User talk:Firebanana

Welcome!

Hi Crewpostor! I noticed your contributions to Battle of Chavez Ravine and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Fettlemap (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fettlemap, thank you! Crewpostor (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Hello, I'm Jeff G.. I noticed that you recently removed content from Hebetica sylviae without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Jeff G. ツ 10:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff G., I'm sorry, it was a mistake. Firebanana (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your issue is, but knock it off

You recently left a notice in the talk page for an IP address (user_talk:107.116.93.6) I was on:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Antenna (radio). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Firebanana (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from restoring the following lines:

Also, unlike a transmission line which can be modeled using the line parameters

L'

and

C'

(and

R'

and

G'

), no set of such parameters can model a single conductor line.

The statement is complete and utter bullshit: The person who wrote it, in fact did not know what he/she was talking about, and made up a statement without any validity, and with no citations. The text has been scavenged out of and then removed from Telegrapher's equations article. The cited authors carried in from that text are Raines (2007)^[1] and Schelkunoff & Friis (1952, 1966).^[2] Both books are virtually entirely devoted to modelling antennas as transmission lines, which as Raines points out, is at present a lost art. Both books give extensive formulas that are incrementally complicated, that provide exactly the line parameters and / or the derived parameters for antennas.

Furthermore, single conductor transmission lines are easily modeled by transmission line equations, both for American-style telegraph lines (single conductor, ground return), and for single-conductor power distribution. (In effect, the ground return is modeled as a resistor.)

Whatever your reason for advocating for the above red text, stop. You're on the wrong side.

107.116.93.6 (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're convinced that it was a mistake, please remove the content with an explained edit summary (but please don't use ). And I recommend you to give the sources in the edit summary you've mentioned. Firebanana (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ Raines, Jeremy Keith (2007). Folded Unipole Antennas: Theory and applications. Electronic Engineering (1st ed.). McGraw Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-147485-6.ISBN 0-07-147485-4
^ Schelkunoff, Sergei A.; Friis, Harald T. (July 1966) [1952]. Antennas: Theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons. LCCN 52-5083.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dracophyllum lessonianum has been accepted

Dracophyllum lessonianum, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 16:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Synoman Barris, thank you so much! This is my first created article! Firebanana (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. That's a good start :). Cheers Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 17:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firebanana Congratulations on your first article. I have still not been able to create one. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 02:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Synoman Barris and Itcouldbepossible, thanks a lot! Firebanana (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Good enough' versus "Good Article"

Good enough to be approved is to some degree subjective, depending on the Reviewer who decides to review the draft. "Good Article" refers to a rating about B-class that requires an article to be nominated, reviewed and approved. About 1% of all English-language articles are rated GA. Top of my User page, you can see green dots with a cross in the center indicating the articles I've raised to GA. David notMD (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD, yeah, I know the difference. And I've also seen it. I was editing a good article. And then I clicked the green icon. And then I knew what a good article is. Then the desire to create a good article awakens in my mind. And so I'm wondering how I can make it. Although I'm a new contributor. Firebanana (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firebanana Many people address the task by starting with a B-class article. Click on View history, 500 edits for what I went through on Biotin. Roughly 150 edits before I submitted it to GA review, and then another 150 addressing the reviewer comments. Took months. David notMD (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD, can you help me in the draft Dracophyllum subulatum? Firebanana (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regrets. I am in the middle of trying to get my tenth vitamin article (Vitamin A) good enough to submit a GA nomination. David notMD (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD, okay. Firebanana (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Albert Thumb has been accepted

Albert Thumb, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rusalkii (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Firebanana! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Replying to a message, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Firebanana! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Want to change my username again., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Unbreakable Boy (December 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bilorv was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The coverage presented here is just routine, nothing that justifies notability if the film were never to be released. I'm sure the book is notable under WP:NBOOK#1 (two reviews in respected sources), so an article on that would be better at this stage. The film article can be kept as a draft and improved/updated until the film has more significant coverage (like being released and getting reviews).

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Unbreakable Boy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Unbreakable Boy, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Bilorv (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Firebanana! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — Bilorv (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dracophyllum subulatum has been accepted

Dracophyllum subulatum, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rusalkii (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Firebanana! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Creating a draft for a species of tree, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Firebanana! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Lead section, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Hi! You aren't supposed to nominate articles for movies that haven't come out yet for GA! Just pointing that out.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Cambria Math per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cambria Math. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Raines2007-1] Raines, Jeremy Keith (2007). Folded Unipole Antennas: Theory and applications. Electronic Engineering (1st ed.). McGraw Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-147485-6.ISBN 0-07-147485-4

[SchelkFriis1952-2] Schelkunoff, Sergei A.; Friis, Harald T. (July 1966) [1952]. Antennas: Theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons. LCCN 52-5083.

[1]

[2]