Talk:Justin Guarini

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of the Idol series WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and organize Wikipedia's coverage of the Idol series. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.


Why was Justin Guarini/Temp deleted? That was the content of the article before someone added copyvioed stuff to the article. Johnleemk | Talk 08:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Who the hell messed with my editing of this article?

Leave it be. DO NOT remove my links to my sites,they deserve as much credit as the next and these sites have credit me as well. LEAVE IT BE!

You should read Wikipedia's criteria on fansites. -User:Carie

[edit] Living people

This article is about a living person. Please do not remove the mandatory category. Thank you. -User:Carie

[edit] Praise and adoration

This is an encyclopedia, not a PR tool. All the positive adjectives are opinions, that not everyone agrees with. Please stick to the facts and leave the reviews for the media. -- 69.19.14.30 23:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Really Wikipedia is not allowed to say that his album is praised - we can only reference other sources that say that. This article is so full of smarm that it reads like a Promotional release. Needs some serious NPOV re-write. Citing a positive review is one thing - citing twenty of them is ridiculous. And if they are cited, the reader needs enough information to be able to go FIND that reference. -- 66.82.9.88 11:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


NOTE: Above anonymous user is a previously Wikipedia-identified vandal:

User:69.19.14.30 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

This user is a vandal. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:69.19.14.30"

Anonymous User: 66.82.9.88 is also User:69.19.14.3

That user was me - and I am not a vandal. However users of Satellite modems can not maintain a sign in at Wikipedia - it is a known technical problem. Since the Satellite mechanism assigns a dynamic IP address, every time I sign on I get a different number. And it MAY have been used by a different person who also has edited Wikipedia. The IP address that I am on now has hundreds of edits, none of which was entered by me. I always seem to get a number that starts will 66 or 69. However the current re-write is MUCH better. -- 66.82.9.88 02:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually there are still a few "instantly" and "quickly" and such adjectives that read more like a sensational novel rather than an encyclopedia. Sort of overly dramatic vs encyclopedic. --66.82.9.88 02:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to vandalism

-Have removed excess info added when swayed to so by above anonymous user... who I now know is a previously Wikipedia-identified vandal. Restored article to the preferred more concise version.

-Verifiable sources and general public knowledge support any statements or adjectives used in the article. Also, common sense can be applied. Article is in line with similar articles.

Bkstone 22:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] perference

Bkstone - So why is it that you think that the fan clubs are more important than his music?? I don't get it. And you removed a link to "American Idol (Season 1) that is NOT linked anywhere else on this page. Nope - I just don't get it. -- 66.82.9.62 23:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Response:

-Except for key offical sites, rest of the titles were alphabetized in order to avoid individual judgments on level of importance.

-American Idol (which includes easily located info for all seasons) was linked in the first paragraph.

Bkstone 18:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this guy listed under African American musicians?

whats so African American about him? Are we still working under the "one drop" rule? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ason Abdullah (talk • contribs) 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Just because he's not as dark as the midnight sky does not mean he isn't half black american. 76.112.102.98 20:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Response: I didn't add the categories (African/American & Italian/American), but I'll answer. Guarini's father is African/American, his mother Italian/American. I guess whoever added the categories tried to be as all-inclusive as possible. Bkstone 23:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough I wonder if every single entry on a given person will have their ethnic backgrounds. It seems to me only if that persons ethnicity played some integral role in their art/upbringing should it be noted. How laughable would it be to have the Abraham Lincoln entry with a (for example) "English-Irish Politicians" tab?--Ason Abdullah (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: Removed Georgia (state) template. No information was provided for the reasoning and/or it's related purpose. This is not an article about Georgia. Ample info was provided for the two one-word mentions of Georgia locations in connection with Guarini (birthplace and Boys Choir location). This isn't a bio w/ major historical importance, no overkill of information needed. There's plenty to summarize his history. Bkstone 17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AI template

Should the American Idol template, {{American Idol}}, be kept on the bottom of this article, as it is for every other notable contestant, winner, runner-up, and related article... or should we delete it? Please add your opinions here.

  • Keep - Justin wouldn't be publicly known if it wasn't for this show. People know him from the show, and relate him to it. - hmwithtalk 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - What is the point of having the template if they aren't used? The template shows the relationships between past winners and others. Isolated data is not that interesting. Should be a "no-brainer" to keep. Schmiteye 01:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


FYI: This vote was directly solicited by hmwithtalk on Schmiteye talk page, with instructions/commentary on voting.

Here is the exchange: (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Schmiteye ) AI template on Justin Guarini page- I see that you've been interested in the Justin Guarini page. Do you think that the AI template should be used on the page? Vote here (link), so it cannot be deleted again.- hmwithtalk 22:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The template is unwarranted. Guarini's involvement with American Idol is already clearly stated in the article, and relevant mentions are linked within the text. In addition, the template's vaguely-related references do nothing to enhance the personal bio. Not a good precedent to set. Otherwise, there would be justification for other tangential templates for any subject mentioned in a bio. In other words, the generic AI template is superfluous clutter. Bkstone 18:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Comments:
    For the record: I've researched, updated, and maintained this article for over a year. So, this article means something to me. On the other hand, hmwithtalk made a generic template, yet repeatedly insists it be used (while also attacking me on my talk page, btw). Now this campaign. Enough. Bkstone 18:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC) (note: reverted unauthorized format revision of my comments by hmwithtalk Bkstone 13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC) )
EVERYONE: Please note that I did NOT make that template, and I'm not quite sure why Bkstone is blatantly lying to say that I did. Proof? Look at the template's history. Nope. Didn't make it. At all. Regardless of how long you've "researched, updated, and maintained" any article, you may not necessarily be correct. No one is perfect. In my opinion, you're being selfish. You want to be the "owner" of this article, and not acknowledge the fact that no one would know who he was without AI. The template is on every single other person's article. Why the HELL would it not be on his? It doesn't contribute to each article that it's in, but, rather, to the scope of American Idol on Wikipedia, and organization and navigation of related articles. Research the subject. - hmwithtalk 18:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Response: I mistakely assumed you made the template due to your insistence it be used. An honest mistake. Please... 1) Stop personally attacking and insulting me. 2) Do not alter or reformat my comments here again. (Note: My previous comment was reformatted by hmwithtalk ) Thanks.Bkstone 19:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A) You did lie, although it was accidental, but I forgive you. A fact is must different than a personal attack.
B) I insisted on it being used, because I am a Wikipedian, and I strive to better all articles in which I come across.
C) With altering you comment, I apologize. I only did it to make the section more readable and understandable. IN GOOD FAITH, I assure you, I put the vote where the votes go, then moved the comment to a new place for comments, assuming that you would have put it there if the section to make a comment would have been previously available (but I forgot to add it when making this section). I truly, honestly though you'd be thankful for my organizing. I apologize.
D) I don't mean this as anything personal against anyone. I just want to help Wikipedia become easily navigatable and a better place.
- hmwithtalk 19:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. (note: following copied from 'Third Opinion' section, original not removed or altered) I agree with Bkstone. The template really doesn't add anything useful, and is cookie cutter in concept. I fail to see the need to lump everyone who has appeared on a television show together especially after several years. Guarini's stint on AI over four years ago has already been duly noted and relevant items linked. PhilatesPhilates 03:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Guarini"

[edit] Third opinion

Responding to request at Third opinions
I am a little bit disappointed to see Wikipedians arguing over something as apparently uncontroversial as a template, but I will give my assessment nonetheless. This is quite clearly less a debate about whether this particular article should carry the template and more about whether the template is itself valid. That should really be a separate issue from this. The template in question seems to me to be useful, relevant and not in anyway counter-productive, so why would you wish to defend so vehemently against its use? We are not writing articles for us; we are writing them for everyone; the mass users of Wikipedia for whom this an information resource and source of interest. If a template helps to tie together related articles, then it benefits the reader, and consistency between articles is an important part of article design. When developing article layout and design elements, it can help to put yourself in the place of a casual reader.

As I can see no reason to block this template's use in this article, I strongly recommend that you include it. Per procedure, this request has now been removed from WP:3O.

On a separate, but related, issue, Bkstone and Hmwith have had a conflict on their talk pages about which I would be willing to comment if either party feels that it would be beneficial, but I think that it might be more productive to focus on positive collaboration from now on. Adrian M. H. 20:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, there are no comments by me on Hmwith's user page, thus no conflict on that page. On my user page, I responded to an insult with a request not to be insulted, expressed my discomfort with the situation, and stated I would not respond to it again in order to avoid "possible irrational discourse". I have not responded to Hmwith's latest comments directed at me or the threat made on the history page (although it is difficult to remain silent). So, I respectfully request it not be suggested here that our conduct has been similar. It hasn't. Thanks. Bkstone 15:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm gong to add in a fourth opinion in agreement with Hmwith. There's absolutely no reason to not have the template. If you hate the template THAT much Bkstone, then put it up on WP:TFD, though it'll probably be kept.--Wizardman 21:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both very much for your opinions. I am trying to figure out why this is an argument as well. It's a template, for God sake! I can't understand why someone would be so against it. It's very odd. After this discussion, I will be putting the template back on. I just hate that it makes me look like I'm a person who has edit wars. - hmwithtalk 21:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bkstone. The template really doesn't add anything useful, and is cookie cutter in concept. I fail to see the need to lump everyone who has appeared on a television show together especially after several years. Guarini's stint on AI over four years ago has already been duly noted and relevant items linked. PhilatesPhilates 03:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

While your opinion is welcome, even as a new user, you have not fully taken into account very much of what I wrote. That the template is used on all other related articles is for a very good reason: Wikipedia's emphasis on consistency. This is why editors such as myself expend time and effort producing templates, in the form of tables and infoboxes, that are to be used across groups of related articles. We also work to standardise layout as much as is reasonably practical. This is not a debate about whether the template should be used in the first place: if it is already used on related articles, then it should be used on this article. Anyone who dislikes the template should use the appropriate channels to debate its existence, for which they would need to justify why it should not be used at all. Third opinion is not a debating system - we have channels for that: it is a means to seek an assessment from an experienced and impartial third party. Adrian M. H. 13:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Philates meant to respond to the AI template section. I copied it there, with a note. He/she has a right to express his/her opinion there, like others have. As for the questionable usefulness of the template, could you direct me to "the appropriate channels to debate its existence"? Thanks. Bkstone 15:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wizardman already provided that: WP:TFD (Templates for deletion), but as he wrote, you will probably find that consensus will opt to keep it. And that is my honest estimate of it based on experience. As an alternative, if you wish to pursue the issue from the perspective of your debate with Hmwith, you could make a request for comment, but bear in mind the fact that you have already received an impartial assessment, even though it was sought be the other party.
And I would advise you not to misread comments, inferring meanings that are not there: I acknowledged that the user's opinion is welcome, even though it does not take account of long-accepted page-layout practices, which I put down to this being his only edit thus far. Adrian M. H. 15:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll consider that option and if I want to pursue it. I have no individual issue w/ Hmwith other his/her uncivil conduct, which I choose to ignore (unless it continues). My primary issue is w/ clutter created by select tangential templates. That simple. Bkstone 16:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That makes me sad. =( There is no need for unjustified insults and put-downs here at Wikipedia. Even though opinions differ, we all have the same goal: to make it a better place for everyone! - hmwithtalk 16:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is not cluttered, in my honest opinion. On the contrary, it is actually quite nicely structured. Adrian M. H. 16:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment, Adrian. I've strived for over a year to write/update/keep the article as concise and clutter-free as possible. Which, I guess is why I'm concerned about the precedent being set by adding a select tangential template. To be honest, I think there's overkill with most AI-related articles. Heads of state and major historical events don't get as much peripheral info thrown on their pages. Sometimes, less is more. Anyway, I'll shut up now. Bkstone 18:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)