User talk:Renamed user ixgysjijel/Archive 11

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halo4life

24 hour block for a newbie was a bit harsh imho: 2 of the warnings on his page were for the same edit to Global Warming (the one I reverted and warned and then someone else double-warned without checking) and I am not sure on the timings he saw a warning before the second offence. His third offence was the one you saw which looked not too awful to me? I mean vandalism but if it was a second offence we would try not to bite, right? --BozMo talk 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked. I promise to clean up if he does anything else! Hope that's ok with you.. sorry if not --BozMo talk 17:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to disagree. Three edits: a full page blanking, the addition of "Global Warming is gay" (both to an ITN-linked page) followed by misinformation in the lead sentence to the TFA. I had considered an indefinite block as a Main Page vandal-only account, but figured that there might be a hint of a question, so went with the 24-hours suggested by Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Guide to blocking times. I hadn't realized that there was a double-warning, but my overall judgment on the block doesn't change as I've never seen a productive editor emerge from such beginnings. However, I appreciate your approach as it is one that I may have followed when I was first adminned. I'll let you deal with it. - Banyan Tree 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your assessment of the case and with your block; see User_talk:Sandstein#Halo4life. Best, Sandstein 17:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I am happy to agree I have a lot to learn. My general feeling with 10 year olds (which is my guess here) is they get bored quicker if you are over-reasonable with them (whereas working around a block makes them feel smarter and they annoy us more) but I will muse about it. --BozMo talk 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a postscript I ended up doing an indef block on this one. Not that this would surprise you... --BozMo talk 12:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rare editor who would think to give an update on such an old incident. I am tempted to make a joke about how adminship destroys your faith in your fellow editors, but it's more fairly just developing the skill of extrapolating the endpoint from limited data by filling in the blank spaces with experience in similar situations. Cheers, Banyan Tree 19:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reservations

Hi, see this discussion. I finally am back in my country and had a try to see if I could merge the current article with my sandbox stuff. I was hoping you could have a look at it and see if it makes sense and not too much legalize etc etc. :). It's here. Garion96 (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Garion, I took a stab at rewording sentences that I stumbled over and some general formatting and structure choices. Feel free to revert if I've changed meaning. I clearly missed some details in the version I started. :-\ It looks ready to go live at reservation (law). Cheers, Banyan Tree 22:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements, I will copy it over. Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Lilwyte's image uploads

Thank you for taking the initiative to delete Lilwyte's many image problems. I'd like to point out that there are other images which Lilwyte has uploaded that had not yet generated warnings on the user's talk page. Many of them are also problems, such as fair use images with no source. You can see the user's image upload log here. You may wish to delete those as well. Once again, thanks very much for taking the time to deal with this problem. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the remainder. I am watching Lilwyte (talk · contribs)'s pages now so will see any more image notices. I've noticed you working on image use notices before; if you see him using a sockpuppet to evade the warning, just let me know and I'll proceed straight to the deletions and block. I'm amazed he managed to avoid admin attention before this. - Banyan Tree 04:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5P question

This is not a hard question, and there shouldn't be too much controversy about the answer. The Administrators' reading list states this is something every candidate must know. They are pretty straightforward and aren't something you can argue against any more than you could argue against one of Jimbo's dictates and be a successful admin. If a candidate can't research and itentify the five pillars correctly other than saying, "They're the guiding principles and they are really important," how can we trust them to be able to evaluate verifiable reliable sources? They should auto-fail if they can't answer it correctly. Not that I've been voting this way, but I think only one candidate has answered this correctly. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you assume that the recent RFA candidates are, on a whole, idiots, the fact that you got only one "correct" answer suggests that there this a problem with the wording of the question. I, as an imaginary candidate, certainly wouldn't guess that you wanted me to parrot WP:5P. Why not make the answer concrete, along the lines of "Please explain how you have implemented each of the five pillars in the course of your editing. If you cannot think of an example, describe a use, or misuse, of the pillars that you've witnessed." At least with that wording the candidate's possible responses are directed, but I think that the barrage of questions that has developed in the past couple of years may be counterproductive in attracting quality candidates. - Banyan Tree 14:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding the word "each" would probably solve the issue. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

for your help restubbing with {{Africa-newspaper-stub}}. I thought I was going insane and somehow repeating my edits until I realized that we were stubbing nearly simultaneously. I proposed the stub thinking there were maybe 50 articles, but it looks like that was a significant underestimate. Cheers, Banyan Tree 17:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Banyan Tree. Yeah, i was working on the Africa Peer Review stuff when i noticed you adding the newspaper template and decided to help you mate. Cheers. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Awareness Group

Hi BanyanTree,

Just so you know, I placed the {{hangon}} tag on the page in question because the author(s) had placed an equivalent message on the talk page. MacGuy^{(contact me)} 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I like to think that I never forget to check blue-linked talk tabs when reviewing CAT:CSD, but an explicit {{hangon}} reduces the chances that I'll slip up greatly. Cheers, Banyan Tree 21:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and or &

Two reasons make me think it is a typo and he meant & - 1) Notes & Queries is a weekly column in the Guardian Newspaper, which is the same newspaper the article is being published in. 2) He says "in columns" .. Notes & Queries is a column, Notes and Queries is not a column. I guess it doesn't matter but I can't imagine he would not be referring to the column in his newspaper. BTW thanks for posting that, it was a very gracious compliment in particular coming from someone of his stature. -- Stbalbach 16:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that he was talking about your work in particular.

This is clearly is going to drive me mad as I disagree with you quite strongly, but still see your point. I've written a letter to the "reader's representative" of the Guardian explaining the disagreement and requesting clarification from Mr. Sutherland. Hopefully they'll respond. Cheers, Banyan Tree 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok hope he replies. I removed that abusive YouTube video from his page, which he mentions in the article, clearly a violation of WP:BLP -- Stbalbach 21:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK nomination for United States Africa Command was successful

Did you know? was updated. On February 11, 2007, a fact from the article United States Africa Command, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid 64 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ho! You were the one that nominated it? I wondered. Thank you. :) --Petercorless 19:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and thank you for your detailed expansion. - Banyan Tree 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA counter bot stalled again

Sorry to keep bugging you, but I'm going to be traveling a lot, and this bot seems to need constant monitoring; has been stalled again for several days. Message left on User talk:Jmax-bot SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sandy, I'm actually packing for a brief trip right now, but I've left a note at Jmax-'s talk. Cheers, Banyan Tree 14:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to pack :-) I'll have limited internet access, so just wanted to be sure lots of people are following up. Have a good trip! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger, that's a real pity. Is it possible to fix this (I'm not good with the tech) or is this not possible? Witty lama 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent discussion at User talk:Jmax-bot suggests that the cascading protection is not the problem and Jmax- has just stated his computer died a couple of days ago. He can recreate it, but it will take some time. So the bot, as we know it, is dead. Until it is resurrected, keeping the count off of the Main Page seems in order. I'm not sure what the FA folks feel like doing in terms of no template/manual updating/waiting it out. - Banyan Tree 21:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dear Banyan Trere

I read the the link which you showed.
I understand it is possible to write word in forein character, isn't it?
Tokyo Watcher

Replied to Tokyo Watcher/博多っ子 there. - Banyan Tree 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you!
The Tokyo watcher write an article about Tokyo.

Thanks in advance for your help.

「よろしくおねがいいたします」。

Tokyo Watcher 09:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About 「戒名」

You are writing down a posthumous Buddhist name by the alphabet but the posthumous Buddhist name can not be understood a meaning if read out a kanji. That is why Kanji must be written in Kanji Style. How do you think about 「戒名」?Tokyo Watcher 09:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Watcher, 私は少し日本語ができますから、今回日本語でがんばります。

英語のウィキペディアに記事にないと（例えば、「戒名」）漢字で書けばいいんです。その結果はこんな編集がいりません。英語の記事のAzabuがあってあそこにja:麻布への言語間リンクがありますから。そのほか、英語のウィキペディアを読んでる人々のほとんどは日本語ができません。漢字は直接のリンクもであれば日本語ができない人々は簡単にjaに行って道に迷います。- Banyan Tree 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Japanese is primitive level same as I am in English, then I correct your your description.
「Tokyo Watcher、私は少し日本語が出来ますので、今回は頑張って日本語で記述します。英語のウィキペディアに記事にない場合は（例えば、「戒名」）漢字で書くことを勧めます。その結果はこんな編集がいりません（←意味不明？)。英語の記事のAzabuがああり、そこにja:麻布への言語間リンクがありますから。そのほか、英語のウィキペディアを読む人々のほとんどは日本語が出来ないと想定されます。漢字は直接のリンクもであれば日本語ができない人々は簡単にjaに行って道に迷います。【←意味不明？】」
Tokyo Watcher

Mr.BanyanTree
Show the ground of your claim by the rule of the Wikipedia.

「お願い致しまする。」

Tokyo Watcher 23:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about I use all of the Wikipedias as an example? In the article ja:ウィリアム・シェイクスピア, why doesn't William Shakespeare link to en:William Shakespeare? Because it is a bad idea, and confusing for people who read Japanese but not English. If you really don't believe me, go ask someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan or one of the people at Wikipedia:Local Embassy#日本語 (Nihongo). Not everything has to be written down in policy before it makes sense. - Banyan Tree 23:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr.BanyanTree
Show the Wikipedia:Interlanguage links.
It is permitted in Wiki that set a link among languages, isn't it?
Tokyo Watcher

Interlanguage links appear in the left hand column, not in the main body of text. When on William Shakespeare, there is a list under "In other languages", which includes "日本語" with a link to ja:ウィリアム・シェイクスピア. Similarly, on ja:ウィリアム・シェイクスピア, there is list under "他の言語", which includes "English" with a link to en:William Shakespeare. That is an interlanguage link, not a link in the text. Try reading ja:Wikipedia:言語間リンク. - Banyan Tree 23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.BanyanTree
Wiki is managed under the rule.
Please show the rule of Wiki., rather than example.Tokyo Watcher

Actually the wiki runs largely under a few foundational principles, extrapolations of those principles and a lot of community norms. If nobody besides you is linking kanji, then there is probably a very good reason that this is so. I've explained to you what I feel is a good reason, but you want a firm rule. There cannot be a rule for everything. You are wrong in this and your edits will continue to be reverted if you continue. Seriously, stop talking to me, whom you clearly do not believe, and ask someone else. - Banyan Tree 01:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr.BanyanTree
You say "You are wrong in this", I am perplexed it. Please describe your claim on the basis of the rule of Wiki. I think that you are stating your comment only, isn't it?
I want to discuss with you thoroughly about this matter.
I hope you to state your idea logically.
Tokyo Watcher

If you don't recognize that "Nobody has ever done this" as a strong normative statement, nor recognize the argument I've presented as to why this is the case, then I have zero interest in discussing it further. I have a limited amount of time these days to spend on the wiki and I would prefer to do something besides explain the power of social norms in Wikipedia. I've started a section Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#linking kanji to ja asking for other input. Please ask any questions you may have there. - Banyan Tree 03:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you very much

Thanks you very much dear friend BanyanTree.
I have a lot to be thankful for your kindness.ありがとうございます
Tokyo Watcher

Mr. BanyanTree

Tokyo Watcher is writing only an article about Tokyo. Wishing to do a reply to Tokyo Watcher about the thing about Tokyo. Tokyo is nice place, please come Tokyo, you are welcome!!
I give you Manekineko whichi is a cat causes good luck. I appreciate your friendship.Tokyo Watcher

Bad Image List

Why is Image:Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration_Still_Frame.jpg on the Bad Image List? And for that matter, what is this list? The reason I am asking is that this image is part of an ongoing and often heated discussion on the Ejaculation article. User:Atomaton argued against this image and then tried to speedy delete it. Now it ends up here. I'm getting the feeling that this image is being censored. What is the criteria for putting images on this list? Who decides this and why? Where is the discussions for and against putting images on this list? What is going on here? This just doesn't seem right. This image is being used on the Semen article at http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemensy%C3%B6ksy?uselang=en. Will this image being on this list affect foreign language wikis too? Please give me an answer back on my Talk Page. Thanks Infofreak 17:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there - Banyan Tree 18:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sherbro People

I don't know why you would delete my article on the Sherbro Culture or merge it with any other article. How much do you know about the Sherbros anyway? Did you know if I was researching them and wanted to gather adequate information on them before editing? Please stop trying to police those who know more about certain subjects than you and those who are trying to improve wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK, if you want a full discussion, I'll put them up at AFD and recommend a merge. - Banyan Tree 20:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for "knowing more", the sum total of the four articles you created on aspects of the Sherbro is now at Sherbro people, which now totals a little less than two paragraphs. It might be best to expand that page until it reaches an unwieldy size, and then break off daughter articles.

Also, I noticed that you recreated Category:Sherbro People and have put it and Category:Sherbro up at CFD. I see no reason why "People" should be capitalized as a proper noun. - Banyan Tree 20:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sherbro people

You are correct BanyanTree, I apologize for the misunderstanding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No worries. Cheers, Banyan Tree 13:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kentuc

That user you just blocked is a sock. A checkuser is being performed on this user, who continually replaces userpages whith INDEFBLOCK. I'll get you the link now. Retiono Virginian 18:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RFCU#indefblocked_vandal. Retiono Virginian 18:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I hadn't realized that there was a checkuser request. I've added a few more that people hadn't recorded. - Banyan Tree 19:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking this over

and contemplating advising Mike Peel and David Kernow that Interwiki link templates needs a seperate category for these Interwiki sisterlinks templates, would probably be good, albeit a bit redundant. In any event, if you're working down this backlog, these are all part of a very complicated set. See Music for the kludge in full glory. They need put into the same category. Adding them individually to a sister-special category like this edit is okay, but there aren't a lot of those planned that I know of, but suite yourself. That's not a bad idea either, save for category creep. It might have it's uses. I'll bring it up with those two, since they've been waving the baton and leading the reorchestration of the template categorisation. Cheers! // FrankB 06:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that involved. I created Category:Interwiki translation templates out of sheer annoyance that the names of the templates were so ambiguous and probably made the edit you point out while I was in the area. If someone is actually trying to standardize a system, all the better. - Banyan Tree 12:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anishinaabemowin language Userbox

Aaniin, with great effort from User:Miskwito, we now have the oj series of Anishinaabemowin language userboxes. On the WP:IPNA/Nish page, we have a matrix of the possible categories for the oj series and the major dialect groupings. You can now add to your Userpage one of the oj userboxes that are available or you can help create a userbox for the dialect of your interest. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Babel#Ojibwe_language_userboxes for the full discussion. Miigwech. CJLippert 23:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Paride Taban

I just created an article for Paride Taban, and I was wondering if you've heard of him. Mostly, I'm wondering because I'm surprised that the article didn't already exist, as well as an article for his village, Kuron, and am thinking that there may be some spelling variations or something. Also, I'd like some help from someone more familiar with WP articles on Sudan in deorphaning the article and the one on the peace village, which I'll probably create soon if no one else does first.

I guess I'd bring it up at a wikiproject, but... its disheartening mentioning an article like this for a project about a continent, especially when Wikipedia:WikiProject Sudan exists but is inactive. Hopefully the whole business somehow works out for the better. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smmurphy, The name doesn't ring any bells, though I've certainly heard of the New Sudan Council of Churches. Given its key role in the southern conflict over the past decades, I wish I was surprised that it's redlinked. I've just picked up my stake and moved and things are absolutely silly in Real Life^TM right now, but I will try to fill in that redlink sometime soon and give your new bio a context. Cheers, Banyan Tree 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and best of luck. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super smash bros. computer game -> Super Smash Bros. Melee for RfD

Hi,

Just letting you know I RfD'd the redirect that you created, Super smash bros. computer game -> Super Smash Bros. Melee. The article, originally written by someone else, contained the one sentence "super smash bros. computer game is super smash bros. melee." It was put up for speedy, but you changed it into a redirect. I don't think this was the right decision, as there is no such thing as a Super Smash Bros. Melee computer game (it's a console video game). Also, please also reserve the use of the "m" in edit summaries for edits which are truly superficial. --JianLi 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap. Clearly someone thought that it was a reasonable description of the game, or the article would never have been created. As for superficial, a one-line article that duplicated the info in a pre-existing article was turned into a redirect to that pre-existing article. In terms of edits that affect the substantive content or structure of the encyclopedia, it's about as minor as one can get. I'm not quite sure why people seem to think that deleting an article is less controversial than turning it into a redirect, but that is clearly the case in my experience. - Banyan Tree 03:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decade

Yes, it's wrong, I think (don't believe every uncited fact you read on Wiki!). Since there was no year zero, the first decade ended at the end of AD 10 (e.g. 1-10 inclusive). Since the second millennium started at the beginning of 2001 (see e.g. the Royal Observatory [1] or the US naval Observatory [2]), working back we have 1991, 1981, and 1971. Therefore technically 1970 was the last year of the 1960s, and the 1960s began at the beginning of 1961, and ended at the end of 1970. There may however be some separate sociological definition that I'm not aware of though, but by timekeeping 1970 was actually part of the 1960s, not the 1970s. (Hope that makes some sense!) I agree that it's more or less arbitrary anyway re the WWII media section- thanks for not reverting. All the best, Badgerpatrol 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Collegiatetimes041707.jpg

Hi BanyanTree, may I know what kind of resolution sizes is considered low resolution? Thanks. Arsonal 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arsonal, I've never seen a firm number but, generally speaking, anything that exceeds the borders of a page at its highest resolution is pushing it. Ideally, the fair use image will be exactly the size of its intended use, so no thumbnailing is needed. An example of a newspaper front page that is fairly detailed but which no one has complained about is Image:AdvertiserParksDies.jpg, so you may want to use that as an outer boundary. Cheers, Banyan Tree 00:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Edit

Yes,i am sorry, i found out afterwards that i was in the wrong. And if you'd of read my talk page, you would of noticed that! Please also in future, makesure you write on my talk page in the correct place, as stated numerous times. Thenthornthing 07:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the preexisting discussion was about usage of the semiprotected tag, not about the changes to content. Sorry about messing up your talk page formatting. - Banyan Tree 07:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's ok- i thought somewhere that it said something aout me doing something, oh it doesnt mnatter :) cheers Thenthornthing 07:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walther P22 dispute

An article which you have edited, Talk:Walther P22#Request for Comment: Walther P22 – is involved in a dispute requiring inputs from editors to develop a consensus for editors to follow on whether or not mention of the Virginia Tech Massacre should be mentioned in the firearm article, or if mention in the VT Massacre article of the firearms used, with a link back to the Walther P22 article, is adequate. Thank you. Yaf 22:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to have a look in on Talk:Walther P22 again. Griot has canvassed only those users who want to keep the VT mention in the article, so I am alerting those who were not yet contacted. There has been discussion on WP:ANI about the outcome of the previous polls. Your continued involvement in the discussion(s) would be welcomed. ··coel acan 23:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. I would like to do something productive on the wiki. Cheers, Banyan Tree 00:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost links

Yay! Thank you! (but get them all)(and how come the China one is missing?)(boy, can't fix things fast enough, huh? ;-) ) Shenme 07:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I was wondering why the Signpost folks don't use a navbox, but figured that it would be impossible for me to mess up such a simple list. Fixed now, I think. - Banyan Tree 08:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good. (I checked all the pages, though not all the links) Thank you! (I was about to try to do it myself, but it is much more fun to watch from the sidelines, while reading the 'paper. :-) Thanks again. Shenme 08:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iditarod

No problem, have you heard whether they released the final report on Brooks yet ? EnviroGranny 12:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't, but I'm not following as closely as I could. - Banyan Tree 13:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lualaba River

Hi -- could you clarify the scope of the Category:Lake Tanganyika. I was wondering why the Lualaba River is in? Is it because the L Tanganyika basin is a tributary? There are a number of other articles associated with L Tanganyika and I just want to check the criteria before I make additions. Regards, Rexparry sydney 04:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rexparry sydney, I created the category as both a host for Category:Settlements on Lake Tanganyika, as well as for any other articles that are related to the lake. I got the idea from seeing Category:Lake Kivu. You exactly describe my reasoning for adding Lualaba River - I figure rivers that flow into or out of the lake have a clear link. If you can think of a reason why someone looking at the category might be interested in the other articles you're thinking of, go for it. The category could do with some populating. Cheers, Banyan Tree 05:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hutu-Tutsi query

I put a response to your query up at at Talk:History of Rwanda. Having just looked at some of the previous debate I am now planning on looking at the actual Rwandan related pages with some trepidation ... Thanks for the query. Chris Lowe 03:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, I've responded there as well. - Banyan Tree 06:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethno-racial categories; Rwandan military history

Well, the articles weren't nearly as bad as I feared from the older comments on the talk page, though I think the current form of the Origins of Tutsi and Hutu article significantly underplays the state of current scholarship's emphasis on social and historical construction of these identities (the main History of Rwanda article seems better on this score). Treating "Cushites" and "Ethiosemites" and "Bantu" as bio-ethnic categories rather than linguistic ones is at minimum highly problematic, would not be accepted outside of physical anthropology and I suspect is contentious even within that field; saying that Cushites and Ethiosemites, however defined, are not African, while Bantu are, is simply unacceptable, amounting to warmed-over Hamitic hypothesis. For a different broad approach to deep histories of ethno-linguistic interaction from Northeast Africa to the deep south, see Christopher Ehret, An African Classical Age: Eastern and Southern Africa in World History, 1000 B.C. to A.D. 400 (that is the minimum time depth to which distinctions among Cushitic, Semitic, Nilotic, Bantu and other relevant language categories within Africa can be traced). On the Hamitic hypothesis, while Walter Rodney's explicit address to its application to Tutsi and Hutu sounds particularly important given its use by the RPF, challenges to it predate Rodney; there was a particularly influential explosion of it in Journal of African History in 1966 or 1967, forget the author's name.

Noticing your interest in military history, I thought I might also mention that much of Alison Des Forges' early scholarship was on the structure and social role of the military in pre-colonial Rwanda, before she turned to working on the genocide for Human Rights Watch.

Cheers, sala kahle, Chris Lowe 04:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, I think the point that Mamdani hammers around is that the "Hamitic hypothesis" of black Europeans civilizing the savage Bantus is ludicrous. Since I find it self-evidently ludicrous, perhaps the point that its entirely discredited is not apparent from how I wrote the article? I thought it provided enough counter-arguments. Besides the fact that I also don't have any sources that explicit debunk the Hamitic hypothesis, so can't add a sourced statement saying so.

Unfortunately, I am pretty much cut off from any quality academic sources that aren't already in my library. I keep returning to these articles as part of my dream to turn Rwandan Genocide into a featured article, but the sources I find most convincing are rooted in long historical processes that receive pitiful coverage on the wiki. I thus end up chipping away at articles that are peripheral to the books I'm reading. Any help you could give would be much appreciated.

On an entirely different topic, due to a recent uproar, editors who claim academic credentials are strongly urged to provide proof. (I've already removed any trace of my own claims as I find this requirement annoying and prefer my pseudonymity in any case.) If you want to send me an email with confirmation I could post a note to your talk as an admin. Something like an email from a Yale account that is also mentioned in a Yale page listing PhD dissertations would be fine. Cheers, Banyan Tree 05:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Mantissa Corporation

Hello, there. I am the author of the article regarding the software company Mantissa Corporation, which was recently deleted. While clearly I am disappointed with the final result, I nevertheless wanted to thank you for your lucid and detailed explanation as to why that decision was taken. I must say, that with a couple of notable exceptions, some of the most vehement proponents of cancellation were not very responsive to my repeated posts attempting to explain my position. I'm speaking primarily of the French and Italian versions of this page, which I endeavored to translate from the English. One Wikipedian in particular took the notion that I had run the article through Babelfish, and therefore was the perpetrator of a spamming campaign. He called vigorously for its cancellation in English, Italian and French. In the Italian discussion forum he attempted to reinforce his view by citing what was going on with the English page, which had been initiated by him, as though it were some sort of objective corroboration of his opinion!?!? He responded only once, and glibly, to my explanations in each of those forums, in which I maintained that I had taken the time to translate the content first then created the pages one after the other. After all, the multi-lingual aspect of Wikipedia is something I greatly appreciate and enjoy. At any rate, I never succeeded in swaying his opinion on the spamming thing, and the Italian page has since disappeared. Pity. His actions were particularly frustrating to me as a new contributor. I wish he had not taken that spamming idea and run so far with it so fast, I guess.

Nevertheless, I understand that there were other concerns with the article, and I respect the Wikipedia community's dedication to maintaining the highest possible standard of academic integrity. I think your explanation in particular, as to why the article was deleted, in that it was clear, non-accusatory, and finally instructive, represents that committment to the highest degree. I will apply the guidance therein to my next project, whatever and whenever that may be. Thanks again. I'll try and get it right next time...Sathrif 14:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the nicest response to an admin action I've ever received on Wikipedia. Thank you for taking the time to write it. Don't hesitate to drop me a line if you ever have a question in the course of your future wiki-ing. Cheers, Banyan Tree 21:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ifoughtme

I highly encourage you to unblock this user. The concern noted at MediaWiki talk:Welcomecreation may not have been worded in the best way, but the user was in no way being disruptive. I've left a note on the talk page linked above and User:Ifoughtme not only raised a valid concern, it was a correct one. - auburnpilot talk 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that edits insulting other users and other edits designed to be incivil are the definition of "disruptive". I don't know how a new user finds himself on a MediaWiki talk page and Main Page talk referring to the FA director by name in his first few edits. It's pretty clearly an old user letting off steam. If he wants to be constructive, he can do so while being civil. You have noted his valid complaint, which I admit I didn't spot in all the invective and wasn't in the mood to search for after seeing the Talk:Main Page edit, so I don't know what the point of unblocking would be besides to see what other insults he can come up with. I certainly won't overturn my own block, but also won't argue if it is overturned on appeal. - Banyan Tree 03:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey

You have got a long memory. It took me ages to find what you were referring to. I'm so embarrassed... except, we were all newbies once, lol. How on earth did you remember that!!??! --Dweller 11:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was driving myself crazy at RFA trying to figure out why I recognized your username. Finally I reread your userpage and "International Care & Relief" finally clicked. It was then just a matter of looking through my talk archives. BTW, this was one of the incidents that convinced me that I had finally gone off the rails and needed to be desysopped to regain my sanity. (My adminship is back, though some may still question my sanity.) Definitely one of my more embarrassing incidents on the wiki. Moving on to topics that don't make me shuffle my feet nervously, it looks like you are a shoe-in for the shiny buttons, given the rate of incoming supports. Cheers, Banyan Tree 11:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block request for User:81.68.92.38

We (As in myself and User: Professional Gamer) need your help. This user, though he is now blocked for a month, may never cease to stop ruining the List of Celebrity Deathmatch episodes. I do not want the article to be ruined by his hands, so I am requesting that a permanent block may be the only necessary means of doing away with this anonymous user. Thank you, and I hope to get a message as soon as possible. Link 486 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Link 486, You should probably bring this to the attention of the admin whose block is currently in place. ([log) I do not believe that I have ever edited the page in question or encountered this vandal. Blocks of shared IPs for longer than a month are rare and it looks to me like admins are being conservative, as they should. If the blocking admin doesn't want to extend, I suggest waiting until the next vandalism and posting to WP:AIAV, requesting an extended block. Note that a "permanent block" is equivalent to a "ban", so you may want to look at Wikipedia:Banning policy. In my opinion, this had not yet reached the level of "exhausting the community's patience" as stated under that policy, though he may be trying your patience. If you want to try your luck, a posting to WP:ANI laying out your reasoning for a block extension may, but probably won't, get a response.

On this point, please avoid responding emotionally to vandalism. Getting a rise out of someone gives vandals a rush and encourages them to come back. Hopefully, this has been of some use to you. - Banyan Tree 00:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Succession box for lain in state/honor

Kudos, cookies and barnstars for that idea! Finally, a succession box with information that is useful and not duplicated in the article text or in another template. Well done. — MrDolomite • Talk 12:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be the least likely reason for an award that I can imagine! That's awesome. I couldn't resist once I saw how unlikely the list of people was. I'm sticking it on my user page. Thanks! Banyan Tree 13:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I felt I had to delete your piece on species inflation

I've deleted your bit on species inflation. An explanation is on the talk page. Sorry to be discouraging. —Pengo 04:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. - Banyan Tree 05:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

getting to Japan

Thank you, that lifted me up right when it seemed I will never get to Japan. I so appreciate your support! Domo arigato, Chris 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations/Wars of Africa

Hi BanyanT. Could you please have a look at the link and see if you can help? Some articles are needing more references in order to get released. You can leave your comments at the page as well. Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 30 May, 2007, a fact from the article Shifta War, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Aquarius  talk 14:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help with Hoplophobia

User Dreftymac is accusing me of abusive behavior and is exhibiting what appears to me to be bordering on abusive behavior on the Hoplophobia article. Would you have a look at the article talk page and history and tell me if I was really out of line? It looks to me like this guy has a big axe to grind on this article and is just chasing off other contributers, but I'm not sure. If you can't help, can you recommend someone? Thanks. —BozoTheScary 17:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bozo, you appear to be hammering out a solution with Dreftymac at Talk:Hoplophobia, so I'm not sure if you're still looking for outside intervention. You should continue the discussion as long as it seems constructive, though you may have to deal with some sharp elbows. I would suggest laying out the points on which you disagree on the talk and describing your ideal structure for the article, e.g. lead section followed by controversies section, with a reason why you think this is the best way of presenting the subject in an encyclopedic manner. If tempers are running a bit hot, take a day or two off from the article. It's not going anywhere. You've been on the article for one day, so give it some time before escalating the dispute resolution. As the user changing the status quo on the article, the burden of proof is on you to show why your reasoning is better founded, better cited and more clear. Though the talk page could do with less bolding and italicizing. In my opinion, a path for a mutually acceptable version is still open. If discussion goes nowhere, bump it up to an RFC or third-party mediation. Let me know if I can help. - Banyan Tree 20:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate you having a look. My issue is that I made a reasonable edit that post-dated the latest talk entry and this guy comes down on my like a ton of bricks quoting chapter and verse about how I've impugned him and violated every policy under the sun. This is really the kind of behavior that chases lots of good contributors away. I've made a cursory look at his history and I haven't found any other crazed outbursts like this, but, wow, this is really over the top as far as I'm concerned. I'll give him a few days, but I really don't see him suddenly going sane over this article. There's some real righteous indignation there and a lawyer's talent for verbosity and using policy as a weapon. I may have already screwed up any chances of reaching any accord by sinking/rising to his level of verbosity in my most recent entry on that page. I really have been trying to calm him down and take account of his concerns, but that just seems to escalate his rhetoric against me. I thought, probably mistakenly, that engaging him in his point-by-point pissing contest might make a difference. Thanks again for looking and thanks for the advice. —BozoTheScary 21:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a second read of the article history and I think that I understand better what is going on. Dreftymac selectively edited a quote to reverse the meaning of a cited source. The author was being ironic, as evidenced by the follow up sentence, so it was easy to reverse the intent by omitting the follow up sentence. Dreftymac objected to using the source initially and stopped objecting when he reversed the source's intent by selective quoting. I don't know what policy that falls under, but it strikes me as a little WP:VAN and a little WP:POV. No matter how you slice it, it was deliberately dishonest and done by someone who is intimately familiar with these policies.

My primary issue is not with the content of the article. I don't even think the article passes muster for WP:NEO and it should be subjected to an AfD. My primary issue is with this person's behavior. From the very first instant he deluged me with accusations of POV, which is particularly galling since I have finally understood his initial dishonest POV edit. Doubly disturbing is that Dreftymac contributes regularly to policy articles about edit wars and such.

Is there any recourse for reporting this user for abusive behavior? I cannot imagine how his behavior can be let to stand without censure. I can handle his abuse. I don't want him chasing off other contributors with thinner skin without at least thinking twice. —BozoTheScary 02:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can try another step in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Similarly, if you are willing to argue notability, put the article up for deletion. In either case, you'll soon figure out if others agree with you.

I'm going to fail in my attempt to refrain from voicing my own opinion on the matter. I don't see where you are getting the impression that the other user is attacking you. I personally have been more aggressive with users, especially experienced users, that I disagree with than Dreftymac has been with you. Your threat to put the article up for AFD seems nonsensical, as it clearly passes verifiability and has enough Google hits to pass notability. You would be more credible if you actually went ahead and AFDed it, rather than repeatedly threatening to do so. In seeking an explanation for the edits you disagree with, you are ignoring the basic rule of assuming incompetence, not malice. I once again advise you take a break from the article. Come back later and see if you can see a pattern of abuse across a range of Dreftymac's edits. If you can't, nobody is going to censure a user for one screwup and, after scanning the talk page, I'm not sure that there was a screwup in the first place. If you want a second opinion, you can try WP:VPA or WP:ANI. - Banyan Tree 03:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you looking at the discussion and expressing your opinion. I would actually love to see a discussion where you've behaved similarly to Dreftymac.

I don't particularly understand where you get the impression that I am threatening to get the article deleted. I have failed in an attempt to defend a neologism with double the content and about half the notability (264 ughits to Hoplophobia's 527 ughits) that was easily deleted. So, I really don't know what the cutoff is and I figured that Hoplophobia was probably under it. Also, I considered that Dreftymac may have been hoping for the activity on the article to die down enough for it to be deleted with little notice. So, I really didn't want to fight over an article that, for all I knew, should be deleted and that the other guy may have wanted to delete.

You stated, "in seeking an explanation for the edits you disagree with, you are ignoring the basic rule of assuming incompetence, not malice." Are you sure that you're reading my statements/questions? Dreftymac is interspersing his responses with mine and is not signing each response. I'm afraid that it is looking like I am saying the things that he/she's saying. Could you give me a quote that you're referring to? My initial query was whether or not I was being the jerk he was accusing me of. If you're telling me that I was inappropriate, I'd really like to know where. I realize that you're talking about the shortened quote here. I agree that I am having difficulty attributing any of Drefymac's behavior to incompetence. I know that contributors to policy pages can make mistakes, too, but the way that Dreftymac changed his tune on the quote and then shortened it doesn't pass the smell test. Especially after the way he responded when I removed his doctored quote. I might be able to believe that there was an oversight driven by bias, but not that it was an honest mistake.

Thanks again for your time. —BozoTheScary 23:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to BozoTheScary: I am reluctant to kick up already-settled dust, but I only recently discovered these remarks. This needs to be addressed: "Dreftymac changed his tune on the quote and then shortened it doesn't pass the smell test ... Especially after the way he responded"

Regarding Hoplophobia, if you review the talk history, you will notice that I consistently asked for one thing: "Stick to the content in cited sources, pretty please." I never "changed my tune" ... I simply asked you and all the other contributors to quote directly from the reference (that other contributors besides me insisted to keep in the article in the first place); and not "restate" it in their own words. I also asked that a publication claiming to be "America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership" not be used as a reference for psychiatric and medical claims, because clearly it was not a reliable source for such research.

Furthermore, when you finally (seemed to) catch on to this point that I had made repeatedly, you expanded the quote to counter my alleged "doctoring" and I supported your expansion of the quote! Even the parts of the expansion I disagreed with, I left in the article anyway, and simply proposed changes on the talk page, subject to your (and everyone else's) approval, in an attempt to move forward. [3]

I simply suggest, BozoTheScary, in the future, please try to consider that there may be more productive approaches to resolving an apparent dispute; approaches that do not require "smell test" attacks on the motives of others. I don't single you out, as I include myself among those who should be careful not to automatically assume other contributors are acting in bad faith. Respectfully submitted, dr.ef.tymac 02:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I don't think that extending this discussion would be very constructive. I'm going to take my own advice and walk away from a discussion where I feel that my emotions are interfering with my judgment. Please seek outside opinions if you wish to continue this line of argument. Thanks, Banyan Tree 23:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:209.78.98.26

Hello I need help. Can you please delete the vandalism and realy needs to be taken down on page 209.78.98.26

I don't know what else to do to take the vandalism down from it's history as it pops up in a search but is not on the current page and is realy harmful.

thank you.

Hello, if you mean that you're finding an old revision of the page in a search engine cache or mirror site, there's nothing we can do on Wikipedia. The good news is that the info will eventually be removed as the search engine and mirror update. If you simply don't want your talk page filled with warnings that have nothing to do with you, please create an account. Thanks, Banyan Tree 22:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it sounds like...

... I stuffed something up last night while disambiguating links. I wouldn't be surprised at all. I was editing links with drooping eyelids - instead of sensibly going to sleep. Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa. Now be a good chap and tell me where and what I stuffed up so I can fix it and check my edits for similar stuff-ups. Thanks for letting me know. Paxse 13:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "mistake", if you want to call it that, is fixing redirects. The server costs of editing each page to point directly at the target article is much more than the redirect costs. Also, redirects sometimes exist on pages that deserve articles that nobody has gotten around to writing. For example, someone may add a redlink to "Economy of Ancient Kingdom of Foo" and someone else may turn "Economy of Ancient Kingdom of Foo" into a redirect to "Economy of Modern Republic of Foo", which actually exists. When someone starts an article "Economy of Ancient Kingdom of Foo", all the "fixed" redirects have to be changed back, assuming that the person who changed them in the first place remembers the location of all the 'fixed redirects', which were actually fine as they were. All in all, it's normally a good idea to leave redirects alone unless you're already editing a page and are clear on why a link is a redirect. Cheers, Banyan Tree 22:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Banyan Tree (cool name btw), thanks for your reply. I understand and agree completely with your general points about editing redirects. But I’m still trying to work out which of my specific edits you think were ill-considered. I genuinely want to know as I’m still working on fixing dab links. If I’m doing something wrong, I’d like to learn why and avoid making the same mistake again.

I’ve checked my contribs and found a few redirects that I’ve edited in the last little while – Chumash (Native American tribe) and Chumash Indians. In each case they were pointing to the dab page Chumash. I edited each of the redirects to point directly to Chumash (tribe). I was trying to clean up article links to the dab page and fixing these unambiguous redirects helps to prevent new article links being sent to a dab page (and building up there to be cleaned again!) instead of redirecting to the target article. Actually, in retrospect, Chumash (Native American tribe) seems to be a fairly unlikely redirect – though it could help prevent a duplicate article being written. Are these the edits you were referring to? Paxse

The short answer is that I didn't see any redirect fixes that I considered questionable; the practice of fixing redirects is questionable. You wandered across my watchlist so I thought I'd point you to the relevant guideline. Cheers, Banyan Tree 14:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact

I've added your recent edits from Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact to Polynesian navigation. Please help improve that article if you have time. —Viriditas | Talk 12:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]