User talk:Renamed user ixgysjijel/Archive 12

Re: Jackie Chan

Thank you for your message. I'll continue editing the article as is. If there are any problems, I'll let you know. Thanks.--Kylohk 15:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the talk page, the matter seemed to be escalating. The other editor is still refusing to let anyone edit the page despite good intentions. I think something should be done about this.--Kylohk 08:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue improving the article. I will handle any further reversions. At some point I will likely remove Jackie Chan from my watchlist, as it is far outside my normal editing sphere; if a problem recurs and I do not appear to be responding, feel free to notify me on my talk. Thank you, Banyan Tree 09:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Habyarimana and Ntaryamira

On 11 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Assassination of Habyarimana and Ntaryamira, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 23:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm pleased it made the cut. - Banyan Tree 23:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A7

Please do not presume to tell me to "read the CSD tags", that I do not understand CSD because one term doesn't fall in the list on the CSD tag. It still fits under the criteria. -- Renesis (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the specific context of a tag you removed as "invalid", I quote from the article itself: "A newer addition to Artemis's product line is Artemis 7.". It is obvious that the subject of the article is the company. I read each article I tagged to determine whether it was "remarkable" or "unremarkable" and whether it was advertising for a company or group or not, which is obviously more than you did when you removed the tag and came to my talk page to insult me regarding the tagging. -- Renesis (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two; I wouldn't have bothered to make a note of it if I had seen only one. So you wished to nominate an article for speedy deletion under one criteria but used the tag for another, and are now angry that I didn't do more work than you in evaluating the article to figure out what tag you really meant. Interesting. - Banyan Tree 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you only saw one, I know you did several. I wasn't asking for you to do more work, but to at least to perform due diligence before making a statement like "invalid tag". I'll give you an answer about why I didn't delete the articles myself anyway: I am too close to the issue. I constantly watch List of project management software for spam. It has been a spam magnet since it's exitsed, and that has somewhat jaded me to what is valid. This is sort of the conversation I'd hoped would occur, although I'd like for it to come without accusation that I was throwing the tag around without understanding the reasons it exists. -- Renesis (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renesis, I don't know how to say this any more clearly: The tag was invalid. It was being used in a manner that is not covered by policy. Try a G11 tag next time, so the evaluating admin knows from the first sentence of the article that the tag is valid. I certainly won't apologize for telling a user that his attempt to have an article speedy deleted has flawed reasoning, and I'll even go so far as to say that such an issue deserves a sharp rebuke. - Banyan Tree 20:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, keep responding to my comments with tripe about invalid tags. Obviously this conversation is going nowhere, as you listen to nothing I say. -- Renesis (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do get the feeling that we are talking past each other. - Banyan Tree 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greydon Square

Why did you delete the images??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxiemas (talk • contribs)

I deleted Image:The Compton Effect.jpg (log), while another admin deleted Image:Greydon square.jpg (log). Per the explanation on your own talk page, both had been uploaded with restrictions on use that are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Please read the note on your talk page for details. - Banyan Tree 04:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Langham

I notice the account User:Lahany was also editing articles in this area, it might be related to the User:Lhinternational account you are looking at. - SimonLyall 06:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am awaiting a response to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lhinternational and will likely list this on WP:COI/N, rather than undertaking a mass rollback/deletion/block on my own. Thanks for the heads up. - Banyan Tree 03:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the checkuser, they are unrelated. They should therefore be dealt with as normal questionable edits. - Banyan Tree 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi Ficus benghalensis, thank you for the kind comments at my RfA. Shyamal 03:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, banyan really does refer to many species with similar characteristics, besides F. benghalensis. ;) Congratulations on the shiny new buttons! - Banyan Tree 03:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Vacuum Society

BT what was wrong with this article to warrant a deletion? thanks Ivan —Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanGeoPetrov (talk • contribs) at 12:32, 20 June 2007

Hi Ivan, your article has been deleted twice. See the log. The first time you blanked the article at 05:09, 18 April 2007, which is interpreted as a request for deletion by the author under WP:CSD#G7. I deleted at 05:09, 18 April 2007. The second deletion appears to have been carried out due to copyright concerns, though I wasn't the deleting admin. - Banyan Tree 19:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BT I deleted the first time because I wanted to think about it. Then [User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]] deleted it for copy right vialation but I rewrote it and then he approved it. please look at my talk; this latest deletion seems came from you and Spike Wilbury. I am not too knowlegable about Wikipedia, but AVS is a legitimate society just like the Optical Society of America thank for your help Ivan IvanGeoPetrov 01:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored American Vacuum Society. Note that the phrase "AVS is organized into 10 technical divisions and 2 technical groups" is exactly the same as that found here, which may have been what Spike Wilbury saw before he deleted it as copyvio. Note that the article, as currently written, is in very non-standard formatting and there are no external links by credible third-party sources discussing the AVS, as specified under Wikipedia:Notability. I have undeleted without bias to it being deleted again under another process or rationale. Until the article is improved, it remains in danger of being put into another deletion process. I will also leave a welcome message on your talk so you have easy access to the core site policies and editing tips. - Banyan Tree 02:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BT As far as your remark about the "AVS is organized into 10 technical divisions and 2 technical groups" in fact they claim 3 technical groups while I have two; one group was discontinued and they have not corrected their page. We are more accurate. As far as third parties what about the link to American Institute of Physics. Is that not enough? In any case I will have to do some reading in order to educate myself about the rules here. thanks IvanGeoPetrov 12:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation was not an attempt at discussion; it was pointing out a possible copyright violation. From the viewpoint of copyright law it doesn't matter if it's correct or not. The ideal third party sources determining notability would be several mainstream media articles all saying "The American Vacuum Society is a world recognized organization with substantial prestige for X, Y and Z reasons." Substitute those three media sources with PR documents and blog / internet forum sources, and you would have an article that would probably be deleted. (Note that "notability" has a specific, circumscribed meaning on Wikipedia that has been developed after many years of people adding articles on their pets and garage bands.)

If you haven't already seen them, I recommend Wikipedia:Your first article for the general overview, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for more detail on the issue we discuss above, the basic Wikipedia:Tutorial and, once you've gotten used to all the knobs and tweakers, Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, so the formatting doesn't set off alarm bells. - Banyan Tree 20:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BT, about notability: here is an article about AVS turning 50 in Industrial Physicist- http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-9/iss-5/p26.html; the journals of the society have a high impact factor of 11.5 and 1.5. here is 2002 ranking http://www.genebee.msu.su/journals/if01j2.html. 11.5 is a very high impact facor; I keep reading the education wikipedia articles. I will try to find something about the templates; thanks IvanGeoPetrov 15:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cando Projects

Hi BT, I'm sorry to see that my article "Cando Projects" has been the victim of Renesis's personal vendetta against what he consisders spam in the List of project management software. This issue started for me last year Oct - Nov 2006 when he threatened to delete the article because of "Blatant Commercialism". I reworked the article several times until he stopped tagging it for deletion. I thought the issue was resolved, until I noticed today, that it was deleted on 13 June 2007 by you. I followed with great interest your discussions with him on this page and those on his own talk page with other frustrated software vendors. Is there any way to get the article back? I really believe that our project management software is "Notable" and I am willing to rewrite the article so that it withstands even the most critical scrutiny. Thanks, Ross Rossinglish 13:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ross, I deleted the article under WP:CSD#A7 ("An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject."). Whatever disagreement I may have with Renesis on the above points, his tagging and my deletion in this case was correct. "Notability" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia that differs substantially from the everyday usage. Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) the article must be the subject of multiple secondary sources; the article included one external link to the company homepage. The article is also a "market"-ey in its phrasing and word choice, so may be deletable under CSD G11 as well.

If you wish access to build on the deleted version, I can restore the article in subpage of your userspace. Note that, if the article is not immediately improved to establish notability and moved into the main namespace, some users may see this as an attempt to use Wikipedia as a personal website or use your userspace to duck site policies in perpetuity. Reactions may include deletion of the page, blocking of your account as a spammer, and 'salting' the article by protecting the deleted article location, but these would be your problem, not mine. Let me know.

As for the many complaints on Renesis' talk page, about ten percent of my activity on Wikipedia is administrative, but you would think from my talk page it was all I do. Note the guy above who ignored the two messages on his talk page to come and complain on mine. A lot of complaints tells me that an admin is active, but little else. - Banyan Tree 02:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BT, Thanks for taking the time to explain what Notability is in the context of Wikipedia. The article about Cando Projects will have to be completely rewritten and the proper references cited. One quick question about references and language. Although the article is in english, can the references cite material (articles, university studies, etc.) that are not in english, but rather in our case, German? Thanks again, Ross. Rossinglish 12:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. English versions are preferred on English Wikipedia, of course, but foreign sources are acceptable when there's nothing else. Normally, when footnotes are used, one simply adds the templates {{de icon}} to indicate the language of the source. To get a sense of what this looks like, with the French template, see here. Note that somebody will still check the sources, and can tell whether Cando is the main topic of an article, even if it's in German. - Banyan Tree 12:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of The Church of Eclectic Pagan Fellowship page..

Hello BT;

I am Rev Amy Sampsell, the Secretary for the Church of Eclectic Pagan Fellowship. You asked that our Wiki page be deleted due to spam. I would like to ask why? CEPF is not spam I can assure you. We do exist, in Maryland as a matter of fact. You may check out our website if you wish. It can be found at http://www.cepf-usa.org

I really would like to know why you felt that it was spam please. You may email me at (email address removed so you don't get spammed) Thanks Rev A Sampsell —Preceding unsigned comment added by CEPF (talk • contribs)

Hi Rev. Sampsell, your article was first nominated for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Eclectic Pagan Fellowship. Several users there felt that it met the criteria for speedy deletion (general, 11th bullet point) and put it up for speedy deletion. This is where I saw it. As it clearly met the relevant criterion, "Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic," I deleted it. Upon review, this was the correct decision, though the Articles for deletion discussion would have resulted in deletion in any case. Regards, Banyan Tree 03:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BT; I am unsure how that we at CEPF cannot make this a more encyclopedic post without promoting ourselves. We are simply stating what CEPF is and stands for. I am at a loss as what to do. I am unsure of your intentions here at Wikipedia and our posts, or as to why that it is listed as spam. There are a few posts, that I feel that you should read. I also took the liberty to post something that Wikipedia also had posted. I feel that this should be wonderful reading for you as well as assisting you in understanding what CEPF stands for. Also I wish to point out, that as per our article on CEPF, we are an congregation of Universal Life Church. And if you feel that we are spamming you, then you need to also delete Universal Life Church for we posted our article exactly the same as they did. Or, is it possibly that you are simply trying to discriminate against us due to religious grounds? Please do explain yourself. After all, the time was taken to prove to you and your superiors that CEPF is NOT Spam by the posts that follow below.

An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia/encyclopædia) is a written compendium of knowledge. The term comes from the Greek εγκύκλιος παιδεία (enkuklios paideia), literally "in a circle of instruction", and more generally connoting "a well-rounded education". Many encyclopedias are titled Cyclopaedia and the terms are interchangeable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia means a work that gives information on many branches of knowledge, normally in alphabetical order. careers.ngfl.gov.uk/help/definitions/14_2_text.html encyclopedia: a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Sent at 11:39 PM on Thursday Definitions of Religious Organization on the Web:

Religious activities generally need some infrastructure to be conducted. For this reason, there generally exist some form of organizations that organize:* the upkeep of churches, mosques, synagogues, prayer rooms and other similar edifices or meeting places. * the payment of salaries to priests.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_organization

Definitions of non profit Organization on the Web:

A non-profit organization (often called "non-profit org" or simply "non-profit" or "not-for-profit") is an organization whose primary objective is something other than the generation of profit. Such organizations are typically funded through a mix of private or public (ie. government) donations. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_Profit_Organization

Definitions of Religious discrimination on the Web: AS PER WIKIPEDIA (this is posted from you)

Religious discrimination is valuing a person or group lower because of their religion, or treating someone differently because of what they do or don't believe. While many religious and secular authorities nowadays tend to stress that religion is something personal, the highly social nature of most religions makes conflicts between religious groups, and thus discrimination, still very probable.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_discrimination Definitions of business on the Web:

a commercial or industrial enterprise and the people who constitute it; "he bought his brother's business"; "a small mom-and-pop business"; "a racially integrated business concern"
commercial enterprise: the activity of providing goods and services involving financial and commercial and industrial aspects; "computers are now widely used in business"
business concerns collectively; "Government and business could not agree"
the volume of commercial activity; "business is good today"; "show me where the business was today"
a rightful concern or responsibility; "it's none of your business"; "mind your own business"
occupation: the principal activity in your life that you do to earn money; "he's not in my line of business"
an immediate objective; "gossip was the main business of the evening"
incidental activity performed by an actor for dramatic effect; "his business with the cane was hilarious"
clientele: customers collectively; "they have an upper class clientele"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Business refers to at least three closely related commercial topics. The first is a commercial, professional or industrial organization or enterprise, generally referred to as "a business." The second is commercial, professional, and industrial activity generally, as in "business continues to evolve as markets change." Finally, business can be used to refer to a particular area of economic activity, such as the "record business" or the "computer business" (see Industry). ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business

An organization operated with the objective of making a profit from the sale of goods or services.

www.finet.com.hk/accounting/b.htm

Any lawful activity, with the exception of a farm operation, conducted primarily for the purchase, sale , lease, and rental of personal or real property, or for the manufacture, processing, and/or marketing of products, commodities, or any other personal property; or for the sale of services to the public; or solely for the purpose of this Act, an outdoor advertising display or displays, when the display(s) must be moved as a result of the project. ...

www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/rights/defin.html

An enterprise, commercial entity, or firm in either the private or public sector, concerned with providing products or services to satisfy customer requirements.

www.georgetown.edu/uis/ia/dw/GLOSSARY0816.html

Turnover is the number of times that an average inventory of goods is sold during a fiscal year or some designated period. Care must be taken to ensure that the average inventory and net sales are both reduced to the same denominator; that is, divide inventory at cost into sales at cost or divide inventory at selling price into sales at selling price. Do not mix cost price with selling price. The turnover, when accurately computed, is one measure of the efficiency of a business.

www.business.gov/phases/launching/are_you_ready/glossary.html

The collective term used to describe small and large businesses (in both private and public sectors), associations and unions, and the individuals operating within them.

www.yeronga.tafe.qld.gov.au/tools/glossary/glossary_b.shtml

The act of handling a prop or clothing. As distinct from a "bit," business is usually not the focus of a scene.

www.mcalistertalent.com/filmterm.htm

A character’s action during a scene , which is generally not related to the content of the scene itself. “Can we give Rachel some business over by the copier while Joey and Chandler are talking?"

johnaugust.com/site/glossary

Any trade, occupation or other commercial activity engaged in or gain, profit for which a corporation can be organized under Title 7 Chapter 1.1. Source: Rhode Island General Laws

www.faststart.state.ri.us/bfs_glossary.html

A contractor, subcontractor, supplier, consultant, or provider of technical, administrative, or physical services organized as a sole proprietorship, partnership, association, corporation, or other entity formed for the purpose of doing business for profit.

www.mmd.admin.state.mn.us/mn06008.htm

A business exists when one or more of the following conditions is met:

www.bls.census.gov/cps/intmanb1.htm

Includes all activities engaged in or caused to be engaged in with the object of gain, benefit or advantage, direct or indirect.

nesara.org/main/dictionary.htm

3rd Provision At this meeting, in order to achieve the purpose of the above provisions, the following business is done. (1) Event opening "e-Silkroad in Sapporo" (2) Other business which is necessary to achieve the purpose of this meeting.

www.esilkroad.org/kr/kaisoku/kaisoku.html

Benzoin, Cinnamon

mysticsmountain.tripod.com/glossary1.htm

The production of goods or services for profit. Such activity can be carried out by an individual, a family, a partnership, or an incorporated company.

mvp.cfee.org/en/glossary.html

A trade, profession or occupation, whether it is full or part-time.

www.demesne.info/Insurance/Home-Insurance/Home-Insurance-Terms-A-C.htm

Commercial or industrial establishment, many but not all pushing New Right dogma. See also "Tomorrow's Child" - commentary on sustainable business practices by Dick Hubbard of Hubbard Foods Ltd

www.embassy.org.nz/encycl/b6aencyc.htm

The initial registration of a business in any one of the Business Registration categories. A "business" in MEDI is defined as: 1. Provider Registration - a provider identification number 2. Payee Registration - a payee identification number 3. Other Business Registration - a tax identification number and its associated IDPA identification number

www.myidpa.com/MediHelp/Glossary/B.htm

Accounting, Advertising, Business Economics, E-commerce, Finance, Hospital and Health Care Administration, Hospitality Management, International Business, Management, Marketing, Operations Management, Real Estate

www.portervillecollegecounseling.org/glossary.html

Related to a commercial or mercantile activity or organization that delivers goods or services.

lib.ucr.edu/depts/acquisitions/YBP%20NSP%20GLOSSARY%20EXTERNAL%20revised6-02.php

Individuals or companies based on a business-related interest, inquiry, membership, subscription or purchase. B-to-B lists typically reach people at their office or workplace.

www.targetonline.com/sics/283069168700648.bsp

The minute physical behavior of the actor, such as fiddling with a tie, sipping a drink, drumming the fingers, lighting a cigarette, and so forth. Sometimes this is controlled to a high degree by the actor and/or the director for precise dramatic effect; at other times the business is improvised to convey a naturalistic verisimilitude.

highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0767430077/student_view0/glossary.html

An organization engaged in producing goods and services to make a profit.

www.crfonline.org/orc/glossary/b.html

Professions, trades and occupations, and all and every kind of calling whether or not carried on for profit.

www.city.davis.ca.us/cmo/citycode/detail.cfm

An organisation that operates in order to make a profit; also the collective word for the activities in which they engage.

www.booksites.net/download/chadwickbeech/Glossary.htm

A business is an enterprise that a client owns or manages. A client may own or manage more than one business. A business may have more than one client involved with it. Cases may involve businesses or may involve the establishment of a business.

www.hawaii-sbdc.org/ponline/consulting/Definitions_of_Terms.htm

With these posts, it is my hope that you will not delete us or mark us as SPAM in the future! Do have a spendid day! Namaste Rev A Sampsell

If your contention is with the word "spam", then I apologize for using it. It is commonly used for articles under CSD G11, but does not appear within the policy itself. Regardless of the word choice, the page still falls under CSD G11. If you feel that your organization can meet the criteria under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) but was not written in a way to make that apparent, nothing explicitly prohibits you from trying again. (Note that Wikipedia has a particular and circumscribed definition of "notable" that differs significantly the everyday usage, which has developed after many years of people adding articles about everything from their garage band to alternate theories of gravity.) If the article is deleted again, repeated creation may be viewed as an attempt at disruption. Also, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for the guidelines on editors who have a personal stake in the articles they edit. If you would prefer to avoid the conflict of interest, you put a request up at Wikipedia:Requested pages, specifically the Social sciences and philosophy subpage. This would allow an experienced editor to frame an article that meets Wikipedia standards.

As for your allegation of discrimination, this is frequently alleged by people whose articles are subject to deletion. See What about article x?. If you believe the Universal Life Church does not meet Wikipedia standards of notability, you are welcome to start a deletion discussion on it. You appear to be quoting legal definitions. As one of many volunteer administrators I am not empowered by the Wikimedia Foundation to deal with legal matters, nor am I expected to. If you feel that there is a legal concern involved in the deletion of your article, i.e. that I am evaluating your article under some criteria other than those spelled out in site policies, please use the email address given at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Delete or undelete and reference this discussion with the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BanyanTree#deletion_of_The_Church_of_Eclectic_Pagan_Fellowship_page... Thank you, Banyan Tree 05:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relief sought

Dear Administrator,

You are the first administrator in Wiki list and I seek your advice. I have been encountering for a long time a serious problem of edit reversion, often irrational and unreasonable, by a group of four people. I have a strong feeling that these four people have been colluding with each other and preventing others to make rational edits with proper citations. Their arguments defy logic. Today (June 30th) I made a couple of edits in Chalukya dynasty. Within a period of one hour, three users simultaneously pounced on me. One reverted my edits without discussion. The other made false allegations that I am in touch with some banned user. The third threatened to block me. Is it not a clear evidence of collusion? Is there any way out in Wiki to this madness?

Please spend some time to analyse the edits I made in Telugu language, Telugu script, Brahmic family, Chalukya dynasty and Origin of Vijayanagar empire. Also, analyze the arguments of this group of persons and how they helped each other and ultimately, do something for Wiki sake. Kumarrao 20:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the step in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I also recommend centralizing discussion in one place, perhaps Talk:Chalukya dynasty, to discuss sources and relevance. Unless there has been a policy violation, it would be inappropriate for me to insert myself into a content dispute. (Note that you, and several others, could be temporarily blocked under WP:3RR.) - Banyan Tree 22:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seko policies

Hahaha thanks. Perspicacite 05:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rwandan Front refs

Hello BanyanTree,

Sorry about being so long in getting back to you re: your referencing question. And it is a challenge... this is definitely not my area, but two things occurred to me. One, a lot of the statements in the diff you mentioned sound like they might have been based on news reports or personal experience of the war. Since it's so detailed, I would check news indexes -- maybe the New York Times or the EU papers -- for those dates to see how it was being reported (if at all).

I also found these books that might be of help:

Paul Kagame and Rwanda : power, genocide and the Rwandan Patriotic Front by Colin Waugh
African guerrillas by Christopher Clapham

There's also a number of articles that might be helpful like "Provoking genocide: a revised history of the Rwandan Patriotic Front" Alan Kuperman, Journal of Genocide Research, 6, no. 1 (2004): 61-84. (which doesn't sound terribly neutral, I admit)

I checked worldcat.orgl and put in "Rwandan Patriotic front" as keywords for books; I would check historical article indexes for scholarly articles. You might also try the books found in this search. Worldcat will tell you what libraries near you own any books, as well.

It seems like such a contentious -- and probably poorly reported -- area that it's going to be tough. I don't know enough about the subject to try and figure out what's NPOV. If you do find articles that would be relevant and you can't get to them, let me know and I will see if I can get them for you. Good luck! -- phoebe/(talk) 19:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phoebe. Thanks for your help, and confirming that I am not just being stupid. I do find it interesting that, given how many books have been written about the genocide, how little has been published on the linked war. I am, according to Worldcat, not closer than 2000 miles from the nearest decent library. I read the Clapham work many years ago, mainly for information on the Ugandan rebellion and I don't recall the RPF chapter, but it had some excellent details and might be worth buying and having shipped to me. I have most of the books in the second Worldcat link, which is why I'm so frustrated, and intrigued, by sourcing the anon's contribution. If I come across a promising article, I'll drop you a line. Thanks again! - Banyan Tree 04:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:WikispeciesZS-protected.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:WikispeciesZS-protected.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed solution over at User talk:Betacommand/20081201#Wikispecies logo. - Banyan Tree 22:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ogaden National Liberation Front

I understand what you mean about using ONLF's website to start the article off, but i added parts to the article which were missing before. Most of the article seems to be leaning towards the Ethiopian side, and i was trying to put the Ogaden people's perspective. The article right now seems very biased, as there are many different Liberation fronts in Ethiopia, and seeing as Ethiopia is really an illiberal democracy, they might have a point. Also, i added a quote from the Chicago Tribune, "As of 2007, human-rights groups and media reports accuse Ethiopia -- a key partner in Washington's battle against terrorism in the volatile Horn of Africa -- of burning villages, pushing nomads off their lands and choking off food supplies in a harsh new campaign of collective punishment against a restive ethnic Somali population in the Ogaden, a vast wilderness of rocks and thorns bordering chaotic Somalia", which seemed reasonable, and an update on the article. Thanks.User talk:yardalhirji 15:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, There are two separate points on the quotation you repeat. First, direct quotation without attribution, by which I mean putting the text in quotation marks and saying "According to the Chicago Tribune", is a violation of the copyright of the original publisher. Copyvio can be removed on sight. Second, the reference was not to the Tribune but to hiiraan.com. No mention was made in the article to the Chicago Tribune. If possible, a reference linked to a copy hosted by the Chicago Tribune should be used, not one mirrored in a source that may be viewed as partisan.

I'm all for a balanced article, but removing a line such as "A Somali mayor of a very poor town called Gode once said in an interview, 'The ONLF is the only barrier for development in the region because they are burning everything that we build here.'[1]", which is sourced to a mainstream publication, without explanation raises the question as to if you simply want to remove any negative coverage of the ONLF. Try building the article, including by offering rebuttal statements sourced to credible uninvolved sources, before removing statements. Highly emotive language such as "grassroots social and political movement ... who could no longer bear the atrocities committed against them by successive Ethiopian regimes" almost always merits an automatic reversion. - Banyan Tree 03:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the news

Can you add this image in the template? Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered it about 12 hours ago, but that image really doesn't look like anything once it is shrunk down to the standard ITN size. (See right.) I would be happy to add an image that shows detail in a 100px by 100px frame, if one is uploaded. Thanks, Banyan Tree 21:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 22:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I picked one that looks like someone could tell what it was without clicking for a bigger picture. Let's see if it gets reverted... Thanks, Banyan Tree 22:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad FAC

Hi BT :-) I wanted to thank you for the help and advice you gave me during the Chad FAC (which has now concluded positively [1]). I want to thank you for all the stubs you've made to fill in the redlinks; that was really fantastic. Ciao,--Aldux 23:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! Congratulations Aldux! It's very nice of you to drop me a note about my comparatively meager contributions. I must say that I found writing those author stubs to be fascinating. I also hope to get a few more stubs done before it hits the Main page. Cheers and congratulations once again. - Banyan Tree 00:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously caught the same thing I did

You obviously saw the article in The Australian too, because we've both posted pretty much the same thing. The incorrect information comes from Point 22 of the judgement. As of a few minutes ago, i've just finished emailing the relevant reporter at The Australian with the details on why it's incorrect, and have also sent the same information to Magistrate McInnes' Registrar at the Federal Magistrates Court. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E Pluribus Anthony talk page for NCC-1701-E.jpg

I wonder if you can just add the notice for deletion to this user's talk page, unless you don't think its necessary. Its been listed for deletion because the source and copyright information totally conflicts with itself. Ejfetters 22:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the note. - Banyan Tree 23:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, sorry to bother you again, but the image - PicardShinzon.jpg - has a tag on it for speedy deletion for no fair use rationale. I was going to add that to the talk page, but again, can't. Sorry and thanks Ejfetters 01:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several images on the Jean-Luc Picard page that dont have fair-use rationale that this user uploaded also, not just the one listed above. Ejfetters 01:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader notified. - Banyan Tree 10:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages

Just a question, are you allowed to blank your own talk page, like removing notices about deletion nominations and that? Saw it on someone else's talk page saying they delete everything and wondered if I had to keep notices on my page as well, just curious is all. Ejfetters 02:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not strictly prohibited but it's considered somewhat antisocial or at least dubious. In the case of anonymous or new users, some users will not hesitate to revert what they see as an attempt to hide bad actions. Other users make a habit of blanking periodically and then linking to the pre-blanked revision as an archive, but I like being able to search my archive. I, for example, will not support for adminship any user who blanks messages. If you simply want to clean up your talk page of older template messages and want to minimize the damage done to your reputation for doing so, you can blank the messages and then link to that diff on your talk, noting what you have done. Alternatively, if you think you will no longer be getting those messages, you can simply archive the entire talk and wipe the slate clean, so users passing by don't see those first off. - Banyan Tree 10:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion Needed

Hello, Anonymous Dissident suggested that we could use your opinion on a rewrite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HoulihanLokey/Houlihan_Lokey_Howard_%26_Zukin

Ok. I think we need a second opinion. go to the list of administrators, and pick one to be an impartial judger. Request this on their talk. Then lets see what they say. Thanks. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you 64.94.105.98 21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HoulihanLokey HoulihanLokey 21:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:HoulihanLokey#August 2007. - Banyan Tree 23:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I will go over the unofficial essay and get an email to you within the next day or so from the company. Can you please explain what this means: "though {{NotableWikipedian}} should be added to the talk with a link to this account"? HoulihanLokey 00:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the jargon; it's a peril when talking to Wikipedians. Template:NotableWikipedian is added to the talk page of articles when a person closely associated with the topic of the article is a Wikipedia editor. See Talk:Roger Ebert or Talk:State Library of Victoria for examples of it in use. My suggestion is that a similar link to HoulihanLokey (talk · contribs) be added to the talk page of the article if and when it is moved into the main namespace. Given the near impossibility of a person with a personal stake in a subject editing neutrally on that subject, the template informs those passing by that there may be a potential conflict of interest between the editor and and his or her edits, and that they are welcome to investigate the editor's contributions to ensure that they conform with site policies. Editors who are aware that they are under increased scrutiny are also less likely to do stupid things like try to whitewash their article, which is stupid precisely because of the transparency of wiki editing. These attempts tend to rebound on the subject negatively once someone notices, which is why I encourage you to read User:Jmabel/PR, WP:COI, WP:AUTO and a recent article by another administrator on attempts by various individuals to control information on 'their' article. Cheers, Banyan Tree 03:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I added the NotableWikipedian tag to my talk page.

Actually, adding NotableWikipedian was a mistake. This tag is used only for the talk page of articles, not user accounts. Please remove it. - Banyan Tree 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BanyanTree,
You said "if and when it is moved into the main namespace"
- should I move it to the main namespace or would an administrator need to do that?
What is your email address that I should send the PR release memo to?
Please let me know,
Thanks again for the help.HoulihanLokey 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the wait I've gone ahead and moved it into the main namespace. Note that while I believe that it no longer fits the criteria for speedy deletion, others may disagree with me and I will not intervene if the article is put in another deletion process.

Please enable email on your account by going to your preferences and adding an email from a corporate email account. You may then send an email to me, or any other user who also has email enabled, by returning to my user page and clicking the "email this user" link found in the toolbox in the left hand column. Note that I do not need an PR release; every time you edit Wikipedia a note at the bottom of the editing window informs you that you are automatically releasing your contribution under the GFDL. I simply need an email from a Houlihan Lokey email account stating something the effect of "Houlihan Lokey confirms that User:HoulihanLokey on the English language Wikipedia website is the official account of the company. Editing done through this account is approved by Houlihan Lokey." If you really want to dual license your contributions, you may use something like Template:User cc-by-sa. - Banyan Tree 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military of the DRC

I've changed and updated this article based on your comments. Could you please take another look and tell me anything serious that I've missed? (One other thought - Military history of the DRC would probably not be needed anyway as I could alway un-re-direct Armee Nationale Congolaise (ANC) Cheers Buckshot06 20:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take a look once I have more than a few minutes on wiki. Just a note, when at peer review or FAC, the normal procedure is to simply comment in the subpage when you feel that you have addressed the commenters concerns, so they can revisit the article and strike their own objections. I removed the PR subpage from my watchlist after seeing you strike out my own comments, as you seemed to be treating it like a to-do list and did not seem to want further input from me. - Banyan Tree 23:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that- I'll go and remove those strikeouts. Cheers Buckshot06 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long wait. I've revisited the article and commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Thanks, Banyan Tree 01:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --El on ka 03:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(followup) Sorry about the copy/paste, I'd meant to write a more personalized note to you, but hit the button too fast. :/ Anyway, I did want to say thank you again for your thoughtful advice after my first RfA.[2] Some of your words were the ones that resonated the most with me, as I have worked hard to become a better editor on Wikipedia. And with the current RfA, I was again impressed with your insightful comments, and the amount of time that you took to dig carefully into the situation. If you do have any other advice for me which may help towards my next run at the position, please do let me know -- I greatly value your counsel. Sincerely, El on ka 04:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I didn't remove your first post. It was my first impulse as I abhor form messages on the wiki, besides {{welcome}} and {{test}} of course.

I missed the tail end of the RFA as I was off-wiki, but I would think carefully about Pascal.Tesson's comment. In my opinion, you are drawing close to the line where repeated trips to RFA are seen as evidence of being "power hungry" as opposed to a series of RFAs that failed due to some unfortunate circumstances. The amount of opposition based on fundamental personality judgments, as opposed to "needs more experience", "did something weird one time", etc is frankly problematic. I can't think of any admins who made it after their third try, so the next might be make or break, though there might be a couple cases that are worth reviewing. One way to rig it in your favor is to stop making bot-assisted edits. This won't reduce the ratio of human errors, but it'll drop the absolute number of cases, which is what people tend to judge on at RFA, aka "I saw this editor make a mistake a couple of times." You can also make plain vanilla edits, and avoid anything even resembling a dispute resolution process to avoid the RFA !voters who make the "An editor on a contentious topic is a contentious editor" fallacy. Of course, you could just continue as you are and hope that the percentages will change. (Everything I learned about politics, I learned on Wikipedia. <sigh>) Cheers, Banyan Tree 04:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 02:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons License

Hi BanyanTree, Is this how you want the license posted?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License[3] [4] [5]
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License
File:Http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/88x31.png

Thanks for your direction, HoulihanLokey 17:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Houlihan Lockey,

As I mention above, text you contribute to Wikipedia is automatically licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, per the note at the bottom of every editing window. Note that CC-BY-NC-ND is far too restrictive and would not be accepted in any case; the most restrictive license accepted is CC-BY-SA. However, this only applies to images and other media; every piece of text you add, including to talk pages, is licensed under the GFDL, though you are welcome to clarify a dual license for your contributions on your user page, as I note above. - Banyan Tree 01:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Image:Joseph Kony.jpg

Thanks BT - I was with the UN delegation present at the meeting between the Government of South Sudan representatives and Kony and was able to take a couple of pictures, but unfortunately my notes don't include the names of the other participants. According to my records, the meeting was in May 2006. I don't know where you can see the automatically-generated camera date, but I expect the camera's date was set incorrectly. I'll dig about and see if I can add more details to the picture (and the article). Geoff NoNick 08:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The automatically-generated information is located at the Metadata section in the bottom of the image description page. The LRA officer in uniform to the right looks like Vincent Otti, but I'd like confirmation. I have no idea who the gentleman in the middle is. Cheers, Banyan Tree 08:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some more information available here has been added. It's the former UN Special Representatve's blog and also has the photo on it. It occurs to me that as I took the photo in my capacity as a UN employee, I may not have the authority to release it. That being said, the UN seems to have released it. Thoughts? Geoff NoNick 09:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... interesting. The problem is that the blog doesn't say who the author is, so all someone has to do to object is make a note of this and you have a difficult deletion discussion, though the fact that the camera metadata came along with your upload is strong evidence that you indeed took the picture. Your first option is to do nothing and hope everything is fine. The sly option is to upload it to Commons: as if you are not the photographer, noting the blog as the source, and license it under {{PD-UN}}. I just found this license myself, and one should always be wary of new media licenses claiming to have found a brand new opening in copyright, but it seems legit. That way you don't have to worry about if you have the authority to license the image yourself and don't have to try to prove your RealLife^TM identity. I'd be happy to delete the local copy if you drop me a line. - Banyan Tree 09:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done the sly way. If it hadn't made it out onto the Internet via a different means I'd be inclined to just forget about it, but release of the photo by the UN's Special Representative is about as official as it gets. It's certainly better than "I was the guy holding the camera". Geoff NoNick 11:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

Barnstar moved to talk page with an inherently funny edit summary. - Banyan Tree 06:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! Recognition at last! First, Wikipedia edit summaries, and then, THE WORLD! It's all going exactly according to plan. Cheers, Banyan Tree 08:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yeah...I'll just be withdrawing that barnstar now :P When you add it to your userpage, make sure the edit summary is equally hilarious! Giggy ^Talk 08:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, no pressure, eh? :P - Banyan Tree 03:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 09:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad media

Could you add Image:Glans Penis by David Shankbone.jpg to the Talk page for glans penis as acceptable for it to be used? There is going to be an RfC over which photos to use, and I'd like to include this one. --David Shankbone 20:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it looks like someone beat me to it. - Banyan Tree 07:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Uganda

Animal Farm would be instructive, if you wanted to learn a bit more about the movement. Ask Stalin why the CCCP banned other parties, and he would probably give you a satisfactory explanation. Perspective matters. In 1982, two fighting rebel forces merged. One was headed by Yusuf Lule, and the other by Yoweri Museveni. The former was fighting because it wanted to return kingship, the latter because it claimed the elections had been rigged. Museveni was Vice Chairman. Lule, the chairman, died in 1985, just months before the rebels took power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.165.156.206 (talk • contribs) 8:42, 20 August 2007

You haven't addressed the edit removing content about the restrictions on political activities relating to the formation of the Movement that I commented about on your talk page. I'm not interested in starting either a philosophical discussion or a wide-ranging mental journey through modern Ugandan political history, at least not until the immediate concern is addressed. - Banyan Tree 08:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jena 6

I wanted to thank you for cleaning up that Jena 6 article! It was very informative, and nice to see everything sourced. Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benjancewicz (talk • contribs) 16:20, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Thanks! A friend of mine on Facebook probably deserves credit. She changed her status yesterday to "is outraged about the Jena 6", to which I thought, "What the heck is a 'Jena 6'?" After reading a couple news reports and then the Wikipedia article, it was pretty clear that there were huge inconsistencies in media accounts and that the article needed help. Being slightly addicted to the wiki, a couple hours of research, cross-checking of sources and editing resulted. There's obviously still some work and expansion required on later developments, but even new editors usually do a good job of tending to an article once an overall framework and a model for how to describe contentious topics is given, which hopefully I've done. Cheers, Banyan Tree 19:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rukwanzi

[6] - Heh, I know the feeling you mean. Nigeria's redlinks aren't exactly being filled in at a very fast pace, either, though occasionally some politician or musician I link to, expecting to find a redlink, has somehow been written about! You subscribe to The Economist too? Picaroon (t) 06:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, one thing about African topics is that you tend to have a pretty clear sense of what stubs are being filled in, and by whom. Though it's certainly more crowded of a field than it used to be.

I let my subscription lapse after my hardcopy, which was dropped off in the entry hall of my old (large) apartment building, disappeared about 50% of the time. Nowadays I just try to catch the new issue online before it disappears behind the subscription service. Cheers, Banyan Tree 06:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey hey

Hey BT, how are you doing? I've been silent for some time because I spent the last three months in Akpafu-Mempeasem, one of the few tiny villages in Ghana's mountaineous Volta Region where Siwu is spoken. Yes, that's a red link — that's one of the reasons I went there! — mark ✎ 18:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, Good to hear from you! Sometimes I hear something and think, "That's the first time I've ever heard someone say that." I just had one of those rare moments. I thought the wiki silliness had driven you away; it's far better to hear that you're just doing something productive. ;) I hope to see that redlink turn blue at some point. Best regards, Banyan Tree 19:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the wiki-silliness. I got a new and exciting job six months ago, and since then I've been unable to do anything meaningful on-wiki. I do plan to keep contributing now and then on topics I care about, but so far I haven't found the time to do a constructive writeup on e.g. Siwu or anything else African or linguistic. — mark ✎ 08:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Mark, if you wanted to run away from me and my prescriptivism then coming here to Africa might not have been the best option...

Welcome back, dude!

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 14:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem at Jackie Chan (again)

Hello, it's me (formerly User:Kylohk). I've another problem at Jackie Chan, where User:DaliusButkus has continuously removed a line about Jackie Chan's illegitimate daughter despite it being referenced by Time Magazine, by reliable sources (claiming that Time is "based on rumors"), and having ended the discussion at Talk:Jackie Chan#Son. I'd like some assistance with you on the matter, because I'm starting to think he's becoming disruptive (violating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:GAME point 7). Thank you for your time.--Alasdair 00:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello newly-named Alasdair, Given that my wiki editing is in a bit of a lull and my general ill temper right now as a result of the issue in the section below, I figure I should wait a bit (perhaps tomorrow) before dealing with an administrative matter. You are welcome to seek other assistance, but I will otherwise be sure to drop by and see if there is an issue requiring an administrator's attention. Thanks and (since I neglected to drop you a note before) congratulations on pushing the article through FAC. Regards, Banyan Tree 08:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Alasdair is my real English first name. Anyway, I've reverted his deletion, and posted a message on his userpage, telling him that what he should not attempt to intepret Wikipedia policies too differently from the community accepted norm. If he does it again, I'll contact you. Thanks.--Alasdair 11:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, he's at it again. He's also left this message at my talk page, [7], refusing to acknowledge it.--Alasdair 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, everyone on that page is so polite and accommodating! I read the discussion and the history, and I actually think that you need to formalize your complaint. I pulled out a pretty big clue stick the last time and it appears that there was little long-term effect. I recommend either a user conduct RFC or, to be less confrontational, a content RFC on if Time magazine is a reliable source. This is obviously absurd but I think it's worth thinking about laying out evidence that could be used for a future proposal at the sanction board to ban him from Jackie Chan. I don't pay much attention to the sanction board, but I imagine that a formal discussion this time, coupled with the evidence from the FA push period, would make a decent case that he has "exhausted the patience of the community" when you have another problem in a few months, as I imagine you will. I am taking no action at this time, but would be happy to look over any 3RR violations, etc that come up if you drop me a line. - Banyan Tree 00:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Mobutu Sese Seko

First off, in case you didn't know, I am reviewing the article per the GA nomination and placed those fact tags there as part of my review. Second, direct citations should be used for all facts likely to be challenged. The article is written for those without a prior knowledge on the subject. General citations for such facts are inappropriate, and I am requesting attribution in order to strengthen the already fine work of other editors, not undermine it. I suggest you stick to content, not contributors in your comments and refrain from making attacks upon my personal character. Calling edits to an article that are not vandalism "disingenous" is an assumption of bad faith. VanTucky ^Talk 06:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I didn't realize that you were working on a WP:GA-related matter. Shortly after GA was created I came to the opinion that it is a deeply flawed resource-intensive process producing inconsistent, deeply flawed and generally mediocre results, attracting power-tripping editors whose primary concerns are exerting their arbitrary power and raising the profile of GA so they can feel more important. The ridiculous effects resulting from GA-related matters are not a reflection of you but the process of which you are a part, I'm sure. Please replace the fact tags with the citations that you know exist, since I just told you that every paragraph is covered by the citation at its end, rather than reverting and demanding that someone else do it for you. - Banyan Tree 07:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont sweat it. The fact templates he added are incorrect. The info was cited. Perspicacite 11:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facts that are controversial, or are likely to be challenged need to be directly cited, not generally. This is supported by WP:V and WP:CITE, as well as the GA criteria. I requested the cite rather than using exiting ones because I am unfamiliar with the source material, so I do not already know which sources suppport those facts best. The people who actually did most of the writing would know this better than I, so it is not rude or unreasonable to ask for something which I cannot do myself. VanTucky ^Talk 18:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you do know the source material since I already told you that the the citation at the end of each paragraph supports that content in that paragraph, which seems rather self-evident. As these cites are quite specific, down to specific pages or small page ranges, this would appear sufficient for any reasonable standard of a cite. Your protestations that you don't really know what is happening so need someone else to do the work for points only you believe "are likely to be challenged," a phrase over which we could also have an entire conversation, ring hollow. - Banyan Tree 23:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please treat other editors with the same level of respect that you would expect for yourself. The comments made to VanTucky above are neither civil nor constructive. Tim Vickers 20:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is an argument here. Let's go back to the WP:5P, specifically the first point, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers." VanTucky argues that such an encyclopedia is filled with citations to facts that people familiar with the subject find uncontroversial. My position, based on observing the development of the footnotes system, is that such "an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers" sources points that people familiar with the subject disagree on and that cites beyond that are examples of the bureaucracy growing to fill the needs of the bureaucracy. I thus find my reversion and rebuke to be constructive.

As to your first point, I expect, when wandering into an unfamiliar subject area and making an asinine edit, for editors who know what they are doing to smack my knuckles and tell me that I'm making a fool of myself. In topics in which I'm familiar, if an editor who seems to know what they are talking about is making an argument I disagree with I've gotten into intense arguments with users I respect and like and, conversely, sided with users who I probably couldn't stomach in real life. VanTucky is not making is not a minor tweaking edit, which I normally ignore even if I think they're absurd. He is demanding that the article be structured not only for the ignorant, which is rather a good way to write an encyclopedia, but structured for the catatonic who can't be bothered to drop their eyes three lines down to the source. Further, edits like this suggest that what he is actually trying to elicit with the demand for cites is more information, for which the {{fact}} template is entirely unsuited. There is also the issue that editors in Africa topics tend to be, by default, somewhat conscious of WP:CSB in that most edits to the articles on our watchlists tend to be purely administrative - category sharpeners, spellcheckers using AWB, pipelinkers, etc. The notion, implicit in VanTucky's edit here, that "common knowledge" and "the knowledge base of young white males in the industrialized West" are identical is absurd and a little offensive. The point he is demanding a cite for is pedestrian, with "unremarkable age for marriage in traditional Congolese society" clause already added for Western readers.

It's possible that if my editing wasn't in a lull, and I was actually making the content edits that I find relaxing, I wouldn't have reacted to this latest bit of silliness so stridently but it's questionable. I've also found content issues to trump using the proper fork when telling another editor he is getting in the way of the encyclopedia. While I added a GA tag to an article I thought was overlooked and well-done back when it was created and the instructions were "add if you think an article is good!", subsequent observation has show it to be an enormous sink, better served by the original Stub-Start-B-A-FA system. After watching a GA reviewer, on an article I was wandering through, feel his oats by literally demanding to withhold GA status unless an insanely minor change (along the lines of rewriting a single sentence from active to passive voice) was made, I changed to active dislike. GA appears to attract editors who like to feel important, but whose self-importance gets quickly punctured when engaged in consensus discussion, which is why they are GA reviewers and not at PR or FAC. I've noted a couple reviewers who appear sane, but the structural issues of GA seem to largely swamp their efforts. Lest you think that I am making a personal attack, I wish to make clear that this is an opinion formed over quite a long period of observation. It's been long enough that I've forgotten the exact locations of the incidents, so you can make of a diff-less opinion what you will.

I was not initially aware that VanTucky was a GA-reviewer on my initial reversion and thought he was simply a misguided editor who had temporarily lost his mind. My comment on his talk page is thus directed at him specifically in this light. Since his post on my talk above, I have been aware that his misguided efforts are on behalf on GA and its ongoing meander towards bureaucratic irritation, so my comments have been directed at him only so far as he acts on behalf of GA. If he had shown any interest in actually improving the article, for example by copy-pasting the citations from the end of the paragraphs to the sentences he finds so troubling after I informed him that the entire paragraph is covered by those cites, I would have considered this a rather silly incident to be quickly forgotten. As it is, I'm considering if I really want to get into it or if I should just take the article off my watchlist, as it seems a waste to use what little time I have on the wiki these days to combat petty bureaucracy.

I hope this clarifies my stance on this matter. Thanks, Banyan Tree 23:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opinions are nothing to apologise for, I myself have strong opinions on many subjects. However, if you use a less aggressive, personal and confrontational style not only will other people find interacting with you be a pleasant experience, rather than an annoying one, but it will be easier for you to convince others of your point of view. Tim Vickers 23:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate and, mostly, agree with your advice. However, in my experience, users who cause incidents that cause one's jaw to drop at their absurdity should be approached straightforwardly so it is immediately clear that there is a problem and what the problem is. Sometimes the straightforward approach doesn't work. As an example, VanTucky has reverted both myself and Perspicacite, the two editors who have made the most recent significant changes to the article, and is apparently hell-bent on making someone else copy the citations from the end of the paragraph to the sentences in the middle. (Man, but my feelings toward GA have taken the leap from "active dislike" to "despise" in the past 24 hours.) It's possible that a "Maybe demanding sources for sentences in sourced paragraphs isn't necessary"-approach may have had a better result, but one of the structural flaws of GA is that status relies on pleasing one person, who often appears to take disagreement over editing decisions as grounds to deny GA status. In my experience, again, VanTucky is highly unlikely to have seen that the cites were unneeded, which they are. I have very little interest in being a pleasant experience for editors who are spawning article-harming busywork for others. This incident admittedly pushes almost all of my buttons and I am pretty pissed off, but I wouldn't characterize myself as 'apologizing' in my post above so much as laying out my reasoning (aka 'venting')to someone who doesn't make me want to chew through walls. See? Now I feel calmer. - Banyan Tree 00:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this from both of your points of view, he saw this editors refusing point-blank to provide citations for statements that are, to people unfamiliar with the subject (ie most of our readers) quite surprising and controversial. You saw this as somebody trying to force an article to fit his idea of how articles should be written. In VanTucky's defence, reading over this article I too think that it is not obvious that a citation at the end of a paragraph supports all the sentences contained within. This is particularly uncertain in articles written by multiple authors, where different statements are added by different editors at different times. Repetition in references can be avoided by using the form <ref name=xxx>Citation</ref> and then just using <ref name=xxx/> for subsequent cites of the same thing. Tim Vickers 01:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started writing a reply, but nevermind. I have removed this article from my watchlist and don't particularly feel like revisiting it. Regards, Banyan Tree 08:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smile!

{{smile}} template from -WarthogDemon 18:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC) removed[reply]

Hi Warthog, I have a personal policy of removing these chain templates. I appreciate the thought but prefer not to have these in my userspace. Thanks for your understanding, Banyan Tree 10:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Villagization

Thanks for your rapid enhancements to my stub - and for your words of praise on it. Rodparkes 09:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting it. I had actually been thinking about the topic for a while but never got around to starting an article. I also think that the Spanish used a villagization strategy at some point against the Basque separatists but don't recall the specifics. I'm sure there are dozens of other examples. Cheers, Banyan Tree 10:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]