Music43lover
I am a bit concerned about your edits on wikipedia. You seem to edit only Giorgi Latsabidze's article and promote it in a very unnencyclopedic way. The article, as it is now, reads more like promotional material than as an ecyclopedic article. The problem is both the info included and they way the information is given. I can't help thinking that you are Giorgi Latsabidze (this happens all the time ---> Wikipedia:Autobiography) and you have a conflict of interest. Please forgive me if I am wrong in my perceptions. I am sorry, but this is not the place for Giorgi Latsabidze's CV. If you want to add info, please provide references, be sure it does not violate copyright and follow wikipedia's format and content policies. Cheers --Karljoos (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
My response:
Thank you for your interest. I can understand your comments to some extent, in that the article contains numerous favorable facts concerning the subject individual. Of course, if such a plethora of favorable facts did not exist, the individual would not be an appropriate encyclopedic subject in the first place. An article on the vast majority of contemporary classical musicians would not be called for, and it is the number and exceptional nature of Latsabidze's accomplishments that justify his encyclopedic interest.
Let me assure you that I am not Giorgi Latsabidze and have no financial interest in him or his success. I am in fact an amateur pianist and have a very strong interest in classical music in general, and in the piano literature and performance in particular. I have several advanced degrees, but none of them are in music. (It might interest you to know, in this context, that Latsabidze has been in this country only since about 2005, and had no working knowledge of English before that time, so the notion that he would be the author of this article is a stretch.) I do know the individual and have witnessed his performance talents first hand on several occasions. It is the familiarity with his exceptional abilities and background that has motivated me to choose Latsabidze for my first article contributed to Wikipedia. Be assured that the article, still under final construction, will include only facts that are verifiable, and I have already taken great care in the biographical section to include only moderate statements for which verifiable supporting facts are presented in the remaining article and referenced material. Please be more specific in pointing out any statements that appear less than objective. It is true (as noted in hidden comments in the article edit page) that the list of notable performances and performance reviews in the article were not totally fact checked when originally added to the article, but I am carefully verifying all the details for all such facts presented in the article, and correcting or removing any items that I cannot so verify. This process is essentially complete for the list of notable performances, and the associated hidden comment will be removed shortly.
I share your concern, by the way, that the list of review extracts quoted might be excessive, and am considering removing some of them in the future. The reviews are presented to support the important statement in the introduction that "Latsabidze is already regarded by many as one of the more significant performers of his generation". If you can point to some guideline on how many such quotes are appropriate, that would be helpful. I am in the middle of the laborious process right now of collecting copies of the original professional reviews and verifying the accuracy of the extract translations. Those in Russian and Georgian, languages with which I am not at all familiar, have presented a particular problem for me, and I may need to request help on those in Georgian. (The originals are all on paper, and I have not found an OCR program for Georgian.) With this temporary exception, I believe that all important facts presented in the article are suitably referenced and fact checked. It would be helpful if you would point to specific examples of such lapses that concern you. Music43lover (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted your edit and deleted the "Professor" titles in the Giorgi Latsabidze article. The reason for this is, since the subject is studying in a conservatory of school of higher learning, it is assumed that anyone he studies with is a professor. If you look at the Vladimir Horowitz or Arthur Rubinstein articles, to name two notable examples, you'll see that no titles are used. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.THD3 (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Giorgi Latsabidze edit
A tag has been placed on Giorgi Latsabidze, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Giorgi Latsabidze and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
sources edit
Thanks for your lengthy replay at WP:DLR. I understand the great pains you have taken to research the subject, including verifying the award certificates given. Despite all your work, this reliance on primary sources falls short of Wikipedia's policy on what constitutes a reliable source. I hope the link will be helpful in finding just the right quality of sources for the article. Cheers, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it was one of your last comments and a re-rereading of the reliable sources page that led to my recent improved understanding (still imperfect I am afraid) of what constitutes an acceptable source on Wikipedia, and I thank you for that. My problem in understanding probably stems largely from my past experience in writing my own research publications, in which the use of primary sources and original research is the whole point. I believe that the article can be appropriately sourced with some more work on my part, which I will undertake if the article is kept. I am shortly leaving on a trip for a week and will be out of touch, so this outcome will be totally in other hands. Music43lover (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Mindful that a newbie can feel intimidated by how things move on Wikipedia, I'd just add that even if DLR endorses the deletion, there is nothing precluding you from bringing back the article at a later stage when the notability can be proven in conformity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Latsabidze edit
Hey Music43lover, I just wanna let you know that I am adding some references to the shorter version of a Latsabidze's article. Regards!Sausa11 (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Music43lover, I just wanna let you know that I have activated the new version of Latsabidze's article I have been editing on your workplace since November 24. Eventually I and some wiki editors will continue editing it. Should you have any questions please feel free to ask. Regards! Sausa11 (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC) I think you should look at the new version of article. As I said before I have been editing along with other wikipedia editors. Article got much leaner and encyclopedic. I think you should have some messages from Cunard about copy-and-paste move. Since I have put the article (new version) on my page, I don't know if you wanna keep it on your workspace. Youy might want to write a notice to Cunard. Please feel free to do some edits here Thanks! Regards, Sausa11 (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)