Jump to content

User talk:The Banner/Archive04

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hi

Dear Banner, This is Shravani Gupta, i have edited the CII - Sohrabji Godrej Green Business Centre wiki page. That has been earlier deleted by one person and i have re-written 3 times in non-promtional format with proper references. I am very upset that in-spite of effort in writing non-promotional format it has been deleted, that too a speedy deletion by you. I would be glad if you could ellaborate the reason, before you delete. As the content which i have written last time was one paragraph of 4-5 sentences. Looking forward for your reply.

Regards, ShravaniguptaShravanigupta (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong, every time again it was plain and clear advertising. No neutral description. The Banner talk 09:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

Chessington World of Adventures Resort

Thank you for pointing out that my information on the Chessington Hotel reads like an advertisement, could you please find a way to incorporate the same general facts but in a less promotional way if possible as I feel the current section is rather naff. I have tried again to re write it be again unsuccessful in my task of creating a neutral section on the hotel. Thank you for your help.

|BenBowser —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Most simple option: leave it out. It is not encyclopaedic info at all. Are you working for the company? The Banner talk 14:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply

In response to your message, I feel that keeping the opening times and hotel info is in no way promotional. I mean this is ridiculous, anything I add to the page, instead of correcting it to a better way (of which i have already asked) you are just removing it and practically stripping the article of any use at all. One other thing, why the hell would you even suggest that I am involved with the park, surely you can realise that if I really was trying to promote it I would say things like: "The chessington hotel has 150 amazing rooms with spectacular views across the reserve." As well as things like "Chessington World of Adventures Resort consists of a fabulous themed park with over 40 rides and attractions, a world class zoo with many exotic species and a massive African themed hotel providing everything you need for a short break". The way you treat my information is totally ridiculous, you make it appear as though I'm some sort of park repsentative, when I am purely someone who knows quite a bit about the attraction and wants to document this information to help people research about it without needing to visit the resort. I hope you now see that my information is valid and that we can work together now. Many thanks.

BenBowser —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No need to add it at all. If someone wants to visit the park, they can get the information on the website of the park. No need to dump it here. The Banner talk 14:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
HI Banner, everyone appreciates you trying to protect Wiki from COI, but may I kindly remind you not to bite the Wikipuppies (I'm assuming the new tag on Chessington is directed at BenBowser). WikiPuppies are our most precious resource, especially when eager to learn and good at accepting consensus, and I'd like to keep this one around. He does the research I'm too lazy to do, and I've seen no evidence of COI-pushing except an inability to screen out PRish verbiage when searching for facts (which, when I have the time, I'm willing to fix for him). He'll improve quickly, but the more specific you can be with advice to him the better. Earflaps (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
By now he should have gotten the message about advertising. But since he came on board, he worked mostly on Chessington. (I had to take a close look to see that he wasn't a SPA) If he isn't a staff member of Chessington, he certainly is a good imitation. The Banner talk 20:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I tend to nominate his new article ZUFARI: Ride into Africa for deletion as advertising. This is almost a step by step guide through the tour. The Banner talk 20:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Your behavior comes off as extremely aggressive. You've barely interacted with BenBowser and yet you've ignored his point of view entirely, and you are defining advertising by your personal standards. I've noticed BenBowser imitates what he sees on other theme park pages, like any normal Wikipedian, and there is no crime in starting your career as an editor with a particular focus. Earflaps (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Call it what you want, but I don't have much mercy with people who are advertising. When you want to be his coach, fine. But act quickly to change his ways. The Banner talk 23:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
If BenBowser (while being bold as all Wikipedians are instructed) makes future edits you disagree with, surely you can spare the time to non-aggressively explain your perspective to him, or open a talk page conversation for group consensus, instead of threats or tags. Earflaps (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Being soft on spammers is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. But for the next couple of days I leave him to your mercy and advice, assuming that you act like his coach. The Banner talk 00:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
And if I don't have the time to babysit this week, you what. Ban? If you attempt to do so, I at least request you bring other editors in for a second opinion, instead of going vigilante wikicop. Maybe others won't be so eager to ignore agf. Earflaps (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Banning will never be single-handedly my decision. And your remark about ignoring AGF is entirely yours, but it sounds like a threat... The Banner talk 00:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Zufari: Ride into Africa page

Hi The Banner

Having recived your message I will start to adjust the page to a more encyclopaedic way. A lot of those facts such as no animal print clothing I did not put on the page and think it is irrelevant as well. I will start working on the page ASAP. Thanks

--BenBowser (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Zufari page finished?

I have finished updating the Zufari: Ride into Africa page to what I think you want. Could you please tell me if you are happy with it and if not why. Thanks

--BenBowser (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Why So Harsh?

It has ocurred to be since you have started helping myself and Earflaps on the Chessington page that you are constantly abusing me. In your reply to the zufari issues there was absolutely no need to be rude and say that 100% of rides involve disembarking, i was purely stating in a less boring way that you leave the ride. Could you please state what position of authority you are coming from as i find your edits unnecessary and down right rude. Saying that my edits are 'Plain Advertising' and 'Spamming' is totally unnecessary. Many thanks, hoping you are well.

--BenBowser (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can call it harsh or very strict. But I hope you learn from it. Wikipedia is not easy sometimes. User:Foxj/Virtual classroom might be useful. The Banner talk 18:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
When you have trouble with writing "boring", something is wrong. An encyclopaedia is not for fun or excitement. An encyclopaedia is for transferring knowledge about notable subjects between authors/Wikipedians and readers. The Banner talk 19:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok then, let me re-phrase it then seeing and you can't do that yourself, in plain english I meant it to be written in a more imaginative way. Does that please you? Many thanks and kind regards. --BenBowser (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
No, see Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Information style and tone. It has nothing to do with what I want, it is about what the encyclopaedia needs. The Banner talk 21:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, i shall now work towards these standards, this will help me a lot with my editing. Although you still haven't answered one of my first questions. Thank you --BenBowser (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, what question? The Banner talk 22:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have mentioned it, this question: "Could you please state what position of authority you are coming from as i find your edits unnecessary and down right rude" thanks. Many Regards --BenBowser (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The nasty answer is: Everybody on Wikipedia has the right to work on every article. The only "authority" (I hate that word) I have, is the "authority" of experience (although I really overlooked the fact that you are a relative newbie). The Banner talk 15:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


Move Like This

Hey Banner, you're pretty active on the Dutch wiki, and your Dutch is much better than mine. I started translating this article (don't know why), and could use some help: sommige van de sjablonen vertalen niet goed, en na 18 jaar in de VS is mijn Nederlands een beetje houterig geworden... Bedankt, Drmies (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Not "Promotional"

Material on Underwood International College not promotional. Proper citation is given with factual point of view. Thank you. Maintenance Template removed because problems have been resolved. Article is not like advertisment, nor is major editor having a close connection to subject. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xunwei (talk • contribs) 22:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of the info you gave is completely irrelevant. The only use is promotion. See your own talkpage for an explanation. The Banner talk 23:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

Re: OSN

For stop spamming list, please request protection page here. Thanks. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope he/she got the message now... The Banner talk 13:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

Books & Bytes

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!

December 2013

You are starting to edit war again[1][2] over your interpretation of this bot function. I shouldn't have to remind you, but you have no policy basis for your edits and seem to be getting simply tendentious here. I get it, you and I disagree over some point and you want to come in and remove links from articles I've been editing. If you have some policy or behavior dispute you are supposed to handle that through discussion in the appropriate forum, not edit warring. But frankly, it is hard to see what your WP:POINT is here. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

My point is that you are wrong and disrespecting a decision of the community to the point of POV-pushing. Finally accept that decision or fight it through the proper channels instead of permanent starting to edit war over it. Sneaky tricks to get the link back in will not work. The Banner talk 19:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
You are continuing to edit war after a caution, yet again, and are technically at WP:3RR on two articles at this point[3][4] and making accusations of bad faith. I see you're having similar interaction difficulties with other editors when you disagree with them over content. You do not speak for the community anymore than I do, and in this case you happen to be wrong. You need to take a step back from self-appointed wiki cop role, it is toxic behavior and goes against more or less every editing policy the encyclopedia stands for. I'll give you some time to think about it, and restore these references again at some point. Don't make me have to warn you again. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
And you continue to bluntly and deliberately ignore a community decision that you just don't like while refusing to to work through the proper channels to get that blacklisting lifted. So you are breaching WP:SPAM by sneaky putting the link back in and you do it time and time again.
And let me make it clear: next time you breach WP:SPAM by sneaky moving the links in, I will remove them again. There were enough prior discussion (and other people) in which you were told not to edit war but request removal of the link from the blacklist. If you refuse to use the proper channels, don't complain about removals. You should change your (as you call it) "toxic behavior" and comply to the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. The Banner talk 20:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, very toxic. Can you please at least try to work with me (and other editors, apparently) in a respectful way? You don't speak for the community or Wikipedia policy anymore than me or any of the other people you're arguing with, and they happen to be in the right from time to time, so edit warring and calling people names is uncalled for. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I do! I show you all the respect you show to me and others. The Banner talk 13:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
And you can keep on going calling it "toxic behaviour", but it is you who refuses the adhere to the rules. Your petty little tricks of nowiki and invisible templates just to get your POV instated won't work at all. The Banner talk 14:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Not my intention

Per Se in New York City has three Michelin stars, and is rated at or near the top of multiple Zagat lists.[1]
Noma in Copenhagen, Denmark rated 2 stars in the Michelin guide, and named Best Restaurant in the World by Restaurant.

But that was only the description of the file. See here for ex. Noma (restaurant). Noma is a two Michelin star restaurant run ... They state that it had two stars in the article also. Or - in that case this is spam too... Hafspajen (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your photos at Restaurant look indeed spammy too, can you reduce the number? What I reverted was restaurant rating. A pictures of a dining room is by far not relevant for an article about a rating. The Banner talk 22:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
But I really don't care for spamming. You missunderstand me. I just tried to make the article cosy, nice and good looking instead of austere, like it was. What do you mean by "spammy", so I will try to understand what you mean, right? Hafspajen (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
And you misunderstood the purpose of WikipediaWhen photos distract from the information, they should be removed. Making an article "look nice" can hamper the primary purpose. The Banner talk 22:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
That is exactly what I mean by those pictures, to : to convey information. I did not missunderstod that one. Wait a minute, you have to mean this one: these two pics were in the article before I started editing. I would be happy to remove those. But images do add encycklopedic value to the article, and if you are more at the austere way of editing, that is just a difference of taste, not a policy ->Consensus about image. Hafspajen (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
You fail in that. They are not adding information, they are distracting. They offer no useful information to the article Restaurant or Restaurant rating as they were not relevant. Your picture of Noma is useful for the article Noma, but not for Restaurant of Restaurant rating. There they are just clutter. Articles should be austere, to aid them in transferring the information. The Banner talk 22:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts The Banner talk 22:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Knowing what restaurants that get these silly ratings sometimes look like is useful information also. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
But how the dining rooms looks like is not relevant info in een article about Restaurant ratings. And that article was the starting point of this discussion. The number of pictures at Restaurant is in my opinion, excessive and should be reduced. The Banner talk 23:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, I just said that it is relevant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
LOL, minor detail is that the Michelin Guide awards the stars only and only for the food. Not for decoration. The Banner talk 00:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I support their right to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
While we're here, the gallery in Restaurant a few minutes ago, looked like someone deliberately went round trying to find pictures of the most atypical restaurants for each location, then proudly annotated them as being restaurants from those locations. Not good. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ice hockey

Hey, it's fixed now. Was just copying the roster from a user who put it on the Germany article... Kante4 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The Banner talk 20:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

just as bad - or worse

Creating 130 links to a DAB page [5] is no worse and probably better than redirecting those 130 links to THE WRONG page. None of the existing existing links to the constitution page will be about the 2014 constitution. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, there are three templates (used 104, 22 and 4 times) pointing to the most recent constitution. And that is exactly what is done now! The Banner talk 16:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Gospel of the Egyptians

Is there something you need in involving templates for the Gospel of the Egyptians. I can help add external links if needed, or perhaps it involves another template? I created the Template: Nag Hammadi Codices for certain Gnostic documents. Please discuss in my talk page. -- ♣Jerm♣729 21:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The link you added was wrong. It was the right title, but an alternative title for the actual article: Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit. It has been fixed so don't worry about it. -- ♣Jerm♣729 02:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

Constitution of Egypt article

The article is being discussed at Talk:Egyptian_Constitution_of_2014#Requested_move. You can contribute there if you want. My own thoughts are that the links in some of the templates can stay the way they are now; other links do need to be disambiguated.David O. Johnson (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hey I do not want hostile feelings to remain over Cyclone Anne (2014). I know the editing gets heated but in the end agreements and any misunderstandings should be hammered out and the heat left in the oven. Hope you aren't too heated about the edits still and can accept this as an offer of good faith. =) Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not heated, I just want you to realize that you two are so overly concern about the Weather Channel that you act as a blind bulldozer. And the two of you are POV-pushing. The Banner talk 23:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Move reverted.

Information icon Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold move of Patricia Hayes has been reverted because an editor has found it to be controversial. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". If you believe that this move is appropriate, please initiate such a discussion. Please note that moving a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links is more likely to be considered controversial, and may be contested. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Patricia Hayes

Hi,

Thanks for the notice. I created a disambiguation page in place of the Patricia Hayes standalone article. Moving the page using the Wikipedia Move method, would have only added a redirect to the Patricia Hayes article.

--Nkansahrexford (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And you clearly have no idea what kind of mess you were creating. The Banner talk 11:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Neil Conway

Nottingham Pathers
Hockeydb
Eliteprospects

No, definitely an American from Concord, OH Raul17 (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

That is possible, but please figure out which one the seven "Concord Townships is involved here. And by the way: I found a link to Concord, Ontario... The Banner talk 22:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Unless I can find somethingabout the high school he went to, I doubt I will find which one. Thanks Raul17 (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I award you with this in recognition of your highly appreciated edits at Template talk:Yugoslav Front. Keep up the good work! Cheers Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

why did you delete? this is virtual vandalism! please discuss before making deletions

(nonsense) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.32.69 (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Simple, because the whole shebang should not be added to an article about a cemetery. A far better place would be the already existing article about the Darwin-family, what you can find at Darwin–Wedgwood family. The Banner talk 11:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The Cambridge Apostles

Nice to hear from you! I am just tidying up this article, and then I will leave it to you...are you on facebook, so we can talk privately? I am the 'Ascension Parish Burial Ground' expert!!

2.24.32.69 (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

?, I have finished (for the moment) sub-editing, but we (you, me and Barney3) have a long way to go; more tonight! Martin 2.24.32.69 (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources, I want sources. And that is not my concern, it is exclusively yours. You add, so you prove. The Banner talk 17:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"The Banner", I do appreciate that English is not your first language; the Cambridge Apostles was a TERRIBLE article a few weeks ago, I have a printed copy to remind me just how BAD it was, but it is getting better - but I need your expert help, and not hindrance please? Martin 2.24.4.34 (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not a hindrance, I just point out to you that you have to prove your additions with sources. Exactly conform the guidelines. The Banner talk 19:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

good luck with the "cambridge apostles"! i will look for more tomorrow night my friend! Martin 2.24.4.34 (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.4.34 (talk)

Massacres

You failed to comment your revert. Did you read the article that's linked to? How are the Ulster massacres an 'English response'? --Flexdream (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You failed to explain why you removed a massacre while only commenting on another... The Banner talk 22:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I only edited the bit about the Ulster Massacres but Wikipedia does show me deleting another massacre and also amending the Shepherd's Bush link. I think something was wrong with the system. This edit shows there was a note "This article is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed" so I think my edit got corrupted. Do you know what was happening? Thanks for repeating my original edit as intended. Cheers --Flexdream (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I did put up that message when fixing the article. And I took it down after I was ready. Reverting your edit in process to be able to edit the missing massacre. And restoring your edits lost in the revert. The Banner talk 23:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Cratloe

I don't understand your comment about Cratloe on Talk:List of census towns in the Republic of Ireland. Would you care to elaborate? Thanks, jnestorius(talk) 08:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That I abject against the merger because your want to merge two completely different things. Census towns have no relationship with urban centres, with as example the census town Cratloe that only partly lies within the urban centre Limerick. I.e. you are comparing apples with oranges. The Banner talk 12:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
That's not really elaborating, just repeating what I didn't understand the first time. Have you read my response at Talk:List of census towns in the Republic of Ireland? I can't tell what definition of "urban area" or "urban centre" you have in mind, but it is not the one used in the List of urban areas in the Republic of Ireland by population article. The population of Limerick is the same in both articles (91,454); the same is true of all 100 areas listed in the urban-areas page. That is because both articles are sourced from volume 1 of the Central Statistics Office report of the 2011 census. Although the urban-area page uses Table 7 and the census-town page uses Table 5, these tables provide the same figures in two different formats. The urban area of Cratloe is listed separately by the CSO report and in the census-area Wikipedia page because the CSO considers it to be a separate urban area. It is not listed in the urban-areas page because that page only includes the 100 largest urban areas, not because, as you seem to think, Cratloe is considered part of Limerick. jnestorius(talk) 15:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Template:Largest cities in Turkey

I'm repeating the same warning you too. There is no change in performance since last year. Using excuse of non-existing source, you are violating the rules of Wikipedia, WP:OWN. If you continue to pursue it, I will report to Administrators' noticeboard.Lastly I wonder, do u live in Turkey? Maurice07 (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

My friend, is does not matter where I live and I don't own the article. Last year you kept changing the number of inhabitants to the number living in the region while this is a template about cities. So your changes last year were plain WRONG. For a template about cities, we need the number of inhabitants of the city. Not from the region, province, urban centre or agglomeration. Just from the city. It is not that I own the article (I don't) but I just want the information to be correct. If you want to bring me to AN/I over that, fine. But don't be surprised when you get the block... The Banner talk 01:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Lahinch

Can you explain further how my edit to the Lahinch surfing article was regarded as a promo piece, it is one of the safest beaches in Ireland to learn to surf, I am not promoting a surf school. I am reinstating the photos section and adding the photos (again), they are a huge improvement over the current photos. I will take another look at the surfing article and try to be more neutral, the current piece is poorly written and inaccurate.--Lukemcurley (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What you did was promoting surfing in Lahinch in an clear non-neutral way. It should be neutral all the time. And your pictures did not add any relevant info, pictures are not for decoration. The Banner talk 01:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I will give the article on surfing another go at some stage, the current piece is lacking any references. Photos are informative, and the wiki community has been encouraging users to upload more photos to wiki commons and to incorporate these into articles where relevant. I have added the photos again, these are a mix of different angles and locations from the beach and are useful.--Lukemcurley (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is "relevant". For example: a picture of a surfer in the see with a low sun adds absolutely nothing to an article. The Banner talk 02:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank You, but can I have some help?

Hi Banner! Having a good day, oh wait, I don't care. For the ten billionth time, instead of just deleting my sections, could you just tell me what I can improve on. This will also help me with other articles. Oh, and dont just say "Do add spam". PLEASE GIVE YOUR DEFINITION OF SPAM, as it clearly different to mine. So basically, less aggression, more friendly, i.e. dont insult people and don't randomly delete thing with no reason. Hope you can help, as my life is clearly useless. BenBowser (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not randomly delete parts of the article. I just remove parts that are promotional and not-neutral. I can imagine that this is annoying, but Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising or promotion. And that is what you often do: promote things. Nobody in the world will care about a hotel having three different types of rooms. Most slightly bigger (50+ rooms) have three or more types of rooms, so that add nothing valuable to the article, except from the view of a marketing department. The same with hotel logo's, no relevance at all for Wikipedia but absolutely fine for the company website.
So please, only add relevant, non-promotional information to the articles and try to keep them neutral in style, tone and content. The Banner talk 20:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC) No, I don't like it either have to keep cleaning up. I know more fun things.

Hi Banner

Sorry I missed your note from earlier - here's my two cents (I apologize for any hurt feelings to people reading in, but honesty tends to fix things best). BB has really helped improve some bad pages, but I can see why its easy to suspect COI. He likes to edit a related cluster of topics, and he includes things that seem trivial to more experienced eyes...ok, to be blunt, I think BB is a local fanboy with a tendency to obsess over formatting, because I really doubt Merlin would hire someone who's such a noob. Unless they have, like, the most incompetent PR department ever.

I try to keep in mind that new users are relatively clueless about the planks we take for granted, and unfortunately get in the habit of imitating popular, but dismal pages. And with theme parks, I don't think its easy for new editors to find good consistent examples; Christ, I mean, I've been trying to clean up just the formatting for the Knott's Berry Farm page, which despite being hugely famous looked like it had been attacked by a clown with palsy.

About BB's stubborness, I suspect he might be like me; obsessive about formatting being pleasing to the eye. And when a young editor has that trait, but is still figuring out the standards...well, yeah, we get some at times baffling creativity. But he tends to back down fine if you show WP:Alphabet soup or start a discussion, which is why I personally haven't had problems. Earflaps (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Ow, I see a lot of good things coming from him. No doubt about that but I have the idea that he really has no clue about SPAM, promotion and advertising. The point "keep it neutral" is totally wasted with him. Smoking ban, minimum height limits, candy shops, room types, hotel logos... AAAAAARGH!
Must I really treat him like a ten year old kid and spoon feed him everything? The Banner talk 00:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Frustration level high
I don't know :b You know, there's no age limit to edit Earflaps (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I know that all too well. On the Dutch Wikipedia we had a good editor, only 12 years young. Went in a hospital for an operation and never returned home. Even edited from hospital, got complications and was gone The Banner talk 00:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Yep. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeesh, that's a downer. Earflaps (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Peace?

Hi The Banner! how are things? After our many disagreements, I wanted to say, sorry, I hope we can resolve our differences and work on these pages in peace. Thank you BenBowser (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. I want a useful response on my last message on your talk page first. The Banner talk 18:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

County Clare

Any articles in particular you see as a priority to clean up and improve? That county library source is pretty amazing, it even has scans of census forms for every family in townlands in the 19th century! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Soon I will start translating my Dutch articles about Moy, Milltown Malbay and the (RC) parish of Kilfarboy. As I am West-Clare based, my knowledge of East-Clare is limited and can use any upgrade. The Banner talk 13:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
It's probably best I work on some of the existing town/village articles for starters in eastern County Clare then and cleanup what we have or try to even up coverage. It's great that we have such a resource as the Clare library to help anyway..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I have checked my job-list regarding to the Clare navigation template: To do: Bodyke (stub) - Bridgetown (stub) - Broadford (stub) - Clarecastle (refs) - Connolly (pictures) - Doonbeg (refs) - Inagh (update) - Kildysart (refs) - Kilmihil (pictures) Lisseycasey (stub, refs) - Murroogh (update) - Newmarket-on-Fergus (refs) - Doonaha (stub, pictures) - Bunratty (rewrite) - Cross, County Clare (stub, pictures). That list was far longer in the beginning. With my camera dead (needs replacement) new photos can take a while.. The Banner talk 13:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, your Library source already states:

The original list was added to the County Clare article by somebody I know personally. He was already upset by other Wikipedia-edits of mine (removing links to Gathering-related genealogical pages) so I left it there. Other reason was that I had not a clue where to start improving it because it was massively flawed... The Banner talk 13:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Will look into those thanks. Mmm Ballynacally, do you think that's a copyvio from here or is it using wiki text? I suspect it's a vio given that it seems to be the official website. I've reworded to be on the safe side anyway!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Doubtful. It is quite possible that Ballynacally Development was "borrowing" from Wikipedia. Rewriting was indeed the best option. The Banner talk 18:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I was most overjoyed to stumble across Father Ted land earlier. I always assumed it to be eastern Ireland! One of the best TV series of the 90s I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
No, most filming was done near Ennistymon and Kilfenora. The Banner talk 21:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You might as well poison me

You have clearly thrown my peace idea out the window. Smart Move. I didn't reply to you "One last time" message as it was uncalled for and down right insulting. I officially give up with you, and I suppose I will have to bare with it. Enjoy the rest of your day. BenBowser (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

So, you officially refuse to learn about no advertising? Deal. Suit yourself. The Banner talk 20:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Banner. It's extremely rude to call another editor's contributions spammy and promotional, if someone accused you of the same thing you'd flip your shit. Try using neutral words like trivial, and maybe this ridiculous situation will de-escalate, and stop wasting everyone's time. Earflaps (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
His behaviour is plain insulting. See the lovely header of this section. No, my friend, I have enough. I tried to start some meaningful discussion on his talk page, but the only thing I got was a meaningless peace proposal. I still tried to get some discussion about what is spamming and how to keep articles neutral by requesting explanations for his actions first. And what i got was a declaration of war. Sorry, I am done. I have the idea that I am dealing with a ten year old kid or with a fully fledged marketeer. My AGF is not endless. He has to upgrade his performance extremely quickly and finally show some understanding of neutrality otherwise his careers as Wikipedia-editor can be in jeopardy. The Banner talk 23:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Lafarge Pakistan

Hey The Banner,

I reverted you edit (clumsily) on Template:KMI 30, since Lafarge Pakistan is a subsidiary of Lafarge Group, not of Lafarge Tarmac. See this link on the website of Lafarge Group. -- (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

As a frequent user of WP:TFD, and someone who understands how navboxes work, I wonder if you'd like to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture#Breed navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You may also be interested to join WP:WikiProject Navigation templates, where we could centralise these sorts of discussions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about "Template:Cop"

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_15#Template:Cop about the second nomination of Template:Cop in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about "Template:Wprk"

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_8#Template:wprk about the nomination of Template:wprk in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Virtual tour of Achill Island features

I wonder if you might please reconsider your decision to remove the external link I added yesterday to the Achill Island page. I would suggest that the research on the page, and in particular the VR tours of the megalithic monument and the deserted village add substantially to the Wikipedia page. http://www.voicesfromthedawn.com/keel-east-slievemore/

Thanks for your consideration of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AenghusOg (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me be frank and clear: NO. I consider it link spam. The Banner talk 18:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Omdat ik er geen spat vertrouwen in heb dat dit artikel een eerlijk kans krijgt...

De heilige Malardus van Chartres (-na 650) was een Frans bisschop. Malardus was bisschop van Chartres en nam deel aan het concilie van Chalon-sur-Saône dat rond 644 door Clovis II bijeengeroepen werd.[2]. Werd ook genoemd als aanwezige op het concilie in Chalon-sur-Saône in 650.[3] Zijn feestdag is op 15 januari.[4] ==Referenties== {{References}} {{Beginnetje|religie|2009|01|15}} [[Categorie:Bisschop van Chartres]] [[Categorie:Heilige in het christendom]] [[Categorie:Frans heilige of zalige]]

De heilige Walricus (Valéry) (Auvergne, 565 - Leuconay, 1 april 619) hoorde van de H. Columbanus en trad in in diens klooster in Luxeuil. In 610 trok Valéry met enkele gezellen naar de streek rond Amiens, waar ze als kluizenaar leefden. In 613 stichtte hij de abdij van Leuconay, volgens de regel van Colombanus. Valéry deed veel aan bekeringswerk in Picardië en hakte onder meer een boom om die door de heidenen aanbeden werd. Een lamme die hij had genezen, volgde hem na zijn dood op als abt.

Hij wordt gevierd op 1 mei en op 12 december in Amiens. Walricus is de patroon van de schippers. [[Categorie:Heilige in het christendom]] [[Categorie:Frans heilige of zalige]] [[Categorie:Abt]]

AfD for Willy Monfret

An article that you either edited or previously proposed for deletion has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willy Monfret. Due to lack of discussion the article has now been relisted twice. If you have a chance could you please stop by and weigh in on the deletion debate. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 14:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I in turn point you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joost van den Broek? The Banner talk 15:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Template:Largest cities in Turkey

The number for Izmir is correct. Reason is that the old number was for province, not for city. For some reason there is a larger diff between Izmir province and Izmir city than for any of the others. Izmir province has several smaller cities beside Izmir itself, so there are a relatively larger number of people living outside city limits, but still inside the province. --T*U (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot for the explanation! The Banner talk 14:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey there Banner. I need your help. Lord of Rivendell is back again. He got blocked for his reckless edits but he is unblocked now. He is on one of those 'edit sprees' and now he is on to this template, reverting my pictures, which you have opened up a section about and thanked me for putting those to the template. Help me with that will you. If he goes up like this again, i will fill a complainment about him. KazekageTR (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Kilmurry Ibrickane (Kilmurray)

Good morning,

The Rfd at WP:RFD#Kilmurry Ibrickane (village), it seems somewhat controversial between you and User:Dr. Blofeld what to do about the targets and whether which one is WP:PRIMARY. I have known (only from WP not in real life) Blofeld for many years so I don't want to be seen to be taking sides. My position is simply that the articles themselves or their titles have to be sorted out between yourselves before there is any hope of discussing the redirect, since they are all being moved about after you brought it to RfD, so how can an editor comment on the RfD when it is being moved about and the hatnote removed and stuff? But I didn't want you to think that simply cos I have acquaintance with Blofeld that would mean I would immediately take his side, I just hadn't seen him for a long time so wanted just to say hello. Si Trew (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The facts are quite simple: he is wrong and refuses to acknowledge that. And with his reputation as edit warrior, I just can wait what he is doing and try to repair the damage and minimize the effects. He is totally confused by the civil parishes and seems to think that they are still active (no), that they are historical (no, not active but never formally abolished. If I am correct they are still in use for liquor licenses), that they are identical to RC parishes (no). The relationship with Protestant parishes is ignored, although the civil parishes are based on the (former) Protestant parishes. And I don't know (and don't care) where he is living but he should not be messing around with places and parishes that I know first hand because I am living there... The Banner talk 11:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

tailor-surname

Discussion moved into Template talk:Tailor-surname, where other people may join the discussion. - Altenmann >t 16:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you please stop disrupting the navigation template by unlinking the lists of surnames from it. - Altenmann >t 16:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, I am not linking to disambig pages. I thought I complied with your previous reverts and now I link to pages called "something (surname)" rather than "something (disambiguation)". If there is a wikipedia rule which forbids doing so, I am happy to comply with it as well. You being annoyed, just take a break, relax and have some beer or milk. Wikipedia is mightily annoying, that I can agree. - Altenmann >t 16:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you ever follow the links you have added?
"Sarti (surname)" redirects to "Sarti", a disambiguation page
"Sartre (surname)" redirects to "Sartre (disambiguation)", a disambiguation page
So please, create real articles about the surnames... The Banner talk 16:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
So please hear other people as well. DId you happen to look in the tepmalte talk page? It explains why it is done so. You also did not answer my question where linking to disambig pages is forbidden. It fact, it is expressly allowed. - Altenmann >t 16:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a whole WikiProject to fight against/solve links to disambiguation pages. So you could say people consider those links into thin air as a problem. It are in fact fake links, not directing you to a real article. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links_to_disambiguation_pages for the Guideline. The Banner talk 16:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Lakes

I find this incomprehensible, but I'm willing to listen to other views, and have started a discussion on Talk:Lakes accordingly. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: WP:NOTBROKEN

I certainly appreciate your desire to bring order to the chaos that exists in links to plural titles redirecting to the singular. However, we have over 220,000 disambiguation links still to be fixed, which are actual errors (i.e., clicking on those links currently takes the reader to the wrong page). Putting aside the interpretation of WP:NOTBROKEN, wouldn't it just be a better use of your time as an editor to worry about fixing links that actually have incorrect targets (and other actual errors) before spending time on links that currently lead to the correct target? bd2412 T 17:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Give me a job and I will only hunt down links to disambiguation pages till we are down till about 5000/10,000 (the level the Dutch Wikipedia never managed to come under). If not, I just do what I think that should be done in my pace and to my own desire. The Banner talk 20:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
We have something better than a job - we have a contest - with a prize. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It is funny enough to see my name nearly every month in that list, although I am not a real competitor on that. The Banner talk 21:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

Dr. Blofeld

I find your posts on Dr. Blofeld's talk page inappropriate. It appears that nominations closed in your favour, so do the decent thing and go about yourself in a dignified manner. Don't go trolling and grave dancing on a users talk page as that is not a very civil thing to do. Cassiantotalk 23:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The protection campaign for Blofeld is heart warming, but it should be useful that you take a look into HIS rude behaviour and HIS sloppy work. Censorship is not bringing Wikipedia forward. The Banner talk 00:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe if you conducted yourself a bit better on here, you too would have a "protection campaign". Sadly, I do t think that will happen. I'm also puzzled at your statement that he produces "sloppy work". He has contributed more to this project in terms of new material and featured articles that you could ever hope to do yourself. His contributions should prove that if you wish to go over them. Cassiantotalk 00:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, his sloppy work. Like creating the article Kilmurry Ibrickane (village), an article about a non-existing village based only on Google Maps. And read the soap around Kilmurry Ibrickane, where he suddenly decided that the Roman Catholic parish was also a civil parish what they are not. And him ignoring my pleas not to work on civil parishes because the list provided was very bad and needed repair first (a village is off course not a civil parish). He in fact even ignores his own source that clearly states that civil parishes are based on Protestant parishes and that Roman Catholic parishes are different. The last days I am only repairing the damage he has done. I tried to keep the discussion going, but to no avail. The Banner talk 00:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with your arguments with him and neither do I care. WP is a big place so it would be impossible for us not to bump into someone who we don't get on with every now and again. The good doctor has decided, it appears, to take some time out and it is not right for you to go to his talk page and grave dance when the nomination has closed in your favour, knowing how passionate your opponent felt about the matter. That's why I reverted you and not, as you wrongly describe, because of his "protection campaign". Cassiantotalk 08:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with grave dancing. It is now the second time he leaves Wikipedia after he could not win a clash with me. I looks like he still haven't recovered from the clash regarding to the Dorchester Hotel that he still is upset about it almost six months later. I don't care about people who miss the capacity to deal with set backs and have no self-reflection. He can do his thing as long as we don't come across. But I don't waver in front of bullies and drama queens. He better learns to live with that. The Banner talk 11:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, there is nothing magnanimous in having "clashes" and I am puzzled as to why you think you have "won" any kind of clash. It's not about winning and losing, it's about creating content and coming to an agreement when there is a differing of opinion. "Clashes" harm the project and benefit no one. Secondly, to say Dr. B holds a grudge over a past incident is both assumptive and incorrect. You really must assume good faith. Finally, to state your reluctance of "wavering in front of bullies and drama queens" is inflammatory in this context as Dr. B is neither, and I should ask you again to refer to AGF. Cassiantotalk 19:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Dude, he started over the Dorchester Hotel. Because of the clash around the Dorchester Hotel he also left Wikipedia. So don't bother. And I take no responsibility for his prima donna behaviour and his quitting. And for AGF: I am fully prepared to accept his apologies for his accusations and behaviour. The Banner talk 19:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dr. Blofeld / The Banner dispute. Thank you. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

Ruan, County Clare, Drumcliff, County Clare, Quin, County Clare

I have restored the well-sourced additions that you removed from these articles. If you feel that the County Clare Library is not a reliable source for the information on these civil parishes, and before getting into an edit war, please discuss this on the articles' talk pages. Please first read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Civil parishes vs villages. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: I have answered at the Wikiproject and explained why you are, in my opinion, wrong. The Banner talk 13:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

Hi, when you go about tinkering with disambiguating things at Template:Syrian civil war detailed map, take care to leave brackets on the labels. Otherwise, the letters in the names "pile up" in an unsightly fashion (example). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be better when you create valid links instead of links to disambiguation pages. If you do that, I don't have to do anything with that map. The Banner talk 20:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to NET. may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • NET. Playground was aired on daily with six cartoon programmes for children:{[fact}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

UE Boom

Hello, you have nominated my article for deletion. I was quite shocked because I have spent two weeks writing it and would like to develop it towards GA. I made sure that I have included all negative aspects in the "Critique" section and didn't exaggerate the good aspects, but summarized what I have found in the reliable sources. Could you please compare it with HTC One (GA) after which I have modeled UE Boom? There wasn't really much bad to write about UE Boom, as it got "Excellent" rating from PC Magazine and iF 'Gold award'. I believe I have maintained NPOV throughout the article. I have included a number of attributed quotes too. I felt that I have actually over-criticized UE Boom by including all mentions of negative aspects. I understand that the article may look as advertisement to some, but if you will compare it with HTC One, it will just look as much. Dmatteng (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing is useless. The Banner talk 17:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:Otherstuffexists, sure. But lets take a view at the guidelines WP:Guide to deletion:
"Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." Dmatteng (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not buy that. Especially not after canvassing. The article is still advertising and not a neutral description. The Banner talk 01:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
If you think the article is advertisement, could you please:
  • a) Provide instances (words/sentences)?
  • b) Why would I intentionally mention the least number of hours of battery life that undermines the manufacturer's claim? And place it next to it? (If my desire is to advertise?)
  • c) Let's assume for the purpose of our discussion that you are absolutely right, and it is an advertisement. Why wouldn't you follow the guidelines that is designed for that specific case: WP:Guide to deletion? The article would fall exactly into: "Before nominating a recently created article.. sharing your reservations with the article creator ..instead of bringing the article to AfD." Dmatteng (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Kansas)

Hello The Banner. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Kansas), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I've corrected the redirect to the page it is meant to go to. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You have replaced the loop by another loop. There is just no article about the Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas and the dab-page should contain a red link. The Banner talk 12:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Refusal to accept consensus. I have asked for community views on this activity. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Doora

You know the drill, please sort out your differences on the talk page. Oh, and please don't use Twinkle to edit-war; if you must edit-war, do it the old-fashioned way. And please don't template the regulars—you've been around long enough that that's the last thing that's going to de-escalate the situation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Where did I use Twinkle to edit war? I only used it to warn Blofeld for deliberately introducing factual errors. The Banner talk 10:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
[6]. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block_Review:_User:The_Banner. Thank you. v/r - TP 22:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:The Banner appears to be trying to cause a policy change through precedent. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of a week for refusal to adhere to consensus, edit-warring, and an astonishing refusal to accept that your conduct is problematic, despite this being pointed out to you by multiple editors in good standing; if this continues, you will be heading towards an indefinite block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant, I get a block for trying to keep Wikipedia correct while the two dudes who are knowingly introducing factual errors walk away free. The Banner talk 12:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't give a shot about the content at hand. Your belligerence, not the accuracy or otherwise of anyone's edits, is what's got you a week off. Perhaps take the opportunity to regain some perspective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Just another case where the high status messer is protected against the guy who is factual right. The Banner talk 12:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The Banner (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is a conflict with two sides where only one side is blocked. In fact, the conflict is about introducing factual errors, mainly by stating that a village/town is equal to a civil parish. It is load and clear, also to Blofeld and Atmatt2, that this is not the case. Still they keep adding it. There is consensus that Wikipedia should be factual correct, so I feel obliged to correct those errors. The consensus I seem to have broken is a consensus between Blofeld and friends, not a consensus from the wider community. The Banner talk 7:45 am, 29 March 2014, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

This unblock request primarily seeks to establish justification for edit warring. However, per WP:Edit warring, being convinced of the factual correctness of one's edits (rightly or not) is not supplied as a justification under the list of exceptions. A review of WP:NOTTHEM, if unfamiliar, might also be illuminating. - Vianello (Talk) 06:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The reviewing admin may wish to review The Banner's recent edits, and his demeanour in general, in light of this discussion at WikiProject Ireland. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Banner, if we're wrong, why it is every member of WP:Ireland aside from yourself agree on the same thing and you're the only one who says we're introducing errors into articles? Civil parishes do exist whether or not they have any real substance and use today and the article we have on them explains that although not abolished they're largely not used but they still exist and the sources reflect this whether or not you agree with it. I'm quite open to wording which treats them as more historical rather than a solid present unit, but you continue to assume a belligerent stance on this and attacking the work of others rather than joining in a constructive conversation. At least half a dozen people at WP:Ireland agree on civil parish and village in one article. Do you really think that everybody is wrong and you're right?

I'll be honest. At times I see light in what you say, and I appreciate some of the work you do here, and with those photos you kindly took. But why can't you remain like that and discuss things with editors rather than treating everything like a battle? Just when I start to think you might be half decent after all you start templating, reverting and acting in a fashion which comes across as hostile and disruptive. Sure you disagree, but there is a way to go about it which is more constructive and respectful of others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

But you are quite often stating that villages/towns are equal to civil parishes, what is clearly not the case. That is the mistake that you and Aymatt2 make all the time. That is also why I complimented Aymatt2 with his edit on Killimer. I agree that you only should make articles about parishes that are useful. I have not found any info about a real Church of Ireland parish Kilmurry Ibrickane, so I will not make an article about it. I will write an article about the Church of Ireland parish Kilfarboy, as I have useful info for that (cemetery still there, Church built in 1802 (IIRC), burnt down in 1922, removed 1970s, new church on glebe-lands outside Milltown Malbay, still there, parish amalgamated into Drumcliffe). It is an absolute mystery to me why you removed the sourced information on Doora to introduce the same old mistake (village = civil parish) once again, only to change the wording later according to the information that I provided. (The present solution with split paragraphs for the civil parish and for the Roman Catholic parish looks rather odd, as you mention the RC parish already under the civil parish. It would be sensible to merge them.)
About being respectful. Do you really think that this rant was respectful towards me? You are acting as a plain bully there, and gave me the idea of a toddler who had just dropped his ice-cream. Sorry, but I have absolutely no respect for that type of behaviour. Nor will I be that historical that I remember edits done half a year ago, something you clearly do with your referral to The Dorchester. What is the use of that? I know that my behaviour is called "curt", but your behaviour has its failing too. I am not the King of Wikipedia, and nor are you. So don't behave like that. The Banner talk 19:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
No. I walked out because I'd have said something to you which would have got me blocked that's why. We were trying to have a conversation and you went and nominated Kilmoon for AFD as we were talking. I was fuming that you did that and took the sensible option of walking away in disgust. What fair minded rational individual with good intent would nominate this for AFD during a discussion? The only person who's coming across childlike in discussions is yourself. Neither Aymatth or myself are claiming "villages are equal to parishes", we're simply saying something of a given name is a village and civil parish which it is and we have sources to back it up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
But a village is not equal to a civil parish. That is factually wrong. But still you have restored it in Doora. You are introducing factual errors. And you are introducing those errors deliberately. Do you really not understand that a village is something else than a parish? Even after all the times that I have tried to explain that to you? The Banner talk 20:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
We didn't say a village is equal to a civil parish. We're saying that there is a village and a civil parish of that same name around it. A big difference. You're impossible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
In [this edit] you state that Doora is a village and civil parish. Not a word about just having the same name. You just suggest that it is the same. That is why I prefer [the edit of Aymatth2 on Killimer], where he states that Killimer is a village in a civil parish of the same name. That is a totally different meaning. And the difference between wrong (Doora) and right (Killimer). The Banner talk 21:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It is sad to see how a congsi undermines the reliability of the encyclopaedia... I accept defeat now Wikipedia is defeated and sacrificed. The Banner talk 21:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The ancient Greeks, after sacrificing an animal to the gods, would avoid wasting the best meats on the animal by... eating them in a great feast at which all would rejoice. (In the rather different case of a libation, the offering was sometimes consumed later, but also sometimes poured directly onto the ground, which made it rather difficult to consume the offering - though I'm sure they kept some spare in the back room for later.) If Wikipedia has now been sacrificed, can I eat the best parts? (Starting with chicken vindaloo.) Thanks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
You will have a week to feast on the spoils of Wikipedia. Maybe more, because with this congsi it will be very difficult to create a reliable encyclopaedia. And with administrators looking just to one side of the show, it is sure that I will have to sit out the week for repairing deliberate introduced factual errors. Sad times. The Banner talk 22:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! What is a "congsi", please?
Note: User:The Banner changed the heading for this section before, which I'm not entirely sure is legitimate. I've re-changed it to some Dire Straits thing; please be aware this is not The Banner's fault. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Could you please restore the original header, Demiurge? I did not change that header, I have put it in to seperate the topic from the section from The Signpost. And altering the edits of some else is, at least, frowned upon. The Banner talk 10:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I've put a neutral one in. Feel free to furtle it as necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong! - Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
There's a protest singer, he's singing a protest song! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not Jezus, as I make occasionally mistakes. But still, a village/town is not identical to a civil parish. The Banner talk 10:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I think if you will agree with me on a few things, it would be beneficial:
  • a) Wikipedia is working on a principle of a consensus on what is correct, not on what is actually correct. That means, if out of 10 interested editors who are working on a certain article, 9 are wrong and 1 is factually right, the position of the 9 editors will be represented in the main space.
The 1 editor may like it or not, but this is how the things are working here, from my observation. If the editor who is factually right, starts to fight with the other 9 editors, especially edit warring, he is on the way to be indefinitely blocked.
What the 1 editor can do in such situation? He may politely approach the interested editors on the proper talk page and explain his points. If they are not accepted, either move on or politely file DRN.
Note, that even though the 1 editor may have the best of intentions and sincerely believes that he is actually correct, he might be actually wrong.
  • b) If you are nominating a certain article towards AfD, you should actually read the guidelines and follow them in a proper manner.
If an article is not NPOV in your opinion, be bold and edit, or use a cleanup template. If an article is not NPOV, it is not a ground for a nomination on AfD.
Please let me know if you would be interested to follow a) and b), and to help to improve the nominated article, including regarding NPOV. If you agree, I will ask for your block to be lifted and hope my request will be granted, and more importantly your interactions with other editors will be more peaceful. Dmatteng (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not in for a trade to benefit your advertising. Out of principle, I prefer to be blocked for a week than allow advertising and spamming. The Banner talk 20:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
How would you benefit me by making sure that the article is NPOV per your opinion beats me. I would also appreciate if you would cease personal attacks. No further replies are necessary. I wish to have no further interactions with you. Thank you. Dmatteng (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I consider a conditional support for an unblock request an insult. I prefer the block than selling out my opinions. The Banner talk 11:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know if you've seen what I posted to AN, but the gist is that if you agree to stop reverting, I'll quite happily unblock you. Is this something you'd like to discuss further? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Stopping with reverting of deliberate introduced mistakes? Are you serious? The Banner talk 17:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
      • It's between not editing at all, and editing without the option of reverting other users. Seems a decent proposal. You can still try to convince others on article talk pages to see it your way. There is no deadline.--v/r - TP 17:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
        • True, there is no deadline. But there is also no deadline to go after the guys who are introducing the mistakes. And realistically: if I agree with the condition, that gang would follow me around everywhere coming up with claims of reverting and breaking the consensus-among-friends all the time. And I don't have a defence against that type of bullying and harassing. That sounds nasty, but that is my personal experience with Blofeld and his gang. And that is why I can not accept a conditional release. Sorry. The Banner talk 17:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
          • It would only be for the duration of the existing block. They can't put you in a worse situation than you're already in. At the very least, you could edit other articles not relating to this block and then they couldn't bother you. But if you choose not to, that's fair enough--v/r - TP 18:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_22.
Message added 07:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank to all sweet guys...

... who have been grave dancing and introducing often absolute nonsense in articles. You have made it loud and clear that you guys don't have a f*****g clue about the parishes. Instead of preventing creation of more articles than necessary, you force me to write those articles to be able to repair the damage. Great work in undermining the reliability of Wikipedia, guys. The Banner talk 12:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Macroom Oatmeal

Hi! Just thought I'd stop in and start a discussion -- what sounds too much like an advertisement to you? FTR, I have zero connection to this product, and they don't have a web page or marketing campaign from which I could have lifted promotional materials. Thanks for any assistance! valereee (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

See the talk page of the article. The Banner talk 19:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish)

Nomination of Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To my opinion plain vandalism and a provocation. This is not the way to restore peace and tranquillity, Laurel Lodged. The Banner talk 23:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

This is something from which I derive no pleasure whatsoever, but I'm afraid I have blocked you indefinitely. In this case, "indefinite" is explicitly intended to mean 'no fixed duration' rather than 'infinite'. Since your previous block, you have carried on regardless, absolutely refusing to listen to the advice you've been given by concerned editors. You have steadfastly refused to take part in the discussion at WT:Ireland regarding your edits; instead of making your case and civilly trying to persuade other editors of the merits of your point of view, you have continued edit-warring, and your only participation in discussions has been to label other editors' contributions "vandalism" and "nonsense". Wikipedia is a collaborative project governed by consensus, not by any one party's persistence, belligerence, or determination that they are correct (regardless of whether such determination is accurate; something on which I offer no judgement). Purely for the purposes of example, and mainly for the benefit of third parties reviewing this block, I will point to your conduct at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish) (particularly this attack) and the article to which it relates, Kilmurry Ibrickane (Civil parish), where yo made similar attacks in edit summaries while edit-warring. As a gesture of good faith, here are the conditions under which I would unblock you without further discussion:

  1. You agree to a topic ban from articles related to Irish parishes (civil or of any religious denomination), except to make your case for your edits at WT:Ireland;
  2. You conduct yourself properly on talk pages, in a manner consistent with good-faith discussion intended to improve the encyclopaedia;
  3. You refrain from referring to good-faith contributions as "nonsense" or "vandalism"—you can disagree with an edit without attacking the editor;
  4. You refrain from making any further allegations that the members of WikiProject Ireland have conspired with Dr Blofeld against you, unless you make it in an appropriate forum and with credible evidence.

In other areas, you are clearly a constructive editor, so it would be a great shame to lose you, but your conduct in this area has been utterly unacceptable, and entirely destructive to good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopaedia, which is the reason for the bock. The block is indefinite, because I believe you would simply sit out a block of a definite duration and then carry on regardless, as you did last time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My friend, this battle behaviour of Laurel Lodged and Dmatteng was exactly why I refused the conditional release in my prior block. They can provoke but I am the one to get punished...
It is sad that you force me to accept this topic ban (for how long?) as it will harm Wikipedia more than you realize. I hope you have some topic bans for Laurel Lodged too, as he has a clear pattern of edit warring on catholic pages. See User_talk:Laurel_Lodged#You.27ve_been_warned_before_over_edit-warring_over_Catholic_pages. Kilmurry Ibrickane fits nicely in that pattern.
And just a question: is User:The Banner/Workpage17 also off limits during the topic ban? The Banner talk 18:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, you surprised me with this. And I am really disappointed that you hold it against me that I did not wanted to be provoked during a conditional release and therefore refused the offered conditions. Trying to de-escalate backfired... The Banner talk 18:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Banner, if I remember correctly, I think I've provided significant support to you in the past. I have to say, you might want to step back and look at this whole situation from a different perspective. I quite unfortunately have to agree with the substance and reasoning behind this (hopefully very temporary) block. You kinda went renegade on us, and forced people's hands when it should have never got to this point DP 21:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I just get very tired of this. It goes on and on and on. That article about the RC parish is claimed to be a fork of the civil parish, while the article about the RC parish is almost two years older. I live there, I have worked for the parish (short time) and still they know better how it works in County Clare...
I am willing (grudgingly) to accept the topic ban, but at least the provocations should stop (see here).
And for now, I just go to bed and hope that mr. Mitchell comes with a few answers in the morning. The Banner talk 22:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Last remark: I have Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland not on my watchlist. Secondly, there is no discussion going on or has been on on the talkpages of Kilmurry Ibrickane, Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish) or Kilmurry Ibrickane (Civil parish) prior to the merger. No notification at all. The Banner talk 22:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment here but as you've cited "this is going on and on". There is consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish) to place village, civil parish and Roman Catholic parish in the same article. I'm following a clear consensus on this. Nothing controversial about it. If you can't accept that others disagree with you and that wikipedia is a community/consensus driven project then don't edit here. Until you can learn to compromise and agree with others then you're likely to remain blocked. It's entirely in your hands Banner. Kilmurry Ibrickane RC might be older/bigger whatever. Irish editors on here agree it is unfeasible to have separate articles and believe its more convenient for the reader to document the RC and civil parish on one page and if a settlement, a settlement too. That doesn't mean we're creating "nonsense" and introducing errors if we demonstrate sources which prove it is or at least was a civil parish and a RC parish etc. As Laurel explained at WP:Ireland, with intelligent wording you can distinguish between the different types of parishes quite feasibly in one article without it being "nonsense".♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

How clear is that consensus as even Aymatth2 states this: We agree that a village, civil and Catholic parish can all be covered by one article if there is not enough to justify separate articles. They are tiny rural areas. There is no consensus that they must all be covered in one article. This childish squabble is idiotic. Laurel Lodged seems to be against Catholic parishes and The Banner against civil parishes, which reflects badly on both editors. Since the dispute is very visible, moving or merging articles and swapping around the content should only be done after talk page discussion. I would say that Laurel Lodged also deserves some form of censure for doing just that. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC).? Yes, I agree with the point that you should not create articles when you have nothing to say about the subject.
Atmatth2 is wrong on one minor point: I am not against civil parishes. I am against creating articles about civil parishes because there is often no useful content for the article, as it is a mere administrative and/or geographical unit. Giving them own articles is giving them undue weight in most cases.
And as I have stated before, a lot of village are now made equal to civil parishes. Like Inagh, that now states Inagh (...) is a village and civil parish in County Clare, Ireland while a correct form should be Inagh (...) is a village, in the civil parish with the same name, in County Clare, Ireland. Why that is not acceptable is mystery to me.
About Kilmurry Ibrickane, I created the article about the Roman Catholic parish in 2012. You created the article about the civil parish in 2014. That makes it rather strange to accuse me of creating a fork that should be merged.
And it would be nice when you agreed to to the point of compromise instead of things like this. I am not getting historic...
Summarized: I agree with the point that articles about parishes, no matter what type, should only be created when you have sufficient content for it and that creating of forks should be avoided. Villages/towns are not equal to civil parishes, but lie within them.
The Banner talk 09:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Didn't Laurel revert Aymatth on some article? I suspect he may be more displeased with Laurel than you at the moment. The consensus at least to me and I'm sure most people viewing the discussion further up the page at WP:Ireland was crystal clear. You should never have nominated Kilmoon for deletion at the best of times let alone during a heated discussion. It's perfectly encyclopedic and appropriate. You nominated it for deletion just as I thought we were coming to a compromise. Things should never have come to this if you'd stopped dismissing good faith edits as nonsense and been more willing to discuss rather than revert.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
And you should never have created Kilmurry Ibrickane (village) and Kilmurry Ibrickane (Civil parish). Just forks from the article about the Roman Catholic parish Kilmurry Ibrickane...
A compromise like the one I suggested for Inagh could do the trick perfectly well. Mentions the different parishes and gives room to linking or not linking. Could you agree on that, Dr. Blofeld? The Banner talk 13:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Inagh as it stands looks very good and I'm content with that layout which makes it very clear to avoid confusion so yes, I'm content with that, the question is, are you?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice when User:HJ Mitchell finally comes with an explanation of what he has in mind with the topic ban or that he brings it properly to AN/I for discussion. Now it just hanging in the air. As with my quote of user:Aymatth2, the consensus is not as clear as claimed. The Banner talk 07:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll comment here, but only briefly. You still don't get it. Your conduct is the reason for this block, not anything else. You can argue about the content til the cows come home, but not with the sort of battleground mentality with which you have approached the dispute so far. It is not acceptable to edit-war or insult other editors or to take the same dispute from one article to the next, especially when you do so without trying to convince anybody in the discussion at the wikiproject. I don't want to see you blocked, but you can't just carry on regardless. Until you've understood that, the risk of continued disruption is too great, in my opinion, for you to be unblocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I can argue till the cows come home. And you just not willing to listen or inform yourself. You come up with herrings of a conditional unblock and withdraw them. I am powerless against your unwillingness and one-sidedness. Too bad, my work end here. Be happy with it. The Banner talk 20:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Banner, above you essentially said you would decline any conditions, now you want some...which is it? How about this, propose something that's WP:GAB-compliant, and will prevent you from getting a) tied up in similar messes and b) blocked again. We'll discuss. I'm not saying you get to set your own limits, I'm suggesting you propose something that will keep you sane, and that we can all agree on DP 20:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It sound strange but for the earlier block I refused the conditions because I was afraid that provocation would lead to an indiscretion followed by a much longer block. That and that alone is why I refused that conditional unblock. In this case, Mitchell came again with the option of a conditional unblock, but totally unclear what the scope would be of the topic ban and what the length of it would be. We did not come any further than that. We never came as far as discussing the other conditions. I have already said that I am willing to accept a topic ban, but only when I know the terms and conditions. Asking me to swim is one thing, but there is a difference in swimming an Olympic swimming pool and the Atlantic Ocean. The Banner talk 21:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
More to the point: what is an article about a parish? Is that an article "Foo (Foo parish)" or is it already like Inagh starting with the sentence "Inagh (Irish: Eidhneach, meaning "ivy in irish") is a village and civil parish in County Clare, Ireland."? The geographical extent does not matter much. Due to my own limitations in interest, time and knowledge, it does not matter when the ban is for County Clare or nationwide. I don't edit much on Irish subjects outside of Co. Clare (with the notable exception of Michelin restaurants). The Banner talk 21:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You're not instilling me with confidence that you're not just going to jump straight back into the same arguments. In fact the wikilawyering over the definition of "parish" makes me inclined to think you're deliberately missing the point, so I won't comment here further until you're willing to have a sensible conversation about how your conduct has been disruptive and how you can avoid causing further disruption once you're unblocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I just want to know what you understand under an article about a parish to avoid falling foul of the topic ban because we have different opinions about the subject. It is just for clarity. With all respect, I would not consider an article like Inagh an article about a parish. Perhaps you do. You come up with the suggestion of the topic ban, so you are the one setting the definition. Please be clear in what you want from me in relation to the topic ban. The Banner talk 22:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind when you define "Irish parishes (civil or of any religious denomination)" as "any article with the word parish in it" but at least I know what you want. The Banner talk 22:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Anything about a parish. That could include Tobago or New Orleans. It doesn't have to be only an article called Foo Parish, it can be "Foo is a parish in Fooville". This is just common sense, and you're smart enough to not push the envelope even if there was doubt DP 00:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. This is clear now. The Banner talk 00:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
But don't worry, you'd be allowed to edit Larry Parrish :-) DP 08:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I am far more concerned about the Gaelic Athletic Association and its clubs, as their catchment area is usually equal to that of a RC parish and nearly always plays under the spiritual leadership of the parish priest. The Banner talk 09:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
For what period will the topic ban be? The Banner talk 08:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps annoying but out of principle I never sign a contract without knowing all the details, User:HJ Mitchell. So please, could you give an answer on this question? The Banner talk 09:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Although you're really in no position to "negotiate", topic bans are usually indefinite, with the ability to appeal for modifications after 6 months DP 10:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not negotiating (I am not in the position for that) but I like to have the conditions clear before I sign up for them... The Banner talk 12:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The topic ban would be in lieu of the block, an so it would last until you can convince me that it's no loner needed to prevent disruption, or I'm overruled by the consensus of uninvolved editors at AN. A word to the wise: you're not doing a very good job of the former. Now, fair enough, I blocked you—you get to be pissed of at me. I won't hold that against you, certainly not while you're still blocked, but I do think you need to mellow a little. I know it's easier said than done, but I think you take things a little too personally; sometimes it's hard not to (take my response to TParis regarding your last block, for example—I can't claim to be perfect), but we have to try not to let things get under or skin. I want you to be a productive and hopefully happy Wikipedian, but at the moment, I'm just seeing an angry Wikipedian who's itching to get back into the same old rows and wear their opponents down to the point of submission. Anyway, you can disregard everything after the first sentence if you want; it's offered for whatever it's worth. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Angry, sad and disappointment is my current mood. It is hard to swallow not to be able to correct plain mistakes. It makes me sad and disappointed that reliability is not any longer a core value of Wikipedia. It is sad not to be able to write about villages and towns all around me due to those mistakes. It is sad to walk away from possible problems, and than get it held against you.
But there is more on earth than parishes, hamlets, villages and towns in County Clare. And I can and will be useful in that area. That is to say, when I get a green light. Let us wait till after Easter... The Banner talk 17:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
And to be true, I was deeply troubled by this discussion: User talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive 80#The Banner disruptive editing. The Banner talk 08:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Made a start with removing articles about hamlets/villages/towns assigned to be civil parishes from my watch list. Also kicked a few very bad articles of my watch list as correcting them would land me into hot water. It is better for my anger and frustration levels not to see what is happening there. I will check my watch list later what has to be removed too. The Banner talk 09:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Dr Blofeld: I have the right to disagree with the article that states "Foo is a hamlet/village/town and a civil parish of the same name" as the correct form would be "Foo is a hamlet/village/town in the civil parish of the same name". But I accept that for the foreseeable future that text will be there. And it is just for my own mood that I remove those article from my watch list. Not seeing it means not be tempted to change it. It is one of the steps I have taken to defuse the conflict. I hope you do not mind that I walk away from those articles. The Banner talk 10:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Now we are cleaning up, I like to ask the attention for two other potential explosive cases:

  1. UE Boom, an article that is in my opinion advertising or at least promotional. The AfD-discussion makes clear that the article needs work to make it less promotional but [7] removing the maintenance tags and placing offensive and insulting summaries. Questions have been raised by others about a co-worker and a possible COI.
  2. Ascension Parish Burial Ground, where a dispute is going on about the importance of a section about the Darwin-family. To my opinion, addition of that part to the lead gives undue weight to the Darwin-family in that article so I move it to a trivia section. An IP-moving editor and a recently awakened editor disagree with that and judge it important.

I am not waiting for accidents to happen, so I want your opinion about it to get it out of the way. The Banner talk 09:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC) I am aware that I can be a hothead.

Mr. Dmatteng, could you please stop your campaign to get me blocked forever? The series of personal attacks and insults is not really helpful to restore peace and order. The Banner talk 22:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and canvassing for help is not a good idea either. The Banner talk 10:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Redirects for discussion

There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Interested, yes. But I am unable to respond there. I have to say, fair play to you that you notify me of this while you know that I am highly critical of this type of redirects. There are Springs Cleans everywhere now, maybe you should organize your own Spring Clean... The Banner talk 07:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New Visiting Scholar positions
  • TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
  • Australian articles get a link to librarians
  • Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Indefinitely blocked (2)

Part 1, content side

A big part of the conflict is/was the understanding and use of the "Civil parish". My knowledge at those parishes was largely built on an older version of the article "Civil parishes in Ireland" and (library-)books and magazines about history. In general the picture painted was that of of a mere geographical unit or a local unit dominated by a local landlord. So I got quite a surprise when I bought "Byrne's dictionary of Irish Local History" (2004, ISBN: 1-85635-423-7) and looked up the item "parish". It turned out that my knowledge was not so much wrong but far more incomplete. That item also proved why there is so much confusion about parishes as the history of civil parishes is confusing. It also proved that I was not wrong in my opinion that the present civil parish is mainly a geographical unit, not in use for real civil duties, but it also proved that the civil parish was once far and far more important then it is nowadays. Summarized: due to my incomplete knowledge I have severely underestimated the importance of civil parishes in history.

With due respect, I acknowledge that Aymatth2 and Laurel Lodged changed the article Civil parishes in Ireland in a massive way, showcasing a far more complete description of the civil parish then it showed before March 2014.

Here is what I have found in Byrne's dictionary of Irish Local History, page 219:

Part 2

And yes, now I have cooled down and learned so much more about parishes, I am ready and willing to accept the conditions that HJ Mitchell offered:

  1. You agree to a topic ban from articles related to Irish parishes (civil or of any religious denomination), except to make your case for your edits at WT:Ireland;
  2. You conduct yourself properly on talk pages, in a manner consistent with good-faith discussion intended to improve the encyclopaedia;
  3. You refrain from referring to good-faith contributions as "nonsense" or "vandalism"—you can disagree with an edit without attacking the editor;
  4. You refrain from making any further allegations that the members of WikiProject Ireland have conspired with Dr Blofeld against you, unless you make it in an appropriate forum and with credible evidence.

I am not happy with them, mainly because it is self-inflicted, but I unconditionally accept them. The Banner talk 11:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've unblocked you. You shouldn't have any problems with autoblocks, but if you do, let me know or use the {{unblock-auto}} template. I'm genuinely sorry it came to that, and I hope that the next time we cross paths, it will be under happier circumstances. Come and talk to me about the conditions in a few weeks—if you've moved on, or you can discuss parishes without losing your temper, I'll lift them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
User:HJ Mitchell I think The Banner might have violated the second condition regarding "in a manner consistent with good-faith discussion". I think your intention was to disengage The Banner from old rows. His post is vague, lacks specification and even refers to "irrelevant info" as justification for the ad template. Dmatteng (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The lack of good faith is entirely yours, mr Dmatteng. What I did was just give a comment on the talk page that I did not agree with the removal of the advertisement template by you (a short time later restored by JohnInDC. But you follow it up with harrasment and bullying. The Banner talk 19:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
[User:HJ Mitchell]], it is the same old story. I have followed your advise to disengage however The Banner is right back on track. He said he would be hunting disambiguation pages? I would assume there are many articles on the Wikipedia that we could edit without crossing each other. And, he accused me of harassment that is similar to his past behavior when he accused edits to be vandalism, other editors as a gang, etc... Dmatteng (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I am wrong, but as far as I know UE Boom was not off limits. And as far as I know I responded there in good faith in a polite way while your response on my edit was not polite. The Banner talk 19:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't really know the history of the prior block, but The Banner's behavior at Talk:UE Boom strikes me as entirely appropriate. My goodness, all he did was comment. JohnInDC (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I've stricken Dmatteng's comment at the UE Boom talk page and warned him per WP:NPA. This is tiresome. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Dmatteng, first of all, it's incredibly imploite to complain about somebody to an admin on their own talk page. If you really must make complaints, direct them to my talk page rather than The Banner's, where he is likely to feel obliged to respond. Second, I see nothing wrong with his comment, and your mention of his recent blocks strikes me as and ad hominem attack. The purpose of the restrictions is not to prevent The Banner from disagreeing with anybody, much less to prevent him from expressing an honestly held opinion, but to get him to do it in a way that facilitates good-faith discussion. The important thing is not that we, as editors, disagree, but how we we resolve our disagreements. The Banner's former conduct, for example in using terms like "vandalism" and "nonsense", fell below the standard expected, but I've seen no evidence that he has not seen the error of his ways. I respectfully suggest you either engage with him like you would any other editor (and yes, if his conduct becomes disruptive, bring it to the attention of an administrator, as you would or any other editor) or don't engage with him at all. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014 disambig contest: let's do it again!

Greetings fellow disambiguator! Remember back in February when we made history by clearing the board for the first time ever, for the monthly disambiguation contest? Let's do it again in May! I personally will be aiming to lead the board next month, but for anyone who thinks they can put in a better effort, I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to any editor who scores more disambiguation points in May. Also, I will be setting up a one-day contest later in the month, and will try to set up more prizes and other ways to make this a fun and productive month. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You should add points for fixing links in templates. They way I work, I will not win the price. There are just one two prices I am interested in: a) "Articles With Multiple Dablinks" giving links to articles with 1 disambiguation link and b) "The Daily Disambig" giving the number of links as less then 50,000! But for sure, I will lend a hand. Every link gone is a benefit. The Banner talk 21:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Great! We used to have a tool for finding articles having the largest numbers of links that counted for the contest, but it has stopped working. I'll see if I can get it reignited. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I've got it now - check this out! bd2412 T 23:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

Los Angeles Clippers all-time roster

The Banner,

I have changed 42 of the large number of disambiguation links. It was never my intent to have a large number as I was going to edit them after I created the article but the dabsolver was not running properly on my computer.

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

Notice

I'm going to report your behavior to HJ Mitchell for making and restoring personal attacks. The personal attacks don't need to be "serious" to be removed, and any editor can remove them per WP:NPA. It was also advised that you should use the article's talk page to discuss the article's content, an advice you have ignored right away. Dmatteng (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sir, please, look at your own behaviour with all your fishing for blocks. The Banner talk 13:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not fishing for blocks. It is you who ignored advise of an experienced editor and restored PA. Dmatteng (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Stop kidding me. The Banner talk 16:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Sam Walton has advised you to use the article's talk page for discussion about the article's content, hasn't he? Dmatteng (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
And did Sam Walton scratch your second striking as WP:POINT? Can I please request you to stay of my talk page? next time I will consider it as harassing. The Banner talk 17:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Alajuela Province Comment

Thanks for disambiguating the links on the Alajuela Province page that was recently updated. I'm seeing that you disambiguated 14 to 21 links. It saved a lot of people a lot of clicking! Mvblair (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome, I am one of those lunatics that spend a lot of time on plain maintenance. I guess it would not surprise you any more that my main field of working is solving (or unlinking) links to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 09:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to CSR Racing may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | [[Pagani Automobili S.p.A.|Pagani] || N/A || N/A || N/A || Huayra || Zonda R

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sephardic pedigrees

I saw your edit summary "red links okay but not links to disambiguation pages". I know we have no big problem with redlinks, unless we also have a doubt the target article is not likely to be created ever, but in this case I really prefer a link to disambiguation pages, because at least they will contain links to some of the people with that surname. Which is what pedigrees is all about. I was of a mind to revert you again, especially in view of WP:BRD, but thought that perhaps I could first try to convince you. Debresser (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you do not convince me. There is a special project to clean up links to disambiguation pages. And that was what I was doing: fixing links to disambiguation pages. Those names should point to an article about the family or at least about the surname, not point to nowhere. The Banner talk 18:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
If there's an issue with needing to link to the list of surname-holders, they should be split off from the disambiguation page, yes. Failing that, though, I'd recommend using the (surname) style pipe links on the article, but instead of leaving it a red link, making it a redirect to the disambiguation-page-with-surname-holder-list until/unless the split is performed. Some of these, such as DiMaggio might even be surname articles at the base name, and change the "other" entries to hatnotes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
That would be an acceptable compromise for me. Debresser (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Implemented. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I hate to disappoint you, but you have introduced four links to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 18:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not disappointed. That is precisely what I wanted to do. And please note that this is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing that forbids me to unlink them as a method to solve links to disambiguation pages.
There is nothing to "solve". But if you do, there is nothing stopping me from reverting you. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
It is better that you write a real article about the name and family than that you start edit warring. The Banner talk 22:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Talkback

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Bazonka's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bazonka (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Your participation on UE Boom article

Per WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND I would to bring your attention to: "In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making changes to content." WP:BRD you have referred to in your latest revert is designed to revert newly introduced changes to a previous state of an article. Bold changes, revert, and then a discussion should take place. Dmatteng (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You are the one making a battleground of it, by desperately making efforts to get promotional info in it and ignoring consensus. Your behaviour is, to my personal opinion, extremely annoying, there and on my talkpage. I have repeatedly asked you to stay off my talkpage, but you ignored that request once again. The Banner talk 10:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Too late, I have enough of your harassing and bring you to AN/I. The Banner talk 11:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The previous state of the article is the one that was declared as non-promotional per consensus of all involved editors. So your accusation is sounding absolutely baseless. Your frivolous PAs been noted, as well as your removal of good-faithed edits on List of Sega Saturn games article. Dmatteng (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
yes, I have seen that you start following me around. And I have requested that you stay off my talkpage, something you keep ignoring. The Banner talk 11:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
For your information, user:Dmatteng: I have reported you for harassing at AN/I: here. The Banner talk 12:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

On reverting socks

I have found this link to be very helpful when I undertake bulk reverts of sock puppets. Really, bulk reverting is the only choice in fixing, oh, 50 or 75 or 200 articles that might've been infected. Once in a while someone restores a sock edit (because, once in a while they might be substantively okay), in which case I may drop them a note on their talk page to let them know what has been going on (as you did). Finally though if they want to own the (otherwise unobjectionable) edit, I think it's okay. (I remember seeing that in some policy somewhere too, but can't remember where.) I hope this is helpful - JohnInDC (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Aha, I could not find that one. Thanks a lot. The Banner talk 12:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Rashad Murad

Thank you for letting me know about the template removal issue .

And about the advert thing , can you please show me where is the advertising in the article and I'll fix it. I'm glad for your help ,thank you again. --Ali wassouf (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It is the style and tone that make it promotional. There is a lot of info that is not relevant at all like where and with who he studied. It is enough to state the university and the degree he acquired there. There is also too much detail about his inventions/patents. If they are noteworthy on their own, they should have their own article. Also the text lacks neutrality. Bare URL are also not desired. For you help: Template:Cite news, Template:Cite book and Template:Cite journal. The Banner talk 12:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Template: Gotland County

Many thanks for your help with the template. As soon as I had translated it I realized I had made a mess with all the disambigues links it created. But it was very late and I will get back to sorting it all out as soon as I can! Not forgotten. - W.carter (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have started with the cleaning up. It will take some time, but I will get there in the end. Today I "fixed" Fole and Vamlingbo. Nothing fancy this first time around, but the facts are correct and referenced, and the articles actually look better than on SweWiki. Hope this is somewhat satisfactory. - W.carter (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Miss Supranational

Regarding the AFD discussion about the Romanian offshoot of this page, I noticed the pageant main page has already been taken to AFD at least once - with a no consensus outcome. I'm not going to bother, personally, but if you want to take it to AFD a second time, I imagine that a delete outcome would also wipe out all the offshoots in one fell go. However, my feeling is that it probably technically passes notability, and some of the arguments on the article did raise sources as evidence of its passing GNG, so I'm not touching it with a bargepole. Mabalu (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have tagged it for COI. It is not so difficult to see a remarkable coincidence between one of the major contributors and a certain website. The Banner talk 09:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I have big issues with beauty pageants generally, think they're pretty grisly spectacles, so I try to avoid them. My main beef is that every AFD for a tits, teeth and stripper heels flaunt-fest ends up in the Fashion AFD category, when it usually has sod-all to do with fashion. After my FUN experience with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Araksi Cetinyan I've tended to try and steer well clear from such AFDs (until now!)...
There are too many funny men/women who think that everything is notable, and sometimes they bases that on the likelihood that somewhere out there there are sources. The Banner talk 10:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Lawrence College Ghora Gali

Thanks for tidying up Lawrence College Ghora Gali. I had added the links, to see which of the alumni had articles, and was working my way through the list when I was called away. I don't normally leave articles in such a mess, so thanks for tidying up after me. - Arjayay (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

Molinari

Can you use this? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

In fact not. I can't find the episode itself. Even YouTube and Pirate Bay fail... The Banner talk 20:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the fact he was featured on the programme is something to mention, more important than seeing the video - but I may be biased, rarely watch videos. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, that is indeed true. I did not look at it from that point. The Banner talk 21:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Even nicer, it turned out to be two different episodes. The Banner talk 21:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
  • TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
  • TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
  • New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The John Lyon School - Notable Pupils

Good Morning, you have removed names of past pupils of The John Lyon School, deeming then not notable as they do not have their own page. I am authorized by the Governors of The John Lyon School to include those names and I would respectfully request that you undo your edit. Many thanks. (M L Gascoine (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

Sorry, the rules and regulations override the permission of the school. The Banner talk 10:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
See: WP:LISTPEOPLE The Banner talk 12:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Template edit

Hello Banner.

I'm wondering what the point is with this edit of yours. As far as I can see, the altlink you added links to exactly the same target as that which was the default. Am I missing something?

Regards.

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. You can answer here. D.S.

No, case of crossing edits. The Banner talk 10:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

List of World War II aces from Czechia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of World War II aces from Czechia. Since you had some involvement with the List of World War II aces from Czechia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Banner talk 22:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

List of World War II aces from Czechia

List of World War II aces from Czechia is not the same as List of World War II aces from Czechoslovakia, not only because Czechia and Czechoslovakia is not the same, but also because frist list content Czechs and second one Czech and Slovak pilots (one Slovak pilot in the second list). By deletion you also deleted some links to personal articles. Askave (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If you were not so blinded by your POV, you could have seen that I only nominated the article for deletion. I did not remove it. I am not an administrator. The Banner talk 09:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack removed Personal attack removed

Czechia

Czechia (in Dutch Tsjechië, see https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsjechi%C3%AB) is an informal (geographic, short-form) name of the Czech state. Czech Republic is the political name of the country, existing since 1993, therefore theis political name cannot be applicated for the denomination of the Czech state before 1993. The name "Czechia" was registered in UN List of geographic names in 1993 and you cab find 4000000 hits opf this name on internet. If you do not know this fact, you cannot write, that the name does not exist. Do not change your nescience for the claim, that something does not exist. It is necessary to say, that the use of informal (short, geographic) name of the country is common and necessary (we do not usually say Dutch Kingdom, we say Netherlands, which is the same example as Czech Republic vs. Czechia). Using only political name of the country leads to its limitation only for the period of actual state-political formation in the area and makes impossible to understand the country in historical context with undesirable aftermath. Using political name of the country in historical connotations is absurd. [5]

So, please, redirect the page I created back to List of World War II aces from Czechia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askave (talk • contribs) 22:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

No way, as there is or was no "Czechia". The Banner talk 22:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I can send you all documents via e-mail if you are interested.Helveticus96 (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed personal attack

The term Czechia exists and was declared as the right geographic short name by Ministery of Foreign affairs of the Czech Republic already in 1993. We have copies of all documents on file. This statement is still valid as there was no other judgment about it since then. But as I know from the past, we could bring entire bunch of records, it gets deleted every time, because some administrators just do not like it. Helveticus96 (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

What you say is plain nonsense. You just have to prove that the name is commonly used. But that is the glitch, it isn't. The Banner talk 09:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not nonsense, it is a fact. I have all the documents on file. But apparently it does not interest anyone here Helveticus96 (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And adding to this, how can a word being commonly used, when it gets supressed at all occasions?Helveticus96 (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not suppressed, you just fail to give evidence that it is really commonly used. For example, that the United Nations or the European Union refer to the Czech Republic as Czechia. And that most newspapers refer to the Czech Republic as Czechia. But you have no evidence of that. Wikipedia describes not what you want but what is commonly used. The Banner talk 12:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

Blind revert

What are you doing reverting decent copyedits and addition of categories for it? It is clearly an improvement, you're not even a native English speaker. What sort of English is " de period 2005-2013" and "in the time" ? And why does anything need seven citations? Genuinely I was helping you out and even thanked you for the article but your blind revert completely rejects what I did in good faith.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it was not okay what you did. You introduced errors. The mentioned linked head chefs were all the head chefs awarded with a Michelin star. Not some of them. By no means it was a blind revert, otherwise I would not have edited a few edits of you in again. And could you stop you PAs about my language, you are not as perfect as you think. The Banner talk 15:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

This is official notification that you are at WP:3RR. If you revert again you will be reported in the appropriate forum. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This is an official warning that you are introducing factual errors in an article. Stop playing the henchman. The Banner talk 16:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Kilkee

Thanks for that, I did make an unwarranted assumption re: direction of travel. I shall revert the other changes though, the phrasing as it stood in places before I edited was ludicrously bad, and there may be still more that needs doing. Harfarhs (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops, and with the revert I did not solve the problem.
But the case was that the locomotive had trouble due to weeds in the water tank. The steep hill shortly before Milltown Malbay (Black Hill) was nearly to much. On a prayer they managed to reach Milltown Malbay (MM). But the replacement locomotive had to come from far. I don't recall if it was Moyasta, Kilrush or Kilkee. It took rather long for the train to arrive in MM and even longer to finally arrive in Kilkee. By that time, the audience that was waiting on Percy French, had left. No money, so he sued the South Clare Railway (effectively part of the West Clare Railway) for 10 Irish pounds compensation. The company decided to fight the claim and waiting for the court case, French composed the song.
I have that info from the book "In the Tracks of the West Clare Railway" from Eddie Lenihan. Unfortunately, I borrowed the book from the library already a few months ago. The Banner talk 21:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

VxWorks

Based on your feedback I have updated the pre-amble and the history. I'd appreciate your feedback if you have some time. Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

Deletion nomination for File:EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 June 22#File:EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Grand Restaurant Karel V

I will unprotect the page. If there is any more edit warring then the editors involved will be blocked. Also you need to stop with the aspersions. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 13:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
To clarify a bit. What I meant was edit warring from the unprotection, taking the unprotection to be a clean start. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 13:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I hope the others concur with the present article. The Banner talk 13:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to continue to complain about the four sources but I do think you can cover it with one source. Never mind. I've created List of Dutch chefs. The red links mostly have article on Dutch wikipedia and probably should be started on here. Feel free to add lots of chefs from your Michelin articles or revamp the star system to reflect number of stars they held at peak or currently and grill it :-). I'll try to help blue some links sometime although might need assistance from you or @Drmies:.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, don't expect too much help from me. My focus is on the restaurants. First to write the remaining 70 or so, then update the existing ones (one website disappeared, the other went behind a paywall). Only when that is done, the focus will shift to the head chefs. But I do not guarantee that I will not write articles about chefs before that shift in focus. You never know what is going to happen. The Banner talk 19:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Also started Cees Helder which you might add to...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Between the two of you, you have done a lot already for the project, and you can do so much more. Who else is going to write all this stuff up? Drmies (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Andy Hayler Reviews

I just spotted that you've removed a bunch of Andy Hayler reviews from several restaurant articles - you know that he's a well known critic, right? He's been on television quite a bit (although it's been a while since I last saw him) as a critic on Masterchef in the UK. Sorry - I didn't want to run around and reverse your edits. Miyagawa (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If you are talking about Master chef Professional: three times in all seasons. By far not enough to make him an important critic. The Banner talk 19:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I trimmed that article some more. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverted Article Art Below

I don't understand why you deleted all of my changes from the article. I just started editing articles for Wikipedia, so I'd really like to know and learn from this. Besides I'm absolutely sure that everything I wrote is true and based on solid facts. Regards Sarahannati (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2014

My own head is also well stocked with facts that I'm absolutely sure are true. And, I venture to guess, The Banner's head is similarly full of facts that he/she is absolutely certain are true. Ditto for most people. What we are individually sure is true is what Wikipedia euphemistically terms "original research", and it's not good enough. Instead, we need independent, reliable sources for material that we add to articles. -- Hoary (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to join a discussion about the article Art Below, at Talk:Art Below. -- Hoary (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

Invitation to participate

Just in case you didn't see my multiple posts at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 14 this is to formally invite you to participate in the discussion to create a formal consensus regarding your nomination of multiple aircraft nav boxes for deletion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Mass_nomination_of_aircraft_manufacturer_nav_boxes_for_deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you please stop nominating more and more aircraft nav boxes while the discussion is ongoing to reach a consensus on this. - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I stop for today. But you have to convince the administrators on TfD, not your own colleagues. The Banner talk 20:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
There are admins participating in the discussion at WikiProject Aircraft. No WikiProject "owns" templates, so a consensus there will be determining. Members of the templates WikiProject are welcome to participate there if you would like to notify them. - Ahunt (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I do nothing, I will just look up the navigation templates and check the number of relevant links and act accordingly. But I am not bad. I will do just one letter a day, and tomorrow that will by the templates starting with V. The Banner talk 21:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Please wait until the discussion is decided and a consensus reached. There is no point in continuing to piecemeal nominate nav boxes for deletion while the discussion is ongoing. If the consensus ends as supporting getting rid of them them you can mass nominate them all at once. If the consensus is to keep them then you will have been saved a lot of work. Continuing to nominate more and more boxes while the discussion is ongoing may also be seen as disruptive to Wikipedia.
Also if you are going to nominate more boxes from the Aircraft and Aviation projects can you please notify those projects. I have been doing that work for you, but if you are going to nominate templates you should be completing your own work, as explained at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion: "as well as any related WikiProjects (look on the template's talk page) that do not use Article alerts, so that they are aware of the discussion".- Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion on WikiProject Aircraft is plain the wrong venue. That will have no effect on Templates for discussion. Not at all. WikiProject Aircraft has no special status and WP:NENAN is also used for other sectors, like music, sport etcetera. The Banner talk 21:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
It is a valid place to reach a consensus on aircraft templates that are created by or fall under the project. It won't affect templates that are not aircraft related. - Ahunt (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
And I think I can promise you that no aircraft will be treated differently from other templates when they fail WP:NENAN: removal. Other option: make sure the templates have at least five relevant links. The Banner talk 21:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
So I am getting a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from you. Are you saying that you intend take the advice of an essay over a solid consensus when we come to one? - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, dude, come on. You should know better than starting to harass me over this. I am not the one to decide over it, that are the administrators on TfD. The WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is on your side as I told you numerous times by now that you try to convince the wrong people. In fact, you are wasting your time. The Banner talk 21:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
How is finding a consensus a waste of time? And I have asked you to invite anyone you think should participate in the debate at WikiProject Aircraft. Have you done that? I put it all over the TfD pages that you posted on so anyone who cares there should see it. Also some of the admins over on the aircraft project also do closings over on TfD, so there is some population overlap; it's not two separate communities. - Ahunt (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Sigh, because a consensus in a single Wikiproject will have no effects to the wider area covered by WP:NENAN and TfD. The Banner talk 02:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
But that is the point, it is not a consensus at a single project, everyone interested has been invited to comment and so whatever consensus is reached will be broad-based. And, as noted by many people, WP:NENAN is just an essay and not even one that has wide support, it shouldn't be even quoted at deletion debates. Consensus, however, is the basis on which Wikipedia is built. - Ahunt (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
THEN YOU ARE AT THE WRONG VENUE The Banner talk 11:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
And, by the way, I have not heard any serious argument to change the standing consensus. "We like it this way" works among your peers, but not among others. And to get outsiders in, you better look for a neutral location (like Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)) and start a formal Request for Comments. The Banner talk 11:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay I note that you won't accept any consensus that is arrived at. Just please note that may be seen as disruptive. Also you are back to nominating templates for deletion while the consensus discussion is on going which is not acting in good faith. Also I note that even though you are required to notify affected projects of proposed deletions you are still not doing that. You will see that each template talk page lists the projects that should be notified so it is easy to figure that out. I also note that you have failed to notify the creators of these templates as required by TfD. Trying to get deletions though by stealth without notifying the people who created them is also not acting in good faith. - Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a consensus that WP:NENAN is applicable to all navigation templates and you try to break that consensus for your own good. And as long as you accuse me of being disruptive and acting in bad faith, I will continue my perfectly valid nominations. The Banner talk 13:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't seen that consensus, where can that discussion be found? Please provide a link. You can note that new consensuses can be made at any time on issues and replace old ones, see WP:CONSENSUS. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Wait 16 days and you have the proof you want. Sorry, but I am not going to spend any more time on this. Just wait and see the results. The Banner talk 18:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
"There is a consensus that WP:NENAN is applicable to all navigation template" - Please link to this consensus. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
See the TfD-pages. The Banner talk 20:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but that is not an answer, it really looks like you are just BSing everyone here, which would be very bad faith. I don't think there is any such consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I guess that you are out of arguments that you have to get personal. Let me tell you this: with every personal attack of bad faith accusation, another letter is up for scrutiny and nomination. Have fun with that. The Banner talk 23:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
It is nothing even close to a personal attack to ask you to prove a consensus that you claim exists actually exists. You are making claims and not backing them up, so I conclude you are just making that up. On the other hand making more and more bad faith nominations of templates for deletion as an item of revenge for being called to account for making up facts is very bad faith. - Ahunt (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Start doing your own research, although I know that the results of that might by mightily inconvenient for you. The Banner talk 12:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
You can start your research at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 14 where a totally other type of navigation template gets a WP:NENAN-argument twice... The Banner talk 13:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
You said there was a consensus and you haven't been able to show that there is. Making up facts to support your own position and not accepting consensus is Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Just look up what are the results of a WP:NENAN-nomination. You can see a pattern that a vast majority of nominations end in deletion or emergency creation of extra valid articles. That is, as far as I know, happening over the last three years. They call that Common Outcomes. And to my opinion, as the results of a WP:NENAN=nomination is nearly always the same, you can speak about a consensus among nominators and acting administrators. The Banner talk 14:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay so thanks for clarifying there is no actual consensus discussion on anywhere. No matter, we now have a formal consensus on the subject of WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes. This means that you can now stop nominating these for deletion as that would be editing against a formal consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Your consensus among peers has no effect on TfD. Sorry. The Banner talk 15:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
It was not among just peers, as you and another editor from TfD participated. It is clear that you aren't going to stop, so let's see how the chips fall. - Ahunt (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I am prepared to wait for that but on the condition that you remove each and every false accusation that I act in bad faith or in revenge. The Banner talk 15:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Nope. Unlike your false claim about a non-existent consensus I have provided links with proof about your bad faith and your own quote that you are making these noms for revenge. You said it clearly yourself. We are done here, let's see how the TfDs go. - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, with you bad faith attitude to protect you own templates we have nothing to discuss. Oh, by the way: I did not forget to notify the Wikiproject, it is just not standard to do that. Only notifying the creator and major editors is required and usually Twinkle is taking care of that. The Banner talk 15:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
So much for "not being afraid to be wrong". You have yet to come up with a reason for deleting these navboxes, other than an essay which appears to be written with reference to the addition of large numbers of navboxes to articles, which argument does not apply in the case of these ones. Your comments above clearly show that you simply do not like your opinion being challenged, and have allowed this to become a personal issue.TheLongTone (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
In about two weeks you will find out if WP:NENAN is a valid reason for removal or not. Based on prior experience, I think yopu guys have a problem. The Banner talk 19:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
"Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." I'm not very impressed by your point of view that the problem lies with thae broad consensus among editors involved in wikiproject Aviation rather than with yourself.TheLongTone (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
That opinion is based on experience. The Banner talk 19:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
By "experience" I presume you mean an arrogant refusal to come up with a rational reason for your actions.TheLongTone (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The reason is plain and mentioned in every nomination: "fails WP:NENAN. In fact you guys have no valid reason against it as "we are used to do it so and so" and WP:WEDONTLIKEIT will hold no sway in the end. The Banner talk 07:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
No , you are not giving a reason. As you well know and as pointed out numerous times, WP:NENAN is an essay and not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Be prepared for a nasty surprise... The Banner talk 22:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
And now everybody is angry and comes after the bad news messenger. Let us await the outcome and see how many templates are removed. But it would be nice when people be a tiny bit polite. Threats, false accusations and personal attacks is not what I regard as civil or polite. The Banner talk 20:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
People are iritated because you clearly display an unwillingness to actually engage in discussion, preferring to remain on what you fondly imagine is a high horse. In reality, it just makes you seem petty-minded.TheLongTone (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
People are irritated because they have no arguments, that is more the truth. That is why threats, false accusations, team work and personal attacks are necessary. But no fear, the admin will recognize hollow words. The Banner talk 22:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Rubbish. There are plenty of arguments: you simply refuse to address them, and are incapable of putting up any of your own, apart from constant trotting out the same essay.TheLongTone (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
LOL, you guys have no other arguments than WP:WEDONTLIKEIT, WP:WEDOTHISALLTHETIME and WP:WEHAVEASPECIALPOSITION. Unfortunately, that will not work. Just wait and see what is going to happen. And in the mean time: spend an effort is upgrading templates to have five relevant blue links. The Banner talk 23:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Excessive details

In the article Baba Hari Dass I reorganized and simplify excessive detail sections and will keep working on this aspect further. Who can remove "overly detailed" template from that page? Thanks. Pradeepwb 17:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You make good progress but more work needed. So I leave the tag. The Banner talk 17:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

BrandZ

Could you please explain why you removed the historical BrandZ Top 100 lists? I know you stated 'it looks that they are not copyright free' but they are in the public domain, surely?

Benjaminmarshall (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you prove that? The Banner talk 17:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

They are readily available online from a variety of secondary & tertiary sources; for example here on the Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d8ea4e6e-da79-11e3-a448-00144feabdc0.html#axzz36OgN2G6t Benjaminmarshall (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The point is that you have to prove that they are copyright free and fit for reuse. Unless that is specifically stated, you must assume that it is covered by copyright. The Banner talk 10:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, okay, could you point me in the direction of the wikipedia policies about this, so I know what I need in order to prove they can be reused and reposted here? Many Thanks Benjaminmarshall (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Pressure

Banner, seriously, time to take it off your watchlist. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Refused, unless when you can prove that advertising is now allowed on Wikipedia. The Banner talk 09:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not the correct answer. It is not advertising, unless you can prove that Blofeld is on the take. Also, Blofeld is not a boy. Also, Ernst, "sociopathy" is not an acceptable term to throw around. Sheesh you two. Banner, I would have thought you would choose the better path. Drmies (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
At least I tried something to get out of this misery. The Banner talk 13:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
See my prior answer. The Banner talk 20:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

What the hell are you playing at? voting delete on a closed/withdrawn nomination?? You're lucky HJ isn't active because you should have been blocked again for your behaviour over the past few weeks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Blofeld-boy, stop kidding. You were responding there too after closing. I hope you don't mind that after your selective removing, I took the liberty to remove your comments too. Including this clear bad faith comment. The Banner talk 11:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, I've addressed him on his talk page. Are there no limits to your sociopathy?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You are describing yourself? The Banner talk 11:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Peace initiative

I don't like the way things are going, way to stressy. I suggest to introduce a voluntary interaction ban between the five of us. That means: User:Cassianto, User:SchroCat, User:Aymatth2 and User:Dr. Blofeld on one side and me on the other side. In this case, and I do not know if this is a common approach, it would mean not editing an article that is edited less than two week (or a month?) ago by one of the parties involved or on the talkpage of one of the parties. (Exception: AfD's of articles written by one of the parties.) Can everybody agree to that? The Banner talk 11:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

If you were a perfectly decent human being capable of interacting with other editors and accepting of discussion and consensus an interaction ban would not be necessary. In your case I agree it would be best INCLUDING AFDs as you seem to take everything as a tit for tat and make everything personal. If you'd simply accepted my good faith editing in the first place this wouldn't have blown up again. There was absolutely no need for you to vote delete on a closed nomination. It was immensely disrespectful and downright malicious, fuelled by little but the fact that you think you've been bullied into having an article merged even though I went to some lengths to encourage expansion of it. I really think a full 100% don't touch my article I won't touch yours thing would be a decent solution, not just a few weeks but permanently for articles primarily written by either of us as you're quite incapable of amicable discussion and operation around us. If your restaurant stubs need copyediting and improvement then so be it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a positive approach available? The Banner talk 11:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You've made it perfectly clear that you're unable to interact in a positive fashion. I've made many efforts to try to get on the level with you and each time you reject them. Well not again, I and the others have had it up to here with your petty behaviour.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The plain fact that you need so many personal attacks shows that the communication problem is not mine but yours. The Banner talk 12:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
If I was going to resort to personal attacks I'd have honestly called you something which I'm sure Drmies has witnessed on other pages on wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, I call this already a personal attack. Start behaving polite and we have made a giant step forward. The Banner talk 12:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Start behaving like a decent human being and it would be reciprocated. How you are treated on wikipedia is a mirror image of how you treat others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You are unable to act polite? The Banner talk 12:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Start behaving like a decent human being and it would be reciprocated. How you are treated on wikipedia is a mirror image of how you treat others. What other reasoning would you have for gate crashing a closed AFD on one of the most high profile night clubs in London, the sort of article you don't work on, and voting delete other than malicious intent and "revenge" for some perceived injustice you think you've faced. Am I to really believe you did it in good faith, in wikipedia's best interests? Pull the other one. Am I to be polite to you for doing that? Take a long hard look at yourself Banner. As I say it all came down to your initial response, and that was a very negative one overall. Enough said, please keep away from my articles and affairs and vice versa. You're a time sink on here, it feels like I'm in a barren no man's land here which I really don't want to be a part of. This is my last post here. Sometime in the future I forsee that you'll be blocked again as you're incompatible with working in a community environment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You know exactly how it should be done, but you don't act like it yourself.
But I stay away from your articles the same way you stay away from my articles. I hope you can persuade the other three to do the same. The Banner talk 12:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
They are not your articles. I shall edit where I pissing well like! Cassiantotalk 18:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
What I suggest is this: In this case, and I do not know if this is a common approach, it would mean not editing an article that is edited less than two week (or a month?) ago by one of the parties involved or on the talkpage of one of the parties. (Exception: AfD's of articles written by one of the parties.) Indeed, I do not own the articles I write, the same as you don't own any articles you have written, Cassianto. The Banner talk 18:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
When have I ever claimed ownership over any of "my" articles? Thank fuck I have the likes of you to tell me otherwise! Cassiantotalk 18:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You suggested that I claim ownership of articles with your remark "They are not your articles". But this is a peace initiative, so I hope you agree with this. The Banner talk 18:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Did you not say "but I stay away from your articles the same way you stay away from my articles"? Cassiantotalk 19:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
As Dr. Blofeld stated earlier: I really think a full 100% don't touch my article I won't touch yours thing would be a decent solution, not just a few weeks but permanently for articles primarily written by either of us (...) The Banner talk 19:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm bored of you, go away Cassiantotalk 19:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

For your info: you are on my talk page. But you make it load and clear that you are not interested in a peace initiative. Sorry to hear that. The Banner talk 19:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Multi sensory cooking

Fair enough if others are doing it, just seemed a bit much to call him a "pioneer of an approach to cuisine" when the vaguely-specified source seems to be him talking about his own work in one of his cookbooks. I'll redirect multi sensory cooking to molecular gastronomy if it's not just Blumenthal doing it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I am not sure if that is the same. The Banner talk 11:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, the gastronomy page says "Some chefs associated with the term choose to reject its use, preferring other terms such as multi sensory cooking, modernist cuisine, culinary physics, and experimental cuisine." and other senses are mentioned in the article body - perhaps that's worth expanding on? --McGeddon (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Possible, but this makes me doubt. I assume multi sensory cooking is wider than just molecular gastronomy. The Banner talk 12:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

VxWorks screenshot

Why did you remove the screenshot for vxWorks?Robpater (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Because it is a low quality picture with a huge size that conveys no real meaning of the software. The infobox is for important information. The Banner talk 16:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel that it is useful and it is a valid line item in the OS infobox. I agree that it is too big (another editor made a change which made it that size. I feel that it is useful to show readers the screenshot like other OS articles do and therefore would like to keep it in but make it smaller. Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Also unlike other windows-based screenshots, VxWork's emplys a text-based one with additional information such as CPU count and memory size. Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've made it smaller, and I think it looks much better. I could make it smaller still, but it might be more difficult to read the info on the screen. Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No matter what, in this state it does not belong in the infobox as it tells nothing important about the subject. I have by now also commented out all unsourced and not-independently sourced uses. (= hidden). This because the article starts to look like an advertisement. So, please: start sourcing and do that with reliable independent sources (= not the company webside of VxWorks or Wind River) The Banner talk 18:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I have done my best to find as much third party sources as I could. I also found some and used their material, then checked with the Wind River webpage only to find that the 3rd party was in error. I only sourced from WR when it was factual info, not on whether it was good or bad. Also most of the notable uses were there before I upgraded the pageRobpater (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Note, the initial notable uses were mostly un-referenced. I did start to look for references for them, and can continue. I propose, as was the approach before, to include the list and ask for people to get references. That way we can employ more people to do the work. That message was there back in 2012.Robpater (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my friend. I could have deleted the stuff straight away because it is unsourced since 2012. This article seriously needs independent sources, but you better start looking for sources for the non-hidden parts.. The Banner talk 18:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What non-hidden parts. How do I find them to start working on them?Robpater (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The text that you can read straight away. Like the sections features, hardware support, development environment, platform overview and history. The Banner talk 19:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry still not clear what you mean by "The text that you can read straight away". Di you mark what content needs to be cited? Do you mean where I had a Wind River reference I need to use a 3rd party? Does this include old content done by others from years ago?RobRobpater (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. What need to be cited, is almost the whole article
  2. Yes, when possible replace Wind River-sources by independent third party sources.
  3. Yes, in fact is does. But I suggest to start with your own work. While working on that, you might find useful sources for other parts. But remember: it is not necessary to reference every sentence. Just reference the most important facts.
  4. And in fact you are an innocent victim here, bearing the brunt of sloppy work of others. The Banner talk 19:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I was using the existing page as an example of the style and content. This could take some time. Shall I start with finding more 3rd party references to replace the Wind River documents? One problem is since this is an OS, it is not often mentioned. I did get some references for the medical and put them in. Is it OK to use Wind River press releases? How shall I proceed? Is there some time pressure? I would like to get the page up to scratch but I am not sure if I am up for a complete re-write including all old contributors. Your advice would be appreciated. RobRobpater (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no time pressure but it should be done in a reasonable time frame (and a year or more is too long). You better read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for some background about sources. Press releases are not suitable sources. The Banner talk 20:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Good I was thinking weeks but I feared days. The weather is getting v nice and one cannot waste Canadian summers. Shall I regularly check-in? Certainly for my first edits, I would like your feedback. Is it OK to cite wind river sources too? I'll read the wiki info you suggested. Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL, Canadian. Your name sounds rather Dutch. As Dutchman abroad I enjoy a real Irish summer. Company sources are not really favoured, so when you can find an alternative... The Banner talk 20:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

My daughter married a Dutchman and they are about to have their first child, so it sort of makes me Dutch? And I have spent some time in Holland years ago reaping the benefits of our part in WWII. I am part Scot & Irish though never been to Ireland just Scotland. One further question before I head out to enjoy what is left of the day. Can I use a WR document available publically, such as a Product Note, which lists features? Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Your countrymen liberated the city were I used to live, so I am well aware of the Canadian war effort. It was a fierce fight before they had liberated Groningen.
You can use it when there are no alternatives. The Banner talk 22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going through the WR customer page where the company lists each product that uses VxWorks. Besides a description of the product, there is either one or all of the following for each product: 1) WR press release. 2) link to customer testimonial or article about using VxWorks (minority). 3) Link to company webpage. I expect that 2) is ok as a reference, but 1) and 3) are not sufficient. Would there be a better chance of getting the list referenced by making it visible and asking for referencing help, giving it a couple of months? In the meantime, I'll start working on it.

By the way, what town are you from in Holland? Regards Rob Robpater (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification SVP: Under "Biased or Opinionated Sources" of Identifying Reliable Sources", it seems to state that a biased source could be used if it is reliable and depending on the context. Would that not be the case for listing features or product lists that use VxWorks as Wind River is THE reliable source and does fact checking? I agree it would not be suitable when stating opinions on how well the features function or how happy the customers were but it is the reliable source for these primary facts. I am trying to find information about using press releases in "Identifying Reliable Sources". It talks about reliable news services and opinion pieces which I don't think falls into the category of Wind River press release as in those they are not stating opinions just reporting a fact. Your guidance is appreciated. Thanks Rob Robpater (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Groningen
My son-in-law's family is from BennekomRobpater (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Press releases are by their nature not neutral but to promote the subject of the press release. The Banner talk 12:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Does the context make a difference: factual information vs opinion?Robpater (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have been successful finding new references for the body of the article and will keep looking. But the notable uses search is a daunting task to complete on my own. I gather you feel that it would not be warranted to make the un-referenced ones visible, with an appropriate message for a few months, to encourage readers to add references? Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that will help? The request for sources was from 2012... The Banner talk 17:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like the most effective strategy. The last notice didn't exactly cause a rush to cite, and I can't think of a re-wording that would get VxWorks' customers to create a valid reference besides "Limited notable use spaces available, act now before they are all gone!" RobRobpater (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am making referencing progress for the body of the report as well as the notable uses. I will be taling some vacation and will be away from Internet access off and on for the next 2 months. I wouldn't mind trying re-listing the call for referencing notable uses for a period of time to see what happens. What do you think? RobRobpater (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Also it would be more efficient for me to update the references if they were visible. Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

... and I am confident that there are 3rd party references for most of the items. It will just take time. RobRobpater (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

Talkback

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Mschamberlain's talk page.
Message added 11:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VirusTotal

Not nice, if I update the engines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VirusTotal and after that you remove everything! -Tobias B. Besemer (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please compare with this older version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VirusTotal&diff=616079990&oldid=615454043
Sorry, I have undo your delete.
-Tobias B. Besemer (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Now listed on AfD as advertising. The Banner talk 13:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I make no advertisements, I have no connection to Google and I don't get paid for working on Wikipedia, but I don't like, if I spend time to update content and somebody else delete it after that again. Sorry! -Tobias B. Besemer (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Broadway Video

Mr. Banner, Thanks for your attention to the Broadway Video article. I see that you "restored maintenance templates as problems are not solved." I was planning to take a stab at the disambiguation problem and would welcome any suggestions on how to solve that. As for the advert-tag, I see that another editor, Stockholm6, removed it, explaining "there's nothing here that looks like ad-speak, and it's very thoroughly cited. I think the ad tag is a holdover from a much older version of the page that doesn't resemble the current iteration." In fact, I sought to improve the article because of an advert-tag attached in 2013 to a version that was patently promotional. I attempted to re-write in a neutral tone. What problems do you regard as unresolved? I see that you removed a reference to the company's work for Jeep, to which I attached a link to the commercial. Would you be more comfortable with a citation linked to an Autoweek article about the Jeep commercial? I.e.: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20140331/CARNEWS01/140339965 Scrivener98 (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

To my opinion, the excessive use of external links in plain text and the excessive list of programs they were involved in makes the list promotional. There is no need to mention each and every thing that is distributed. And secondly, most social media, including Facebook, Linkedin and YouTube, are not considered reliable sources. So yes, better sources are needed. The Banner talk 16:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Excelsior Recordings

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Chubbles (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You have a good sense of humour. Needed a good laugh. The Banner talk 18:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggest deletion of sub committee pages for ISO TC 37

You have suggested that the following pages should be deleted:

Your suggestion seems to be that the subject is not important. These pages are about the committees who develop important standards within the ISO organization. The standards deal with terminology, language resources, translating and interpreting. If there is something which should be added please suggest this. I am new to Wikipedia and am happy to take advice on improving these pages. However, they are important. [User:Peterrey|Peterrey]] (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)peterrey Peter Reynolds.

Start with independent, reliable sources to prove these sub committees are notable. The Banner talk 07:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

United States Association of Former Members of Congress Nomination for Deletion

Would you consider closing the discussion on the consideration for the deletion of the page United States Association of Former Members of Congress? I have made many revisions and invite you to examine the page again to see how it has changed. Most of the issues noted have been fixed, and the discussion on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Association of Former Members of Congress are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the page. If you still have problems with how the article is written, please let me know and I will try to fix them. Thank you for nominating it, however, as it allowed for the page to be improved greatly. FMCIntern (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not convinced. And yes, I know that there is a massive bias towards USA-subjects. The Banner talk 16:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Your original critique and reason for consideration for deletion was based on a quote by myself taken out of context, as I explained. I was referring to information such as the leadership that is not fully available anywhere except for the subject's website. Any content about the organization's activity has been removed, eliminating the need for secondary sources to support those activities. The article is now purely informative about the organization's basic information, which is evenly sourced from the website and secondary sources, as you can see if you visit the article. FMCIntern (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, simply saying that "there is a massive bias toward USA-Subjects" is ignoring the evidence that the supporters left on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Association of Former Members of Congress; this subject is similar and modeled after organizations related to it such as Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians, which is similarly notable. FMCIntern (talk)
Come on, my friend, I can understand that you are up set. It is not nice for a marketing trainee/intern to get hammered on his/her first assignment. Find yourself some reliable, third-party sources about the organisation itself. Not about activities. The Banner talk 18:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
What sources are you referring to that are not reliable, or that are not about the organization itself? Are we reading the same article? I will outline it for you: the History section is purely about the organization itself, not the activities; the History section is purely about the organization itself, not the activities; the Objectives and Activities section is about the organization's mission, and includes one piece of information about a single activity, for which there is a reliable source; the Congressional Study Groups Section is about a department within the organization; the Funding section talks about how the organization pays for its programming; and the Leadership section lists the leadership of the organization (obviously). Where in these sections is there an issue with having too much information about the activities, and not about the organization itself? Any mention of activities (I can find two) are only included because they are integral to the mission of the organization, as it is a programming organization. Please look at the article in context and see that there is no issue here. FMCIntern (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Source number 1, 2, 4, 9, 11 and 12 are all links to the website of the organisation itself. As a start... The Banner talk 18:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I realize this. I have explained numerous times that the information cited cannot be found anywhere else, and I included the link to Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians as an example of a similar organization that does this as well and is not at threat of being deleted. Anyways, this was not the issue you cited; you suggested that the article was not notable enough to be a stand-alone article. Also, your last complaint was that the sources support the organization's activities as opposed to the organization itself. With your last response it is clear that you cannot support either point, so please remove the tag for deletion. FMCIntern (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, as you have demonstrated by your inability to prove that the subject is not notable (please see the deletion page where other users came to the page's defense), I recommend that since your new problem with the article is that the sources are inadequate, you replace the deletion tag with a tag, as it is actually relevant to the corrections you see as needed. FMCIntern (talk)
aha, you get personal. Try to get some neutral sources instead. The Banner talk 19:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not getting personal? I was just pointing out that your tag is not relevant, and is unproductive. You have thus far been unable to support your original claim, so it makes more sense for you to change the deletion tag to a source tag. And it would be helpful if you could be at least a bit less completely vague with your recommendations. FMCIntern (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
These tag are not mine. So somebody else think that your conflict of interest and your related sources are problematic. And I am not vague: just supply reliable, independent sources to prove the organisation is notable. And read Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. The Banner talk 19:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to your nomination for deletion of the page, not the tags on the article (i.e. COI or associated sources). This is not about those tags, it's about ending the discussion on deletion. Also, some consistency would be nice. Please explain to me why the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians I have cited is not at threat for deletion, when this article is, even though they both pull basic information from the associated website? (This is not an invitation to consider deleting that page as well) Additionally, being a neutral party yourself, I would like to see you find a "neutral source" for such information as a complete list of the organization's leadership, or for the organization's OFFICIAL mission statement. FMCIntern (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
For starters, because every article is judged on its own merits. There is no need and no effect when you compare it with other articles (except that those articles often also get AfD'ed). The Banner talk 19:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
That does not change the fact that you have no grounds for labeling it as considered for deletion. And because the organizations are so similar, you are wrong in saying that they are not comparable. I am simply asking that you redefine your criticism as a tag rather than a nomination for deletion. FMCIntern (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOPR. The Banner talk 19:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
How is this relevant? My intentions are none of those, and I am not paid for this... Nor is it promotional. It is purely informational, as you would be able to tell if you read the article. FMCIntern (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that you are arguing a position out of the scope of criteria for deletion, so that discussion should be closed. I invite you to tag the article as relying too heavily on primary sources. It is irritating that you continue to evade any discussion of this point, and move on to something irrelevant. After reading your talk page, it is clear that you have a history of bullying articles well beyond necessity, and I ask you to please stop in this case, considering that you appear not to have the support or the evidence for such action. FMCIntern (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You are clearly a staff member. And the article is promoting the organisation by using its own sources and not being based on reliable, third-party sources. You are not impartial, my friend. You look at it from the viewpoint of the organisation and you reflect their views. Sorry.
And there is absolutely no reason to get personal. The Banner talk 20:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not a staff member. The article conveys basic information about the organization, what views could possibly be reflected? FMCIntern (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
And even if it was written with bias, that is still not grounds for deletion. You can critique the article all you want, but you have no grounds for deletion. Therefore, close that discussion. You are being unreasonable. FMCIntern (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
My friend, it is your own name that makes it load and clear that you are a staff member. And you call it bullying but I am just straight. And in my opinion you are too involved to be neutral. The Banner talk 20:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It is very interesting that, instead of arguing the reason for deletion on that page, you labeled our discussion here as me "bullying" you. I have not done this, I have tried to show you that your claim is not valid and that you should redirect your criticisms to a different process, such as a primary source tag. How is this "bullying"? As I stated, it is frustrating when I am trying to discuss this with you and all you respond with is a completely separate topic. FMCIntern (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You were already accusing my of bullying, doubting my abilities, and hammering that I would retract the AfD and replace it by a tag. That is, in my opinion, bullying. The Banner talk 21:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I am forced to "hammer" when you refuse to discuss the deletion at all, I am correct in recommending that you change the nomination to a tag, and I referred to you previously bullying because of the above posts where they suggest a strange degree of harassment on a certain article. FMCIntern (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

So, because you have no arguments, you just start hammering and bullying. Absolutely great argument... NOT. The Banner talk 21:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

How do I have "no arguments"? You are taking everything I say out of context. I said I have to "hammer" because you refuse to discuss the nomination because YOU have no arguments, which is evident by this whole discussion. FMCIntern (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC) You are arguing points that do not correspond to any of the criteria of deletion:

Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate) Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes) Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons Redundant or otherwise useless templates Categories representing overcategorization Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

If you intend to argue notability, please do so; but as of yet you have only argued sources and COI, which are not grounds for deletion. FMCIntern (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope, of course you will not see any reason for deletion, mr. CompanyIntern. Becasue that will become a bad mark on your status sheet. The Banner talk 23:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you're not making any sense now, and you're just being rude. If you're just going to hold this nomination over my head because you can, without any evidence, then I am going to report you. Fair warning. FMCIntern (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User:FMCIntern, you are the one being rude. Banner was wholly within their authority as an editor to nominate and make arguments for deletion. Your job was NOT to harass them about their choice to do so, and to CLEARLY make your single, policy-based argument on the AFD discussion, and nowhere else. However, understand full well that even the Founder of Wikipedia has stated "those with COI should never directly edit their article, but ONLY propose properly-sourced changes on the talkpage to try and obtain consensus". Sources, by the way, quite obviously ARE a reason for deletion: unsourced, or articles that have primary sources are unacceptable. Now, your username violates our username policy, you're violating COI, and now you're harassing someone for do what they're supposed to do ... doesn't the Organization you work for have any ethics? the panda ₯’ 00:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
They were within their authority to nominate it, but during this discussion they chose to argue points irrelevant to the nomination. And on the nomination page the evidence has built up that the claim of the subject not being notable. As far as primary sources being grounds for deletion, where are you getting your information? Nowhere in the 14 points of the reasons for deletion in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy does it say that primary sources are grounds for deletion. I did not know about that part of the username policy, and I do not plan on contributing to the article in the future because of that, only submitting recommendations on the talk page as suggested in the guidelines; thank you for directing my attention to that. Specifically, the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest states that it is "strongly discouraged" to work on an article that you may be affiliated with, and I intend to respect that in the future. However currently The Banner's nomination for deletion is disrupting the project, as there are many users who have supported the page, and only The Banner and one other user who have decided that the subject is not notable enough, which to me seems unreasonable. Lastly, although it looks like "harassment" to you, I have been persistent in this discussion because The Banner refuses to answer any of my questions directly or be productive in their recommendations; this is frustrating, and I admit that my tone became heated, but it was only because they refused to cooperate. I consider snide comments that are counterproductive as rude. FMCIntern (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You're right, your snide comments that are counterproductive are as you say "extremely rude" and uncooperative. If I had personally been badgered by you like this, I would have closed the thread long before and take you to WP:ANI (because blocking you myself might have been considered "rude"). To call their nomination "disruptive to the project" shows you have very little understanding about the project .. and WP:RS is very clear about the use of reliable sources (which primary sources are not). Let the discussion fulfill its 7 day mandate...I haven't decided whether to !vote, or wait and close it myself (I haven't read either the article or the AFD enough to have decided yet, so I'm not really WP:INVOLVED) the panda ₯’ 00:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I apologize for my behavior here. I misunderstood Wiki policies, or did not understand them enough, and therefore was in the wrong. I will no longer edit the AfD page, nor contact you. I respect that you saw an article which was violating Wiki policies and did what you were supposed to do. Please forgive my rash behavior. FMCIntern (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I genuinely am trying to catch the templates in "what links here". It is not always easy as "What links here" takes time to update". yes I missed example this and this, and this. It evidently isn't deliberate but not seeing all of them. I will try and do better. Is there a tool I can download that shows which templates are misdirecting to dabs? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

With a page move you always get the option to check what links there. So it is just a case of hitting "what links here". The Banner talk 00:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
There's no tool, okay, understood, thank you. Then why does it take so long to update? Obviously the smart thing to do is catch the templates first, sorry to miss those, but then after catching them the list is still showing the templates as linking after the correction. I reload the what links here and the ones I've fixed are still there. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the one you should look for: Check what links here to see whether the move has created any double redirects, and fix the most serious ones. A bot will fix the rest later on. You can use the following text to replace older redirects. In fact, it also shows the links to templates. But true, a specific tool is not there. It is plain handy work but it has to be done. The Banner talk 00:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I agree/know it has to be done, I don't intend you or anyone else to do it. If you see me missing stuff again buzz me please. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

Speedy deletion contested: The New Brunswick Innovation Foundation

Hello The Banner. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of The New Brunswick Innovation Foundation, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. I will try to improve the article. . Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I wish you luck but I am highly critical about the article. The Banner talk 10:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nizlopi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ]. It was produced by [[Gavin Monaghan]], also known for his work with [[Scott Matthews]] and [[Robert Plant].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I do lots of aviation accident edits. If I had seen those templates in aviation articles, I would have nominated them for deletion. Based on my own experience, some members of the Aviation Wikiproject think WP policies don't apply. ...William 15:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
LOL, I had noticed that. I think they will get a nasty shock soon. But thank you very much for the barnstar. Much appreciated! The Banner talk 20:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Maccas Awards/RS lists

Refering to reverting this article: In what way is the list of the 100 best Beatles songs not an award compared to the other RS lists mentioned in the article? Smintili (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

fixed and removed The Banner talk 12:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Wait, I meant to do the opposite: Why did you remove that? It is in a way an award: Since the Rolling Stones lists are voted by people from the music industry (producers, record company people, musicians, journalists and in some cases RS readers), it should be considered an award in my opinion. Especially of course the lists about the greatest singers, artists and songs. We can argue about the list of best Beatles songs, but the others are definitely awards in a way similar to MTV awards, Q Magazine awards or NME awards. Smintili (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

M. S. Viswanathan Discography

Referring to reverting M. S. Viswanathan discography, the source for the edit was imdb. The current credits had no source and it combined the discography of Viswanathan–Ramamoorthy. So, I was editing and making it as a good readable format. The current does not show what language and which year released.

Conform WP:RS: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. And secondly, an external link is not a source. The Banner talk 23:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Which one will be considered as source of information?. I have seen most of the movies in wikipedia relies on imdb. most of the movies was in 1950s-1990s, so no reliable source found anywhere. So, the above will not be completed ever.
To begin with: It is not necessary to have sources in English or in Western script. Other languages and scripts are also allowed. The Banner talk 23:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Edited the webpage with references from Official website.
Please read WP:RS. What Wikipedia needs are independent, reliable sources. So no social media and not the personal/company website. Sorry. The Banner talk 19:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, those references from his official website, who is an musician. 17:42, 23 July 2014 (EDT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaidyasr (talk • contribs)

Aircraft templates

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelpillow (talk • contribs)

If you don't have arguments, go to AN/I. The Banner talk 14:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Please think before you post WP:UNCIVIL responses like that. I would suggest you remove your reaction. - Ahunt (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The above comment by Banner does not violate WP:CIVIL....William 12:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

Advice on tackling MEDRS stranglehold you speak of

Hey Banner! I noticed you spoke out against an editor getting topic banned and wanted to see if I could get your input on something. A few of us have been posting on The Countering systemic bias page, on countering systemic bias in Eastern medicine topics. Ultimately, we know MEDRS is a guideline and not a policy, such as NPOV, and with that in mind we feel there are many "reliable sources" which are biased once you delve deep enough into them. It's a complex topic, and if you're interested you can absolutely take a gander. But I was curious if you had any advice as to how we might proceed, given that an editor was just topic banned there for what seems to be petty crimes. I've been watching the acupuncture talk page and it doesn't seem like many editors would have a welcoming response to our argument. In your judgement, is there a better way of proceeding in our quest to rid those topics from the MEDRS stranglehold of which you speak? LesVegas (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It will be a Herculean task because you have to break the power not only of the MEDRS-guys but in fact of the Big Money medical and pharmaceutical industry that monopolizes health. And the classic credo applies here: who pays the piper, calls the tune. At the moment, I have no clue how to break that stranglehold. Just keep poking, keep arguing, keep asking difficult question, drive them nuts, keep adding reliable sources. One the day Big Money will fall apart, but it can take many years... The Banner talk 16:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Banner! I guess I'll just press on, but now with more gusto! I'm always glad to find kindred spirits, so if you ever need my help with anything please let me know! LesVegas (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
You wrote: "...there are many "reliable sources" which are biased once you delve deep enough into them." Of course there are, and that is no reason not to use them. Pretty much all sources have biases, and there is no policy here which forbids using biased sources. Wikipedia would be very small and totally boring if we only used "unbiased" sources, because there aren't many of them. We would also totally fail our goal, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge, and that includes biases. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The creepy thing is that MEDRS itself is systematically biased. That would not be much of a problem when they kept themselves to medical articles. But they have extended their control to every article that makes health claims, including chemical analyse. They absolutely fail to see that for instance organic milk and organic farming have far more to do with agriculture than with the medical world. They systematically reject agricultural sources for every positive thing about organic with the excuses that it is not described in their sources. That is not so strange, as it is another field of knowledge. Even agricultural universities are not reliable enough to judge about organic farming... The Banner talk 04:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean about it being "systematically biased". You say that as if being biased is always a bad thing, but it's not. Proper biases are essential to avoid false balance. One should lean more one way than the other in life, and one should always follow the (quality) evidence, even when that means one must start leaning the other way, IOW changing positions is important when its necessary to do so.
Keep in mind that MEDRS does not control all information in an article, only the health claims, regardless of the type of article. Even health and science articles will contain information which is not controlled by MEDRS. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
In that case, you should review the use of the MEDRS argument on Organic milk and Organic farming. Almost every positive statement is blocked because it is not published in MEDRS sources, even non-health claims as a chemical analyse. Agricultural sources, even when coming from well known universities, are systematically blocked out. The Banner talk 08:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@The Banner..difficult questions? bring 'em on...reliable sources? sure...but "poking" and "driving them nuts"....errr...no thanks. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

When necessary to break the stranglehold, yes. The Banner talk 08:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"you have to break the power... of the MEDRS-guys." lol, if I wanted power, I would have become an administrator. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks you guys are worried after all, seeing the way you guys are showing up here. The Banner talk 08:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia sometimes relies on you applying the paranoid principle, seeing as otherwise decisions can be made without you even getting to know about them. I'm here because I get scared by the obvious lack of understanding of what evidence-based medical knowledge is.
Your examples on organic farming illustrate a perfect point: just because you presume it is healthier does not mean eating organic will lead to health benefits. We need to report true pure evidence, not inference by lay persons. Biology is messy, and holds very poorly to reasoning. It might give you an idea of what to study as a researcher or professional, but it shouldn't and can't be used to give health advice. I suggest you go read User:Jytdog/Why MEDRS? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I do not presume it is healthier, as you claimed. I said that it is nonsense to use medical sources on a agricultural subject. The Banner talk 11:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I love the panic...
I'm new to this debate, however there seems to be a pattern. Every time MEDRS is questioned there's a "hit squad" including BullRangifer/Brangifer (the ring leader? tenacious as a pit bulldog), QuackGuru (foot soldier, attack dog), Jmh649/Doc James(admin/doctor "the reputable one"), MrBill3 (admin/watchdog/prosecutor) and others hone in an any and all debates and quickly form a false consensus regarding this debate. If a user who pushes this issue too far this group begins to threaten that user with blocks and bans. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, is it? 71.40.3.92 (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
This IP user from UK apparently has no problems logging out and making unambiguous threats to try to shut down the conversation.[8]71.40.3.92 (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think that the IP user has a user account to log out of? Paranoia, just like your fanciful hit squad alluded to above. 188.29.91.100 (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

My english not saw good pls forgive myself. as long as the rule says person need not do log in preceding while type into wikiedia so for cna person write english on website, is that verified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.62.0 (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Revert

I thought you promised to bugger off and stay away form anything I edit?? At it again. The editor is quite happy to edit in stages without feeling rushed to fill in loads of red links and I thought it had a better chance of being kept if we gradually control the red links as he begins them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You hamper his efforts needlessly. Have a bit consideration with him. The Banner talk 12:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I saw this while dealing with Technophant socking issue. Navigation boxes are just that: navigation boxes, full of places to click to take the reader to articles. They are not lists of things. Redlinks in navboxes are completely inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 20:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
He is filling the links in a good pace. Nobody is ever hurt by a bit compassion and giving someone a bit of time. The Banner talk 20:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is ever hurt by comment markers, either. "Compassion" is only a factor in your own mind.—Kww(talk) 21:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Kww, you got an undeserved blow. I had just learned of somebodies death... The Banner talk 22:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Trying to update page - Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs

I was worried some of what I added might come across as sounding like promo, so I referenced as much as possible. I was hoping for help, not just deleting what was done. I used the Webber Wenzel page as a template, so is that page also problematic? Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.14.88.44 (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

To start with, every thing should be sourced by reliable independent sources. (See: Reliable sources) Using the company website is not okay. It is also not necessary to name every customer as that is highly promotional and often seen as a trick to get links to as many companies as possible. The Banner talk 13:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. You may have noticed I did to use as many references as possible that were not from their website. Unfortunately, Some data could only be found there. Just curious though, why is the page that I used as a template fine, but my efforts, which seemed similar, not?
Do you mind if I update again, will see if I can minimize use of their website any more.
I honestly did not know about the "clients as a trick to get links" thing, that was not my intention, I will keep the number of clients the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.14.88.44 (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question

Hello, The Banner! I'm Timtrent. I have replied to your question about a submission at the WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk. Fiddle Faddle 17:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Poor translations

Regarding the AfD of 10th (Magdeburg) Hussars, I thought you would have known about WP:Pages needing translation into English, and that the second part of that page is poorly translated pages? I'll work on the Hussars article if I have time, but meanwhile have templated it and reported it there; please, if you find another very bad translation, do that so that those of us who work there are aware of it. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not know part two. The Banner talk 09:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 7, June-July 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
  • TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
  • Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
  • Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

No, I don't have to fix every template on a page I edit

Hi,

Sorry, your message is simply wrong. Me including a (widely used) template does not create an obligation for me to fix all the DABs and redirects in that template.

If this isn't obvious to you, then please find the rule that supports your theory.

WikiCleaner is a good tool but a poor master. Gronky (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Then I guess you also refused to clean up your own room as kid because there was no law giving your mother the right to demand that of you...
But it is quite common to clean up the mess you create. Not a law or policy, but just out of courtesy and cooperation. The Banner talk 11:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
But I didn't create this mess. Why don't you talk to the contributors of that template? Or the contributors to the hundreds of other articles which include it? Or how about fixing it yourself if you think it's such a priority?
I clean up tonnes of stuff on Wikipedia. I fix syntax and when I sometimes find whole articles written in HTML I take the time to convert the whole thing to Wikipedia markup. I don't expect thanks for it, but I also don't expect accusations of making a mess based on someone relaying, without checking, the output of an automated tool with low intelligence.
(P.S. although it doesn't fit into the tone of our exchange, I'd just mention that Clare is indeed an absolutely lovely place. I went camping there as a kid and loved fishing during the day and the traditional music at night.)Gronky (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It is a positive twist, as we can avoid a bitter dispute now. Is it unpolite to ask in what region you stayed? As you have seen, I live on top of the Willie Clancy Summer School. The Banner talk 12:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Doolin, up in the north of Clare. A whole week of pier-fishing and music. Most days we caught nothing but it was still fun somehow. I think we went in to Lisdoonvarna one or two nights. I hope tablet computers don't leave the next generation unable to appreciate that sort of thing. Gronky (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is a nice area. Another centre of traditional music. They are working now to extent the pier to improve traffic with the Aran Islands and commercial traffic. Perhaps an idea to start looking for your rod so you have it ready for a visit next year. But Doolin is changed... The Banner talk 13:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeh, everything is changing. I think if the majority of the tourists are in tents and caravans, rather than hotels, then it's still close enough to "my" Doolin. If not, then I'd have to look for a different spot in Clare or Kerry. I don't like being on the Aran Islands er is een kloof tussen de touristen en de bewoners. Ik voel me daar niet thuis, en dat is een onaangenaam gevoel in je eigen land te hebben. Ik zeg niet waar ik nu woon omdat mijn anonymiteit is me zeer kostbaar. Maar ja, nice to have met you. Gronky (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Input at FAC

Hello. I believe we haven't met before, but there's first time for everything. Since you've been on Wikipedia for quite some time, I was wondering if you can conduct a review on Thirteen, an FA candidate of a friend of mine? You can leave comments at the review page. Appreciate your time.--Retrohead (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a short look because I don't like that style of music...
  1. What is the relevance of the release date 1 November, except that two albums were released on that date?
  2. Why is it mentioned twice that Andy Sneap was not available as producer?
I leave it with that, as I have no emotional connection or knowledge of that style of music. Sorry. The Banner talk 11:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Mawazine xxxx setlists

No I'm not going to help you get around it by nominating 5 templates. You need to find someone who has had nothing whatsoever to do with any of this and ask for their opinion. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 11:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

For starters, it is just one template... The Banner talk 11:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Go back and check again. Template:Mawazine 2009 setlists, Template:Mawazine 2011 setlists, Template:Mawazine 2012 setlists, Template:Mawazine 2013 setlists and Template:Mawazine 2014 setlists are all one off templates used on that page and no other. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 12:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
And I just limited myself to the one found at "Templates with disambiguation links"... The Banner talk 12:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

Hi The Banner,

I've finished. Robert4565 (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. At the last count we still had 205,881 links to disambiguation pages to solve (lowest score ever was 204,346 in June) but we started with nearly a million. So every link solved is a benefit. The Banner talk 23:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

UK Politics

I'm working on it. Don't worry --Jack Cox (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Disambiguator's Barnstar
The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators.
Thank You for all the work you have done to repair and monitor pages with disambiguation links. It is much appreciated! Robert4565 (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I really appreciate this. The Banner talk 23:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

Point of grammar

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Dorado Kitchen, you said "I'm inherently bias as I'm the person who wrote the article." You are not bias. Bias as a noun means a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice. You are not the tendency. You may be subject to the tendency.

Bias as a verb means to cause partiality or favoritism in (a person); influence, especially unfairly which is what you appear to be trying to communicate has happened.

To be correct, you would say "I'm inherently biased.." using the past participle tense of the verb bias as the object of the verb "to-be" meaning you are subject to that partiality. A participle is a verb that modifies the noun. In this case, the verb is bias, and the noun is you.

Hope this helps. The Dissident Aggressor 16:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, that is not my text... The Banner talk 16:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Duh. My bad. <deliberate use of poor grammar> The Dissident Aggressor 16:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The Banner talk 17:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of MJ Mohamed Iqbal Page

Dear Banner,

Mr. Iqbal is well known personality as well as Islamic scholar in UAE (In Dubai). Iqbal is living in Dubai serving to Tamil and Islamic Society in so many ways. I can prove by providing photographs, Unfortunately very few web links are available at this moment. He is a freelance writer and he had been written so many articles in different topics, and they were published in magazines, newspapers, tabloids etc.

Iqbal is deserve to be in Wikipedia. Please advise what I should do to put about him back to Wikipedia. Your advise is very much appreciated. Nm.imthiyas (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No one has a right on a Wikipedia article. Both times now you have failed to prove that mr. Iqbal is notable. That is the problem. The Banner talk 17:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

In what way you are expecting to prove him? I really don't understand, Only web links can decide a persons notability? Nm.imthiyas (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Cavern airfield

Hello, why did you nominate it for deletion? What is wrong? FFA P-16 (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Double text, no need for a separate article. You can read that on the nomination page. And I note this page on the Dutch Wikipedia: nl:Overleg gebruiker:FFA P-16/blockmsg The Banner talk 19:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

But its not a dubble text. The cavern airfield was a project, it was not built. In this project the aircrat should start inside the mountain trough a tunnel like runway. the aircraft caverns (the article woh is said as dubble) are built and locatet on diffrend geographical locations. by aircraft caverns the aircrat did not start inside the caverns, the aircraft have to be pullet out by aircraft tugs and have to taxi to the runnway. FFA P-16 (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

Nitramrekcap: SPI

Following Drmies' advice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#Enough is enough. I filed an SPI for the new IP emanation of the same: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nitramrekcap

The new IP is blocked already [9] --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring in organic food

Hi The Banner. This is to give you a friendly reminder that your recent reverts over at Organic food fall into edit warring when you ignore either requests to discuss content at the article talk page or discussions that have already taken place. It looks like you've been an editor long enough to know better, so I'll spare the links to relevant pages in the hopes that the behavior was just a temporary mishap in judgement. When editors are asking for content to be set aside for a moment for a breather so discussion can occur about resolving content discrepancies, it's not particularly helpful to stir things up with pointy reverts while not engaging in the discussion after being asked to do so. If you feel strongly about something, bring it to the talk page (and follow the discussion that's already occurred) rather than relying on reverting and edit summaries outside the discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not edit warring and you know that. The fact that you guys remove everything what is positive is making the article POV, and you and friends are to blame for that. The Banner talk 09:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Continuing to revert while ignoring the article talk page after being repeatedly asked to bring concerns there is one of the very definitions of edit warring, not to mention disruptive. Positive or negative content has never been brought up for the issue being discussed, and it's quite difficult to say the content in question is either positive or negative. The wording and content itself are rather neutral. It's been an issue of sourcing as the current content being discussed doesn't have a source directly supporting it due to synthesis issues as multiple users have pointed out now. It seems like you might have some other ax to grind with your deleting positive content remark, so I highly suggest stepping back for a bit and look into what's actually being discussed at the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You keep removing stuff and I have to step back? Are you kidding? You are now the one edit warring! The Banner talk 14:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed the content as part of the ongoing discussion, especially WP:STATUSQUO. We're discussing the content, while you were reverting content without joining the conversation. So yes, I am asking you to step back and read the discussion (not leave) because of that. That is why I was reverting your reverts. The whole point of the article talk page is to discuss and come to consensus. Right now we have multiple editors pointing out a sourcing issue, and Redddbaron is at the very least discussing it without resorting to reverts. You weren't doing that. Ignoring that discussion is disruptive, and I've been trying to point out how the content issue can be remedied without disruptive editing. Just set the content aside temporarily and see how we can work on it in the talk page. That's all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
First removal and then talking when reverted is no serious attempt to get consensus. The Banner talk 15:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
At this point all I can say is drop the pitchfork and read the actual talk page conversation and what I've explained to you. You're getting a very different idea of what's going on than what we're actually trying to do. Settle, read, and then discuss on the article talk page if you have something constructive to add. I can't offer much more help than that at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Pico de gallo

Hi. Thanks for trying to clean up the edit by the IP editor that I reverted earlier. However, you seem to have removed quite a lot of content from the previous versions of the article (before the IP editor came along), such as the whole "health issues" section. Also, quite a lot of the nonsense text remains, e.g., "fried tortilla chips is an option, can be transformed easily into guacamole but is not replaced by this" and the claim that it is "paradoxical" (rather than, say, obvious and complementary) that wet salsa goes well with dry pork. Honestly, I think my revert was the right thing to do: the 22nd June version of the article was a higher quality article than the version that's there now. Dricherby (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact, everything about salsa can be throw out, as it is something different. The Banner talk 10:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

Your submission at AfC Rôtisserie Rue du Bois was accepted

Rôtisserie Rue du Bois, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 07:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I am truly amazed and delighted. Thank you very much. The Banner talk 10:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

Re: Thirteen

I appreciate your congratulations, but the article did not get promoted unfortunately, so they are unnecessary.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, you never made a comment supportive or unsupportive of promotion, so I am curious as to whether you believe the article was FA-ready or not. Thanks--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Oops, you are right, it was the article Megadeth that got promoted. Even when I had know that there was a vote, I would not have voted. As stated in my comment, I do not know anything about Megadeath and do not appreciate the music. So, I would not have been able to judge it. The Banner talk 18:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Well, in any case, I appreciate your input on the review. Happy editing--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

George Tiller

Excuse me! The NYTimes article specifically says that he struggled with substance abuse, overcame his addiction and served on the Kansas Medical Society's committee on impaired physicians. The only thing I have added is the fact that the substances in question were prescription pain killers. Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Nor the painkillers, nor the addiction is mentioned in the article, so you should not mention it. The Banner talk 07:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have reposted it without the words "addiction" or "pain killers". Just words used in the NYT article.
Dr. Tiller's success in overcoming his addiction and his service on the impaired physicians committee were a source of pride for him, and should be mentioned in any biographical article about him. Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
QUESTION: Are you ok with my transferring the discussion of the O'Reilly factor's comments on Dr. Tiller to its own section? I don't think it belongs in the CAREER section; O'Reilly's opinions have nothing to do with Dr. Tiller's career! Also, I have added a paragraph detailing Dr. Tiller's board certification, professional membership, and staff position to the CAREER section. If you revert these entries, please leave a note on my TALK page explaining why. Thanks. Goblinshark17 (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Dear User "The Banner",

I really appreciate your work on Michelin star restaurants in the Netherlands. It is a superb source of data. Actually, together with a colleague, we would like to use this data for a research project. I have some additional questions related to the data and it would be great if we could get in contact about it. I have created the Wikipedia account "Researchguy11", but I am not sure if Wikipedia allows for communication and/or if you are interested in sharing your insights on Michelin star restaurants and your documentation efforts. If so, maybe you can write me on my "Researchguy11" page. Thanks and all the best! Researchguy11 (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Subhash Ghai - Career Section Edit

Hi, First of all I am sorry for again editing the page without checking your message. I have informed this to TheRedPenOfDoom. Source Link : http://muktaarts.com/subhash-ghai/ . Please guide me if I am not following the correct way. Thanks, Seemantraj (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You are not there yet. You have to prove the information you want to add with independent reliable sources. The company website is clearly not independent. Social media (amongst others Facebook, Linkedin and YouTube) are also not considered reliable sources. The Banner talk 09:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

ALR Piranha

Why did you nominate it for deletion? It was a real project, with cokpit mokeup, with windtunnel tests with HAS layout, with RC controlled modell. It was the last project of an swiss fighter aircraft after the FFA N-20 and FFA P-16. an important project for the swiss military.Only because it was never build? this is no reason. we have other aircraft projects here on wikipedia North American XF-108 Rapier, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, Antonov An-218. FFA P-16 (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It was just a plan, not eve close to realisation. And poorly sourced with just one article in a magazine. The Banner talk 07:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It was a project yes, but the build a cockpit 1:1 layout, the mad differen tests on windtunnel modells, they thested flightcharacteristics on raido controled scale models, the had plans for special HAS shelters for it.. so its not just a few drawings. It is a project like the ones Bell X-16Lockheed CL-1200 Rockwell X-30 North American XF-108 Rapier, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, Antonov An-218.

Literature is also a Reference

  • Janes all the world's aircraft supplement (18), in Flugrevue, Juni 1980, S. 55 f.
  • Jane's all the world's aircraft, Verlag McGraw-Hill, 1985, S. 205
  • Leichtkampfflugzeug Piranha. In: Schweizerische Bauzeitung: Wochenschrift für Architektur, Ingenieurwesen, Maschinentechnik, Band 96, 1978, S. 636
  • P-16 et autres jets suisses. Le Temps, 1. Dezember 2011

FFA P-16 (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Dübendorf AFB

Why do you delet out the part about the future of Dübendorf AFB. It is what will be happen to this AFB vom 2016 to araound 2022. Since short after WW2 dübendorf was 100% military airfild. had fighterjet do 2007. Helicopters and Prop aircraft today .it is a Miltary Air base, in the future is mil&civil aviatic and the inovationspark. the refrences [10] clearly say this.I have translatet some important parts with google, you can check it if you don't belive me.". Unter anderem die Geschäftsfliegerei und die Kleinaviatik sollen dort eine Basis erhalten" =Among other things, the business aviation and sportaircrat pilots are there get a base."Es soll künftig deshalb dreiteilig genutzt werden: Erstens als Flugfeld für den Bund, zweitens für die zivile Fliegerei und drittens für einen Innovationspark."=It should therefore continue to be used in three parts: First, as an airfield for the federal government, secondly for civil aviation and thirdly for Innovation Park."Konkret soll es im Norden des Flugplatzes einen Standort für Helikopter geben. Diesen Platz wird sich das VBS mit der Schweizerischen Rettungsflugwacht (Rega) und der Zürcher Kantonspolizei teilen, alle drei haben eigene Helikopter."=Specifically, it is intended to provide a location for helicopters in the north of the airfield. This location, the VBS will share with the Swiss Air Rescue (Rega) and the Zurich cantonal police, all three have their own helicopter."Daneben bleibt genügend Platz bleibt für den Innovationspark. Rund 70 Hektaren sind dafür reserviert, wie Bundesrätin Doris Leuthard (cvp.) an der Medienkonferenz ausführte"= In addition, there is sufficient space remains for the Innovation Park. About 70 hectares are reserved for how Federal Councillor Doris Leuthard (cvp.) Executed at the press conference. This future plans are a importannt thing for the AFB so it should be also here in wikipedia. FFA P-16 (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It is clerly said that the REGA and the Police Helicopters have to move to the NORD, next to the Military helicopter (REGA is at the moment on the opposide side of the AFB to the mil helicopters, Police Helicopter is at the moment on the top of the AFB at that place weher the Inovations Park will be built) in the ref its clerly said that the have to move to the nord:Konkret soll es im Norden des Flugplatzes einen Standort für Helikopter geben. Diesen Platz wird sich das VBS mit der Schweizerischen Rettungsflugwacht (Rega) und der Zürcher Kantonspolizei teilen, alle drei haben eigene Helikopter = Specifically, it is intended to provide a location for helicopters in the north of the airfield. This location, the VBS will share with the Swiss Air Rescue (Rega) and the Zurich cantonal police, all three have their own helicopter. Please ask me first if you don't understand what is written in german languaged references (sadly no english ref aboout this topic found), I will translate it for you as good as i can. I hope evertying is clear now. if you have questions please ask. FFA P-16 (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry i don't agree with you to delet this. Every point who you had sayd is no refernce about it, i had shown you and translatet. I offered you to anser any question you have about it. But you dident askedt a thing an but it for deletion. sorry but this is not nice. I have votet to keep it because it is an important place for the swiss aviatic history and it is still today an important place in the aviatic topic as it is also the home of the Swiss air force HQ and of the civil &military ATC Skyguide. FFA P-16 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I can read German quite good and there is nothing their about moving. You are making things up that are not in that source. And in my experience, that is not the first time. The Banner talk 03:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What should i have made up?. Everything you put into question is in that refrerence. I shoed you and translatet it also to english. It clearly say that the REGA and Police Helicopters have to move :Konkret soll es im Norden des Flugplatzes einen Standort für Helikopter geben. Diesen Platz wird sich das VBS mit der Schweizerischen Rettungsflugwacht (Rega) und der Zürcher Kantonspolizei teilen, alle drei haben eigene alle drei haben eigene Helikopter.So if they put all helicopters together in the nord, the REGA and Police have to move to the nord because they are at the moment on other locations on LSMD. FFA P-16 (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

iHeartRadio Music Festival

I noticed that you removed a huge section of content on the iHeartRadio Music Festival. Can you please restore the removed content? It includes all the performances that happened over those years. Otherwise, nobody would be able to figure out who performed each year. Can you please restore the content? Paul Badillo (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ehm, no. The list is completely unsourced, highly promotional and far too much detail. It is enough to point to external websites for the complete setlist but they have no encyclopaedic value. The Banner talk 16:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

A caution

"I withdraw the nomination and wish mr. Sockpuppeteer best of luck with undermining the encyclopaedia". If you have evidence that the editor in question is sockpuppeting then a case at WP:SPI should be opened. If not, please remember in the future that making accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence can be considered a personal attack on the editor in question. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I would have been a nice thing when you had taken time to check the WP:SPI-archives. That had saved you from this embarrassment. Mr. FFA P-16 is caught with sockpuppets at least at the Dutch and the English Wikipedia. See here for the English one: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16/Archive. For the Dutch notices see here The Banner talk 08:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Goodbye Miss Supranational.

Well - goodbye Miss Supranational. Finally, the heels have come off that particular meat show. Now we can start clearing out the dead wood. I've already XFD'd a couple of the winners and requested speedies for others. Mabalu (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have the nasty feeling that many of those article are created or edited by sockpuppets/meatpuppets of user Mrdhimas. When you check google, you can see that he is a professional organiser of beauty pageants. The Banner talk 11:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey - For your info: I am trying to kick off a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Beauty pageant contestants, for your info. I think given the extent of the problem, we need some FIRM rules establishing. There has been a precedent in the past to consider individuals notable as national title-holders - and given that we have stubs on non-entity sportspeople who were once in a football team in the 1960s and never heard of again, I personally don't have a problem with these national title-holders having equivalent stubs (although I don't have to LIKE it.) Mabalu (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Here's a new one for you: Jogil9630 - just added a new Miss Supranational picture to Mutya Datul's page and is solely editing beauty pageant articles with Supranational connections. It quacks like a duck... Mabalu (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Father Achiel Delaere

Hello, You helped earlier today with this article. Could you change his first name Achiel in the title of the article to Achille, the way it is in the rest of the article? I don't know how to do that. Thank you again for your help. Nicola Mitchell (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done You could have used the option "Move" on the top of the page. The Banner talk 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your help in changing the name. A sign has come up on my talk page which I don't understand. It reads: A tag has been placed on File:Father Achiel Delaere.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated. I'm not quite sure whether this has something to do with the name change. This picture of Father Delaere is the only one I could find to put into the Wikipedia article, and I registered it as Achiel rather than Achille due to the site I got it from, which is how they spelled it. Could you help with this, so that a photo of him remains with the article? Thank you again for everything. Nicola Mitchell (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It sounds horrible, but in fact it just said that you have uploaded the same picture twice. The first time as "File:Father Achiel Delaere.png", the second time as "File:Father Achille Delaere.png". As they are identical (except the name) the unused oldest version (with the wrong name) will be deleted. Nothing to get headaches about. The Banner talk 19:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for easing my mind. And thanks again for all your help with this article. Nicola Mitchell (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Would it be possible to move this photo into Commons in the Wikipedia? I don't know how to do it. You can find this photo at: http://yorktonredemptorists.com/our-history/redemptorists-from-the-beginning/ I have a Polish Wikipedia translation of it, but the Polish Wikipedia can't use the photo unless its in Commons and I don't know how to do that. Can you help? Nicola Mitchell (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Before you start with the photo, you have to make sure that the photo is copyright free. But then the glitch comes: a photo is only copyright free more then 75 years after the death of the photographer, not the subject. With an anonymous or unknown photographer, the photo is copyrights free more then 75 year after the first publication.
In case you do not provide convincing proof that the photo is copyright free, Commons (and the administrators there) will assume that the photo is copyright protected and delete it. And 100% rights free, no buts or ifs.
i know, this sounds horrifying and difficult, but that is the big hurdle at Commons. Good luck with it! The Banner talk 21:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining it so clearly. I'll try to find out when the photo was taken. Nicola Mitchell (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for a second opinion

Hi there. I've just posted some feedback about changes to the Chessington World of Adventures Resort article to BenBowser's talk page, and as you have commented on changes to this article before, I would appreciate a second opinion on the points I've made. Thank you! JordanHatch (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Grand Restaurant Karel V

I'm not interested in the history there. I understand the concern and the issues in the merge are addressable. If they are addressed, the expanded content can be moved back. I did some associated cleanup and once the job queue catches up, I think you will find that most of the inbound links are for the restaurant. For me that is an indication that having an article on that is a good thing. But again, this depends on someone expanding the section. Good luck. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014


Bad faith

Copied from another post: We have WP:Before as a guideline, ignored by you on dozens of such articles. It is not rocket science to google each of these names. Major American Newspapers, otherwise known as WP:RS are doing coverage of each contestant. There is also a ton of gossip chatter. To say there is nothing but Facebook is a misrepresentation of the facts. The worldwide pageant is nothing but a publicity event centered around these contestants. For that one week, they are celebrities. For a different period of time, each of them is a national celebrity in their homeland winning the national pageant. What completely irks me is I have to spend hours of my time rescuing each of these articles separately, getting deep into a subject I care little about, because you have spread this damage around in little pieces, instead of taking this subject as a whole and making one reasonable discussion that I probably would have missed. Now I have to search, copy, paste. This could have been avoided with a little effort on your part but apparently removing content (justified or not) from wikipedia is more important to you. That is bad faith. Wikipedia does not prosper with editors behaving like this. Trackinfo (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. Wikipedia is also wider than the USA. That you don't agree, okay, but stop assuming bad faith. Most of them have a very temporarily fame and are just notable for one event. The Banner talk 21:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I got a "notification" of mention thingie but don't see my name here. Anyhow, what Trackinfo is saying explains why he is pissed. It is not a surprise. Winning a nation's primary beauty pageant is simply a big deal in current world culture. Far more than being a footie player who appears in a few games in 1972 for Manchester United or won a bronze medal at the 1904 Olympics, i.e., the thousands and thousands of "one event" instances which are never thought to fall under that policy.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
rather sad rant
Its a little early to rub your face in it, but the trend is already established. Of the 20 articles of beauty contestants (none of which I created) you nominated for deletion, 13 have been Keep 5 have been No Concensus the jury is still out on two of them. You have successfully gotten your way to delete content zero times. So by wikipedia consensus standards, who is in the right and who is in the wrong? Who needs to look in the mirror about their actions being detrimental to the community? That would be you. I tried to point this out to you earlier. Your deletion actions are a major negative force within wikipedia. Most of your nominations are poorly researched and you present a weak case in support. To put it bluntly, you do not speak intelligently about the subjects you comment on. You have taken to lying to defend your arguments. With WP:RS, lies get disproven. That is why you have lost almost every argument I have participated in. I suggested this before and you chose not to listen. Get out of the content deletion business. Find something better to do with your time and your skills. Not everything you have done is negative. I haven't challenged every edit you have made. You've made some very valid additions to wikipedia even in subjects I care about. Thats good. Keep doing that. Do something positive rather than behave negatively toward other editors and the work they produce. And that goes to simple definitions, + addition is positive, - deletion is negative. So I have resolved I cannot talk sense to you. That does not mean I will stop challenging every disingenuous attempt you make to delete content. I will show up prepared and informed. And that zero in your success column shows all your effort is going nowhere. Stop wasting your time and my time. Stop nominating articles for deletion. Trackinfo (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I love your 100% negative approach and your battleground mentality. Unfortunately, that mentality and your continued personal attacks are not the way to bring Wikipedia forward. Just prove the notabilty of the ladies with independent reliable sources, that is the only thing I care about. I don't care at all about your hurt feelings, I care about the reliability of Wikipedia. I am not playing games, as you do. And please, don't make a joke about yourself by following me around to shout NO in each and every AfD from my hand. The Banner talk 20:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DATE (command)

Hello,

I hope I am not bothering you but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DATE (command) badly needs more input from the community. It has been relisted twice before and in spite of me having tried to publicize it before, is still at the risk of being closed without a consensus. The reason that I am calling you is that last time, I've been told to invite people that are more connected to the matter. I guess as a participant of Articles for deletion/Date (Unix), you clearly fit the bill.

Subject of the nomination is: "Wikipedia is not a manual and this article is written exactly like a man page."

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

Books and Bytes - Issue 8

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 8, August-September2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
  • Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
  • New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
  • Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter



MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Connswater

Could you not have worked with me over a few days to let me develop the page before nominating it for deletion then speedy deletion? Just need a bit of co-operation and time to develop. Fire me a message and we could have spoke about it. CDRL98 (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Come on, don't tell me you live in East Belfast and that your surname contains an Y... The Banner talk 22:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Checking up on me, nice to see it, served my time, trying to help though, but this page is just something I want on wikipedia, I feel it has a right to be here, I want to build it to be a suitable page, give it time please. CDRL98 (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, it was the article history that got me interested in EastBelfastBoy. It is sad to see that it leads to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EastBelfastBoy but you left me no choice. The Banner talk 22:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
You had a choice, be civil and discuss, but you chose not to CDRL98 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I looked at this, he was a 13 year old boy when he was banned - or maybe younger even - barely old enough to even be considered a criminal under UK law if he did something against the law. It's very curious that you'd want to see someone receive a lifetime ban for something they did when they were 13 years old and also want to push this on towards a now 16 year considering you are a much older man.87.114.181.58 (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't buy that. The Banner talk 00:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That is not at all what is being suggested. We have clear pathways for returning to Wikipedia's editing community even after egregious infractions. Site-banned editors have returned. A great many indef-blocked editors have returned. There are very simply things CDRL would need to do to be afforded the "standard offer". That said, if he truly was 13 at the time, he is only 16 now. There's "maturity" and then there's "maturity". St★lwart111 00:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Chicken breeds of Belgium

Hi Banner. I didn't quite understand your request on my talk page? If you wanted to try to use the disambiguation page in the template, probably not needed. The breeds are listed individually already. JTdale Talk 11:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The link to Belgian Bantam was already there before you merged the different breeds/varieties. So it left the template with a strange link to a disambiguation page. But I will remove the link, that solves the case too. The Banner talk 11:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah thanks. Didn't see that; works well. JTdale Talk 11:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Banner, you've made the same edit three times today, twice after being told that you were wrong; that is edit warring, and not acceptable here. I see that you thought you were doing the right thing, but that's really no excuse. Would you kindly now self-revert your latest mistake there? I'd be grateful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Nope, because it was you who made the mistake. I am not taking the blame for your mess. The Banner talk 20:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

EXIT Festival

Hey, could you please expand on why reverted my changes to the EXIT festival page? I tried adding info about the last one - exit 15 - and sea dance too, but I'm not sure what I did wrong. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assono (talk • contribs) 11:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

As stated in the summary: Revert unhelpful edits with too much screaming and too few sources. You have used useless disambiguations to create screaming band names as capitals are seen as screaming or shouting. And there were no hardly any sources. The Banner talk 11:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I volunteer for EXIT's web team, so I'll do my best to cut the screaming (a result of a poor copy/paste choice) and find the required references - although the site changes frequently, hopefully there are some press releases on the site that can be used as reference material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assono (talk • contribs) 13:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but we appreciate independent sources. Press releases, clearly promotional and related, are seldom worthy as source. See Reliable sources. The Banner talk 20:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I see. Well, that's going to be really hard, nigh on impossible, I don't know if you've ever been to Serbia or the festival :D I'll try my best to dig up sources that link elsewhere. Thanks for all the help though, I learned a lot about Wikipedia in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assono (talk • contribs) 08:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for help in Jayme Amatnecks 179.104.192.67 (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. But it would be a good idea to reduce the massive pictures in size (standard thumbsize is good enough, who wants a better look can doubleclick on the picture) and the overuse of bold (replacing by italics is better). The Banner talk 09:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your edits to disambiguate the incoming links to Kick-Ass (comics)! Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. The Banner talk 23:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The link fix had the same effect. The created redirect went to a disambig page while it was clear that the intended article was something else. So I have solved the multiple links to a disambiguation page. The Banner talk 09:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wall's (ice cream) may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

St Kilda Football Club article

Hello, Thanks for your DAB link edits to the article. I just, however, restored this article to an earlier version due to multiple IP sockpuppet edits by an indefinitely blocked editor (his editing style is very obvious). In the process I had to undo your edits. I apologise for any inconvenience. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll manually restore your edits where appropriate when I have some time ~ unless you know how to do it quickly some other way. Afterwriting (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I gracefully forgive you. The Banner talk 08:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

Brian J. Costello

Your and others' comments on the entry for Louisiana, American South and Mississippi Valley historian, author, archivist and humanitarian Brian J. Costello are quite severe and unfounded. I have worked with him on several projects related to historical and cultural preservation and promotion and, indeed, he is knowledge is mind-bogling and he is, indeed, a living person and not a "hoax." His innate modesty and humility is, doubtless, the reason why he and his work has not previously appeared in Wikipedia. I took it upon myself that justice be done to him and countless others of his caliber so that their works and accomplishments do go noticed in the world of Wikipedia. As an author myself, I intended to contribute entries related to American, European and Near Eastern historical and cultural interest. If the reception for this, my initial entry, is indicative of what I will have to contend with, then Wikipedia is not for me, nor my colleagues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okelousa (talk • contribs) 13:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are certain guidelines for the notability of people. Important with that is that you deliver reliable, prior published, third party sources (WP:RS). And articles shoul;d be neutral, something what was not the case. Your own motivation makes clear that you do not have enough distance between you and the subject. The Banner talk 19:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Jadoon

My apologies for my revert on Jadoon, it looked as if it was an accidental of some sort as it removed a LOT of information which included citation to seemingly valid sources. I'm still getting used to this, I'll be sure to look out next time. --Kethrus///Talk To Me 13:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. The Banner talk 13:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

'Fake merger'

What fake merger? Here's the article before the redirect and here's the discussion that led to the merger. 93.109.171.237 (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Where is the official merge-proposal? I see none. But I did see a repeated placement of earlier removed text. The Banner talk 21:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
A merge proposal/discussion isn't required before performing a merge. I didn't look at the history of this article to see if any of the things I added were in it before. I thought some of the history in Çamlıköy, though unsourced, seemed plausible, so I copied it over. Also, if we're to ignore that you unjustly accused me of performing a 'fake merger', if your beef's with the merger, why did you revert my first edit? 93.109.171.237 (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Why did you not follow procedure and do a proper merge proposal? Usually, a merger is subject to an open discussion, nor a hidden one. The Banner talk 21:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion on User:Dr.K.'s talk page was for getting rid of the duplicates. There was no discussion for the merge, neither open nor 'hidden'. Stop trying to grasp at straws; you were obviously in the wrong for accusing me of performing a fake merge. 93.109.171.237 (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
So it was not even an merge proposal, as you stated just before.
But to play it nicely: add only sourced and neutral content (conform WP:RS and WP:NPOV) Everything else will be removed. End of discussion. The Banner talk 22:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought about the idea of merger before redirecting but the duplicate articles were recently created and were not contributed to, or largely contributed to, by the creator alone. Therefore I redirected without any merge proposals. The IP editor duly informed me on my talk and after I performed the redirects s/he rescued some unsourced history with proper attribution in their edit summary. There was no intent on their part of a fake merger. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
To be more exact, Çamlıköy was first created as a redirect page to Kalo Horio/Çamlıköy by the creator of the latter, Passportguy. Subsequently, it was converted to a dab page, which in September 2014 was unilaterally converted by an IP into a duplicate article by adding the unsourced history. IP editor 93.109.171.237 expressed his reservations to me about the history, although in the end s/he added it to the main article. I don't mind if the unsourced history stays out of the main article, especially if sources cannot be found to support it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
But what mr. IP was doing, was restoring earlier removed, unsourced information. And after seeing some remarkable moves before (Kalo Chorio moved between three locations and two nation states), I just take the tough stance: no sources, no content. The Banner talk 22:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I did not contest your removing the text I merged from Çamlıköy. I just thought you were a little abrasive in saying it was a fake merge and in the way that you responded to me here. A tough stance doesn't mean you gotta make unsubstantiated assertions and then refuse to retract them. 93.109.171.237 (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
It was not a merge, it was restoring info. (See 27 September). That Bir1akce started fooling around after that, does not matter. The Banner talk 23:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Right, but I didn't know that. I think you can see how I could've taken that to mean that you were questioning my sincerity. Anyway, yeah, let's move on. 93.109.171.237 (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
After Banner explained it, I saw that the unsourced history was removed on 27 September by him/her from the main article. In any case, neither the IP editor 93.109.171.237 nor I knew about this, and now that I examined the edit, I fully agree with Banner's removal of it. I think IP editor 93.109.171.237 added it hoping that someone could source it or improve it. I thought so too in the beginning, but I don't think it is salvageable, after giving it a second look. As a closing remark, editor 93.109.171.237 has helped fix a big mess regarding this topic and in general, s/he has contributed greatly to the cleanup of Cypriot onomatology. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ok. At least on the subject of restoring the unsourced history everyone is on the same page. In this topic area, that's real progress. As far as the fake merge allegation, I don't think it was, but given this is Banner's talkpage, I don't want to put pressure on him/her and I think that my part here is done. Thank you both. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

On further investigation it is apparent that 27.32.217.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same as Bir1akce. I don't think this is an IP sock of the user but it may be the user editing while logged out. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

At as a closing accord in this play, I had to revert some templates to get everything back to the right place. I think I have to send in my fellow countrymen to conquer the whole island and restore peace. And learn them drink Guinness. The Banner talk 09:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The bits I restored yesterday seem to have been (mostly) copied from Lefka. There's some references there, but the prose is horrible. 93.109.171.237 (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I would revert that article to the version of BGWhite on 1 October 2014. We might have to clean up all articles edited by IP:27/Bir1akce. The Banner talk 10:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
In fact I just did the revert. looking up the detail of the merge proposal for the harbour, I found some close paraphrasing but with the "Greek" names replaced by "Turkish" names. The Banner talk 10:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That port is closest to Karavostasi, not Lefka, though. 93.109.171.237 (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Nellore district

I obey your statement, but there are n number of villages, it is better to add an extra template named as villages in xxx district (in Andhra Pradesh), but still its ok for now, if it is excess we'll try. I want to let you know that I've readded content like Mandals because in your undid revision it was lost at this edit. Anyways thanks for info. I need some help regarding templates if you can see at Template:Cities and towns in Prakasam district and some pages in Category:Andhra Pradesh cities and towns by district templates. Any suggestions, thanks in advance.--Vin09 (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I found those templates because you had linked "see also". But the list of villages is not overly long while linking to a category is frowned upon. You can add villages that do not have an article (yet) to a template. The Banner talk 09:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
But I read that non-existing articles should not be added, it was clearly written in all those templates by its user who created. Fine, I saw that User talk:The Banner is being seen in Category:Andhra Pradesh cities and towns by district templates this page.--Vin09 (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
A minor typo of your hand added my talk page to that category, now fixed. You typed [[Category:Andhra Pradesh cities and towns by district templates]], what added my talk page to the category. But by typing [[:Category:Andhra Pradesh cities and towns by district templates]] with an extra colon before category, it becomes a link. You should use this trick also when you want to link to a template, instead of adding it. The Banner talk 18:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It is better to avoid red links, but it is not illegal. Common practise is to only add red links of articles that will be written in the near future (say: a month) or as part of an ongoing project. The Banner talk 19:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Tourism International

The discussion was closed as "keep", further explanatory given by myself was that there is no consensus to delete. It's a standard phrase that I generally use as further explanation. Given that there are no delete !votes in that discussion, it would be quite inappropriate to close it as "no consensus" as there are in fact users who !voted keep. Please do not refactor my comments or change any discussions that I've closed. If you disagree with the closure statement, you're welcome to message me or take it to deletion review. Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The way you wrote it, is rather ambiguous. I read The result was keep. After being relisted twice there is no consensus to delete. as "keep as no consensus". If that is wrong, change the wording. The Banner talk 22:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of the Napoleonic era

ShadowNinja1080 (talk · contribs · logs)

With regards to this edit the edit. As we are dealing with a new user, and this is their first large edit to Wikipedia, please ping the user and explain your reasons on talk:Timeline of the Napoleonic era for the revert. -- PBS (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done The Banner talk 15:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Michelin stars

Hi, about your reversal edit in {{Michelin stars}} (edit talk history links # /subpages /doc /doc edit /sbox /sbox diff /test) (you changed svg back into gif). It surprised me because you mentioned a performance issue in List of Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands. An interesting article that is!

I assume you know, in general an svg file is preferred over a gif file (examples). Also, we are not supposed "don't worry about performance, unless performance is an issue" (I can give more links if you like so, but I think you are familiar with this topic).

To check the performance issue you mentioned (long loading times of the article) I did some research. I created {{Michelin stars/sandbox}} with svg files as I proposed. I then previewed the article six times: three times in current state ({{Michelin stars}}, gif's), and three times with the sandbox ({{Michelin stars/sandbox}}, svg's). I replaced all templates with the sandbox. Note that the template is called 2587 times.

From Parser profiling data:

gif1
CPU time usage 19.537 seconds
gif2
CPU time usage 14.617 seconds
gif 3
CPU time usage 16.725 seconds
svg1 (2587 replacements)
CPU time usage 17.013 seconds
svg 2
CPU time usage 19.785 seconds
svg 3
CPU time usage 19.245 seconds
Parser profiling data, six tests (from preview)
;gif1
Parser profiling data:
CPU time usage	19.537 seconds
Real time usage	22.049 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count	45898/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count	63722/1500000
Post-expand include size	1059813/2048000 bytes
Template argument size	106447/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth	9/40
Expensive parser function count	3/500
Lua time usage	0.300/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage	2.93 MB/50 MB

;gif2
Parser profiling data:
CPU time usage	14.617 seconds
Real time usage	16.625 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count	45898/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count	63722/1500000
Post-expand include size	1059813/2048000 bytes
Template argument size	106447/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth	9/40
Expensive parser function count	3/500
Lua time usage	0.300/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage	2.92 MB/50 MB

;gif 3
Parser profiling data:
CPU time usage	16.725 seconds
Real time usage	18.832 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count	45898/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count	63722/1500000
Post-expand include size	1059813/2048000 bytes
Template argument size	106447/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth	9/40
Expensive parser function count	3/500
Lua time usage	0.352/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage	2.92 MB/50 MB

;svg1 (2587 replacements)
Parser profiling data:
CPU time usage	17.013 seconds
Real time usage	21.735 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count	45898/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count	63638/1500000
Post-expand include size	1183989/2048000 bytes
Template argument size	147839/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth	9/40
Expensive parser function count	3/500
Lua time usage	0.356/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage	2.93 MB/50 MB

;svg 2
Parser profiling data:
CPU time usage	19.785 seconds
Real time usage	24.796 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count	45898/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count	63638/1500000
Post-expand include size	1183989/2048000 bytes
Template argument size	147839/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth	9/40
Expensive parser function count	3/500
Lua time usage	0.297/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage	2.93 MB/50 MB

;svg 3
Parser profiling data:
CPU time usage	19.245 seconds
Real time usage	24.612 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count	45898/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count	63638/1500000
Post-expand include size	1183989/2048000 bytes
Template argument size	147839/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth	9/40
Expensive parser function count	3/500
Lua time usage	0.341/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage	2.92 MB/50 MB

From this, I conclude that the page loads very slow indeed. That is, only once, right after an edit; and in every preview; after that every loading or page opening for reading is fast. However, I see no big difference between gif and svg. So the slow loading is not caused by the gif/svg difference. (If I miss something so far, please tell me).

That says that we can switch to svg files without causing this problem. And since svg is preferred, we should do so. (Of course, the page can use a good check for other issues).

Another problem from your edit is that from this one article, the template would be restricted for all articles. That means that the article causes the problem and spreads it, not the template. And so that must be solved in or through that article.

I propose to use the svg files in the template, and --independently-- look for improvements in the article. What do you think? -DePiep (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I use that article quite often, as base for the articles about restaurants. I noticed a severe deterioration in loading times down here. That is why I am very reluctant to the change. But, that is not a 100% no.
Another thing is style of the etoile. Yours is very thin and has a rather bleak appearance. Perhaps you can change that a little (giving it more "body").
Then the question of how to use it. I think the easiest option will be to develop a second template. The present one, used in the "normal" articles can be altered to use the SVG. The new one, used in the list/overview articles like List of Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands, List of Michelin starred restaurants in Ireland and the list of Great-Britain that is still on my wish list, can use the GIF.
Perhaps not the best solution technically, but I think the most workable. (By the way, I have not a clue why SVG is preferred, although I have heard about this preference before.) The Banner talk 11:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Good plan to make that second template for gifs, isolates the psossible issue. I'll start that, and report here. btw, I do not think that speeds up the page (as the tests indicate), but if you think it useful I'm fine with that.
svg, in general, is better scalable (finer lines & color-borders in every size).
'More body' = thicker lines in the scg you mean? will look into that, later on. -DePiep (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, a bit thicker lines. Good for people with less than perfect eyesight. The Banner talk 11:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I see, now both in one page: template:Michelin stars/testcases. Will take care after the name split. -DePiep (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello The Banner:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Thanks! Much appreciated. The Banner talk 20:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


'Unhelpful edits'

Why are these edits 'unhelpful'? [11] 31.153.72.171 (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been some time, so I'll speak my mind. This is the second time I've had to come to your talk page 'cause you left a careless summary. Why won't you at least come to me and explain why -- exactly -- my changes are unhelpful? Also, I think you've let Twinkle get to you. If reverting multiple edits wasn't made so easy, you'd have a better think if reverting is the right choice to make. (I'm the same person as above; I've had to restart my router, so my IP changed.) 213.7.147.34 (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
You better create a normal account instead of using IPs. Secondly, it has nothing to do with Twinkle, just with strange edits. That I don't recognise you as neing the same, forgive me. With different ISP you make that a tough job. The Banner talk 03:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, what was strange? 213.7.147.34 (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of a comment from a discussion

Can you explain why you removed a comment of mine from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carbon0901? Except under quite special circumstances, removing another editor's comment from a discussion page is unacceptable, and if you do think there are valid reasons for making an exception in this case then you need to explain those reasons. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I can not explain that. I do not even remember having done that. I fear, I misclicked something. My apology for that. The Banner talk 10:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
OK. Things like that happen to all of us sometimes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

2013–14 Plymouth Argyle F.C. season

2013–14 Plymouth Argyle F.C. season
you sent me a message re 2013–14 Plymouth Argyle F.C. season I've been editing and contributing too, I believe I have fixed all the six issues. Didn't know if I was supposed to reply or exactly how to reply so hope this is an ok method. Ps I'm new to editing so am finding my feet. Thanks for your imput Adam ADZC7 (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
a) You could have replied in normal text, without borders or picture.
b) My sincere compliments about solving those links to disambiguation pages. I knew that they were hidden in templates, what makes them more difficult to solve. And then you told me that you are new around here, so a little despair crept up. But you did it! Again my compliments! The Banner talk 23:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes as soon as I found the mistakes it was easily rectified as football related stuff is my passion it wasn't hard to change them. Cheers again and just out of intresti used Dablinks to find the faults. Is it better to use another repair of system and does the one you mentioned need to be downloaded to my desktop. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADZC7 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I liked the results and that is what counts. There are several tools available tot solve dab-links, so you canb pick the one that suits you best. Good luck with it! The Banner talk 00:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Doc Mentillo

You are capable of doing good work, making positive contributions to wikipedia. You referred Doc Mentillo to me for assistance. I looked on Google (what i keep suggesting you do). I'm 12 pages deep and haven't found a single Reliable Source. The guy is a self sourced media phenomenon. In other words, this one appears to be a good NOM. You also nominated Omovie Kingsley Emumejakpo. It was another piece of unsourced and unverifiable junk. Good NOM. You will note I did not challenge you on it. Keep doing good things, you won't see me challenge them. Don't do bad things (you do know what those are), I won't have any excuse to challenge your work. Trackinfo (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I am definitely not the axe-wielding maniac that you seemed to see in me. I believe that AfD is a way to improve Wikipedia. That you only seldom agree on that point, is just a minor fact of life. Different people, different opinions, different approaches. The Banner talk 09:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

  • DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
  • Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
  • British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
  • Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
  • Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
  • JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Why did you delete all my contributions on 1848 and 1849?

Hi, I observed that you deleted all my contributions on these years pages. Please specify why? It is not fair that somebody works hours or days to contribute to the Wikipedia, and his contributions to be deleted without any explanation. I did not put citations to all my contributions, because on that page there were no citations to the other contributions too. But if you need citations, I can provide you. But you removed my contributions that had citations also. So please write to me and say what was the problem. If I made something wrong, say it to me and I will fix it. But do not just throw to the toilet my 6 hours work. My contributions were made because there are too few contributions on Hungary, and I wanted to help. sylvain1975 — Preceding undated comment added 07:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The low quality of work you produced, see you own talkpage for an earlier request to up the quality. Check the links you produce before saving, do not expect that others will fix the links to disambiguation pages you produce. I already did a lot but I have enough now. The Banner talk 10:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

Bart Baker

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Wbakeriii's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wbakeriii (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Blues Fiddle

Could you add useful information to this page instead of approaching it by mass-deletion? If you look at the edit history, you'll see that new information is being added daily. If you could help instead of hinder this process, it would be appreciated, not only by me, but by the people looking for this information. Could you specifically stop deleting the Mississippi Sheiks Discography section? I can't see any reason why you would remove everything referencing these artists. They made the greatest contribution, quantitatively to the canon of recorded violin blues.

They have their own article. Info about the band should be added there. The Banner talk 11:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Blues Fiddle

Blues fiddling is such an obscure topic, and particular blues fiddlers even more so, that it's exceedingly difficult to find information online about it. The people who have researched these topics are not academics per se, and neither are their websites academic journals. They are still authorities on the subject nonetheless. Most blues fiddlers have no pages attached, so the lists in this article actually represent the most concise gathering of information available, possibly, anywhere. You are the only person deleting them. If you would stop doing, the result will probably be that more readers and editors will contribute associated links to artists without pages, will organize the material in a way that time constraints have limited thus far, and will bring the page closer to perfection. It's an ongoing process, that at this point you would be of more help by aiding in sourcing, or rewriting, or making associated links.

November 7, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 442macsat (talk • contribs) 16:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Still you are the one to provide reliable sources. You have seen my suggestion, perhaps you better act on them. The Banner talk 21:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I have requested a topic ban and interaction ban for you. The Banner talk 12:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for improving those templates about China squads.

大梅伦敦登顶 (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Logentries Revert

Hello!

I saw you added the templates back to the Logentries page. I had previously gone through and rewrote promotional content from a neutral point of view and removed inappropriate external links. Wondering what other suggestions you have for cleaning it up. Thanks!

--mrJARichard   ✎ discuss 15:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Logentries COI

I know there's a conflict of interest, I saw your flag, that's why I cleaned it up. Ha ha. What do you propose should be done instead? Re-write the entire article from scratch?

--mrJARichard   ✎ discuss 16:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just see what I have cut out by now. I think this version is not too bad but further work on neutralising is possible. Even a lot of sources can not solve promo. The Banner talk 16:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll see what else I can clean up. Thanks.
--mrJARichard   ✎ discuss 16:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Bold link if not equal/doc. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Petr Matas 00:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You wrote: "And I guess you really did not look at my argumentation. What you do is adding a link to a disambiguation page that showed up in a maintenance list. But you stubbornly keep adding that link." I did look and I explained why I think your argumentation was wrong. Please go to the talk page and reply. Petr Matas 00:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Bold link if not equal/doc. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

Talib Kweli

I encourage you to continue to make edits, but, please be sure that the information you are adding is accurate. There is no need to remove anything that I have added as Talib Kweli's team has confirmed that it is all accurate.

I think it would be best if we could discuss revisions before they go live moving forward.

What do you think?

i also notice that the guest appearances have been removed could you please advise as to why?

The reason why I revert are clear: firstly your are clearly involved editor, failing to deliver a neutral pint of view. Secondly, you fail to add reliable, prior published, independent third party sources to the texts you add. Info about living people MUST be sourced. Read reliable sources for more info about the sources Wikipedia needs. Own knowledge, social media and company websites are not suitable sources. The Banner talk 20:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'am not doing any advertising what so ever. All I'm trying to do is make sure all the correct information is there for his fans to see. Your leaving out albums and putting things in the wrong place, i dont see why we cant come to a common ground and work something out together

As I said a few times before: information over a living person MUST be sources by independent, reliable, prior published sources conform WP:RS. Take care of the proper sourcing and there is no problem. Unsourced comments will be removed. Simple is that. And the way you try to hammer it home, sure looks like advertising. The Banner talk 22:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Place Names.

Please stop reverting to the anglicized place name when the Irish language name is more common in English. Baile na nGall Gaelmise (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your POV-pushing in breach of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). The Banner talk 13:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read the thing and understand it befor you tell others that they are in breach of it. I have not been breaching that guideline. Gaelmise (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you should start to read it. The guideline opens with: The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources). That is not what you were doing. Sorry, mate, you are going to loose this war. The Banner talk 16:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Cite web template

There is no obligation to use the cite web template. The reference style for Piloersemaborg was just fine the way it was. – Editør (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No, but you were against the different styles, so I harmonised them. No more language icons now, except in the external links. Wikipedia tends to evolve and that is exactly what happened with the reference templates that got extra options to get rid of the language icons. The Banner talk 16:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A reply

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Dl2000's talk page.
Message added Dl2000 (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Spinnin Records

Thank you for your prompt response. Sorry about adding all those artists; I wasn't aware of the WP:LISTPEOPLE notability requirement. To explain, I, being a fan of Spinning Records, added them because I finally was able to find a recent link regarding the artists signed to them, something I had been looking for a long time (the DJ Mag ADE one). Still, I believe you are right about there being too many un-notable artists among those I listed. Do you think though, that maybe I can add certain artists back; namely, those who have had Beatport #1 tracks being the lead artists on those tracks: Dubvision [Backlash (Martin Garrix Edit)] and KSHMR [Burn (Original Mix)]? I feel, with these accomplishments, that they are certainly notable artists who would seem notable enough to put on the list, despite not having articles. The1stEditor 20:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Not before their notability is confirmed with their own article. The Banner talk 20:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Participating clubs of the CAF Champions League era

What about Asia & Europe ? (Template: Participating clubs of the AFC Champions League era, Template: Participating clubs of the Champions League era). --Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Merged the first, the second is not a single use template. The Banner talk 17:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Same as the european template, that's what I wanted to do for the african's one, hoped that u ask me before deleting it. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

W&W

Just wondering why you've reverted and tagged my edit as vandalism [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W%26W&diff=prev&oldid=635487301 ]. The revert I made was for an editor that replaced a single that existed with one that doesn't. Haminoon (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Did not see your edit. Fixed now. The Banner talk 10:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

Reported

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Banner. I think we didn't had many interaction before. I am not pleased that this was the way things happened. I am not sure what made you come to those conclusions about me neither how you came to be involved in this dispute, but I have to tell you that those conclusions are wrong. Yes, I am Serbian but I am far from being any sort of nationalist, POV-pusher or brainwasher. I spent most of my life in several different parts of the world so if you think I had restricted sources of information or I am brainwashed, that is not the case. I have to tell you that the problem with that edit is not that it portrays Serbs negatively, there are many sources in that direction, but the problem is that it is an alleged citation of an unnamed commander, which has so little credibility by itself. It is screaming propaganda "Oh I am Serb commander, I feel guilty for shooting children", that is movies and what some wish would happened. On this subjects we need to keep high standard with verified order of events, official declarations, not particular opinions of... unnamed lol... alleged commanders. I am not sure how well you know bobrainer, but I can tell you his approach regarding Balkans is highly problematic because he clarly uses sources selectively and has some unhealthy mission of editing against the Serbian version of the story and against what he calls Serbian myths. Obviously as NATO fought against Serbs it is not difficult to find tons of material demonizing Serbs, even so he thinks articles need more and more anti-Serb stories. What happends is that neutral Serbs end up seing those articles as just another anti-Serb bullshit and Wikipedia ends up loosing credibility. I, as a Wikipedian, don't want to see that happening, and beleave me, or not, I do intend to have these articles as much as neutral as possible. However, ocassionaly I do find myself in a situation of having to fight anti-Serb propaganda, and then other editors such as they, will grab the chance to accuse me of nationalist, POV-pusher, etc., that is old methodology quite common already. FkpCascais (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You are talking nonsense. I have seen enough Balkan-POV-pushers to recognize them nearly on the spot. The Banner talk 19:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, OK, whatever... I also spoted you now ;) defending the worst POV pusher around, so your words have zero value for me from now on. Take care, cheers. FkpCascais (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Dear "The Banner",

first, a "Brilliant Idea Barnstar" for your work on investigating and documenting the history of Michelin Star restaurants in the Netherlands. I have already written you some time ago since your data work was the start for a research project at the University of Southern Denmark. Togehter with a colleague, I want hereby to analyse, how creative local amenities such as Michelin-Star restaurants can support local and regional development. Of course, for scientific research, data quality is very important. Thus, I would be very glad to get in contact with you to discuss this issue on your super wikipedia article. This would also give us the opportunity to "acknowledge" your intense data collection efforts so far. I fully understand that Wikipedia is a source for anonymous documentation, however, maybe you are interested to see, how your input is actually valuable for scientific research. If so, just leave a message at my wikipedia-page (Researchguy11), maybe this then allows to exchange Emails. Many thanks and all the best! Researchguy11 (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think your praise is over the top. I do what I think I have to do and try to stay away from promotion (what is a challenge on its own sometimes). If you have a questionnaire, you can send it through the tools (Email this user) on the left hand side of this screen. And I doubt if I can really help you, but let us give it a shot. The Banner talk 09:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring? Why?

Why would you rather edit war than to discuss? You have been reverted and even though there is a discussion, you failed to gain any support. One more revert and you will most likely be blocked. JOJ Hutton 14:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop joking and editwarring and join the discussion on the talkpage. The Banner talk 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Achille Delaere

Hello, You helped me with this article in the English Wikipedia earlier this fall. I had a Dutch translation done of it, and when I put it into the Dutch Wikipedia, it turned out to be a marginal translation. I'm not sure, but it looks like they've deleted it. Is there any chance you could take a look at it? I noticed that you are fluent in Dutch. Nicola Mitchell (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The article was nominated for deletion due to the very poor quality of the translation. Unfortunately, the nominator is a kind of a troll regarding to religious subjects. Going against him only gives you a lot of trouble and a stalker. Better wait till somebody else picks up the challenge of translating the article, as I am not doing it. The Banner talk 16:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the tip. I'll do as you suggest. Is there a chance you could read through a brief biographical article in my: Gebruiker:Nicola Mitchell/Kladblok2 ? Unfortunately, I had it done by the same translator at the same time as the Delaere one. This one though has no religious content. Can you tell me if the translation is any good? Also, what would you suggest? Nicola Mitchell (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact, the translation is just as hopeless. The Banner talk 23:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I have both articles put on the Hotlist, in the hope someone will picks this up for translation. The Banner talk 23:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I was curious. I thought it might just be the religious content that threw the translator with that Delaere article. Nicola Mitchell (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Kosovo War

Hi,
Thanks for starting the RfC. It's a very positive step. However, I have one slight niggle: The header asks "Should we keep the section?" but the rest of the text makes it clear that the current text is problematic. In which case, it's not clear what "Support" and "Oppose" mean - they could go in either direction. Also, the original content of the section was very different to the current content - I don't want to overcomplicate things, but maybe removing the whole section isn't the only alternative to the current version. I'm reluctant to edit the structure of your RfC, but would you consider clarifying? Also, feel free to move my comment from "Support" to "Oppose" or whatever other section heading is most appropriate if you do change anything. bobrayner (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Present version better? The Banner talk 15:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Groovy. Nice work. bobrayner (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

Conflict of interest

you can't just go on deleting materials and subjects which i devote to wikipedia (hours and hours). you even deleted a lot from Muzaffarpur Junction railway station and now from Sapt Kranti Express. You have no right to call it a fan page. just i need a proper reason why you deleted those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanmay Tarun (talk • contribs) 02:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I just did! You have added a lot of unsourced and irrelevant info to the article that makes it look like a personal webpage of a railway fan instead of a neutral description fitting into an encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 12:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

De Leest

Why would you 'repair' the link into the broken one? – Editør (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Because you messed up even more than it was. The Banner talk 12:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
If you didn't like the style, you could have just changed that, I have no problem with that. – Editør (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

Conflict of ideas

you can't just go on deleting contents. i contributed my 8 valuable hours for creating Sapt Kranti Express. you have no right to delete it. or it will be a pleasure to leave wikipedia. Tanmay Tarun (talk) You are a waste........ BULLSHIT! you deleted all my contributions.

What you add to those articles is irrelevant information or plain fancruft. The Banner talk 11:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

Thanks for reverting, but...

I've thanked you for your revert of Easter Rising. However I should mention that it does not appear to be WP:Vandalism, but WP:Bold changes, which you are probably right to revert per WP:BRD, but strictly speaking you should probably be adding a section on the Talk page inviting whoever made them to discuss his/her changes there, perhaps also indicating there that at least some of the changes will quite likely eventually turn out to be legitimate.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

(Though I should add that I don't blame you for not wanting to get into such a time-consuming discussion - I certainly wouldn't want to do so either). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That is why I used the question marks, to mark that it in my opinion was coming close. The Banner talk 11:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

Heeding to Edit War tag

Hi User:The Banner. With regard to edit war tag you have awarded me, I agree with the reverting rules. For quality improvement of the article St.Joseph's Indian Composite PU College, instead of removing content recklessly, its wiser enough to talk and discuss the issues which the article faces. Only such certain unnecessary parts can be removed by the creator,rather than the creator again go on developing a whole new page. You are very much aware of the plight of a new page developer on Wikipedia R__R (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)}}

Wrong, everybody can edit an article. The creator has no special rights at all. The Banner talk 20:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Stub Barnstar
Thanks for creating the new Gravenmolen article, and for improving Wikipedia's coverage of notable restaurants that have received Michelin stars. NorthAmerica1000 02:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Much appreciated! The Banner talk 11:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
In fact, the honour is double appreciated. At the moment, they are a bit nitpicking on me on the Dutch Wikipedia about my Michelin articles and the navigation template I created for it. Very frustrating, as it is a rather WP:IDONTLIKEIT-discussion. The Banner talk 12:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Per Se American (New), French". Zagat. Retrieved April 29, 2013.
  2. ^ (in French) Saint Malard
  3. ^ (in English) St. Malard
  4. ^ (in English) Saint Malard of Chartres
  5. ^ http://www.geonames.org/search.html?q=&country=CZ
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Banner/Archive04&oldid=1159451366"