User talk:LorenzoPerosi1898

Hello LorenzoPerosi1898, and thank you for your contributions! From your contributions, it appears that you might be interested in the Music Portal - please feel free to have a look and contribute. You seem to have been on Wikipedia for a while, so you probably know what to do, but for your reference, here is a welcome message:

Welcome!

Hello, LorenzoPerosi1898, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Madder 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I have removed your block - a three month block without prior discussion is unacceptable, especially from an administrator with whom you were in a content dispute. --ajn (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have anything useful to say on the matter, I thought you might want to know that there is a discussion taking place here. Grand master ka 08:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Hi Lorenzo.

You had written on the Vladimir Horowitz page:

. In his prime, he was considered by virtually all critics and colleagues to be the most brilliant technician of his time.

I changed this sentence because it was unsupported by citations. You then reverted my change with the comment:

(Sorry, Grover, the onus is on you to find a contradictory source. No Wiki editor would expect or want me to quote every single book, newspaper article, and magazine piece from the 40s and 50s.) [1]

I think you misunderstand the way Wikipedia works. The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy explains that articles should only make claims backed by reliable sources. If you cannot find a source that says that virtually all critics and colleagues considered Horowitz to be the most brilliant pianist, then you should not put that claim in the article. If you can find a single source that praises Horowitz's technique, then please do insert this in the article with citation:

Horowitz's technique was praised by critic X [citiation info]

It's not up to me or other editors to find a source that contradicts you.

Grover cleveland 01:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to bicker, least of all with a fellow Horowitz lover. However, neither you nor anyone at Wiki ought ask someone to provide "a source" when they write a sentence like (to give an example), "For many years Nixon was vilified in the press." When there's an ESTABLISHED FACT -- and you still seem unclear on what those two words mean -- one couldn't begin to name one source without naming ten, or 100. Vladimir Horowitz was THE piano pyrotechnician of his time -- established fact. As a Horowitzian yourself do you not agree with that statement? LorenzoPerosi1898 03:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lorenzo. It doesn't matter what you or I think. What matters to Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability, and, especially in claims that could be disputed, WP:NPOV. Please read those policies to be an effective contributor to Wikipedia. Thanks, Grover cleveland 03:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. Lorenzo, you're obviously passionate and knowledgeable about music, but some of your edits are excessively enthusiastic. You really do have to provide a citation for some of the things you're adding, and tone down some of the purple prose. You've got a lot to contribute, but take some notice of the style in which Wikipedia articles are written, and don't get sucked into disputes with other editors who are also trying to improve articles. --ajn (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee. Did Rubinstein really know the ENTIRE piano repertiore? Did he play, for example, the Busoni piano concerto? NO. Certainly Rubinstein's memory was formidable, but is was neither infallible nor all encompassing. Please drop the hyperbole and your personal vendettas. THD3 21:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop and think

I am going to be blunt here - I unblocked you because that three month block was unjustified. But if you persist in the behaviour you've displayed since the unblocking, I'm going to block you again - not for three months, but for a fairly long period, to allow you to read WP:NPOV and WP:V before continuing to edit the encyclopedia. You cannot simply add anything you like to articles, and then insist that people prove you wrong - you need to be providing sources for the additions you make, and if you can't provide verification then other people are perfectly justified in using {{fact}} tags, and eventually removing your additions. And stop the personal insults - it is possible to disagree with someone without insulting them. If you can't edit articles without getting angry with people who disagree with you, I'm afraid there's no place for you here. --ajn (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a moment, re-read the above paragraph. Then tell me how much sense it contains. LorenzoPerosi1898 00:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then, read what Konstable wrote (see below). That is the gentlemanly way of handling things here, not by subtlely threatening to block people. Does that make you feel big, blocking people? (Just curious.) Read also my response to Konstable, which I hope you will agree was very pacifistic. LorenzoPerosi1898 00:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo, I was one of the people who objected to the underserved 3 month block you received. I tremendously respect your enthusiasm in editing and improving articles. But I will add my voice to what ajn and Konstable wrote, which I and many others on Wikipedia think has a lot of sense to it. To your comment on WP:AN or WP:ANI (I forget which), I am sorry, but you are not correct. The burden of proof for a factual statement - Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president - is different from that of a value judgement, whether universally held or not. Plus value judgements of the sort you have been adding are often not in keeping with the "encyclopaedic" tone we're trying to use. While the encyclopaedia was young, as a community we did not always insist on this as much as we should have, but as we become a major internet phenomenon, we have to.

My second point is a procedural one. Please realize that the type of edits you are making are being objected to by a number of people in the wikipedia community - not one or two strident "enemies" that you have made, but various people who have the articles you edit on their watchlists. When that happens to me I step back and wonder "why am I not fitting in? am I really improving the encyclpaedia that much that I must forge ahead without bothering to get consensus?" Instead, please forgive me for being blunt, I see you reverting, edit-warring, and writing edit comments and talk page replies which are increasingly strident and personal, just because you think you are right.

Finally, on blocking. I'm not going to block you - I'm not even an admin and I don't want that sort of role on the project. But if you continue down this road, someone will block you, not for 3 months but for 24 hours or more as a cooling off period. It will not be a trigger-happy power-wielding block, but blocking preventively to cool down the disruption of the encyclopaedia which you are starting to do.

So, please, step back and lie low for a day; read the many words other people have written in response to your comments and ask yourself not "why are they wrong and I right?" but "what are they saying that I'm not getting that makes several of them think differently than me?". And then we will all look forward to your continuing enthusiastic contributions to the encyclopaedia. Martinp 11:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Martin: you are a gentleman, and I appreciate your response. By the same token, why can it be said that Verdi was the most famous opera composer of his day while it mysteriously cannot be said that Perosi was the most famous sacred composer of his? If you can explain that to me I would be most gratified. LorenzoPerosi1898 12:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay cool please

Could you tone down your discussion? Some people are getting offended, and this won't help you in arguing your point at all. Also please note that no Wikipedia article "belongs to" anyone and even if you wrote a whole article yourself it still doesn't give you any special priveleges over it (see the Ownership of articles policy). Instead of reverting articles and arguing in your edit summaries with exagerated question marks and capitals, you should go to the article talk page and try to achieve some agreement there with the other editors. Naturally, a lot of conflicts like these happen on Wikipedia but if everyone remains cool they are usually resolved without much pain. If after trying to resolve the matter with the other editors peacefully and calmly you feel that the discussion is getting nowhere, have a look at the Dispute Resolution page for more options. What you are doing right now - yelling at other editors and reverting their changes may actually get you blocked for violating the Civility Policy and the Three Revert Rule (which you have actually already violated on Arthur Rubinstein by reverting it 4 times within 24 hours).--Konst.able 23:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I should handle my (what I consider valid) complaints in a different way and through different channels. My intention was not to offend anyone or to disturb the "cool" atmosphere. Thank you. LorenzoPerosi1898 00:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:LeonardoCiampa.JPEG

Thanks for uploading Image:LeonardoCiampa.JPEG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblock review

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LorenzoPerosi1898 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The 3RR states "Do not revert ... more than three times ... except in the case of obvious, simple vandalism." The Don Lorenzo Perosi page has been continually vandalized by people who, for unknown reasons, are bothered by the fact -- yes, fact -- that at the turn of the last century, Perosi was the most famous Italian composer of sacred music. In a sense that isn't saying much, because virtually every other Italian composer at the time was writing operas instead. In any case, the fact is incontestable, AND I backed it up for good measure with numerous sources. Why, then, blame me for fixing what others decided to mess with just for fun? Said others, I should mention, don't know a hoot about Italian music, or any other music, at the turn of the century. Are these the "editors" that Wiki prefers to keep on?

Decline reason:

Not only is changing "the most popular" to "one of the most popular" not simple vandalism, it's not vandalism at all. Those people are editors of the article, just like you, and aren't trying to ruin it: you should assume good faith. If someone went in and changed it to "the least popular," yes, that might grant you a 3RR exception, but that's not what was going on here. I advise you to be more respectful of your fellow editors and engage them in discussion... which means you have to accept that you won't win every argument. Mango juice^talk 10:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LorenzoPerosi1898 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Mango: Respectfully, you are unclear on the concept. Said editors in no way and at no time exhibited good faith, and their intention WAS vandalous. For reasons unknown, they are uncomfortable with a fact that no reputable book, in any language, disagrees with: that at the turn of the last century, when opera was all the rage, Lorenzo Perosi was the most famous composer of non-operatic, sacred music in Italy. It's not a controversial statement. Still, if someone dared to demote Frank Sinatra or the Beatles or Elvis, there'd be a firestorm. I don't see any difference in this case. "The most popular" and "one of the most popular" are NOT the same thing. This is what you and other editors have failed to realize. In any case, if Wiki intends to be a publisher of FACT, then leave this fact alone: Lorenzo Perosi was THE most popular composer, IN Italy, of SACRED, not secular, music, around the turn of the last century. Fact, end of discussion. (That is, end of any logical discussion.) LorenzoPerosi1898 10:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Shakespeare ... widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language, as well as one of the greatest in Western literature, and the world's preeminent dramatist. Giuseppe Verdi ... the most influential composer of the (sic) 19th century Italian opera. Leonardo da Vinci ... widely considered to be one of the greatest painters of all time and a universal genius. Explain to me how those three examples (and there are many others) are allowed to stay on Wiki, and the writers of those sentences have never been blocked. If they are not blocked, I cannot be blocked for making the obvious observation that Perosi was the most popular (not one of the most popular, the most popular) sacred composer in Italy c.1900. I'm not going to let go of this, because I am in the right in this particular instance. LorenzoPerosi1898 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"...their intention WAS vandalous...I'm not going to let go of this". Block upheld for expressing an intention to conduct in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and continued incivility. See also Wikipedia:Ownership of articles -- you can either be part of the Wikipedia community or be excluded from it for being disruptive and uncooperative in refusing to go along with consensus. -- Netsnipe ► 21:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LorenzoPerosi1898 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What was that word you used? Consensus? That's precisely why your editors said I could NOT call Perosi the most famous, because consensus does not a fact make, or so they said. So now you're saying that it's Wiki policy to go along with the consensus? Even if the consensus knows nothing about the topic at hand? Question: look at the list of those who have tampered with the first sentence of the Perosi article. How many of them have, in the past, shown any interest in such articles? Where did they come from? What led them, en masse, to an article of someone that the Wiki consensus decided was a minor figure? If he really was such a minor composer, what made them all flock to it? And you don't think they THEY are being disruptive and THEY are being uncooperative and THEY are tendentious? You, instead, are blocking me, who am only trying to defend a truth which was held by a VAST consensus at the turn of the last century. Now, on the other hand, there is nothing stopping anyone from going to a different computer, picking a different user name, and putting ((fact)) under EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE -- Shakespeare, Verdi, the whole lot of them -- where someone wrote the greatest. I wouldn't do that; I don't have the time. However, one of the other Wikians that you decide to treat in this manner will be more hotheaded and WILL. That will waste unbelievable amounts of time, yours and that of all the other editors. So again: why single me out when -- as the record shows -- I did nothing other than defend the truth, consensus, whatever word you want to use, that Perosi was the most famous sacred composer etc. etc. etc. Your actions do not auger well for Wiki, and you will have to reconsider them unless you want to see more damage to Wiki as a whole. Presuming you care about that more than you care about your power to block and unblock people. I could have just waited the 48 hours, but I won't wait one minute for injustice. Now the ball is in your court to deliver justice. LorenzoPerosi1898 03:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please, you were blocked for violating well established rule of WP:3RR whether you were right or not in the dispute. Just wait for your block to expire (it was set to 48 hours) and come back to discuss the matter then. Don't request any more unblocks, now 4 admins have confirmed that you're not getting unblocked, any futher requests may be considered disruption.--Konst.able 03:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Then there needs to be a new rule for the restoration of meddling, tampering -- I know you don't like the word vandalism. There are over 1,000 editors at Wiki -- do you think that four are supposed to dissuade me? Now I know that you have no idea what the word consensus means. I will discuss it with higher-up administrators. No one has the right to tamper with the truth, just to get the truth-teller in trouble. Oh, and it DOES matter who is right or wrong!!!!!!!!!! LorenzoPerosi1898

No one is dissuading you from arguing your point, but you are blocked for edit warring, which is never acceptable whether you're right or wrong. There are other ways to resolve content disputes (as I have already pointed out to you before you got blocked), and edit warring actually contributes negatively towards reaching a resolution. (Oh and there are millions of editors here, 1,000 of whom are admins, but it if you look at CAT:ABL, admins have enough to do than have to review your case for a clear violation 4 times.)--Konst.able 03:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your email to me re: Lorenzo Perosi

You said:

"Explain to me how those three examples (and there are many others) are allowed to stay on Wiki."

Easy:

William Shakespeare ... widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language,^{Shakespeare, William - Encyclopædia Britannica}

Giuseppe Verdi ... the most influential composer of the (sic) 19th century Italian opera.^{Giuseppe Verdi - Encyclopædia Britannica}

Leonardo da Vinci ... widely considered to be one of the greatest painters of all time and a universal genius.^{Leonardo da Vinci - - Encyclopædia Britannica}

The difference, which is being repeatedly pointed out to you is the above statements are verifiable by respected sources I would use Britannica to verify your claim of Perosi being "the most popular Italian composer of sacred music at the turn of the twentieth century" however they dont even have an article on him. Perhaps that tells you something?

You said:

"Secondly, I'd be curious to know how you obtained your expertise in Italian music at the turn of the last century, so much so that you "know" that Perosi was "not" the most popular (not one of the most popular, the most popular) sacred composer in Italy at that time."

I dont need to be an expert, all I need to do is find the verifiable opinions of the experts. Your opinion means nothing here (and nor does mine) - expressing your opinion that he is the most (anything) is a breach of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

Understand? Find a verifiable third party source that asserts he is the most popular, as in, #1, above all others, cite it and add it. Problem solved. :) Glen 08:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glen, a very curious response. (1) All that bold face -- what happened to cool, Civility, et al.? (2) If something is incorrect, "repeatedly pointing it out" does not make it more correct. On the Perosi page, I went through the pains of typing, with my own little fingers, a bibliography. One of the items on that bibliography, the Rinaldi biography, has a bibliography starting on page 589 that goes on for twenty-seven pages (!). And that was 35-40 years ago. So: you and others can "repeatedly" do as you wish; however, shouldn't you look at the page in question? (3) Brittanica happens to be one encyclopedia, yes. However, your snide remark that their omission of Perosi "should tell me something" -- that is your own sarcasm to which I have no response. LorenzoPerosi1898 08:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol! I find it curious that you think all of 20 bold words contained within an entire 276 word post incivil! But the reason for the ~5% bold face was quite simply you seem to be unable to grasp two absolutely fundamental Wikipedia policies. And, when someone is "repeatedly pointing out" Wikipedia Policy then here, within Wikipedia, that does make them right.

And, please reread my post, my comment about it telling you something wasnt sarcasm - I was being serious. Those claims can be made about the other biographies you mentioned as they are verifiable by my trying one source (Britannica was the first place I looked and there it was in black and white for all three examples).

Finally, I'll say it again:

“

Find a verifiable third party source that asserts he is the most popular, as in, #1, above all others, cite it and add it. Problem solved.

”

Until such time, I find your latest edit to the article, once again, unnacceptable. I mean, if he's was THE most popular, you should have no trouble finding sources for that claim whatsoever! So save us this effort and just do it?! Until then, do not reinsert that claim. Thank you 09:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Glen, (1) I continue to find you to be extremely sarcastic. Sorry, but that is my impression. I am attempting to be civil, cool, etc., and I feel that you have not responded in the same spirit. (2) The source for "most popular" is every newspaper article in Italy written between 1898 and the First World War in which LP is mentioned, plus a 27-page bibliography (yes, 27 pages -- that's not a misprint) in a very noted and well-respected book. (3) Said newspaper articles and said bibliography ARE CITED, are cited, are cited, in the revised Footnote 1, which you ought to have read before your diatribe. (4) If that's still not clear enough for you, Leonardo Ciampa's recent biography is from a third party, in a book, which is published, and sold all over the world. What else do you want? Sorry, this is starting to seem personal (unless you always were interested in the goings on of turn-of-the-century Italy. Why your inordinate interest in this article?). Best regards, LorenzoPerosi1898 09:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. Thanks Glen 09:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during October 16 2006 to User:Glen S

Your recent edits are considered vandalism, they have been reverted and you are being warned to stop this behavior now. Such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and are not taken lightly. You may continue editing, but unless all future edits are constructive you will be blocked without further warning. Glen 14:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning before block for vandalism to Glen S

This is your final warning. If you continue to vandalize pages on Wikipedia, make inappropriate edits or personal attacks, including inappropriate or offensive edit summaries, or continue to cause problems in other ways, you will be blocked from editing. Glen 14:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However probably not by you, seeing as I've already reported you and your bad behavior to several higher-ups. LorenzoPerosi1898 14:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for vandalism

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and other deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Gwernol 14:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LorenzoPerosi1898 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Administrational abuse of power, suspected sockpuppetteering

Decline reason:

Absolutely justified block

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dear Administrators:

I have no objection to being blocked; however, I must alert you to the identity or identities of whom I was blocked by.

1. Glen S (possible alias: Grover_cleveland) knew that I had reported him to higher Wiki authorities for several categories of improper behavior (stalking, uncivility, baiting, excessive sarcasm, and most recently sockpuppetting -- which turned back a blue link not red, meaning that it was the second, not first time, he was accused of this offense).

2. Glen S (possible alias: Grover_cleveland) also knew that I was filing a sockpuppet claim against him. He was simultaneously on his computer, and he kept erasing the claim simultaneously as I was posting it to his Glen S user page. Then finally he put the vandalism claims so that I could not longer access his page, thus killing my claim. In short, he cut me off before I could report him.

3. The "vandalism" claim, if you look at it, has not a milligram of basis in fact. If you would kindly look at the Don Lorenzo Perosi page, you will see that I changed one word, after much discussion and with full backing by more than one primary and credible source. Is this not an abuse of blocking power (the sockpuppettering claim being a separate issue)?

I will happily wait out my 48 hours if, for the overall health of Wiki, you would be so kind as to pursue this matter. I have, meanwhile, contacted the higher authorities.

Thank you for your time,

L.P. [email protected]

For the record, User:Glen S did not block this user, nor did Grover Cleveland. I blocked the user for vandalism to Glen's talk page [2] [3] [4] [5] and to WP:SSP [6]. There is absolutely no evidence that Glen is a sockpuppet, nor sockpuppet master of Grover Cleveland, or of any other user. The vandalism claim is based solely on the edits made by this user to multiple pages, and is unrelated to the merits or otherwise of the underlying content dispute which I have played no part in and have no opinion on. Gwernol 15:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet above you expressed plenty of opinions. Obviously you didn't see evidence of sockpuppetteering; Glen S was on the computer simultaneously and erased my claim as I was posting it. No matter, a copy has been sent to numerous other administrators and higher-ups. Glen S and Grover have committed numerous offenses; I'm sorry if you feel uncomfortable by my reporting them. LorenzoPerosi1898 15:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstand what I wrote. I absolutely hold the opinion that you have vandalised several pages despite clear warnings not to. I also hold the opinion that your accusations of sockpuppetry against Glen S are both unfounded and completely without credible evidence (since you have provided none). There are literally hundreds of millions of people around the world simultaneously using computers, that is hardly evidence that they are all the same person.

However I have no opinion on the merits of the underlying content dispute on Lorenzo Perosi. I have been uninvolved in that disupte and remain netural on it. Trust me, whoever these "higher authorities" to whom you are appealing are, they will look much more favorably on your complaints if you accurately report the issues rather than making wild accusations that are obviously unsupported by the facts. Thanks, Gwernol 15:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just nonsense. You have no reason to think that Grover cleveland is a sockpuppet of Glen S (or vice versa). You have attracted the attention of several administrators, all of whom have bent over backwards to give you good advice and to treat you with consideration, patience and respect. Your response has been abuse, childish argument and disruption. You really need to take notice of the advice you've been given, because the way you are going you will be permanently banned within a matter of a few days. I still stand by my statement that your initial three month block was unjustified - because nobody had tried to discuss your behaviour with you, or to explain just why it was unacceptable and what you needed to do to comply with the standards expected here. Plenty of people have, now - and you're still acting in a completely antisocial manner. Be thankful that Gwernol blocked you before I did, because I wouldn't have been nearly so generous. Incidentally, you're going to get nowhere by "reporting" administrators to "higher-ups". --ajn (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again I repeat myself: Glen erased my claim as I was making it -- that's why you see no evidence. Meanwhile, there's not a shred of evidence for the picture of Glen's innocence that you have painted. In any case, said authorities will deal or not deal with this. RE blocking, it is very easy for anyone to communicate with Wiki and its highest authorities -- blocked, unblocked, whatever. I've been communicating with them for an hour. Oh, and incidentally: this is not nonsense. LorenzoPerosi1898 15:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia records every edit made, so its all there in the history. I think the edit you are referring to is this one. Please correct me if you mean a different edit. Glen indeed reverted this edit of yours shortly after it was made because it was a baseless accusation that contained no evidence. Your placing it on his talk page was vandalism, particularly in the light of the complete lack of evidence for this accusation. If you want to make accusations against editors in good standing, please make sure you have evidence to back it up. Just because two people share the same opinion about a particular article, it does not automatically make them sockpuppets. Gwernol 15:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Though I appreciate your looking into this, your interpretation of the edit is not correct. (1) Yes, that is the correct edit. (2) There was no evidence because I was meticulously trying to follow Wiki's instructions on the sockpuppetteering page. Glen typed faster than I did; that's why you see no evidence. Others, however, have received the evidence via e-mail. (3) Do you feel that Glen was an impartial person in erasing this from his page? ... (4) I put it on his page because that's where Wiki told me to put it. It was not my choice. Yet you accuse me of vandalizing instead of crediting me with following directions! Finally, did you ever ask yourself: why did Glen erase what I was in the process of writing? That one action, in itself, is enough to get him booted. Then we'll see if the alleged aliases coincidentally disappear. Again, thanks for looking into this. LorenzoPerosi1898 15:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The history will show that Glen S, simultaneous to when a claim of sockpuppetteering was being placed against him, erased said claim from his user page. 2. Kindly note that said claim was in the process of being placed and was incomplete at the time that it was erased. Simultaneously, Glen S placed two vandalism notices on accuser's page, forestalling said accuser's efforts. 3. Kindly note also that Wiki instructions for sockpuppet reporting instruct users to place the necessary code on the user page of the accused. 4. Unfortunately my current blocked status -- based on what was called "vandalism" -- prevented me from a. finishing my claim according to Wiki instructions; b. communicating my claim to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement; or c. communicating directly with Glen S., to avoid a deterioration to this point. 5. Finally, it violates numerous Wiki policies for an administrator to erase a claim being made against him or her. Besides conflict of interest, it is a blatant abuse of power. It is on these grounds that I respectfully request a permanent ban on Glen S as Wiki administrator and editor.

Respectfully submitted, LorenzoPerosi1898 16:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite evidence of sockpuppeting before makeing compalints and that is not abuse of power that is reverting a vandal edit to a page. you are making calims of Sockpuppeting but have not posted any evidence. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop placing unblock templates here. You've done it once, it's been reviewed and rejected, and there is precedent for locking the talk pages of users who do this repeatedly. You appear to have attempted to accuse Glen of being a sockpuppet of User:SOCKPUPPETMASTER, which is just hilarious. Arbitration enforcement is for, well, enforcing the outcomes of arbitration cases. I hope the "higher-ups" are impressed by your firm grasp of Wiki-law. --ajn (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note

I have known Glen for a while, before he bacame a admin, and since in that time I have not seen a iota of evidence to show that he is a puppetmaster or puppet. His past actions lead me to belive that you are trying to discredit him. from your actions I see that you seem to have very little respect for others or wikipedia its self STOP VANDALIZING MY ARTICLES is a direct quote from you this shows no knowledge of policy see: WP:OWN and this comment A note to you and Grover C.: you are both henceforth going to be completely ignored by me. Put as many comments on this talk page as you will; you will receive no response. LorenzoPerosi1898 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC) shows that if you are having a dispute that you will just ignore those who you cant get along with. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Beta,

Thank you for writing; I wish to correct only a few things. (1) The "stop vandalizing" comment was before my first block. Since then all of my messages have been peaceful. (2) The note to Glen & Grover was because the last time they misbehaved, *I* got blocked. I was determined that no matter what they said or did, I would absolutely not get baited into "shouting." And that is the honest truth. I didn't imagine that Glen would act so irresponsibly, but now he will or won't pay the consequences. That is completely his issue. All I have said is the God's honest truth, and frankly if you or the other admins look at their actions and words and see nothing wrong, I'm at a loss. (3) Lastly, I have great respect for you-- you yourself are the counterexample to your own claim that I don't want to get along with others. I will ABSOLUTELY continue to ignore Glen & Grover, because they are low and their behavior is low. You and others who are more willing/able to look impartially at the histories, I enjoy working with. I repeat: anyone, blocked or unblocked, registered or unregistered, can submit written complaints to any number of Wiki sources. You could block me into next year and that would accomplish one and only one thing: less time working on articles and more time reporting misbehavior. That's what Glen & Grover want, but they didn't anticipate that I knew there was anyone higher on the food chain than them. Now the choice is Wiki's; I haven't a thing to do with that choice. Thank you again for writing. LorenzoPerosi1898 17:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not a problem but, you have made claims about sockpuppeting. Please provide proof. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't; I'm blocked, remember? LorenzoPerosi1898 17:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

post here, since you are blocked. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite; however, my understanding is that that would be inappropriate. No prob -- I'll wait till the block runs out in a day or two. I'm trying to follow Wiki policy as closely as possible. Thanks again. LorenzoPerosi1898 18:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC) What proof I can share here, at the moment, is simply: look at the histories and logs. You or anyone with eyes can see that within a short window of time, a few minutes, I was making the claim precisely as Glen S. was removing it. I put the claim exactly, precisely where Wiki itself told me to, i.e. Glen S.'s user page. He typed faster. Unfortunately he forgot about the logs. Too bad -- he had had a long record here at Wiki. However the admins -- who on this page have ferociously maintained that there are no higher-ups above them -- are not the ones with whom I am currently discussing the matter. Sorry I cannot say more in this forum. Best regards, LP[reply]

Clarification

Dear admins:

You are not the highest decision-makers in the Wiki hierarchy. You can (a) block; (b) claim that I don't know "the rules" (yet I figured out who was in charge over the admins); (c) lock pages; (d) banish editors. That is all you can do. You cannot improve Wiki without articles written by those who, believe it or not, know the topic. You cannot stop people -- even blocked, even unregistered -- from influencing policy and "the rules." Basically there is much more that you can't do than what you can do. So if blocking is one of the only three or four things that you can do, and if you derive irreplaceable pleasure/satisfaction from blocking, I don't want to stop you. Unfortunately for you, blocking takes people out of your power, not into it. That is: unblocked an ed has to find a way to get along. Blocked s/he doesn't. LorenzoPerosi1898 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Liskov Chimes In

> Well, the fact that Gwernol came in and removed the claim makes > that fairly irrelevant.

The case is being looked at by his superiors. "Fairly irrelevant" is the opinion of him, you, or any admin. Glen did something very bad, and he was unable to erase it from the history. Oh well.

> If you really think Glen S is a sockpuppetteer, you should bring > your concerns to WP:RFCU or WP:ANI and lay out your > evidence.

You're not my legal counsel. I have given relevant information to relevant parties.

> > And personally, it doesn't fool me at all. You were taking revenge > in levying that accusation,

I didn't levy an accusation; I told the truth.

>it's transparent,

Not to you, apparently.

>and a bad faith > action.

It is not "bad faith" to report an unethical action by an admin.

>If you'd done it to me, I'd have reverted it.

So you're telling me that you would be dishonest, also. That is relevant to whom, and why?

>See > Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point -- that's > the real policy violation going on here.

The real policy violation is erasing a case that someone made against you. Unfortunately for poor Glen it hard to erase anything completely from Wiki. Helps discern the honest from the other kind.

Thanks for writing. Next time, say something. LorenzoPerosi1898 21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glen S sockpuppet claim

Glen S is no one's sockpuppet I assure you, and you are well on the way to get a speedy re-block for disruption and personal attacks if you continue with these accusations with no evidence. If you want to stay here, drop all this immediately and focus just on the content not the contributor. Also note that there are no hierarchies here, admins are not "above" anyone, nor do they try to be. They just enforce community consensus - which you have violated with your disruptive revert wars statements against fellow editors.--Konst.able 21:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to shock you with the news that there are people in the Wiki employ who are above you. The only evidence you need to know are the logs themselves. Look at them with your own eyes. I was writing at the same time as he was erasing -- all within one small window of a few minutes. He typed faster. Secondly, could you kindly tell me what blocking has to do with communicating with those in power at Wiki? Anyone -- unblocked, unregistered, anyone -- can type an e-mail and get directly in contact with the necessary parties. As an admin, you lose power over the person you block, because then he/she can say anything to anyone. Your choice. Unblocked I'm restricted by the Wikirules; blocked I'm not. LorenzoPerosi1898 21:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I understand better than you how the Wiki operates. I think I know what you mean by "people of power", but they won't over-ride community consensus either. Now this is getting out of hand, please stop emailing everyone these accusations and quit posting accusations with no evidence on your talk page, or I will have to protect it.--Konst.able 21:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know how Wiki operates? Doesn't seem so: you think you can censor a blocked editor? "Please stop ... " -- what's that mean if I'm blocked? Most admins are like chess players who can play only if they have all queens. "Block, unblock." Meanwhile, I have a valid, truthful, and provable case of inethical behavior against Glen -- not the first against him, so I learned. My case has already been presented; all the blocking in the world can't erase it from the e-mailboxes that already have the facts. You've still got your queen, but you have no opponent. LorenzoPerosi1898 22:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence in the Claim against Glen S., alleged alias Grover_Cleveland: Part I

Dear Admids: Many of you have asked me to share my evidence. I hope you have understood that I was advised not to do so until each of the proper authorities had been contacted and I had received responses from them. Gratefully, not only do y'all admins have superiors (imagine it!), but the tendency of said superiors is to listen. In fact, one wrote to me, and I quote, "I'm here to listen to you."

This is only Part I of the case or cases. I can share only this small piece at this time. It is possible that this part will be enough for Glen S to receive his due punishment, in which case I will not pursue Part II, Part III, etc. I want a quick conclusion as do all of you.

Part I, damning in of itself and, in a sense, separate from the sockpuppetteering claim, which I have not yet made, is as follows:

As previously demonstrated, the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Glen_S&diff=prev&oldid=81790025 , and the histories and logs that are pertinent to it, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that during the exact small window of time, a few minutes, that I was making my claim -- which I did on his user page as per Wiki instructions -- he was erasing said claim. He must be a fast typist: he simultaneously erased my claim, so that I had to keep rewriting it and did not have time to enter the evidence, and he simultaneously expedited the process of having me blocked, the outrageous reason being "vandalism." In other words: follow Wiki instructions to the letter = you're a vandal. Evidence is deleted or suppressed = it must have never existed.

The remaining parts of my claim are still to be revealed, except that in fact they are all in the histories and logs. Assuming Glen doesn't have enough friends in high places to tamper with the histories and logs, any one of you could easily trace the whereabouts of Glen_S and Grover_cleveland (the latter "coincidentally" has no e-mail address) by a relatively brief examination of said histories and logs.

Part I of the case is simple. Someone makes a claim against you? Delete it, then try to ban the accuser. Try to erase and/or suppress any incriminating evidence. Let's focus just on this point. This to you is not an abuse of power? This to you is not unethical? Furthermore, Glen didn't anticipate my learning -- again, right from the logs and codes -- that mine was the SECOND claim against him for sockpuppetteering (!). Sorry, Glen, the link came up blue, not red. I did not finish the research to find out who the first accuser was, because to Glen's immense relief one of his buddies acted upon his two prior vandalism warnings and blocked me. However, if you feel my claims are preposterous, you must coincidentally feel the same about those of said prior accuser. That target will be less easy for you.

The fact of this being the second accusation against Glen may or may not be deemed relevant to Part I of the case. However, aforesaid abuses occured and are documented in the hitherto-mentioned logs and histories. Anyone with eyes to read can see them, and I provided the link for your convenience. I know how y'all like primary sources.

The question that is much bigger than my status as blocked, unblocked, whathaveyou, is simply this: Is a Wiki administrator allowed to judge and act upon the very claims that are made against him- or herself?

Administratorial speculation as to the answer to that question will be what it is. Meanwhile, the recipients of Part I of my formal complaints will make the decision that sticks.

Respectfully submitted,

LorenzoPerosi1898 03:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glen neither reverted your accusation, nor blocked you, that was Gwenrol. As to the speed, well, there are semi-automated tools that do the reverting for us. I have previously warned you to stop making accusations without evidence (refuted past accusations that you haven't even looked at yourself are not evidence, admins tend to get a lot of these by the way), and yet you continued. I doubt that any evidence exists, and accusations without evidence are just personal attacks. I am protecting your talk page until your block expires, you can yell "censorship" all you want, I get about 100 accusations of that per day.--Konst.able 04:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AN OPEN LETTER OFFERING CEASE-FIRE

I agree to stop all proceedings against Glen_S and Grover_Cleveland; as an additional token of my desire to end hostilities, I agree not to revert any of the most recent edits on the Don Lorenzo Perosi page -- though, for the record, I assert that they were entered in an attempt to harrass and incite, not to improve any article. I, however, agree to drop everything. In return, I ask for an agreement by Glen_S and Grover C. to cease stalking, harrassing, sarcasming, and reverting all my edits on all pages, all with the sole intent of inciting. If these parties will agree to bury the hatchet in this way, I hereby agree to immediately cease all proceedings on my part. This includes the forwarding of two damning e-mails that were sent to [email protected], both of which were two vulgar to reprint here.

This is my offer, offered in a spirit of complete cease-fire and continued peace.

Respectfully submitted, LorenzoPerosi1898 18:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm. No.

Let the record show that Glen has not only refused a cease-fire but has attempted to stoke it further. Yet another example of his ill-will, of which I expect to see many more.LorenzoPerosi1898 20:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No edits have been done in an attempt to "harrass and incite" - I have been here a year and have approx 15,000 edits to my name. If you are so pig headed as to think I've nothing better to do than try to annoy some new editor for no reason? Boy, get over yourself
I absolutely 100% resent your statement that I have stalked, harrassed, been sarcastic or reverted all your edits. I've made a single change to one article you edit. If you can find a single administrator that agrees with you view, I'll never touch the article again. Until then, once again, get over yourself
If you are trying to assert that I have sent you a vulgar harrassing email then I INSIST YOU REPRINT IT HERE and take full action against me.

Sorry, that would constitute profanity. Nice try. Prime example of baiting. LorenzoPerosi1898

For the record, a checkuser will quickly clear this up. How dare you turn up here and make false accusations against an administrator and another long standing editor. You will follow this through, you do not ~~imply~~ state I have been harrassing you and then say you'll drop the whole thing under your terms.

The harassing has been long proven and is there for all to see on the histories. I make an edit ... you show up and revert it ... then Grover C. shows up and reverts it ... and all the while these are pages that had never interested either of you in the past. All of a sudden interested in the 'Giovane Scuola,' are you? You know about Perosi, Tebaldini, Martucci, Sgambati, and the other Italians who did not write opera during the Verismo period? Every single source listed in the bibliography I have read cover-to-cover. You have read ... what? Don't worry about the claims of stalking, harassment, baiting, and sarcasm: they are fully visible and, as I understand it, uneraseable. Your behavior is documented in stone. Your friends' opinions are only that. LorenzoPerosi1898 20:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have some nerve. I have seen the email(s) you claim I am sending you, and it disgusts me the level some people will stoop to in an attempt to look right. However, you do not realise as most do here that I live in New Zealand - so you better hope the checkuser shows Grover lives all the way down here to or you're going to look like a liar, and incredibly petty and childish. Now, do your worst. Lets finalise this Glen 18:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Glen. LorenzoPerosi1898 you have made serious accusations against several editors in good standing here. If you are not prepared to provide credible evidence to back up these accusations you need to apologize to Glen S and Grover Cleveland. You have made these accusations, so the onus is entirely with you to provide evidence for them. You were kind enough to send me the alleged emails. I am happy to open a checkuser case and determine if your accusations are warranted. If they turn out not to be true, as I suspect they will, then you will face severe sanctions here on Wikipedia. I have already warned you about this in email. Please provide actual, credible evidence or withdraw your accusations and apologize. Gwernol 18:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Glen, you continue to do your worst, which is what you've been doing all along. I will continue to do my best and, unlike, made valid and TRUE contributions to Wiki. Sorry to hear you've refused my agreement. LorenzoPerosi1898 19:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AS PER GLEN & GWERNOL'S INCESSANT REQUESTS

So that they'll stop hounding me, here is the evidence you've been salivating for. You asked for it.

I received this e-mail from [email protected]:

You fucking homophobe! you think you can even TRY to get me booted from here? i'll fry your ass you cocksucker!!!

I received this e-mail from [email protected]:

You fucking homophobe! you think you can even TRY to get me booted from here? i'll fry your ass you cocksucker!!!

Coincidence? For further evidence (which I knew you'd want), I spent three hours last night trying to guess what password such a vitriolic individual might use. I tried many, and indeed, "fuckperosi" is the password for both [email protected] and [email protected] Needless to say, both cleared their mailboxes, outgoing and incoming, hoping to erase any evidence. However, I have the timestamps ... In closing, you can all demote Don Lorenzo Perosi till the end of time. He's been dead fifty years -- how do you expect to succeed in doing so? LorenzoPerosi1898 20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've just admitted to an act that is a prosecutable crime in most western countries. Unless of course, you set up those accounts yourself. Gwernol 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've known Glen not only on here, but have also known of him through his work since the late 90's when he was a distributor for EAS in New Zealand, and I ran an online bodybuilding magazine (now defunct) - so I've been following this saga quite closely. First, I'd bet the farm that Glen sent neither of those emails - mostly because I know that he's not stupid enough to 1) make it that obvious, 2) use the same password on both accounts and, 3)create such an easy password to figure out.

Secondly, from my uninvolved viewpoint, Glen has merely been doing his job as an Wiki admin with regards to reverting your edits. As an admin, he doesn't really need to have an interest in the topic being edited. I myself have even reverted things on numerous unrelated Wikipedia articles that I have no knowledge or no interest in, only because I can see the change done by another editor violates a policy or guideline - and I'm just a casual editor using Windows Explorer. In all honesty this is not very strong evidence for what you are accusing Glen of doing. Posting IP addresses from each sent email would be the only way to show that both emails came from the same user. Yankees76 20:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Checkuser opened

I have opened a request for checkuser on User:Glen S and User:Grover cleveland which you can view here. If the outcome of this check shows that these users are not the same I will immediately ask for a community ban on you. If the CheckUser shows these are the same user, further action will be taken against Glen S. Thanks, Gwernol 20:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack warning

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gwernol 20:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were no personal attacks. LorenzoPerosi1898 21:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your edit summary here claiming another user "blatantly lied" is exactly a personal attack. Gwernol 21:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article Moeron has been deleted. You have have meant to add this to a usertalk page, since it seemed to be about an editor. DJ Clayworth 21:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are still contentions that there are other popular Italian composers of sacred music alongside Persoi, such as Tebaldini[7], that have made equal, if not greater, contributions to the scope of sacred music at the turn of the 20th century. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 21:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vandalism warnings

Please stop placing clearly invalid vandalism warnings everywhere. If a vandalism warning was justified, it should be placed on the user's talk page. Not on their user page, an article named after them, another article's talk page or elsewhere. The warning you are attempting to give to User:Moeron is clearly an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. Please stop, Gwernol 21:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect yet again. Moeron made a revert on the basis of having "checked a source." You mean to say that Moeron bought, received,and read Ciampa's book in less than 24 hours? Let me make it clearer for you: Moeron lied. He checked no sources whatsoever. And that helps Wiki? LorenzoPerosi1898 21:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I apologize for the "edit comment". I looked at your sources, like you said we should, and thought you were quoting the exact line, which didn't say "the most popular". I made a easy mistake on that one and I am humbled by it. That said, there are still contentions that there are other popular Italian composers of sacred music alongside Persoi, such as T ebaldini[8], that have made equal, if not greater, contributions to the scope of sacred music at the turn of the 20th century. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tebaldini himself placed Perosi high above him. Would you like the exact source? I'd be happy to flip through Ciampa and give you exact page numbers. LorenzoPerosi1898 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ciampa op. cit pp. 191-2

WP:3RR violation

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Gwernol 21:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See that block up there?

That block is because at least ten of you, including Gwernol, made edits without reading sources. You pester me to provide sources. I provide them. You don't read them. Not one of you -- not a single solitary one of you -- read Ciampa p. xxxii. Yet "psychicly" you all seem to know who Perosi was and wasn't. READ a source; THEN edit. I'll repeat, READ a source; THEN edit. You guys have disgraced Wiki and are lowering its quality . All you can do to me is block/unblock. To Wiki you can do much worse: you can lower its quality and integrity. And you have. Congratulations on your full status as ignoramuses.

You need to read WP:RS as well as the various other policies you are currently ignoring. Ciampa's book is self-published, and is therefore not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. --ajn (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt from the sources you provide that Don Lorenzo Perosi was an acclaimed Italian composer of sacred music. I laud you for doing research for this article and making significant contributions to the article. Your contributions to this article have been very good. However, the problem is that saying that Don Lorenzo Perosi was the most popular Italian composer of sacred music is a huge generalisation - there have been many other popular Italian composers of sacred music, for example, Andrea Gabrieli. Even if you have a source that says he was incredibly incredibly popular - that doesn't necessarily mean he was the *most* popular. It just means that he was popular.

Instead of provoking arguments the whole time (eg. calling users 'ignoramuses'), please just get on with editing Wikipedia and making it a better encyclopedia. An encyclopedia has to be neutral and factual - that is what all the Wikipedia admins and users here are striving to make Wikipedia, nothing else - but some of your edits go against that. So please be a bit more understanding. Thanks, and I hope that you continue to make genuinely good contributions to Wikipedia, Madder 21:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I made no such edit. Please calm down and try to get your facts straight. I just enforced the WP:3RR policy that all editors, even those in the "right" are required to abide by. You are aware of this policy, since you have been blocked for 3RR violations in the past. Throwing around yet more baseless personal attacks doesn't help your "cause" at all. I'm sorry you have decided to take the low road here, Gwernol 21:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like you did violate the three-revert-rule. It's a tricky rule but it ensures that nobody reverts a page or edit more than three times in 24 hours, except in the case of obvious, simple vandalism (like page blanking or graffiti). It helps keep editors from "owning" a page, and avoids "edit wars". Now before you say that the admins edits were vandalism - well, maybe they were, but they're not "obvious, simple, vandalism" - that type of vanadalism is usually plain for all to see. Your case is a little too complex for that. So it looks like you're legitimately blocked. And now you've gone and called them all ignoramuses, which violates yet another rule, which basically says that you can't go around calling other editors names. If you like, I can help you out with these sorts of things - I've found on Wikipedia that you'll get alot more done if you follow the policies and guidelines and are able to work well with others. Feel free to contact me if you feel like taking me up on my offer. Regards. Yankees76 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Gabrieli -- turn of the last century???

For the last time, I hope:

Lorenzo Perosi was the MOST popular composer of SACRED music in ITALY at the turn of the LAST century.

This is the sentence. This is the one sentence that has caused blocks, vandalism, stalking, baiting, accusations of sockpuppetteering, and threats of community bans.

Yankees, I'll take you up on your offer: How do you convince a bunch of vandalizing (supply your own noun here) that Lorenzo Perosi was the MOST popular composer of SACRED music in ITALY at the turn of the LAST century?

Andrea Gabrieli, who lived in the 1500s ... Sorry, your editorial staff might be better at following the rules, but they can't tell the difference between 1500 and 1900 ... an opera composer and a sacred computer ... in fact, I don't know what they know how to do other than harrass and bait, and follow a bunch of arbitrary rules.

Continuing to marvel at the immaturity and lack of logic here, I remain

Faithfully yours,

LorenzoPerosi1898 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well since you've asked. Let's be clear on a few things - for starters, they're not vandals - they simply have a different viewpoint than yourself. Vandals run around and add the word 'penis' to articles because they think it's funny. Nobody here is being so childish as to revert your edits out of spite or for their own glory. So relax! This an online encyclopedia, it doesn't benefit you to get all worked up over one sentence that a few people don't see eye to eye on with you. You don't get any monetary benefit or even celebrity status from getting your way, and bickering and arguing to get your way never solves anything - especially here. The Admins are doing what other editors like myself entrust them to do - ensure that Wikipedia is created following a set of policies and guidelines that have been collaborated on as a community and agreed upon.

Second - do some more research to further cement your case (which is invalid, and I'll explain why below): Remember only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher are allowed in Wikipedia. Your claim fails due to a lack of this. Is Ciampa's book self-published as is claimed above? I've done a quick search and it seems to be published by Authorhouse[9], which is a self-publishing company. This is where you lose your leverage. Not that this would happen, but if Glen wanted to, he can publish a book on Perosi as well at Authorhouse, and instead assert that Perosi was the worst composer in history and, true or not, it would have the same legitimacy as Ciampa's book in the eyes of Wikipedia. That's because self-published books personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources on Wikipedia. As per the official policy (not just a guideline, the policy), Wikipedia:Verifiability.

So you have two options to make them go away. Concede the point, and compromise. Say he's one of the most popular, or use puffery (wildly popular, very popular, incredibly popular, "bigger than Jesus" - ok kidding, don't pull a Lennon, but you get my point); OR, find a secondary source that asserts the same thing as Ciampa. Popularity is always subjective when you don't have numbers (like a Billboard chart) to supply evidence. But if you can find an expert in the field, who had his work published by a credible, third-party source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (a NY Times article, Encyclopedia Brittanica, a sacred music niche magazine) who says that Perosi was the most popular then you're in business. Until you do, you'll have as much luck convincing Wikipedia that Babe Ruth was the the most popular composer of sacred music in Italy at the turn of the last century.

That's my advice - I strongly suggest you take it. You're an intelligent individual, and I'd hate to see you get banned like a common vandal because you're unable to work with others or control what you post. That would be a shame. Yankees76 03:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee, I appreciate your writing. However there IS a New York Times article in the footnote. The newspaper declared that Perosi and Mascagni were on the highest pedestal of fame at that moment. Mascagni wrote opera. That quote has been in the footnote for weeks. Glen didn't pay it heed. Grover didn't. Gwernol didn't. Your fellow admins refuse to acknowledge that source.

Regarding doing my research ... see that bibliography that's on the Perosi page? I typed it with my own little fingers, and I read cover-to-cover every book on that list. If you'd like me to do "more research," fine -- where do you suggest that I begin?

Only one thing has prevented me from allowing me to let them concede their point. Well, two. One: they don't know s... about the topic. Two: I'd hoped that Wiki was above the behavior of these editors that are just getting their jollies over getting me incited. As I lose that hope, I start to feel not that I should concede but that I should abandon my overly-optimistic impression of Wiki and the loftiness of their intentions. Every single edit of the Perosi pages has been caried out WITHOUT good intentions and WITH malevolent, mischievous, or a combination thereof, intentions. Slowly, this is becoming an issue not about Perosi or about me but about Wiki. For Wiki's sake, I'm starting to feel sad for the possible outcome.

Oh, and one more correction if I may. [T]hey're not vandals - they simply have a different viewpoint than yourself. So what you're telling me is that they have a viewpoint about music in Italy in the turn of the last century? They know about the Giovane Scuola? They know about the Veristi (Puccini, Giordano, Mascagni, Cilea, Zandonai, Refice, Wolf-Ferrari, et al.) and they know about the non-operatic composers (Perosi, Martucci, Sgambati, Bossi)? You mean to say to me -- and with a straight face -- that these editors actually have a viewpoint on this issue? No no no -- they have a viewpoint on ME, and their abusing their power, every single one of them, by playing with the Perosi page for the sole reason that I feel passionate about it. That is sad for Wiki, not for me or for Perosi.

And so I hereby offer a challenge: I will pay $2,500, via PayPal, to any editor and/or admin on Wiki who can name an Italian composer of sacred music who was alive in 1900 and was more famous, more celebrated, or more acclaimed than Lorenzo Perosi in said year -- backed up by a verifiable source, of course. I could not be more serious. So obvious is it that Perosi was many, many lengths ahead of the pack -- obvious to anyone who has actually READ something on the topic, which excludes every single one of you -- that I have no hesitation making this public bet. The bet stands for one month. If no one claims the money after one month's time, the Perosi page gets officially protected by Wiki for the period of time of six months. That is my challenge. Now, we'll see the Wiki vandals, Wiki harrassers, Wiki stalkers, and Wiki baiters. We'll see what merit they have or don't have. This is an absolutely serious bet. Anyone thinks it's a hoax -- just tell me what to do to make it seem more legit to you. LorenzoPerosi1898 04:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it would be more legitimate, I invite you to extend my ban from one to thirty days. That way I can't interfere with anyone's research. I swear on a stack of bibles that my bet is for real. $2,500, payable via PayPal. Not that I expect you eunuchs to do one syllable of research on this, or anything. Otherwise, the money is as good as yours! Easy money, isn't it? Just tell me who was more famous than Perosi at that time. That's all you have to do. Oh, and please do consider the one-month ban. Any one of you could carry it out. OK, ladies, see you in a month. LorenzoPerosi1898 04:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the name calling. Do you even bother reading any advice that is given to you? And clearly based on your bet above you do not have a firm grasp of what is being asked of you. Nobody cares who was more famous than Perosi. All we (Wikipedia) wants is a verifiable source (a source that complies with the policy) that says that Perosi was the most famous.

I'm curious though, as to why you are referencing See L. Ciampa, Don Lorenzo Perosi - the self-published Ciampa book as your source for this claim if you have a New York Times article that says the same thing? (which I can't find any record of - not surprising considering it's 107 years old. How do you expect a Wikipedia reader or editor to review a NY Times article from 1899 to verify your claim?) Do you actually have a copy of this article or are you merely going on what Ciampa says?

And speaking of Ciampa, even his website says that Don Lorenzo Perosi was one of Italy’s most famous composers at the turn of the last century. He remains one of history’s greatest composers of sacred music.[10] Are you claiming to know more than the writer you reference by making the bold claim that Perosi was the most famous?

Regarding 'viewpoints' the admins have a different viewpoint as to what your source says and what you're trying to put into the article or possibly wether or not your sources are actually valid (see my last discussion above) Please don't twist my words to fit your agenda. I was pretty clear when I said that the admins are ensuring that Wikipedia is created following a set of policies and guidelines that have been collaborated on as a community and agreed upon. That's what they're doing here. Nothing more and nothing less. And you have no evidence to the contrary and try as I might, I see none either. Being an expert or having a viewpoint means nothing if there is material that does not conform to those policies and guidelines. The rest of the article seems okay to me, but anytime you make a claim of something being "most" or "best" you're going to get challenges. Anyways, good luck with this - I've said enough on the subject. I'm sure the checkuser on Glen will absolve him of any wrongdoing, and you may have more to deal with than "one of" vs. "the most". Yankees76 05:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find a New York Times article ??? Couldn't find it?

Now let me get this straight. Yankee: you're saying to me that you couldn't find the New York Times article in question? Did you think of going to, ah, nytimes.com? Did that cross your mind? If you were to go to that site, you would see that the archives go back to 1851. Yet an article half a century after that has you stumped?

I shouldn't be surprised, then, that no one bothered to visit authorhouse.com. Or if they did, they didn't notice that they publish very successful, award-winning authors such as Antonio Richardson, Gordon Kirkland, Wendy Ellison Mullen, Pat Hickey, Fred Carrier, J. G. Eastwood, and LaJoyce Brookshire, each of whom have been interviewed on a major network and/or been on bestseller lists. If you did figure that out, you wouldn't have questioned my putting my trust in Ciampa's book, into which went an extraordinary amount of research here and in Italy.

And THEN, y'all expect me to have faith in Wiki's ability to judge Glen's innocence or guilt? You guys couldn't find a website if it were the first one Google spit at you. And if you didn't have Encyclopedia Brittanica to tell you that Shakespeare was "the greatest" playwright, you wouldn't be able to figure that one out, either.

Now, could someone please grant me my previous request and extend my block to a month? The $2,500 bet is still on in the meantime. Thanks. LorenzoPerosi1898

Authorhouse is a self-publisher - anyone with even the slightest education can see that from looking on their landing page. It makes no difference who has decided to publish themselves there. If Ciampa was that well-regarded he'd be able to find a publisher for his work instead of having to do it himself. With regards to the NY Times article, the article is not available for full viewing on the website (you have to purchase to read it, and honestly, I'm not wasting any money to help anyone prove a point on Wikipedia.) Even still, the paragraph I can see merely compares his fame to another composer. Perhaps there is text further down in the article that says he is the most popular composer of sacred music in Italy at the turn of the century? And why aren't you referencing this online version of the article with a link? Why make it harder by referencing a line that was cut and pasted from the article in a self-published book? That question you never explain in your post above so I'll ask again. I'm also waiting for you to address why if Ciampa says he's 'one of' the most popular on his own website, you believe you have evidence to say he is 'the most' popular, when all you're doing is referencing the Ciampa book or works that he has referenced. I'll ask that again too. Yankees76 17:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even still, the paragraph I can see merely compares his fame to another composer.

This is my continued complaint: you admins skim and don't read. THEN you have the nerve to place edits! The paragraph that you were able to see for free, without subscribing, lists two composers, yes. It says that those two composers were the two most famous composers in Italy at that moment. One wrote operas. One wrote sacred music. Probably even Madder (probably) would have the braincells to deduce that this source was stating that, at that moment, Perosi was the most famous Italian composer of sacred music (not opera) at that particular time (turn of the last century). THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU ALL FOR WEEKS!!!!!!!!! Now, will someone kindly extend my block to 30 days? This is the third time I've had to ask, and I've asked nicely each time. LorenzoPerosi1898 18:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but thanks for the compliment anyways. Question: If "that's what you've been trying to tell us for weeks", why then are you trying to add to the article on numerous occasions over the course of the day on October 18 that Perosi was the most acclaimed Italian composer of sacred music in Eastern Europe as well as the United States (see your last revision here [11]). The material you're claiming as a source(the phrase "The great and ever-increasing success which has greeted the four new oratorios of Don Lorenzo Perosi has placed this young priest-composer on a pedestal of fame which can only be compared with that which has been accorded of late years to the idolized Pietro Mascagni by his fellow-countrymen") fails to say anything about Eastern Europe or the United States. I thought he was Italian? How does 'fellow-countrymen' fit in with the United States, or Eastern Europe for that matter? What you're trying to put into the article and what you're writing above are two different claims - here you're talking Perosi being the most famous Italian composer of sacred music at that the turn of the last century, but your last edit to the article while you were free to edit Wikipedia clearly shows something different. Just curious. Yankees76 19:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's get serious about this

Lorenzo, there are ways to resolve such disputes without you getting blocked for WP:3RR and your accusations against Glen. Because I honestly don't want to see a good contributor like you gone, I am warning you that you are facing a high risk of a community ban once the checkuser for Glen comes back. I don't even know what your dispute is about exactly, but you must realise that if you continue with the behaviour that has gotten you blocked so many times already you will not be able to edit again, neither with this account, nor with any other account. So your argument would be lost. You can still try to make your case if you choose to stop your revert wars and comments against other users. Instead try our dispute resolution processes - most disputes can get resolved relatively peacefully through those methods. See WP:DR for an overview of all of these.--Konst.able^Talk 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konstable: I will try it, right now. I've wanted peace and continue to want it. I will now follow your instructions. Thanks. LorenzoPerosi1898 04:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Step 1 was to go to that user's talk page. Of course I can't, because I'm blocked. I could request a mediator, but that would take 5-7 days. What do you suggest? I will heed your advice. LorenzoPerosi1898 04:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend WP:MEDCAB as the first step. It's "unofficial" mediation, and tends to have the case taken up faster. I used to know a couple of the mediators who help there (as I took a case there once to mediate). There does seem to be some backlog there now, so it could take a couple of days. If you want something quick, you could try to file a Request for Comment on the article (note: not on user conduct). But in my experience I think mediation would have better outcomes.--Konst.able^Talk 04:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do it right now. Thanks. LorenzoPerosi1898 04:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. my bet still stands (vide supra).[reply]

Sorry, "case backload very heavy 7-14 days." I think perhaps my $2,500 bet is what's going to solve this. Wiki can't seem to work fast enough to intervene. LorenzoPerosi1898 04:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that Perosi was a very popular composer. I've done research for this myself, and you are right in saying that he was very popular. The sources show that he was very popular. However, my problem is with the word 'most'. The sources don't show that he was the *most* popular - and also because there is the possibility that there's another Italian composer of sacred music at this time who was more popular. Who that might be, I don't know, but I can't say for sure that Perosi was the *most* popular, and nor can you. You don't know that, and nor do I. This whole argument though is totally and utterly stupid. It's been enflamed from one small thing into a huge mountain - a mountain out of a mole-hill. The whole argument is totally worthless and I hope it'll stop now because I'm getting bored of typing these responses (and I've written hardly any compared with others). Give me the paypal money anyway though if you want :-) Madder 12:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one month

You have been blocked for one month for your continued personal attacks and at your request. Please do not continue to post personal attacks on this talk page or it will be protected against you. Gwernol 18:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]