19:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC) ANDREA CENTAZZO dear Neil thanks for your reasonable and kind reply. All your concerns are quite right in the light that even a busker could have a wiki page in this days if a complacent friend decide do so. But if you take a couple of minutes to read the bio that I sent (it's an official bio written by somebody better than me in writing and a bio used in hundreds of sites) you will notice that many important names and fact are there and not in the original article. Yes, I have several different sources and especially the one of the University of Bologna (Italy) that, as stated in the bio, in 2012 dedicated a section of its library to me as Fondo e Archivio Andrea Centazzo. Unfortunately that bio is in Italian. Going back the the published article: not mentioning that would be like not mentioning an Oscar in an article dedicated to an actor. I hope that you agree with that even if that University is in Italy and I know the consideration that Italy has around the world even if it has been with Greece the cradle of civilisation. And BTW that University is the oldest university in the Western world founded in the year 900 AC. And just think: a mention of that with the link would be useful to all the users interested in finding out documents, books and all kind of stuff archived there... That's what I call a useful use of wikipedia. Otherwise as I said it's better a nice and peaceful silence. No page no pain (as Bob Marley would have said) Regarding the old stuff there: It's annoying being listed as jazz avant-garde musicians only when in fact after 1993 I was mostly composing, conducting and producing operas, orchestral and chamber music. Not mentioning my activity as film director and multimedia artist. The fact that I have a publisher like Warner Chappell is worth mentioning. Or not? Why not a discography and instead an incomplete filmography??? Writing soundtracks is a side job while producing Music Albums is the main job. I am the inventor of the Icebell an instrument that sold hundred of thousand pieces around the world (not making me rich since the original manufacturer didn't patent it!!). Not worth mentioning either?? And what about Tides of Gravity latest show commissioned in 2016 by LIGO, NASA and Caltech celebrating the first detection of the Gravitational Waves and produced by the 2018 Nobel Prize Kip Thorn? I can go on for a couple of pages like that but I don't want bother you. The bottom line is: how can I have my page up to date with useful up to date information and not a generic lame and incomplete article? If not me who can do it? If I ask to Kip Thorne and in the sci-fi eventuality that he has time, would you accept the edits? Or who do you trust beside yourself and your colleague editors?? This is the sore point... A living artist (even if an old one like me with just some more years to come) should have is bio updated since when is still working and adding new chapters to his/her artistic history. I see continuous editing and improvement on the pages of more famopus colleagues like Philip Glass for instance. I know that I'm just an old unknown grumpy artist but for sake of honesty you cannot have a wiki page stopping to 2006!!!! 12 years ago!!!! That means more than a quarter of my work ignored. And as it said, the old wine is the best, it means leaving out some important facts and works. So let me kindly know how all this can be solved. Here for your consideration some link to other sources than my page in the hope that you can invent something to satisfy your rules and make the users aware that I'm not retired in 2006 but still alive and kicking... http://www.paistegongs.com/artists.php?actn=det&endorserid=9 http://www.kennedy-center.org/Artist/A65372 https://www.moderndrummer.com/2010/07/andrea-centazzo/ http://www.dar.unibo.it/it/biblioteca/sezione-di-musica-e-spettacolo/archivio-centazzo/index.html http://www.dar.unibo.it/it/biblioteca/sezione-di-musica-e-spettacolo/archivio-centazzo/andrea-centazzo http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1304428/ http://remo.com/team/member/andrea-centazzo/bio/ http://www.psychedelicbabymag.com/2012/05/andrea-centazzo-interview.html http://artecitya.eu/ljubljana/stories/artist-talk-andrea-centazzo/ https://noisey.vice.com/it/article/6xdkgj/andrea-centazzo https://www.allmusic.com/artist/andrea-centazzo-mn0000034033/biography I stop here since I know that you are busy and you certainly wouldn't spend time exploring all. But just click on the links to see the titles... Any of your suggestions will be welcome in the hope to arrive to a satisfying solution for you and your readers. And me as last of the subjects interested in a real well written page. Thanks again Best Regards Andrea— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gong Master Andrea (talk • contribs) 21:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Andrea Thank you for your reply. There seems to be plenty we can work on there. I have copied the "meat" of your post over to Talk:Andrea Centazzo, so that anyone reviewing the article will find your comments and may respond. If no-one has picked it up within a few days I'll deal with the most salient and well-cited points myself. I'd just add that writings by the artist or interviews with him are not considered the best of sources for our purposes: it's independent writings about the person that we need most of all. If as time goes on you have any further improvements or comments to offer on that article, I'd urge you to post them on Talk:Andrea Centazzo so that they are more visible. I won't lose track: that article will stay on my "watchlist", meaning that any changes to the article or new posts on its talk page will come to my notice. Regards: Noyster (talk), 09:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Andrea Centazzo has now been updated and expanded: Noyster (talk), 11:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding editing the content on BenQ's Wikipedia page

Dear Noyster, Greetings. I'm writing to discuss with you about the edits that I made to BenQ's Wikipedia page two weeks ago. There are sections on the page that I think require updates since the information about certain products are outdated or not comprehensive enough. Please find some of the examples below:

1. The first part of history misses quite a few details that can be further consolidated. 2. The product lines under the After Siemens period was not comprehensive enough and I would like to add more to make it more complete for people searching for BenQ's information. 3. The corporate restructuring part also lacks a substantial amount of information that can provide a complete picture of the process to anyone who wants to have further understandings about BenQ. 4. There are more recent developments after the period of acquiring ZOWIE Gears, and I hope to enrich the content by adding more information to it.

Please let me know if these suggestions are acceptable, and also your thoughts on these suggestions.

Thanks again.

Best, William Yang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wy30611 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

William Yang You are welcome to improve the article but please pay attention to what I said on your talk page at the time I reverted your edit. Don't overwrite what is already there. Cite your sources, in particular those reports that come from outside the company. Write neutrally, and declare any conflict on interest you may have: Noyster (talk), 09:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please give me your expert advice

I need your expert advice on the situation around The National Memo editing. It is the first time that I encounter such a strange situation and I don't know what to do.

I while ago I was asked to make several minor edits to the article as paid editor (properly stated according to WP COI editing rules). At that time it had minimal content and was no more than a stub. I’ve added some information following the structure of such articles as Salon (website), HuffPost, Politico adding infobox, some well-referenced info and improving categories. It started to look like a normal website/media article. After that it got heavily edited in two waves by one particular editor removing large chunks of well-written (ok, my personal view :)) and well-referenced information. I believe that some of these edits/deletions are extraneous and actually make the article worse/less useful to Wikipedia users. I also believe that The National Memo article has an undisputable notability. There is an interesting discussion about this at the article’s Talk page.

For me this is not about money, but rather about reinstating the truth and common sense. A lot of what is going on around this article is plain nonsense. Specifically, the reviewing editor declines to add factual and neutral info that is referenced by Adweek, The Daily Beast, The Week, Time (magazine) and Newsweek (all of them being high-quality trusted sources). Since Wikipedia's COI editing guideline suggests to propose edits at the article's talk page, it looks like we are in a dead-end here and the common sense is utterly defeated. I wonder what should I do to make at least these really minimal (normal, neutral, factual, non-advertising) edits. Is there another forum for solving such situations?

I've also created a topic about it at Project Journalim, but it is of little help. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Bbarmadillo: American politics? You're taking me out of my comfort zone... On what seems to be the immediate issue on how to describe The National Memo's political position, my view is that the "left-wing" description is not well cited, being cited now only to an interview with the editor at launch time 6 years ago, who in any case only said "I thought, what about a newsletter model for the center-left?" The Michelle Malkin piece, which used to be the other source cited for this description, is ... erm ... hardly a considered appraisal. Your preferred "liberal" description appears to be better supported by the The Week and Daily Beast refs you proposed, which at least seem to be intended seriously. You may quote me on that.

On the wider issues: dispute resolution procedures are available, but I'm not sure that is the way to go at present when the other editors, leaving aside the "left-wing" issue, appear to be mostly being reasonable. They have accepted some of your proposed edits and I'm afraid I would have supported most of the removals they made. Sure the National Memo reports on important issues, but what alone would make it "notable" would be comments published in reliable sources independent of the National Memo to the effect that "Hey, this National Memo thing is really making a huge impact!" and any such notice you still seem to be struggling to find. I think that's as far as I would want to be involved here: Noyster (talk), 10:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Very helpful (as always)! Thank you! -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yarah Bravo

I was gonna mass revert. Thanks for taking the time to fix the thing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Jaiswal

Hi Noyster I humble request to you. can you check the data in article Jaiswal Brahmin. There is whole data without reference. Can you please remove unsourced data. Atrisomkshraj (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Atrisomkshraj Another editor has removed the poorly referenced text you complain of. The article is now on my watchlist. By the way, you have been in touch with different editors but you don't seem to have posted to the article's own talk page, which is the primary venue for discussion of article content: Noyster (talk), 18:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The sultan center update

Dear Noyster,

we are trying to add new information for The sultan center kuwait page, but you have removed our update, can you explain what is the reasons for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sultancenter (talk • contribs) 12:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed recent additions to the article on The Sultan Center, made by an unregistered editor under the heading of Sultan Center Online. These additions contained the words Best Online Grocery Shopping Store & home delivery in Kuwait just one click a way, followed by a list of product lines with links to different parts of your website. Such material is regarded as promotion or advertising, and is not accepted on Wikipedia. It should also be understood that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia with most of its readers thousands of miles from the Gulf area.

I have to add that the article as a whole is much below our normal standards, lacking any reference to sources independent of your company, and indeed the only citations are to a ten-year-old version of your website.

Finally, if you are acting on behalf of The Sultan Center, you should declare your conflict of interest as explained here, and instead of attempting to edit the article yourself you should suggest any amendments on the article's talk page. Regards: Noyster (talk), 13:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of oldest living people

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of oldest living people. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering

Cool. Glad to meet you.

What I'd like you to try out is SearchSuite.

It's a user script, and therefore, you will need to install it on your account.

What it does is modify the search results page, giving the user more control. It provides menu items to hide and show various components of the search results. It even has a menu item to alphabetically sort, and unsort, the results. And there's a menu feature to make it easier to copy/paste the topics into lists and outlines.

The more search results on the page, the more useful the tool.

The manual explains a trick on how to make Wikipedia's search show up to 5,000 results at a time, rather than the 500 view maximum.

See the manual and installation instructions at User talk:The Transhumanist/SearchSuite.js#Description / instruction manual for SearchSuite.js. But, before you do that, read the next line. ;)

Please post all feedback, questions, and comments at User talk:The Transhumanist/SearchSuite.js#Discussions.

Thank you for your curiosity.    The Transhumanist 19:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)i

Some questions for you...

1. Did it work?
2. Did you find it useful?
3. Did it have problems?
4. Anything else?

I look forward to your reply.    The Transhumanist 22:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well actually The Transhumanist, I posted earlier today on the page to which you directed me just above ("Please post..."): Noyster (talk), 22:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

How long does it take for rejected articles to be reviewed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thale_Katlego_Letheo

I had submitted an article above - the editor provided some really constructive notes - there simply wasn't enough media coverage of this person. I sought feedback and made some adjustments. How long will it be to have the article looked at again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSAMountaineer (talk • contribs) 05:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

RSAMountaineer Thank you for asking, but if you look at the message box currently on your draft, it explains that the Articles for Creation process is heavily backlogged. Your draft was declined there on 15 February and you re-submitted it with changes on the same day. You could bypass the process and make the article "go live" yourself (move the draft to mainspace as we say) but that would place it at risk of being deleted altogether if judged not suitable as a Wikipedia article. At Articles for Creation, the worst that could happen would be that the draft was declined again, with advice given on what further improvements were needed. Everyone is naturally keen to see their new article come up on Wikipedia, but on the whole I would recommend patience until the page gets reviewed again at Articles for Creation. (Just to add that I don't work there myself). Good luck: Noyster (talk), 09:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

no wp:self published source

Per the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews there's a very clear consensus here that Scaruffi is not to be used as a source in music/album articles in any capacity. So please, do not add his opinions anymore. It is a wp:self published source. Since this is a long running dispute, any contributor warned by the situation and who doesn't respect it, would encounter sanctions and could be blocked from editing. Thanks. You've been informed because you used this source here. Woovee (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Woovee for this warm welcome to WikiProject Albums. If the reference is considered invalid, please remove it. There is no need to go round issuing threats. I would add that if those active in your project had updated the article in question at any time since about 2006, I would not have found it necessary to attempt to do so: Noyster (talk), 08:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)