Talk:Dan Trotta

From WikiAlpha
Jump to: navigation, search

Poorly explained edit

Someone using the ID User:Imissdisco excised this article's photo, and about half the article, with the edit summary "Photo removed. Incorrect and conflated info revised".

Over on the WMF commons, and en.wiki, someone using User:Imissdisco claimed to be the real life Dan Trotta. They were unwilling, however, to confirm their real life identity through the WMF's OTRS system.

They seem to have told en.wiki administrator that the en.wiki version of this article was a personal attack. That seems like nonsense to me. I honestly believe the material they excised is consistent with what the references said.

wikialpha has no secure confidential OTRS system for User:Imissdisco to securely and confidentially confirm they are the real life Dan Trotta.

I respect the Canadian Film Centre. Trotta studied there. If User:Imissdisco is the real life Dan Trotta perhaps this is the passage he thinks is incorrect "The CFC only accepts a half-dozen or so students per year, and he was lucky enough to be accepted the year Denis McGrath was the instructor..."

Hmmm. Maybe Trotta objects to my writing that he "was lucky" to have Denis McGrath as his instructor, because he didn't like him, or didn't respect him. I have no problem rewriting this particular sentence.

I think the other removed material requires more of an explanation.

Highly respected wikipedia contributor DGG explained, about a decade ago, that "Who's Who" allowed the subjects of its biographies to edit their biographies, and this is why the wikipedia should not accept Who's Who as a reliable source. The wikipedia tries to stop the subject of biographical articles from editing their own biographical articles, because it is practically guaranteed to make those article's biased. Instead they are supposed to explain their concerns with anything they think they can argue is genuinely inaccurate, or genuinely unfair, and let uninvolved editors make the required changes.

Although there is no formal conflict of interest rules here, I think it would be best for User:Imissdisco to explain their specific concerns with the material they excised, and let other editors consider whether edits are in order.

If Imissdisco doesn't respond here, in a reasonable period of time, is there any reason why I shouldn't restore the excised material? Geo Swan (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Headshot

I restored the headshot. If User:Imissdisco can figure out a way to confirm they are the real life Dan Trotta, I'll remove it. So far, however, they might be a troll, a frenemy, or a stalker. Geo Swan (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries...

User:Imissdisco, you made a second excision, with, however, your only explanation in your edit summary. Your edit summary said "This article conflates many details that are clearly spelled out in the references. The author's comprehension is clearly lacking."

This is not the wikipedia. There are fewer rules, fewer procedures. But, if we were interacting on the wikipedia, I would have responded by starting a section, here, on the article's talk page, entitled "As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries..."

An edit summary is only suitable for explaining simple, fairly obvious edits. Poorly explained edits, like the ones you made here? They are very likely to trigger acrimony, and waste everyone time.

If we were interacting on the wikipedia, and if it were believed you were the real life Dan Trotta, wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest editing would bar you from editing material about yourself.

Back in September I asked you to explain your specific concerns. You did not do so then, and you haven't done so now.

The wikipedia's success was accidental, and there is no guarantee it will remain successful. I ended up being blocked from participation there. I think that was a terrible mistake.

Somehow, you gave that first administrator the impression the article was an "attack page", when it was nothing of the sort.

Somehow, you gave him the impression that you were the real life Dan Trotta, and that we were acquainted with one another, and that I mis-used the wikipedia to get even with you over some kind of previously existing personal grudge.

If you are the real Dan Trotta you know as well as I do that we have never met, that our interaction started with your demand the image I cropped of you be deleted, and that I do not have a personal grudge against you.

You may have gotten the notion that, having uploaded that cropped image, I could, if I chose, have then deleted it. That's false. Uploaders get a brief window, one week, when they can request deletion of an image they uploaded. I uploaded that image at least a year prior to your demand. So, its deletion was not up to me.

Several people who weighed in, in the WPANI discussion, asserted you are a non-public person. Wikipedia policy treats non-public people differently than well-known celebrities, policiticians, sports figures. It tries to aid non-public people to preserve their privacy. I strongly disagree with those people. You agreed to be interviewed, and have that interview published. I think that the published interview you agreed to made you a public person, someone who would not have the protections the wikipedia offers to non-public persons

Once you are a public person, you can hire publicists, press agents, media consultants, but you can't expect to fully control your public image.

If this article is inaccurate, all you have to do is explain how it is inaccurate. If you make a good faith attempt to do that, I'll make a good faith attempt to revise it, until you agree it is accurate. If you can't be bothered to explain your concerns do you really think those concerns merit consideration? Geo Swan (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Another poorly explained edit

Whoever is behind the Imissdisco ID made another poorly explained edit.

On February 11th I wrote:

If this article is inaccurate, all you have to do is explain how it is inaccurate. If you make a good faith attempt to do that, I'll make a good faith attempt to revise it, until you agree it is accurate. If you can't be bothered to explain your concerns do you really think those concerns merit consideration?

I repeat my call for you to explain your concerns. If you really are the real life Dan Trotta then explain your concerns.

If you use the OTRS procedure, over on a WMF project, and get the OTRS volunteer to post official confirmation that the individual using Imissdisco is the real life Dan Trotta, I'll delete both the Dan Trotta image and the Dan Trotta article.

This is a very small wiki. I am one of the longest serving contributors here, and I was made an administrator. I can use those administrator bits to delete images and to delete articles. And I will do it, if you use the OTRS procedure over there.

Administrators have the bits to block ordinary contributors, like you. But I won't use those bits on you, unless you were to do things that compromised this wiki's operation. Geo Swan (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

If you're so obsessed with keeping this up you'll fight me at every turn, YOU get the info right. You're a master editor, it shouldn't be that hard. Comprehension is key. But I have a life to live.
You created this page to mess with me, because of our dispute on commons. You did the same thing on Wikipedia, but they clued in to it. That's simply not in contention. If anyone wants to look for the trail, it's there. So I'm not going to edit a page about myself that I just want deleted.
You've been blocked over at Wikipedia because they deemed your entry an "attack page". Not my words. And frankly, that's enough for me. Your infatuation with this, while disturbing and bordering on compulsive, is yours to nurture. This is your little revenge page. So go ahead, pal. Knock yourself out. You're off Wikipedia, and you were exposed, so I'm satisfied. Godspeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imissdisco (talkcontribs)
  • I am going to repeat, if you email [email protected], and confidentially confirm that Imissdisco is the real life Dan Trotta, I will delete the Dan Trotta article and headshot. You never established you aren't someone who merely knows Mr Trotta, who is playing some kind of practical joke.
  • I commented out the reference you left dangling. If the paragraph you removed really does contains an error, and you aren't prepared to correct it, then the article can remain as-is - unless you confirm you are the real life Dan Trotta through the WMF OTRS system. Geo Swan (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
-- I won't be bullied into sending personal information anywhere. As I said, this is your little revenge page, and you can tend to it to your heart's content. You've been banned from WP because you abused your "skills" and essentially terrorized me. Now this is all you've got left. Congratulations, I hope it was worth it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imissdisco (talkcontribs)
  • No one has bullied you. I honestly believe no fair minded person who reviews our interactions would agree I bullied you, or terrorized you.
Both commons and en.wiki have a rule that everyone is supposed to assume good faith. That rule applied to you, even if you were a total newbie. You failed to extend the assumption of good faith to me. I think that your comments show that you mistakenly assumed that since I uploaded headshots I cropped from that group photo I could just as easily delete them. I think your comments show that you mistakenly assumed malice, when I didn't promptly comply with your demands. I think you are at fault for failing to recognize that I could not have deleted the image myself, that its deletion required a discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  • "I honestly believe no fair minded person who reviews our interactions would agree I bullied you, or terrorized you."
Well you know who doesn't believe that? The people over at Wikipedia, who scrutinized all our interactions. They banned you because of your behaviour, and because you quite clearly created an attack page. Good faith indeed. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imissdisco (talkcontribs) 2022-10-17T18:47:37‎
  • You volunteered that Wikipedia contributors, who don't like me, have written to you to criticize me, and offer their support. Oh really? I dare you to name them here. Geo Swan (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)