Jump to content

User talk:The Banner/Archive05

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


The Signpost: 31 December 2014

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year The Banner!

Happy New Year!

The Banner,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. LesVegas (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

ANI discussion

I have registered a request that you be warned for certain behaviors with respect to the recent back and forths on Organic food. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Start looking at your own behaviour. The Banner talk 17:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I say you do too, and take a look at WP:OR Weegeerunner (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
LOL, what part of the sources I have added was not in line with WP:OR? The Banner talk 04:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
What Sources? Weegeerunner (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
These three], so politely removed by the others. You should do your homework a bit better. The Banner talk 18:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Why didn't you add them back? To avoid confusion like this in the future, do not remove content you sourced. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Because Formerly 98 warned that I could get blocked. So you probably get to see the funny situation that I get a topic ban due to sourcing of unsourced text added by someone else. The Banner talk 23:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Feeling happy...

... because I am not nuts or overly negative: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas.

I sincerely thank the admins, clerks and check-users involved in unravelling this case. The Banner talk 18:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 9

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
  • Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Company 3

Hello, i'm not trying to start a fight. I'm just curious why you keep deleting the filmography under Company 3. I am working on making all of the films link to the correct title pages. I don't understand why this info would be removed. These are legit films that this company has worked on. RenderBlender (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Renderblender

Simple, because it is irrelevant info. Your company, I assume that your work there, is not the company that creates the film. Your company is just supplying a service after the shooting. Please keep in mind that the article should be neutral in style, tone and content. And that it must be sourced with reliable sources. The Banner talk 02:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of the films cited, Company 3 receives Producer credits for. So I have to disagree with you. Technically, that would make them film creators. Plus, this particular post service means that every single frame is corrected and handled by Company 3. It's a start to finish process on an entire film. They are very much apart of the film creation. I don't see how that makes it irrelevant. You're equating film creation to production, and most films are heavily created in post. RenderBlender (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)renderblender

1) Do not remove maintenance templates unless the issues are solved.
2) With a quick check on a number of articles about the movies you have listed, NOT ONE mentioned Company 3. Even more, the company is not even mentioned on the IMDb-page. So please, provide evidence. The Banner talk 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

1 - Everything on the Company 3 wiki page has a reference link which states the info listed including - all award credits, company locations and services. The sources are all official sources. All advertising verbiage has been removed. I don't understand how any of the maintenance templates are still appropriate. That is why they were removed.

2 - Here is the Company 3 IMDB credit list http://www.imdb.com/company/co0028470/?ref_=fn_al_co_1 There are also published articles between directors and colorists at Company 3 where they talk about the creative process on the films that are being cited. RenderBlender (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)renderblender

You have missed a few awards, I hope you can source them too. The nasty part is that IMDb is not considered a reliable source and I hope you will remove that. Please see: WP:USERGENERATED.
For the rest is the article now acceptable neutral. The Banner talk 18:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Educational notes:
  1. It is frowned upon to use bare URL's. When the link dies, it will be difficult to find the content again on archiving websites. Could you instead use: <ref>{{URL|1=url name|2=optional display text}}</ref>. That makes link salvaging much easier (provided you have added a meaningfull description.)
  2. You can add references straight after punctuation, without the blank. When you add two references, there is no need for blanks or link breaks.
Happy editing. The Banner talk 19:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of the awards are both listed on the same link in the same year. Do you need to list the same source more than once? For example, the reference listed for 2007 HPA award has both winning announcements in the same link, since it's the same award show, but with 2 award wins.

Thank you for your help. I'll go through and start correcting the ref tags as specified above. RenderBlender (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)renderblender

Yes, it is better to use the same source multiple times, even within the same year. There are some special tricks to make it more handy visually, but that is something I have never mastered. But other guys are experts in that, so I should not bother to much about it. One day they will come along and fix it. The Banner talk 23:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

Phoenix Living Poets edit

Dear "The Banner", please could I ask why you deleted the poets in the PLP series that do not have their own pages? Part of the reason for posting the page with all the poets listed was to allow me (or others) to add stubs/pages for those poets. I asked about the protocol in the "teashop" (discussion added below) and they suggested that I should come back to you to ask about your rationale for the deletions. Part of the idea of my original posting was to give people who wanted to explore the series the opportunity to see all the poets. In fact my original draft listed every book (!) but it was suggested that that was a bit too much information so it was posted with just the poets' names and the recommendation then that more stubs/pages could be added later to fill in the gaps for completeness. The person who did that (just a day or so before you edited the page) suggested that all the poets should be listed and that, in time, they might each have their own page. Thank you, nevertheless, for reading and responding to the page - it is always good to find others with similar interests :)

Here is the discussion from the teashop: "I have had one person suggesting that I add pages for people (all of whom are published poets) mentioned on an original page but who do not already have their own pages - and another person has already deleted the names of all those people without their own pages from my original list. How do I explain this to both of them without causing offence when I re-place the removed names? I am happy, time permitting, to add stub pages for all these extra people; equally there may be other contributors who would like to do the same. I don't really understand why the person who removed those names without their own pages as it seems that the existence of such a non-link would serve to encourage other experts to post pages about these poets? How, precisely, do I post on their talk pages, I cannot see how to do it when I go to them? Thank you. Steve Millar (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

To directly answer your question: Go to the talk page of the user in question (from what I understand you already know how to do this part). Then in the upper right hand of the page click "Edit source" the same as you would to edit an article. Scroll to the bottom of the edit box and start a new section with a title that briefly describes the issue. Below that, leave your message. As to the issue you have with the user who removed the authors, I am not too sure what his rational is. I had a brief look, and if I understand correctly, those authors are indeed contributors to P.L.P., and as such should be included in the list of authors. Red links are okay on WP; it just means there is more work to be done. I would approach the user and say much what you said here – that is, that you intend to create pages for those authors. I would also remind him that not everyone who is mentioned in an article needs his own WP page. DiscantX 10:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)"

Are you O.K. if I undo those changes? I do hope that this does not cause a problem or any offence. Thank you again. Steve Millar (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact NO, but...
In short: the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:LISTPEOPLE the prescribes that all people in a list must either be notable or reliable sourced. "Notable" in the sense of "having their own article".
The "but" in this case is that you can add the poets after you have written their articles. Their is no harm in putting a "working list" of poets on the talkpage (i.e. de poets I have removed) The Banner talk 12:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply By Abhishek tiwari ji

Actually this article should not be deleted because it gives a brief idea of bus route of Kolkata and it helps our local people to find their easy way of their routes information through this article, so it is my humble request to that this article should not be deleted.Me Abhishek talk 12:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. And the present discussion is leaning towards removal. The Banner talk 20:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that you have very small idea about Wikipedia articles you should go thoroughly to Bus routes in Sydney, Bus routes in Manhattan, List of bus routes in Lahore instead of just sending deletion log.This is not a gentleman way to reply anybody whatever you want.Me Abhishek talk — Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Your problem, not mine. The Banner talk 23:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
But as you can see at the AfD, a majority of the people is supporting removal. And I have no intention of nominating List of bus lines in Kolkata, provided that it stays a list of bus lines. The Banner talk 13:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

FFA P-16

G'day from Oz; I see you have 'met' FFA P-16. He will not permit you to edit 'his' articles. He will tell you that you know nothing about the Swiss Air Force or the Swiss military and that therefore his version of any article about any aspect of the Swiss military is the only possible version allowed to exist on WP, irrespective of how badly it is written or haw badly it is sourced. A video on Youtube? That's a good source. A poor-quality photo taken by a friend of his and uploaded to Commons? Also a good source. He will ignore any arguments you put forward and do whatever he likes. I wish you well. YSSYguy (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Then you have to take part in the discussion... The guy is already blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia for sock puppeteering and his obsessive creation of badly written hardly notable articles related to the Swiss Air Force. The Banner talk 12:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Warning from trurle:excessive deletionism

I have observed you crippled the page "EM simulation software" by deleting many valid entries for the lame excuse of the "lack of notability". Please, hands off the topics you do not understand.--Trurle (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If you don't know the guidelines... The Banner talk 06:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I have noticed you left nearly random remnant of the list of EM simulation packages, missing entire important classes (freeware simulators or FDTD simulators) or many popular commercial FD simulators. Your edit clearly indicates your lack of knowledge on the subject, so please do not touch this page any more.

Your editing clearly shows a desire to promote and a lack of reading the relevant guidelines! Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists first and be aware of the rules concerning editwarring. The Banner talk 06:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

What i point what you are obviously not qualified to decide the notability of the topic (EM Simulation software) because of the lack of the appropriate knowledge. Therefore, your argument about guidelines is void. Most likely, you are student who heard (or even used) few simulators available in your locality, but never made a proper survey nor has been connected to the society of the EM simulator users.--Trurle (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You are funny but it is you who is breaching the guidelines. Please read and adhere to the guideline before you get yourself blocked. The Banner talk 07:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Basically, your actions are "rules manipulation" to justify your wrongful (although likely good-faith) actions. I will wait a few days for your cool-down before expanding this discussion.--Trurle (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Come, in your statement above you made it loud and clear that you are here to promote those simulators and that you have a conflict of interest. That you do not like it that I follow guidelines that are unsuitable for your intentions is not my problem but yours. Read the guideline and stop editwarring. The Banner talk 07:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

What chapter of guideline do you use? For listing software packages, the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_companies_and_organizations seems most appropriate. It clearly states "A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement". Only requirements are the notability of the list as a whole and proper referencing (which was provided largerly by links to appropriate external sites). On the other hand, your action is even more suspicious in terms of "conflict of interests" - because in your truncated list you leave only commercial packages, deleting all freeware ones. Are you sure you are not the HFSS staff? ;-)--Trurle (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment. What I have removed were items without "own non-redirect article". The Banner talk 07:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

So you blindly applied the common rule from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Common_selection_criteria, although more relevant (disputable) particular rule Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_companies_and_organizations do exist. Therefore, i make a formal statement (of you are not ashamed yet)
a) the notability of each individual item in software packages list is not required by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_companies_and_organizations
b) you are not qualified to decide the notability of this particular list because of your incompetence in the topic of EM simulations
c) you apply only "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia." without considering the next sentence "entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." Again, everything comes to your ignorance. You do not have a knowledge base to decide if "it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future" or not, therefore you should abstain from editing.

I actually expanded the "EM Simulation software" list going to wait few years and see which packages are attracting attention - which will be indicated by blue links. And what i actually see a single ignorant editor (you) deleting the data, stemming the evolution of the list, although other users - User:Lozano.plata , User:TLiebig, User:Taneluc are all trying to improve the list within their scope of knowledge.

Basically, i`d like to propose: please revert your edit and i will add external links to improve the verifiably of the material.--Trurle (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The answer is NO.
Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement or promo. The rules of the game say that an item needs an article or must be sourced. The items that I removed failed on both points (not even had external links, as you claimed)
If you want the items in the list there is just one solution: Write The Article First.
Please do your homework properly before continuing. The Banner talk 10:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Ow, and why do you think that a rule about a company is applicable to a product? The Banner talk 12:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If you apply rules even than not necessary, you must find appealing the notion what rules do cover everything, applicable or not. (just kidding) Seriosly, to my opinion, rule about company is a close match to rule about product, especially if company do produce a single product only (what is quite common in software industry). Or you can cite a more applicable rule?--Trurle (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I have made my point loud and clear by now. You are just looking for excuses to circumvent guidelines. The Banner talk 23:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

PLK Vicwood KT Chong Sixth Form College

Edited 'your excellency' out as requested, but I have added in new information, corrected grammatical mistakes, and edited out redundant information which you should not have done away just because of an address you find inappropriate to have been included in the infobox. clh_hilary talk 23:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the titles are still there. The promo too. The Banner talk 23:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

Ratel/TickleMeister/Jabbsworth

Just now I have realized it was not just me who found the thing suspicious but you as well as you mentioned here.

So I think you might be interested on the request I filled yesterday here.

--ClaudioSantos¿? 18:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

On SOL Laptop

David Snir, if that's his real name, seems to have a pathological narcissistic personality, so be aware of that.

On the Laptop itself, probably apart from one or two prototype units that didn't even accomplished with the initial specs —that he changed with the criticism that the initial ones where impossible under the natural laws of this Universe—, it doesn't exist at all.

From all the links published in the article, only one if a review from a third party of dubious credibility. Apart from that one, in three years, nobody have tested it. All the other links are "coming soon" kind of.

Moreover, there was a video of an Australian dealer that published an unboxing and promised to publish a review, and they never did it. Some people including myself ask for the reason of such omission in the video comments, and their only "answer" was delete the comments and disable then. Another red light more. It's the last thing they published on that laptop, and that was back in March 2014.

http://www.g-layer.com.au/category/sol/

Needless to say you won't even find it in their shop...

Good luck! 95.16.146.53 (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as soon as there are a few sources available people see it as notable. It does not matter that the thing is not on the market or that is is a total failure without sales. There are very special (i.e. much lower) requirements for "American" stuff than for non-American stuff. Nasty, but we have to live with that. At least till the moment that the USA is not any longer the dominant factor in Wikipedia. But I am hopeful for the future, I exoect the USA-domination to be gone in 5-10 years. The Banner talk 13:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually this fool is Canadian, and he has sold none. Whatever, I used to participate in WP back in its first years, and I left it and even removed my account due problems like this one: despite it's obvious the article is nothing but self promotion of that David "Nobody" Snir, and that he has even used puppets shamelessly to defend their shitty article, you still have to spent hours to demonstrate it.
I was thinking about asking for references for all those claims about the device, like the waterproof thing, since it has none but I have better things to do, really. Bests! 95.16.146.53 (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Canada and the USA is in this case the same she-bang. The Banner talk 10:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ratel... meatpuppetry?

¿¿¿???

--ClaudioSantos¿? 17:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

Add fishing section with citations to Limerick

Hi, I hope the new content on the fishing industry in the Limerick page is more acceptable to you. I'm not sure it is in quite the right place ... For your information, the Gandelow (with an e not an a) is well known to Limerick residents and the boat is making a comeback on the river - http://ilen.ie/gandelow-races-sept2014/. In September 2014, the Irish President met boat builders and fishermen in St Mary's church. Best wishes, MrComplexity (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

nasty question: are you involved in building the boats and that Ilen-orgqanisation? The Banner talk 20:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Albania WW2 Ally

Albania intensively fought against the Axis powers through a resistance war [37]. Whilst under Italian and German occupation, Albanians resisted in a guerilla warfare which was directed by the communist partizans. [38] The resistance was appreciated by the allied forces who sent British emissaries to Albania to coordinate the attacks of the National Liberation Movement[39] (LANC) on the Axis forces located in the region. [40] [41] Over the course of the war Albania suffered around (including civilians) 30,000 killed, 12,600 wounded and 44,500 imprisoned or deported. [42] Given the small population of ca. 1 million at the time of the war, the losses of lives consist of 3% of the population. In addition, Albania was the only country in Europe where the number of Jewish people after the war was higher than before, as a result of the protection from the local population. [43]

Dear TheBanner, why do you keep reverting back the status of Albania to an Axis power. This is clearly a hoax. Please do any minimum research on WW2 and you can very easily see that. Albania was occupied by Italy 1939-1943 and then by Germany 1943-1944. The people fought against the occupation in a guerrila / partizan stile of war in a National Liberation Movement. There is no evidence whatsoever that Albania helped Axis forces, they only had a puppet government run by the Axis, same as the Vichy government of France. Does that make France an Axis power? Please these are very naive arguments, countries under occupation which fight under the occupation can not be perceived as being on the side of the occupator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.207.212 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You had no edits at all, so I have started an sockpuppet investigation against you.
It was a nice trick to move Albania from the Axis side to the Allied side, unfortunately my books tell a different story. The Banner talk 21:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Which books? Can you provide any trustable source claiming Albania was an Axis state? Seriosly, is this a joke?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_resistance_during_World_War_II

This Axis-story might have been created by anyone, but is anything than true. I fully understand that you are shocked about not knowing it, but that is not my fault. Sorry for that. This is better judged by historians, which have clearly acknowledged the fact that Albania fought a liberation war against Axis and was among the few countries to be liberated without military help from the big Allies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.207.212 (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

We need independent, reliable sources. No links to other Wikipedia-articles. And certainly not to an article so poorly sourced as the one you have mentioned. And also proper referrals to book, including pages numbers and ISBN. Unless you bring up reliable sources that overthrow the current consensus among independent historians, everything stays the same. Ow, and about the declaration of war to the USA that you deny: [1]. The Banner talk 21:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks for being open-minded enough to start talking. I can immediately provide sources, and there are much more if you want.

Fischer, Bernd Jürgen. Albania at war, 1939-1945. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1999. Hibbert, Reginald. Albania's national liberation struggle: the bitter victory. Pinter Pub Ltd, 1991.

I do not blame you for not knowing, please accept my apologies if this sounded offensive.

The brief story is as follows: - April 1939, Italy invades Albania. The king of Albania and its government do a mild resistance against the Italians but are defeated. - 1939. Italians invade most Albanian cities and create a puppet administration government (not elected or approved by Albanians) - 1941-1945. Albanians gather against the occupation driven by communist politicians. They create a National Liberation Front army that comprised at its peak of 70.000 soldiers. They resided in the mountains and rural regions because the main cities were occupied by the Axis forces. - 1943 - Italy capitulates and the territories it held were taken over by German forces. - 1941-1945 - The National Liberation Front fought extensively against the Axis forces, and according to the sources ca 28.000 soldiers and 30.000 total Albanian people die in the fight against Italy and Germany.

I saw your reference claiming that Albania declared war on USA. Probably that is the source of the hoax. First, do you have the original official war declaration document. Second, how can you claim that the few people of the puppet government set in place by the Axis represent the state of Albania. The only legitimate state at the time was the Monarchy which was defeated by Italy and no other elections were held during the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.207.212 (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read again what you were writing here. You just state that there was a resistance movement that was fighting their own government. But why should a resistance movement fight the government when the government was on the same side (i.e. Allied)? The Banner talk 22:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


Ok, got the source of your confusion. The pro-Axis 'government' of Albania that you are mentioning was not the real elected government of Albania, but a fictitious puppet government created by the Axis, same as the Vichy in France and other occupied countries. Albania at the time was a monarchy led by King Zog, after the defeat he escaped and was located in London. Sure Albanians did fight against this pro-Axis puppet government. After the war, when communists defeated the Germans in 1944 and took power, then most of the pro-Axis government officials were executed as collaborators with the Axis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.207.212 (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, mate, you are telling nonsense. King Zog was perhaps de jure the head of state, but not de facto. The de facto government was the Italian puppet that declared war against the USA. I can imagine that you get confused by that difference, especially because at the end of the war the communist replaced the Italians/Italian puppets as de facto government and later also de jure. As stated in the article about King Zog: While some Albanians continued to resist, "a large part of the population ... welcomed the Italians with cheers", according to one contemporary account.[1]. The Banner talk 22:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Fascist Soldiers Take over Tirana (...)". The New York Times. New York City: The New York Times Company. 9 April 1939. p. 33. Retrieved 14 July 2011.

There were cheers in every capital where the Nazis were able to parade, this newspaper article about cheers can not be a serious historical source.

Even more sources:

1- Albania in the Twentieth Century, A History: Volume II: Albania in Occupation and War, 1939-45, Owen Pearson, 2006, ISBN-13: 978-1845110147 ISBN-10: 1845110145; http://www.amazon.com/Albania-Twentieth-Century-History-Occupation/dp/1845110145

2 -War in the Balkans: An Encyclopedic History from the Fall of the Ottoman Empire to the Breakup of Yugoslavia, Richard C. Hall, 2014, ISBN-10: 1610690303, ISBN-13: 978-1610690300 (see Section: Albania in World War 2)

3- http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/al_antif.html

-- From what I see you have no historical sources whatsoever claiming that Albanians fought together with the Axis forces against the Allies. Only one newspaper article about cheers and another web-link without any official document claiming that a puppet Albania government with no army declared war on USA. On the contrary I have plenty of historic books (from independent sources as you can see) clearly showing that there was an armed resistance against the Axis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.207.212 (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Mate, that resistance movement was against the acting government, the Italian puppeteers. That movement was not the government. Ow, and read Italian invasion of Albania. The Banner talk 22:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


No, absolutely not true. The resistance movement was an anti-fascist movement against the Italian occupation. And yes, you are right, also against the puppet government which allied together with it. However, the puppet government didn't have a fighting army. The battles fought were against the Italian and the German divisions located in Albania. That is even acknowledged by documents and war photos on this website: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=184180&start=15

---


Even more online sources written by non-Albanians:


http://countrystudies.us/albania/151.htm

--

http://motherearthtravel.com/albania/history-9.htm

--

A nice testimony from an american pilot whose plane was dropped in Albania, mentioning the resistance forces who helped him survive in nazi-occupied Albania

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130523-world-war-ii-veteran-nazi-crash-survive-albania-secret-rescue/

--

I guess the problem here is a bit political. After WW2 the communists took control in Albania and a brutal dictatorship was established. For this reason, the western media and perhaps the general public does not openly recognize that those communists allied against the Axis in WW2. Nevertheless, history is unique and we should tell the truth to people. As I said, Axis powers were a fighting force and Albanians didn't fight together with the Axis against the Allies (mention a single battle whatsoever that Albanians fought together with Italy and Germany against Allies). On the contrary as the sources clearly indicate the communists fought against the fascists and the nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.207.212 (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


Yet another source on the resistance against Nazis:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/albania_resistance.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.207.212 (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't care that the communist took control, that is not interesting for this article. That fact is that before the Germans left Albania (they left due to the defeats of the army against Russia, they were not kicked out) there was some kind of government in Albania, either Italian or Germany sponsored) and the resistance was fighting against that. That government was not fighting the Italians or the Germans. The resistance did that, but they were not the government. The Banner talk 23:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Great we have an agreement, the Albanian resistance, which was the only Albanian fighting force was fighting the Italians and the Germans. And there was never any Albanian army which fought together with the Axis against the allies. That is undeniable I believe even by your side.

The 'government' you are mentioning was not de jure the elected government of Albania, it was not recognized by the Allies, neither by the League of Nations. The only internationally recognized government of that time was the monarchy of King Zog. The next internationally recognized government was the communist regime, after the elections of December 1945.

In addition, as the sources show, even during the war most of the territories of Albania were controlled by the resistance. So even de-facto, the Italians and the puppet government did not control Albania entirely. So claiming Albania was allied to the Axis forces is definitely an historical hoax.

There were many puppet governments created by the Axis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_puppet_states#Germany

1. Slovak, 2. Bohemia and Moravia (Czech), 3. French, 4. Hellenic (Greek), 5. Norwegian, 6. Belarussian, 7. Croatian, 8. Monaco, 9. Italian

However, some of those governments not necessarily were affiliated with the Axis. For instance, Albanians, Greeks, and partially French clearly fought against the Axis. The fact that the Axis set puppet governments, not recognized internationally, unsupported and un-elected by the people, does not mean that all those states were Axis states.

I can claim tomorrow to be the prime minister of Ireland and declare war on USA. Does this argument it make sense to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.207.212 (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, holy Moses. What do you not understand on the fact that the Italian sockpuppets were the de facto government? They controlled the gendarmes, they paid the wages of the government officials. Official or not, internationally recognised or not, they held the reigns of power (with Italian and German military support, okay). There was no other effective government in Albania (Zog was in Great-Britain, as you hopefully know). Hoxha and his partisans were supporting the Allied cause, but they were not the government before the Germans fled. The Banner talk 00:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I can claim tomorrow to be the prime minister of Ireland and declare war on USA. Does this argument it make sense to you? Geee, don't do that. We will have a problem housing and feeding so many prisoners of war. The Banner talk 00:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The way the articles are currently prepare do not reflect the reality, that is my problem. If one external reader would go through those articles, s/he would get the wrong impression that Albanians were allied to the Axis, which is not true. Most Albanians (as post-war elections show the partisans had majority of people's support) fought against the Axis. In that aspect the article is a deformation of the truth. I believe this issue can objectively fixed by rigorously telling the truth:

--- 1. That there was a fighting resistance of the Albanians National Liberation Front army against Italy and Germany. It clearly should be acknowledged in the Allied page, since it was in alliance with the Yugoslavs and British (sources above prove the collaboration). There are very serious independent sources backing up the resistance against the Axis. We can add it to the Minor Combatant Nations.

--- 2. Yes, undoubtedly there was another side of the coin, an Axis-controlled puppet government in Albania under occupation. We can add that in the Axis Power page, however we should clarify that it was not internationally recognized by the Allies, neither by the League of Nations and not elected by the people. In addition it was not a fighting force in the war, it possessed no army and did not participate in any battle. However to be fair to Albanians, you should then add a section about all the puppet governments of WW2. And there should be clearly stated that the officially recognized Albanian government of the time was the monarchy of King Zog, which resided in London, UK.

--- Do you agree with the above actions as a reasonable representation of the historical facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.207.212 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No.
In Axis powers that actors are defined as (...) were the nations that fought in the Second World War against the Allied forces.
In Allies of World War II the actors were defined as (..) were the countries that opposed the Axis powers (...)
So they are talking about countries/nations. Not about resistance movements. The Banner talk 00:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

1. The Axis case: Albania as a "nation" did not "fight" against the Allied forces. Do you have any source claiming that the Albanian "nation" fought against the Allied forces? Even a single battle. And as you see I can provide you with plenty of sources claiming that Albanians "fought" against Axis.

Here the definition is "to fight" and there was no fight whatsoever against the Allies. Is that crystal clear?

2. The Allied Force: Why the does the first article refer to nations and the seconds to countries, these are different concepts. A nation can exist across different countries, or a country can comprise different nations. Anyway that is not the point, it just shows the amateurism of those articles.

2.1 - Then why does Greece, who also had a puppet pro-Axis government is mentioned as the Greek resistance? 2.2 - Or the Czechoslovakia, which had a puppet government (see list above) and which did not have a fighting force against the Axis? 2.3 - Even Luxemburg which had a government in exile, same as Albania is mentioned as a Minor Combatant Nation. 2.4 - Even Norway is mentioned there, whose people didn't fight a single battle against the Axis. 2.5 - Yugoslavia, which was under occupation and had a puppet state and also created a resistance force of a partisan style is mentioned here. Why Albania not?

I am struggling to find any meaning at the treatment you are doing to Albania, the only feeling I have is discrimination. I am requesting no preferential treatment to Albania. On the contrary as sources show, they had much more fighting contribution than Luxemburg, Norway or Netherlands, similar to the Yugoslavs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.207.212 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Czechoslovakia had a fighting force in active service. See Siege of Tobruk. See Battle of Rimini (1944) for the most well known Greek fighting unit. Belgium and Luxembough shared the 1st Belgian Infantry Brigade. The Netherlands had the[[Royal Netherlands Motorized Infantry Brigade|Princess Irene Brigade]. Both were active in North-France, Belgium and the Netherlands. For Norway see German_occupation_of_Norway#Exiled_Norwegian_forces. And see for instance List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons
On the other hand, the only Albanian forces fighting abroad were supporting the Italians during the Uprising in Montenegro.
So, you had your fun, but you just have no arguments for your POV. Good night. The Banner talk 01:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


The definition of actors doesn't state that the forces need to be abroad. Sorry it seems you have no arguments, but are just twisting your arguments to other topics.

Greece and Yugoslavia was not a fighting country, but a resistance force same as Albania. The battle of Rimini was not fought by the de facto Greek government, but the exiled one, please read the article? Either you take the resistance as a factor, or the de facto government. Albanian resistance included armed groups of King Zog as well.

I provided you plenty of references. It seems you are biased against Albania and blindly refuse any scientific source I give you in favor of pseudo-arguments. Is it possible for Wikipedia to recruit a serious historian/professionals to judge this case? Otherwise, you can simply say no to every fact, we can never agree and I lose my precious time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.207.212 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

What you gave is utterly useless for use in an encyclopaedia. Why don't you try to read WP:RS, a page about reliable sources. Try to grasp the ideas of WP:NPOV. And try to understand is that we build an encyclopaedia that is reliable (and properly sourced) and neutral in tone and style. When you understand that, come back. The Banner talk 02:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I am a researcher and trust me, the history books I provided are much more reliable that the newspaper article on "people cheering" and the weblink you pointed to. So unless you have any trustable sources against the historical books I provided, then please refer to the Albanian resistance in the Allied forces thread. I am also notifying the admin Drmies on the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.207.212 (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

One last attempt. Do you agree that
  1. there was an Italian/German sponsored puppet government in Albania?
  2. the partisans did not form a government before the Germans fled?
  3. there was no effort to assist the Allied cause outside Albania's borders with a fighting force?
  4. the Italian/German sponsored puppet government supported the Italian and German war efforts against other nations (Greece, Montenegro) and the resistance movement?
The Banner talk 02:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


I created a discussion post at Drmies' page, you can provide your arguments and scientific historic sources there.

Great, while you are enjoying your beer tasting discussions, please unblock the wiki page on Allies, so that I can enter the contribution of the Albanian National Liberation Front against the Axis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.207.212 (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There is need to unprotect that page. What you want is claiming that a popular movement is was the de facto government and as so synonymous for the country of Albania. This simple not the truth. End of story.
In the whole discussion you have not provided any convincing evidence for your stance, making it nothing more than your private opinion. As Wikipedia is neutral and evidence-based, there is no place for your opinion in both pages. Sorry. I do have sympathy for the partisans because they did a marvellous job under extremely difficult circumstances. But they were never "the legal government" until the last stages of the war when the Germans had fled and they had taken control. During the war, even Tito and his partisans were not recognised as government. They were recognised as an effective fighting force instead.
And with this, I close the discussion. No more responses will follow. The Banner talk 10:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear TheBanner, I did not provide opinions but only scientific historical sources. The fact that Tito was not recognized as a government does not invalidate the struggle of his partisans against the Axis. Then following your argument, if the Yugoslav partisans did not have a government, then why is Yugoslavia registered in the article as a Minor Combatant Force? Can you please apply the principle of symmetry to the Albanian case? -- What I am trying to explain (despite your resistance to listen) is that: The Albanian people fought against the Axis (as the historical sources clearly indicate) and this struggle should be acknowledged similar to all the other nations who fought against the Axis. -- Please bring any alternative scientific source claiming that the Albanian people did not fight against the Axis, not your personal opinion. If you have no source to back up the expressed opinion of yours, then please enter the section of the Albanian National Liberation Front to a section Albania under Minor Combatant Nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LupinoJacky (talk • contribs) 10:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

MSC Cruises

Please see my comments at AfD and consider withdrawing the nomination. I've semi-protected the article for a while, so if you want to clean it up, you won't get reverted by the IPs. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice rhetoric

Totally bypassed RfA... Like I told the student today who couldn't correctly say "Logres" (or even "dubbed"...), try to sound like you know how to say it. If the others believe it you've won half the battle. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I just found it funny that he was thinking I was an admin. If I am optimistic, I guess I have a chance of 0%, perhaps less. The Banner talk 22:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

Unreferenced Content in Page WW2 in Yugoslavia

The page has a scope on the War in Yugoslavia during WW2. There was no army of Albania fighting against Yugoslavia, therefore the reference is wrong and is removed.

If you have a reference that connects an official army of Albania fighting in Yugoslavia, then you are invited to add the reference.

Otherwise please do not interfere in correcting the page based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it.

LupinoJacky (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Total nonsense, my friend. Infoboxes are never sourced, as the essential info and sources are in the article. So stop pushing your POV. The Banner talk 00:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary Reverts

Dear TheBanner, you have repeatedly reverted my edits without providing any historic evidence to any of the raised discussions. If you continue to do so, I would rightfully report your behavior to an incident board. LupinoJacky (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

If I was you, I would pay attention to the discussion that is now going on on WP:AN and the talkpages of the affected articles. Several editors are now backing up my story and disapproving your story. The Banner talk 17:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Château Neercanne

Dit klopt wel, maar dan ga je voorbij aan het rijtje eronder, er zijn meer chef-koks geweest met een Michillinster. Of je moet ze gewoon in de tekst zetten, of het incomplete rijtje kan beter weg.

Nav een OTRS-mail kun je dit ook beter zichtbaar in het artikel zetten. Iemand beklaagt zich over het feit dat het rijtje niet klopt met het kopje. (Maakt mij niet uit hoe we het oplossen hoor, als het maar duidelijk wordt.) Ciell (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Als er meer chefs zijn geweest die een Michelinster droegen, hoor ik dat graag. Tot op heden heb ik ze niet gevonden. Maar als ik een naam heb om op te zoeken, lukt het misschien wel. The Banner talk 17:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Het kopje heet toch "Head Chefs" niet "Head Chefs with a Michillin star"? Ciell (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Het is artikel in de serie over restaurants met een Michelinster, vandaar dat alleen chef-koks met een ster daadwerkelijk interessant zijn. Had ik echter andere namen, dan zou ik ze wel noemen. En ik verdenk de geschiedenis er van minstens één chef-kok te verbergen die actief was in de periode 1978-1986. Maar de focus is dus gewoon: restaurant met Michelinster. The Banner talk 17:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Linda and Chad Johnson

Can you explain why you removed Linda Johnson (disambiguation) and Chad Johnson (disambiguation) from the list of Johnsons? And your edit here shows vandalism, not repairing of links.--Mishae (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Links to disambiguation pages are no links to valid articles? Really? What if a person want to see a list of multiple Johnsons which have the same name?--Mishae (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You do not own that article. And conform WP:LISTPEOPLE a list of people should contain links to articles of people. A disambiguation page is not a valid article. You should replace a links to a disambiguation page by the content of that disambiguation page. You dodgy edits made that the list showed up in the maintenance "Articles With Multiple Dablinks" ([2]) as having 66 links to disambiguation pages (at the moment of count.
Instead of making false accusation of vandalism, you better start working: not by replacing a links to a disambiguation page but by placing the content of that disambiguation page instead. The Banner talk 02:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that instead on putting Chad Johnson (disambiguation), I should put the list:
And so on?--Mishae (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes! Easy as that. Ow, by the way. When you open the dp you get a brownish block in sight stating This is not an article; this is a disambiguation page, for directing readers quickly to intended articles. Thank you. The Banner talk 02:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Ironically user @Materialscientist: doesn't agree on that.--Mishae (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess @Materialscientist: did not realize that he just restored 77 links to disambiguation pages. Even more, because he is referring to "all Johnson's wikiarticles" while what he was doing was restoring "all Johnson's disambiguationpages". But it does not matter. Just replace the incorrect link by the content. The Banner talk 03:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If every disambiguation link that you removed has it's contents put on List of people with surname Johnson, isn't that page going to be way too long? My involvement was only to prevent the links from showing up on the WP:DPL lists, but I didn't have any intention of removing them completely. However, if WP:CONSENSUS is to remove all disambiguation links from surname pages and put every name on them, I have no issue with that. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 03:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

List of people are supposed to link to articles of people. And DPs are not articles. I have never heard anything else then: write them out. The Banner talk 03:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) This is not about Johnson (pick a very common surname like Smith or Ivanov (surname)). Yes, I personally disagree that all daughter disambiguation pages should be merged into the parent one, for two main reasons: (i) the parent one will become too long; (ii) there will be a content fork, but we can't delete daughters, because they are all legitimate, and we don't want to update lists in several articles at once. This issue is handled differently on different wikis, and anyone who disagrees with the current practice on en.wiki should start a community-wide discussion instead of edit warring (I guess this is not a new issue). Materialscientist (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It would make sense when you are talking about long lists of names at one DP, like Robert Smith. For short list like Linda Johnson (disambiguation), with just 3 names it is just a customer service as the reader is more likely to find the right article. The Banner talk 03:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind when you go on with this discussion, but I quit. See you guys at the other end of the night. The Banner talk 03:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Length is a matter of personal preference. Ru.wiki uniformly merges all daughters, even for monster names like Ivanov. We don't, and any attempt to change this should be uniform, but this would result in relinking chaos, which I oppose. Double disambiguation is allowed, see WP:DDAB. Materialscientist (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@Materialscientist: My proposition is a bit different. You see, me and @Niceguyedc: are currently discussing what to do with disambig articles in surnames. From my point of view, it looks reasonable to remove redirects from names and surnames because it looks very irritating for both readers and users alike. The irritation is the thing under certain surname like Adam Johnson for example which says Redirected from [blue link]. By clicking on Adam Johnson (disambiguation) the link sends us to Adam Johnson list. I don't see a point in using Adam Johnson (disambiguation) on a list of List of people with surname Johnson if I click on Adam Johnson on that list without a redirect.--Mishae (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Double redirects should be avoided, and this is fixed by bots, as far as I know. This issue is different from WP:DDAB. Materialscientist (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@Materialscientist: You misunderstood me. My plan was to use Adam Johnson on surname page rather then Adam Johnson (disambiguation). My other suggestion, and that will be better for King, Smith, and Johnson surnames is to use something like this. An alphabetic tree that works great with surnames that are huge.--Mishae (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

??????????????????????

Then why did you deleted the gallery, time table and other things. Sapt Kranti Express. Answer me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanmay Tarun (talk • contribs) 13:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Because the gallery did not contain useful pictures. They were not making think more clear, what is where pictures must be used for. They are not decoration. The Banner talk 14:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Range block

I see that someone has used several IP addresses of the form 2a02:120b:c3d0:9fc0:x:x:x:x to attempt to harass you by reverting your edits and posting childish messages relating to you. I have blocked the IP range for a month. Please feel welcome to contact me if the trouble comes back again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Any idea where that range is coming from? In the past I had some trouble with a, according to a Dutch CU, Japanese guy acting as a Korean. But that guy was just plain rude. The Banner talk 21:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The range is from an ISP in Switzerland, called "Bluewin", as you can see here. By a funny coincidence the IP address 188.61.9.252, which you recently mentioned to me, is also from Bluewin in Switzerland, as you can see here. I have blocked 188.61.9.252. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, very interesting. It happens that a Swiss user named "FFA P-16" is very unhappy with me. He has done many instances of sockpuppettering. On ENWP just good for this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16/Archive. But on the Dutch Wikipedia good for this: nl:Overleg gebruiker:FFA P-16/blockmsg. The Banner talk 20:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
That blockmessage also contains "85.5.142.60", coming from Bluewin. The Banner talk 20:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

Reporting Illegitimate Reversions

Dear TheBanner,

Please let me inform you that your revert labeled as "POV" of my insertion on the Allies page, where I provided source-backed figures on war casualties, is reported to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Reporting_Illegitimate_Reversions . LupinoJacky (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

yes, there is one irrelevant part sourced. The rest is unsourced and POV. The Banner talk 19:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Its good he reported cause enough was enough, hope admins will have patience and see boomerang coming to LJ. Regarding the articles, all related with Albania during WWII are full of crap, POV and weasel wording, it is time to add sourced material and remove all unsourced. LJ just shot himself in his own feet cause he doesn't have any sources for what he wants. 19:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Aan de Poel

Hi. I see that you reverted my link to nl:De Poel (Amstelveen) in Aan de Poel. The reason I added that is because red links are an invitation to create an article, and the easiest way to create an article is to translate the existing article in the original language. Is there any problem with that? And even if readers aren't going to create the article, you don't think they might be interested in the type of lake, or the neighborhood where the restaurant is located? I was.

I should probably say that I came across this restaurant while looking into the great Michelin Guide debate on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). I am thinking of reopening this debate, because I think our current footnote is rather incoherent. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

How many people can read Dutch?
And why would you reopen the discussion? When you look in the archives you can see that there has been several discussion about Michelin restaurant. And the footnote is quite clear to me: just being mentioned in the Guide is not enough, you have to supply more sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 19:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, whoever writes the De Poel article is going to have to read Dutch. Even I can, to some extent. It's not that different from English and German.
About the footnote, the English is a bit mangled and I think it's fundamentally confused. It says that stars in the Guide count "toward" notability. Which agrees with what most of our authors and the overwhelming majority of our readers think – if a restaurant gets 2 or 3 stars then of course it's notable. No question. That's why you are writing these articles on starred restaurants, right?
But then the guideline takes it all back and says that it still needs to meet GNG to be notable. In other words, this rule is like all the others, written by the GNG absolutists who dominate the notability talk pages and AfD discusssions. Nothing else matters. If nothing else matters, why bother even mentioning the Guide? This is confusing, and reflected in the language, which sounds confused. To me anyway. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it does not. The footnote says "Inclusion in the Guide count towards notability." But just being mentioned in de MG does not make a restaurant notable. Indeed, you need more sources to prove that. In effect, when a restaurant has or had stars there will be enough independent sources. For restaurants with a Bib Gourmand it is very likely that there independent sources. But for the rest I would not make a bet for it. In short: the higher on the scale, the more independent sources you can find. The Banner talk 23:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Events happening in Dublin

Hi! As you tagged yourself as being in Ireland, I hope you don't mind me reaching out. We know have a recognised Wikimedia Community Ireland User Group and we have been running workshops and other events in Dublin and beyond. In case you are interested our next event will be this Saturday in Collins Barracks, you can find the details here. Smirkybec (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice when there will be some public activities outside Dublin, User:Smirkybec. It is a long and expensive way from Clare to Dublin. The Banner talk 23:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Well what we need is support of Wikipedians and others to get events going in other places! If you check out Wikimedia Community Ireland User Group you'll see we've run events in Galway and are always on the look out to help people set up events anywhere around the country. There is the possibility of beginning to run events in Limerick later this year. If you're interested in what we're doing, we have weekly meetings that you can join via Googlehangouts if you're want to chat. As the majority of us are based in Dublin the bias is inevitable, but the journey from Dublin to Clare has the same limitations! Smirkybec (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
For starters, I have not clue what Googlehangout is. (I'm an old bloke.) And Limerick, with its direct train connection to Dublin, would be an acceptable alternative. The Banner talk 23:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Well Googlehangouts are the Google version of Skype, if you have any accounts with them (gmail etc) you can use it, we just send you a link, and if you have a mic/speakers you can join our meetings remotely. So far we are talking to the University in Limerick to get events going there, but having family there myself I'd love to have events with somewhere like the Hunt Museum or Kind John's Castle. Are you on the Irish Wikimedia mailing list? If you are any details of upcoming events would be included. We're always interested to hear from Wikipedians about ideas for events or out reach! :) Smirkybec (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, I have no skype, I have no Gmail and I try to avoid the curious Google thingies as much as possible (with the exception of the searchmachine). But I do have a subscroption on the mailing list when you are referring to "WikimediaIE Digest, Vol 33, Issue 5". Do you have a Facebook-page? The Banner talk 16:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
That's the mailing list alright, and yes we are on Facebook as WikimediaIreland, we'd be delighted if you threw us a like! Smirkybec (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Smirkybec: to come back at the prior discussion... what about organising a photo-hunt in Limerick in combination with Wiki Loves Monuments/Wiki Loves Art? The Banner talk 01:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Wonderful suggestion, we ran a photowalk for WLM in Cork last year, so would love to roll it out to other cities/locations. Seeing as we are hoping to run an event with the art college there, this could tie in beautifully, thanks very much for that! Smirkybec (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hermes for Switzerland

Sorry just saw now that i used the wrong (old) refernce , will build in the right one now (unfortunatly also only in german)

This one is the right one : http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/de/home/dokumentation/assets/beschaffungen_vorhaben/ads15.html "Beschafft werden sollen sechs unbewaffnete Aufklärungsdrohnen Hermes 900 HFE des israelischen Anbieters Elbit Systems" "Die Beschaffung erfolgt hauptsächlich im Zeitraum 2016 bis 2019. Die Auslieferung der Drohnen und des Bodenmaterials erfolgt 2019. 2020 soll das neue Aufklärungsdrohnensystem einsatzbereit sein."

Sorry that i used the wrong, old one, hope now it is OK. FFA P-16 (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope you can change the text a little bit more into proper English. The source is okay now. The Banner talk 23:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Pilatus PC-24

Well the page is about the PC-24, so the very first engine run of the PC-24 is a milestone in the Program. Also it is the first Jetengine testrun for Pilatus because all Pilatus aircraft before the PC-24 are not Jetengine equiped aircraft (Turboprop is not the same). So I don't would say it is unimportant for this topic. There are not much pictures of a real PC-24 at the moment, so my idea was to put in this link until better clips /photos exist.. and then chanche it (i had written this as reason for changin your edit again). How ever as you not agree with this, lets hope in a few months good pictures and movies (from the first flight?) will be aviable and can be found on the wiki commons. Unfortunatly i don't know the exact day for the first flight not yet. Bye FFA P-16 (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It is completely not relevant. Every single motor and every single motor type gets tested on the workbench before it comes close to a plane. A configuration is thoroughly tested before a plane even comes out of the hangar. So your engine run is nothing more than "let us make some noise in front of an audience". The Banner talk 22:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well yes every engine get tested first on the workbench and has a first run before it get build in an aircraft. But even after this a even if it is not a new engine , if its just back from the maintenance and is build in the exactly same aircraft. A engine testrun on the ground is normal (I have chanched a few F-5E engines (GE J-85) to knew this). Well such standart engine testruns are nothing special for an aircraft who is in service since some time. But in the history of an aircraft type the roll out, the first engine run, the first hig speed taxiing and the first flight are something special. "let us make some noise in front of an audience" its in the case of the PC-24 not quit right because there was no audience, and the reason was not to made noise but to thest the proper work of the combination of aircraft and engine ( respond of the engine of on the Pilots inputs, are the instrument readings in the Cockpit correct to the Engineparameter and so one. and btw its not my engine testrun  :-) How ever I look forward to the first flight of the PC-24. Wish you a good night, bye FFA P-16 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It is just part of a normal testprogram. The Banner talk 09:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is just part of the normal testprogram, but my idea was that because it is by the very first aircraft of this type and the first flight not yet has been made, this give some idea how far the PC-24 programm is at the moment. Well I think the "case" is closed as not only you but also other people think this information is not needet on english wikipedia.... and I think we can expect the first flight of the PC-24 in the next 35days. Something other, as we often dont see the same thing as same important, and before i spend time on it, a question. Some days ago some medias (20 Minuten) had made public the numbers of Live and Hot-Missions of the Swiss Air Force in 2013 and 2014 (2014 277 Livemissions and 15 Hot-Missions) I was thinking about to build in thes numbers in the Swiss air Force page. As the Medias have only given 2013&2014 but it is possibel to get the numbers of mission of every year back to 2007. What do you think? Good or bad Idea? Bye FFA P-16 (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Minor detail: what are "Live and Hot-Missions"? The Banner talk 10:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Like you knew the Swiss Air Force is apure defensive airforce, so most of the flight's of the fixedwing aircraft are trainingsmissions (if we have a look at the Pilatus Pc-7, PC-9, Pc-21 F-5 and F/A-18) Live-Missions and Hot-Missions are no training (but these are of course also practiced in the training). the swiss air force has the right to do a Live-Mission at any time on any aircraft without a reason who is inside of the swiss airspace (and airspace of Lichtenstein). so theoretical on any aircraft .. also airliner. But it is usual to do live Missions only on aircraft with a Diplomatic Clearance.. and only state aircraft can get a diplomatic clearance, State aircraft are Military aircraft (for eg GAF C-160 Transall, a CL-415 of the French Sécurité Civile,a Airbus 310 of the Turkish goverment, or the Fokker 70 PH-KBX of the Royals from Netherland and also of civil aircraft whohave a mission from the Goverment like if Monarch Airlines transport British soldier from/to afganistan. By this Live_Missions the fighterpilot describes the airplane (Typ Wing's Tail for eg Airliner Type Low-wing 2 engine on the back T-Tail), the Immatriculation (Regristration.. eg PH-KBX[3] , and what is written on the aircraft. al this datas get checked if they are equal to the Flightplan and Diplomatic clerance. Only with this you can see if a transit flight is a Pax/Transport AC Beechcraft C-12 Huron or if it is a RC-12 spy Ac because in the ICAO flightplan both are declared as BE20. Thats in short what Live-Missions are in the Swiss air force.

HOT-Missions are real time emergency Missions, Intercepting aircraft (Jets, Props, Helicopters , Ballons) if they enter a restrictet area (for eg WEF World Economic Forum Davos or a activ AA Anti-aircraft warfare Shooting area, or the CTRControl zone / TMA Terminal control area of an Airport without autorisation. also interception of state aircraft who enter swiss air space whitout Diplomatic clearange. But a Hot-Mision can also be guiding a VFR Visual flight rules AC with navigation or tecnical problems into a safe are. It is a topic on the Swiss Air Force Page [[4]] So I was thinking the numbers of Live and Hot Missions could be interesting. And as you understand German this shows such Live & Hot Missions so you can see what I talk about: shows a Hot-Mission shows differend types of Hot -Missions

Hot-Live Missions 2013 &2014 in public media [5]

Hope I have answered your question well enough. Bye FFA P-16 (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, your use of terminology and your bad English are not making it easy to understand. But I think, as far as I can understand you, that live-missions are pretty standard and not notable. The hot missions, when that includes chasing away Russian aircraft that enter airspace without permission, are probably notable enough for a limited inclusion. The Banner talk 20:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes Live-Missons are standart for the Swiss Air Force, but a few Air Forces don't do Live -Missions (for eg. Austrian Air Force or Royal Thailand Air Force, the do only Hot-Missions) Hot-Missions can be on any State aircraft if its enter swiss airspace without diplomatic clearance not only Russian, could also bee an American (NATO), a Swedish(neutral. By entering a restictet airspace a Hot Mission can be also on a civil aircraft/ Helicopter/ Balloon, glider,.. also a Hot Mission can be on an aircraft with technical problems (not working radio/transponder),violation of air traffic Rules or suspicion of hijacking. I think most people don't know how often such Live and Hot missions took place in the swiss air space therefore it was my idea to put in the numbers from 2013&2014. But from your answer I think you see no need for this. No problem for me, I was just asking. FFA P-16 (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Russian planes was just an example to get it clear. That is by now a rather popular hobby of the British and Dutch air-forces, but indeed, not the only reason to scramble a couple of planes. You should look for a more widely used term for this type of operations. The Banner talk 09:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. I think we can close this "case" and i don't put in the Live & Hot -Missions of 2013 & 2014 on the Swiss Air Force page. BTW the term Live- Mission and Hot-Mission, is not a idea from me it is the official term for this by the Swiss Air Force [6] "Im Rahmen des Luftpolizeidienstes hat die Schweizer Luftwaffe 15 (Vorjahr: 9) «Hot Missions» (Interventionen) geflogen. Zudem wurden 277 (Vorjahr: 202) «Live Missions» (Kontrolle von Staatsluftfahrzeugen) durchgeführt", the Federal Office of Civil Aviation and also used in public Medias [7] See one of the last sentens "In sogenannten Live Missions, die einer Routinekontrolle gleichkommen, überprüfen die Piloten Flugzeuge anderer Staaten – etwa Re­gierungsjets oder Frachtflieger auslän­discher Luftwaffen." Or at the 20Minuten Newspaper Link above. Just to show you that i don't have created this terms. By & have a nice week-end. FFA P-16 (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

Housekeeping Genes

We got this! I'll get around to it, or hopefully someone who is getting paid to do it! A lot of genomics people are supposed to be updating gene pages, and although a lot of human genes have nice pages, the wikipedia page sometimes has the incorrect gene name as it's title. Hopefully people that can see red may be able to find the gene and disambiguate it... if not, I'll get to it some day! Right now, I'm just trying to get the page basically updated with correct information. Thanks.... I get kinda lonely on this page! doctorwolfie (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The Burren

Hi, Banner I wrote to you earlier when you removed what you saw as promotional material from The Burren page. Not sure why you left the external link at the bottom . . . this link: Information on the history and archaeology of the Burren. If you click on the link, you'll see it leads to a private business which attracts tourists. Was that an oversight on your part?

Just trying to learn my way around wikipedia.

Thanks.

Jet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet Cooper (talk • contribs) 19:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As you can see, all your info is removed again. Partly by a bot who discovered that the text was copied from your facebook-page, partly by another editor who removed the link to the facebook-page as being deemed unsuitable per WP:LINKSTOAVOID. But when the bot had not removed the copied text, I would have removed it because is was plain advertising. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place for advertising. Information should be relevant and neutral in tone and style. They also need to be backed up by reliable (no social media), independent (no own website or related websites) and prior published (no own research) sources.

Perhaps Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user is something for you. The Banner talk 21:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Mahendra Niraula's complaints to The banner

Hello, banner With the respect to my editing about Myanglung I have been editing it for about 2 months, & when I found the exact & reference from the hard evidence then I do edits. I have used the related citations as well so, what's more you need now? Sorry, banner, you removed my edit without any reasons leaving me but why & with what cause you reverted this edits.OK, if any unreliable sources are found in course of editing, these are welcomed, to correct more but I don't see any mistakes I made here while making edits, May be you reverted as I showed color in blue to subject, but i think that does not affect with the rule of wikipedia.May be you are trying to biase me as much as you can for the reason i i entered in en wikipedia,but sorry, Wikipedia is common for all not just for me & you so, i need much reasons & why you reverted my edit.The first time article was written by someone else but it was not complete & has not included much about myanglung therefore, I continued editing it by adding new & factual proofs here. But it was not reverted by anyone but you did, i have not included any advertisings here , i know its EncyclopediaI hope, you may recheck & make the edit I made in same situation, thank you.Mahendra Niraula 12: 40, 25/ February, 2015.

What I want is a neutral writing style without useless pictograms (example: <div = ''background: #def;boarder:1px solid 485;padding:0.5em; margin: 0.5emauto;min-hight:45px> {{z11}}[[File:information.svg|lright|90px|alt=|link]] and without useless links. (Example: ==[[Brief]] [[Introduction]]==. Information should be relevant and properly written. It is no use to start a section about education and state that it is just a five minute walk (for who? It will take me far more time to get there) and continue so0me chitchat about the post office.

In short, the tone and style was absolutely not fitting in an encyclopaedia. It ws fat from neutral, in poor English and it gave me the idea that you were promoting your own village. Texts like Ncell :This Telecom runs smoothly the Sim Ncellwhich is the cheaper in price in buying in contrast to the NTC. This Corporation has no such limited trading centres or selling centres like having in NTC but it has different strategy . is clear advertising.

I suggest that you take part in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, where experienced editors can help you find your way ar5ound at Wikipedia and give you advice about tone, style and relevance. The Banner talk 20:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Goldstein

Hello, I am an acquaintance of Jerry's and am committed to shape this into a high-quality article. As someone familiar with his accomplishments, it's surprising to me that his contributions to music are not yet very well documented online - therein lies my difficulty in finding sources for some info. I realize this article is not there yet but wanted to know if you have specific guidance on improving it? Appreciate your patience as I look for sourcing for information and continue to evolve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asher14 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  1. It is frowned upon to write about a subject that you are closely associated with, as it makes it often too difficult to determine what is useful and what is promo.
  2. First thing you have to do is give proof that the subject is notable, within and outside his business. The records he produced do not make him notable, as notability is not inherited...
I suggest that you take part in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, where experienced editors can help you and guide you. The Banner talk 20:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Totally understand your reasoning, however I'm definitely not closely associated with him. I'll look more into the resources and definitions you mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.205.202 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

As reply to banner

Hi, banner I am sorry for my great errors & mistakes but I was not intending to do so but it happened by accident.You see, for about 25 days the article was just fitting as no any comments have occured.Ok, by mistake i used useless pictogram to initiate the article it's my great mistake among other mistakes but i hope, i never do so in my comming editings.Also, you have complained me about not having good english but i dont think so.The technical words to use here for Wikipedia is not thought to be good in my vision therefore, I didn't use properly it.I was not intending to make any advertisements but the title i described as long became like advertising & another accuse is that I was promoting my village but that's just your delusion, how do I promote my village when it is quite far even from my own village? So many reasons you gave me are really silly.Mahendra Niraula 8:22 ( UTC),26, feb,2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahendra Niraula (talk • contribs) 02:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

NAC revert

Per WP:NACD, "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures. If this happens, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure with an appropriate notice ...". Please revert yourself, and follow normal process if you'd like to have the close overturned. Alakzi (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a case about policies, not vote counting. That is why the case is not suitable for closure by a non-admin. Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator. The Banner talk 10:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
That does not give you the right to revert my close. Alakzi (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Ow, yes, it does. Because you have breached the rules for a non-admin close as this involved a controversial case. The Banner talk 11:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

79.97.222.210

I see you have encountered the disruptive IP that I have had to deal with for the past month or so. I had filed an AN/I already but it closed due to lack of response. I have the feeling with his continued antics a new one is in call for seeing as he is now spreading wider and being reverted on those articles he picks by other editors. Mabuska (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I fear that you have to refresh my memory a bit. The Banner talk 11:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Found it already. The f**l on Catholic Emancipation. I will keep an eye out. The Banner talk 11:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you should have a look at "User:Frenchmalawi", active on Ulster. has about the same hobbies (Ireland and Israel) and seems to think that Ulster and Northern Ireland are identical. The Banner talk 11:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Clare

I was wondering why there was some omissions. Quis separabit? 22:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Because some wiseguy made a separate template for civil parishes although he (and friends) often did no know the difference between a village and a parish. The Banner talk 22:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you for taking back an AfD nomination. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 10

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
  • New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
  • TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

Mahendra Niraula's edit of Myanglung

Hi Banner, Thanks for message. I have asked him to write precisely and even suggested to write in Nepali. For this page I will try to improve the content. Further, I will try to encourage him to practice more in his sandbox before trying with article.--Ganesh Paudel (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Janet Jackson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Janet Jackson, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. wia (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing and hounding with allegations of bad faith on GMO comment

Hi The Banner, Your recent comment on the 'Canvassing and hounding' ANI discussion is ambiguous. You appear to be referring to Jytdog, but the placement suggests that the comment is a call for David Tornheim to be warned/topic banned. If your comment does refer to Jytdog alone, you may want to move it into the 'Jytdog's behavior' section of that lengthy discussion.Dialectric (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I have moved it to the right spot. The Banner talk 15:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice, please

We all have busy lives, but there was no need to get "terse" with me on this.[8] I didn't know that the editor in question is considered disruptive. Their English seems poor, but other than that, I didn't see anything particularly wrong with the edits - except it left on image duplicated. Lightbreather (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry when I sounded terse, I am only human. I think I have removed the pictures of the pavement about 50 times already. The IP and the registered account were already blocked for disruptive editing. They did not seem to get the message. The Banner talk 17:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you.
I haven't been there in a few years, but the pavement picture appears to be a good-faith attempt to include a photo of the mercado area of the city. Last time I was there, it was undergoing a major renovation with bricks that look a lot like the ones in that photo. I am going to study the image some more, and maybe try to contact the editor, to see if I can verify this. Lightbreather (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Even so, that pavement is not suitable to be the main picture... The Banner talk 18:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

Diocese etc.

Hi Banner, I see you reverted some edits I made, can you give me a response here if I have the wrong approach to the following;

  • A template linking to a redirect page, sending you to a disambiguation page seems a bit of a loop, I amended so that the template goes straight to the disambiguation page a much more direct route, is this not best practice?
  • I removed from the template a non-ambiguous entry as this seems irrelevant to the template itself, was this wrong?
  • I added the template to one diocese page as per all the other dioceses listed on this template, which you also reverted, should there not be consistency.

Kind regards The Original Filfi (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No, what you did was reinstating links to disambiguation pages. Effect of your edit was that the template was linking to 19 different disambiguation pages. The redirect is a trick used in template to solve that for the eye of the world. Secondly, disambiguation pages are only for disambiguation not for navigation templates or long texts. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 14:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Banner, not sure I understand your response, after your revert the template is still linking to disambiguation pages.

On the template/page as an example and for clarity, the first entry on "Template:Canadian Bishops" is "Primate of Canada" this links to "Primate of Canada (disambiguation)" which redirects to "Primate of Canada" which is also a disambiguation page and notated as such.

The "eye of the world" would not see any difference if "Primate of Canada (disambiguation)" was the end of the chain or if that page was omitted from the chain and linked straight to "Primate of Canada", unless you are saying the template itself is outside of the manual of style and should itself be discontinued in due course, this seems to make some sense to me, as in, remove template call from each of the effected pages and then delete template (in 30+ days once idle), delete "Primate of Canada (disambiguation)", keep the only page that achieves anything "Primate of Canada". Hope this is not annoying, teaching or guiding me in this. The Original Filfi (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

That is why I stated that a trick was used.
In your version the template was directly linking to disambiguation pages. Something that was noticed by maintenance bots and they said that each and every article where the template was used contained 19 links to disambiguation pages. In my version, the template was redirecting to disambiguation pages. Something that was not noticed by maintenance bots. The method fools maintenance bots and keeps the template out of the maintenance lists. The Banner talk 10:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Banner, I have done some thinking around this and offer this as a solution, which if you agree, I will complete over the next few day. 1. Place appropriate hat notes on the articles that have an ambiguous nature. 2. Remove the template from all the disambiguation pages.

Once the above is completed the template can be tagged for deletion, the disambiguation pages used as redirects can be tagged for deletion.

So anyone searching for "Diocese of Quebec" will be taken straight to the correct disambiguation page, hat notes on all articles for ease of navigation, a few unnecessary pages can get deleted, no "Get-around" process in place, pretty close to best practice. Your thoughts and kind regards The Original Filfi (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

And the template will again show 19 links to disambiguation pages... The Banner talk 10:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
No as the template will have no further use and can be deleted, we can blank it until it gets deleted. The Original Filfi (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I would say: try it. In principle we have not much to loose. The Banner talk 11:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Denmark

The Danish military engaged in combat with the Germans for a total of less than 24 hours over two days three years apart. They were an occupied country and officially neutral. The Danish government neither declared war nor had war declared upon it. It continued to operate at least until August 1943 under the German occupation. The existence of a Danish resistance does not make the Danish state a belligerent, and no more makes it an Ally than the German resistance or the Bulgarian partisan movement makes those countries Allies. Denmark was not a member of the United Nations during the war. Denmark in fact has far less a claim to be regarded as an Allied combatant than Romania, Bulgaria and Italy, which were major co-belligerents in 1944–45. Denmark was a victim of German aggression, just as Albania was of Italian aggression. But just as Albania was not an Ally, so Denmark isn't either. Note also the difference between Norway, which by itself refusal to comply with a German "ultimatum" had itself declared—by Germany—a war zone, and Denmark, which complied and was never regarded—by Germany—as at war with her. It is very misleading to include "honorary" Allies in the infobox. Srnec (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You keep ignoring the fleet in Greenland/Iceland. The Banner talk 14:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
This is my first comment and that's your response? Are you saying that the Danish navy in Greenland and Iceland was at war with Germany? It wasn't. Srnec (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
You have reverted a few times already. But you better start reading Greenland in World War II or this one. The Banner talk 17:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, where is decided that only combatants were allowed in the list? The Banner talk 17:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
It says "Allies (combatant states)" right at the top. I didn't add that. Srnec (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Talib Kweli Guest Appearances

hey Banner, Im not Sure Why you took down Talib Kwelis Guest Appearances off of his page. i was looking through nahright.com and there were a lot of records on there that everyone should know exist. i sighted my source im not what else i have to do. also "Right About Now" is a free Mixtape not a solo album, I cited that as well. Maybe we can help each other here. i a huge Talib Kweli fan and i think his fans deserve to see the right information. Can You please message me so we can work this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbitgreen (talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not a fan page but an encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 02:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Disruption of RfC

This request for comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allies_of_World_War_II#RFC_-_Albania is very useful to clarify the dispute. Be careful and note that you cannot edit an open and pending RfC request of another editor. If you would like to contribute to the case with a comment, please add it in the end of the discussion.

Please follow the guidelines on how to contribute to aRfC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Suggestions_for_responding 147.172.223.99 (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

LOL, you are funny. You are evading a block and want me to play to the rules? Why don't you read the prior discussion? The consensus (not a stalemate) was clearly against you. The Banner talk 13:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal accusations. I do not appreciate your expressed commitment to violate Wikipedia rules and would like to advise you to respect the rules. Please allow users to express their opinions on the RfC, in order to help resolving the dispute and improve the quality of the article. 147.172.223.99 (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
My friend, it is you who sees accusations in normal criticism. The Banner talk 20:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just blocked this IP. Could you please ping me if you spot LupinoJacky evading their block again? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
There is a whole series of IPs from the 95.90.207.etc-range but I think they are all short lived IPs. Report them anyway when showing up or can you do something about the range? Just as the 147-range, they geolocate to about the same area Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony) The Banner talk 10:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Are these only the IPs at Talk:Allies of World War II? I blocked the ones which seem to be semi-permanent, but as the others aren't being re-used I left them as the block wouldn't achieve anything. If the block evasion there continues I'll semi-protect the talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nick-D, there is one more IP here below, please block it too. And after you block everyone that has a different opinion, or tries to fix mis-represented status-quos, then I recommend you have a look at Freedom of Speech
Judging by your acts, it seems you struggle to understand diversity, sourced inputs and understanding which words are arguments and which are personal attacks (e.g.: this talk page). Nevertheless I am not angry to you, you might even be a nice guy with some limited situational awareness that enjoys exercising virtual powers (of little value in real life).
Yet, if I were in your shoes I would not give up, if you try hard you may change and become a good admin one day.
P.s: Sources indicate Albania fought Axis, but I now can understand why it was impossible to enter that fact. I was naive believing sources matter in an environment controlled by biased random people. I appologize for my naivity.
Never mind, have fun blocking this IP: 109.47.1.69 (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
No, LupinoJacky, it is you who is misrepresenting the consensus. And you failed to provide sources that Albania as a country fought against the Axis before the partisabs took over. And you keep ignoring the evidence that they joined the Axis in fighting against the Allies. The Banner talk 15:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ballymaloe House

Hello, Perhaps "refimprove" is not the best tag to apply here; "more footnotes" could be used. It looks as if about half the text about the restaurant lacks inline citations.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you can find all those details in the official website that is added as source... The Banner talk 23:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Safety first

Possible self revert needed. Its a 1rr article, its construed to be under Troubles restrictions. I know its in all probability an MFIreland sock, but I think we should play it by the book. Murry1975 (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. By now it is edited by others, so I wait to see what happens. IP is blocked for a week now... The Banner talk 18:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

The reason why i tagged them were because there was no red link to link it to using dab solver. I could have made the red links, but thought it'd be better to tag them instead. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It is perfectly okay to create the red link. The Banner talk 22:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect disambiguation

Hi! Just letting you know that you made a mistake [9] while disambiguating ARM on Template:Benchmark; In the context, ARM refers to ARM architecture as you could have found out by going to the AnTuTu page. No big deal, mistakes happen, but just be careful because misleading links are worse than links to disambiguation pages. -- intgr [talk] 10:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This fits well into the rotten week I have. Sorry for my mistake. The Banner talk 10:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

LaRon Landry Page

I was correcting the fact that someone said he[LaRon] was deceased though it appeared false and there were no sources of such an event. So if anything you should be thanking me for correcting it. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.7.185.86 (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, your somewhat strange edit can in straight between two vandals... So wrong time, wrong place. The Banner talk 22:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

April2015

Hello,Banner

You see you have edited the page (Xavier academy higher secondary school) and in your editing you have changed the page title why?If you were able to create the before I created then you should have done that but what I wanna make you complain that you can edit the article very well but never change the page like this on my page which you have done here. You must give the exact reasons why you changed my article page and added just (Xavier academy)? The full original name is what I have created the page with. Mahendra Niraula (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not aware that I had changed the title. I have removed some irrelevant info. By now, I have severe doubt that your English is good enough to work on the English-language Wikipedia. I even doubt if you are competent enough to work on Wikipedia. You have to up the quality of your work severely. The Banner talk 00:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll reply to this on Mahendra's talk page. 06:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Surin Elephant Round-up

You nominated Surin Elephant Round-up for deletion. I added some teeny tiny things to the page. Can you hop over for a look see when you log in the next time, and possibly leave a msg on my TP about what your assessment is.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You did a good job. I did some more work on it to make it less advertising but also added a few requests for sources. If you can fix these, I will look at retracting the nomination. The Banner talk 10:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I have put up some links. I found something strange. The examinerdotcom and carnifestdotcom sites are blacklisted on wiki, any ideas why?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks like spammy-websites to me. No reliable sources. The Banner talk 11:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
KK. Ty. I never encountered this kind of error before and couldn't make head or tail of it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

Why is my company page up for deletion

Hi Wikipedia Team

Our corporate profile page located on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innodata) has been tagged as "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy."

Could we please request you to share more details on this so that we may fix this issue at the earliest. We want to ensure that our page is not deleted so would appreciate if we could move fast on this discussion.

Thank You 203.55.173.2 (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Aditya Kumar

GROUP MANAGER – DIGITAL MARKETING TEL: 0120-462(6217) | MOBILE: +91 956 099 5900 WWW.INNODATA.COM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.55.173.2 (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The rationale of the nomination is "corporate promo and advertising". The Banner talk 09:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Team

We have made some changes to the text of this page. Requesting you to review it again and let us know what all we need to change in this.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.55.173.2 (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Article has been reverted to the 2014 version as per the guidance of offical moderators. Requesting you to re-review it and remove the pages for deletion message.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.55.173.2 (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Harassment

Hello. It appears that you have attached templates to every page I have been associated-with, out of the blue, with no rational justification. Based on the fact that your activity targets me, in particular, this appears to be an act of harassment. I highly recommend that you do not do this. Please stop.

Take a look at my user page. It has been vandalized many times. I have been forced to resort to have master editors shut down other editors due to such harassment. If you chose to continue this activity, I am willing to do the same. Tolinjr (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Continued Harassment

I will articulate one more time. The act of specifically-selecting every Wikipedia page that I have contributed to in some way and branding them with templates is malicious. it serves no other purpose than to harass me as an editor. I have notified you that your continuing to do so may result in your activities being shut down. Please stop this. Tolinjr (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Threats by Tolinjr The Banner talk 14:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

Miss World 2015

I think this page should be eliminated because it do not have a strong base and information like the venue or the date doesn't exist. It is a future event. Cesaro2012 (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Siege of Kobanî

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Siege of Kobanî. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
  • Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter



MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

Gvf23

Hello, the user Gvf23 created Miss Universe 2015 in his user page, in this Wikipedia, is this allowed? because in Spanish Wikipedia isn't allowed. Thanks. --Jean70000 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure it is not allowed, but I nominated it for deletion anyway. In a draft page it is allowed but very doubtful on a user page. The Banner talk 16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverting notice

Please be more careful when reverting IP edits such as this one. The IP reverted a recent edit by Sliothar that went against WP:IMOS. I have restored the template to how it should be. Mabuska (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Crystal ball

FYI, it's crystal ball. See wp:crystal Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

A difference between Dutch and English... The Banner talk 12:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Debate on WikiProject Aircraft Navboxes

Following our discussions on the recent Tfd I have done some research on the scope of the job and started the discussion here on WikiProject Aircraft as User:Dirtlawyer1 has suggested. Please feel free to participate in the debate if you would like to do so. - Ahunt (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to the discussion on versions of Template:History of Iran.

You have been invited to the discussion on versions of Template:History of Iran. There are two versions. The current one and this one. Please share your opinion on which version you like/support more. We need users' opinion for consensus. Thank you. --Ulugh Arslan Bilge Khan 18:28, 05 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

Template:History of Iran

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Template_talk:History_of_Iran#New_version_of_the_template.
Message added 12:24, 07 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Banner don't believe them. User:HistoryofIran and User:LouisAragon are working toghether to support each other. --Ulugh Arslan Bilge Khan 12:24, 07 June 2015 (UTC)

I had wrongly written the following sentence at Template talk:History of Iran. The Banner, User:HistoryofIran and User:LouisAragon are working together. It was my punctuation/grammar mistake. I wanted to address to you but i put wrong mark (comma) after your name. I should have put the mark full stop. I have fixed this punctuation (also grammar) mistake. --Ulugh Arslan Bilge Khan 13:25, 07 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I know we did not hire a professional writer for the Cogobuy page, This was an oversight and I have hired one today, I have switched the page back and the writer will remove all the advertising for you, I understand this company and Wikipedia are very important to you so we will change this page to something you are happy to have on Wikipedia.

If you want we can put you in touch with the writer and you two can work together ?

Let me know if you want there phone number ? Otherwise have a look at the changes in about a week and hopefully it will be acceptable.

Alain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaingarner (talk • contribs) 12:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

  • Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
  • Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
  • Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
  • Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

FFA P-16

Hello The Banner, Like you knew we are not always the same opinion. But i want that you knew that there are points who I agree with you, and say you thank you for your work at the FFA P-16 page (cleaning out some informations who was written there twice).FFA P-16 (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That looked plain like a case of oops... The Banner talk 17:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Handpolk

Please don't post on Handpolk's page again, especially not while the user is blocked. Bishonen | talk 11:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC).

It was my last reply. I don't have the idea it will help but I thought that I at least should have the courtesy to warn him about the consequences of his behaviour. The Banner talk 11:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

Counterproductive Edits on Margret_Sanger

Banner, I know you mean well but try to avoid bias. Everyone wins as long as we avoid BOTH defending Racism And comparing people to Hitlar. Try to find a middle ground and keep it clean. :) Chrononem ☎ 22:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Read the source given. The Banner talk 22:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The source itself is an example of Goodwin's Law it says Hitler learned from Sanger. Maybe I was too hard on 24.216.168.184. Please revert your edits and you could probably read the source yourself. There is no reference to widespread racism. to quote the article: "Eugenics and abortion is about the tyranny of the elite deciding who shall live and who shall die." It seems to refer to Sanger's views as held by very specific people. Chrononem ☎ 22:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Mate, the believe in Eugenics was wide spread in the 1920s. Only later, due to Hitler, it was discredited. But before that, it WAS wide spread in the USA. The Banner talk 22:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Belief in eugenic theory, perhaps, not in eugenic cleansing of particular races; at least not according to the listed source. Regardless, your personal reverts exceed those allowed within a twenty four hour period on a sanctioned page, you need to reverse your latest edit and allow another community member to correct the issue if a correction is really needed. Chrononem ☎ 01:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
First of all it is up to you to prove that the ideas behind eugenics were not wide spread in the 1920s. When you can prove that, we have something to talk. By now you use Hitler as an excuse to whitewash the article. The Banner talk 09:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
No, it's up to the source to prove anything. We aren't having a debate, you are missusing your editing rights. Please revert your edits to match wikipedia policy. I really don't want to escalate. Just a few poor words can undo a lot of good contributions.Chrononem ☎ 12:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI The Goodwin's law quip was a joke. I was just speculating that 24.216.168.184. might have actually read the source and could have been referencing it in his summary. Unlikely maybe, but a weird coincidence none the less. Regaurdless, I'll be reverting the article myself in a few hours if you don't. It could stand to use more neutral language throughout. Chrononem ☎ 13:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Your bluff is funny but I am not buying it. The Banner talk 21:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
"Bluff" is different than "quip". Chalk one up to the language barrier. Chrononem ☎ 22:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Calling your recent reversion "vandalism" was unduely harsh, I apologize.

Please consider the language involved in using "Controversies" verses "Attacks". While the former is considered benign, enough to be used as a standard wikipedia header, the latter carries an accusatory tone and assigns blame to the opposite group rather than allowing their grievances to stand on thier own. If we want Wikipedia not to seem like it carries an agenda we have to leave moralization to the readers. Chrononem ☎ 21:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

LOL, that was the only part of your edit that was slightly acceptable, the rest of your edit was absolutely not neutral and based on a source not given in that section. The Banner talk 21:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't you see how this:
"Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood, many who are opposed to abortion frequently condemn Sanger by criticizing her views on racial supremacy, birth control, and eugenics."
Is both less ambiguous and more accurate than this:
"Many who are opposed to the legalization of abortion frequently condemn Sanger by questioning her fitness as a mother and criticizing her views on race, abortion, and eugenics."
Without sacrificing objectivity?
If you need a breakdown:
  • I don't know how to source a subtraction but according to sources listed on that page Sanger was not in favor of abortion. Those who condemn her are targeting her because of her connection with Planned Parenthood, not her views on abortion.
  • "Questioning her fitness as a mother" is not included in the sources and is purely dig against those doing the questioning.
  • "Views on Race" is ambiguous and is likely to be seen as referring to a non-bigoted view in the current political climate as her opponents are often presented as bigots themselves.
Chrononem ☎ 22:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Nope, dude, you are just pushing your own views while making the article less neutral. And you are clearly willing to edit war to get it your way. The Banner talk 09:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd remind you that you are the only one in violation of the Sanctioned page's 1RR. If I was willing to start an edit war I would not have asked you to correct your own violation, I would have immediately reverted it. Chrononem ☎ 12:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
  • Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
  • American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

Flitfire

I appeal the deletion of the article "Flitfire." Cubgirl4444 (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope for you your arguments are accepted. But I doubt that. Still, it is not me to decide. The Banner talk 08:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Dublin Airport Airlines and Destanations

This article is NOT needed. And no other airport page needs this or has this. Please delete the article NOW! RMS52 (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Due to rudeness refused. The Banner talk 21:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I did NOT be rude in any way Example of being rude -

Your article is RUBBISH AND IS NOT NEEDED ON THIS WIKI DELETE NOW

This article is not needed, I hope you don't continue to do this to other airport pages. If you do you may be blocked from editing so please stop, delete the article and edit like a normal user! If you don't, I will put the article up for deletion, again it is not needed. RMS52 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Refused. Start a proper discussion on something better that WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Banner talk 22:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

World Miss University 2011 AFD

There are also articles on the 2012 to 2015 pageants. You may want to nominate them also. I'm presently inclined towards deletion for all of them....William 11:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

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.
And you got yourself blocked. The Banner talk 23:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

Please comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Input Requested

The Banner, would you check this out and tell me what you think? Scare quotes

Sorry, no clue how I can help. The Banner talk 21:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC) By the way, who did this request?
Just looking for your opinion on it. Thanks anyway. Chrononem ☎ 11:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism.

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. The admin said that he is a history professor in Stockholm University. I just reported you to him. And in Finnish and other wikies, also in English. The USSR is clearly considered as the country who played the greatest role in WW2. Jomlini (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

And who is that admin? Is he an admin on ENWP? The Banner talk 00:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

RMS52

Hi, The Banner. Just came to say that I am sorry if I behaved unfriendly to you. I was quite fustrated with your edits at the time! Has there been a desision about if we need a seperate article for the Airlines and Destanations chart of airport articles? RMS52 (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Why should I trust you after your sockpuppetry? The Banner talk 08:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Because I apoligized and realized that I had done something wrong. After the sockpuppet thing was reavealed. But now I am here apoligize and behave in a acceptable manner. RMS52 (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

Npov

I answered to your question in the talkpage of Allies of World War II. Sorry if you see my text as rude etc, didn't meant to be. Jomlini (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Redirects

Hello - I got a message on my talk page about a redirect (User_talk:Xiiophen#Killingholme_South_Low_lighthouse_listed_at_Redirects_for_discussion )- but when I go to the link there's nothing there.. Xiiophen (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, some Twinkle glitch so I have added the nominations manually. Sorry that I had to nominate, but your redirects offers no serious information (so the DPs you made are pointless) The Banner talk 17:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

Reinhardt College

I have added cites to some of the names you had questions about. I will work rework the top bit that you thinks reads like an advert. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns. I do not make many edits in Wiki, so if you see something that should be cited different, please let me know. Thank you. Carsonmc (talk)

flitfire

the flitfire article is for aviation enthusiasts interested in J3 Cubs and aviation history during WWII. i see your articles are all about restaurants and chefs in ireland. you are probably not interested in the flltfire topic just as i'm not interested in restaurants and chefs in ireland.

nevertheless i followed the links in your comment.

the "intricate detail" link led me to:
There is a difference between a "discriminate" collection and a "indiscriminate" collection
1. An indiscriminate collection of information is one gathered without care or making distinctions or in a thoughtless manner. NA
2. A discriminate collection of information is one gathered where care and/or distinctions about the information contained in the collection are made--in a thoughtful manner. OK
3. A collection of information gathered in such a way--with care and/or distinctions, in a thoughtful manner--does not violate the policy as stated at WP:IINFO. OK

this is not an indiscriminate collection of information. so i moved on:

the "relocate" link led me to:
The following are some practical steps that can be taken when articles have trivia sections.
1. Integrate trivia items into the existing article text. NA (No other articles exist on flitfires)
2. Expand the article text, in order to present relevant items in context (example: adding a "Personal life" section to a biography that contains only career-oriented information). NA
3. If an item is too unimportant, be bold and remove it. NA (with only 49 built over 70 years ago coupled with the fact their history was totally lost for over 50 years, all the data are relevant)
4. When appropriate, create separate lists for specific types of entries, with restrictive names. Avoid very general names like "Other facts" or "Miscellanea." NA
5. If a section ("trivia" or otherwise) has grown so large as to over-balance an article, consider: NA (there is no trivia section)
6. Remember to challenge or remove trivia items that aren't sourced, especially in biographies (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). NA
7. If it is too difficult to deal with all the items in a trivia section at once, it is probably best to leave some in place: there is no deadline. This is most often the case in articles that are not yet well-developed. NA

none applied here so i moved on...

the "inclusion policy" link led me to:
2 Encyclopedic content
2.1 Wikipedia is not a dictionary OK
2.2 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought OK
2.3 Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion OK
2.4 Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files OK
2.5 Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site OK
2.6 Wikipedia is not a directory OK
2.7 Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal OK
2.8 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball OK
2.9 Wikipedia is not a newspaper OK
2.10 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information OK
2.11 Wikipedia is not censored OK

none applied to this case, so i moved on.

i looked at every part of your comment. i don't see what can be deleted or moved. i think you may just not be interested in the subject and that's okay.

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, I am interested in history. And yes, I think you should acknowledge you Conflict of Interest as owner of one of those planes 9I think you admitted that at Commons. The Banner talk 17:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

As I stated at the top of the "Nomination for Deletion" page that was up for a month, I said I wrote this because people always have a lot of questions when I fly into an FBO & I could point them here to read for themselves. I resent your accusation that somehow I'm sneaky & lying about the fact I own the 1st Flitfire ever restored in 1991. That is total Wiki BS & I find Wiki users' behavior totally disgusting. I had no idea!

A flitfire has been in my family for 30 years and I probably know more about them than anyone else on earth. So as an expert on the subject, I do not consider it a COI. Who do you think should write it, someone slightly familiar or someone with lots of experience with them?

I enjoy flying my cub & sharing its unique history. My airplane is not for sale. I did not write this article for monetary gain. The fact I own one is not discussed in the article. So what exactly is your COI point here? That I know too much? hahaha! That's so absurd just like your entire comment.

You know I'm really, really, really sick of Wiki. I've requested for this article be deleted & then I'll take the data & I'll pay for a separate Flitfire website so I don't have to be harassed by Wiki people and spend my time doing exactly what I'm doing right now... I've ended up being sorry that I shared my knowledge and original documentation at Wiki. If Wiki says I can delete everything, I'll be overjoyed & take it down ASAP. I'm tired of this type of harassment.

So if you have Wiki connections, PLEASE CONVINCE THEM TO LET ME DELETE IT. THANK YOU & GOOD BYE.

P.S. I figured out how to propose the Article for deletion. After 7 days, if no one objects, it will come down. Thank you for confirming my suspicion. Wiki is a dark place & I will not be contributing again.

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your unpolite rant shows clearly why it is said so often that it is not a good idea to write an article about a subject where you are connected to or emotional attached to. The Banner talk 09:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

August, 2015

Please don't edit war on silly issues, as you are on André Gayot‎. We have been through this very issue before, on this very article. If you have an issue with that, feel free to bring it up in the appropriate forum, but Just because a bot is mis-programmed does not give you cause to be part of the problem. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please, solve the issues instead of fighting the symptoms on a silly way. You can not beat a bot, he will never get tired. Just solve the issue. The Banner talk 00:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
That is your excuse for edit warring on the side of the bot? Solving a bot malfunction would be disabling or reprogramming the bot, neither of which are in my power. The bot and its misguided function went away more than a year on this article, and hopefully it will go away again. Your reinforcing its damage is hardly a solution. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
You clearly do not understand the real problem: gayot.com is on the spamlist. As long as it is there, the bot will find the link and mark it. What you have to do is to get gayot.com off the spamlist. The issue with the bot with then automatically end. But when you keep fighting windmills, you will never succeed. You are just wasting your time with a useless exercise. The Banner talk 09:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

Margaret Sanger

Can you remove the GA icon from this article? It seems the article is protected from non-admins, so I'd appreciate the help.--Retrohead (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not an admin either. You have to do an edit-request on the talkpage there. The Banner talk 10:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Question, August 2015

Hi, The Banner. I have a question for you, how do you archieve your disscussions on talk pages? I need to do this to my talk page soon so I am asking for your help, thanks. RMS52 Talk to me 17:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

On the top of my talkpage I have "installed" an archive-bot that looks like this:

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |archiveprefix=User talk:The Banner/Archives/ |format=Y/F |age=672 |index=yes |archivebox=yes |box-advert=yes }}

You better change the archiveprefix to your own name. The phrase "age=372" makes that the bot archives every discussion older that 28 days (28 days * 24 hours). You can change that too to your wishes. The Banner talk 19:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! RMS52 Talk to me 05:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

RMS52

Hello the Banner, The User RMS52 is continually reverted my edits in a lot of airport Malaga Airport, Verona Villafranca Airport and Zurich Airport. I ask you if you can do something paese, because after my reverted of he continues vandalizing the pages. Zurich00swiss (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zurich00swiss Your edits are incorrect, thefore they are allowed to be reverted. Most of your edits do not include a source, as I said, you can read this tutorial

You can read the guidlines at WP:Airports, hope this helps. RMS52 (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Max Kidruk

Hi. I'm writing regarding Max Kidruk page as its new version was deleted due to (as you say and I respect your experience) advertisement in it. I'm afraid there are different notions regarding advertisement. The article was translated from the Ukrainian one (considered to be ok) and was marked appropriately. Could you please advise on how this can be arranged now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kara Kartata (talk • contribs) 15:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed there are different notions about advertising. What is okay for the Ukrainian Wikipedia can be denied on the English Wikipedia. What you did was magnify all kind of details and irrelevant information. Just keep the article short and to the point and in a neutral style and tone. Give sources. The Banner talk 10:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ron

Hello yes I saw The video proof is on YouTube and on the newspaper !! Do you want me to send you the video link ?? Or just type on YouTube Ron won award movie premier ... At least you understand us!! May god bless you !!

Sorry, YouTube is not considered a reliable source. Please read WP:RS. Especially with living persons you have to provide reliable sources. The Banner talk 15:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello again TheBanner, although you are correct that youtube isn't usually WP:RS, they also said the award was in the newspaper, which usually (though not always) is a legit WP:SOURCE. Do you remember what this conversation was in reference to? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I Impact India

Hi,

I have created the I Impact India Wikipedia page. I have found that you have reported it as an advertising content. But actually it is not at all. If there is some problem in language which looks bad and making it promotional. Tell me. I will edit it. Help me to learn. ArnabKumarSaha (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  1. Start cutting out everything that is not about the company
  2. Read WP:RS and take care that the sources used are independent (not in anyway related to company or founder), reliable (no social media or interviews), prior published sources. But note: English language sources are preferred but not mandatory.
Are you working for the company?
The Banner talk 11:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I am a student.I do this kind of works beside my study to pay my college fee by myself.Okey. I am doing it as you said. Please help me to make it successful.Thank you very much for supporting me.ArnabKumarSaha (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You have to declare your Wikipedia:Conflict of interest on your user page. The Banner talk 12:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Sir, I have edited the content. Is it okey now? Actually I am new to wikipedia.Before this I made only one page of my school.But that was a failure. I am just learning. I genearlly did article writing or excel related work for profit. But I Impact India is a non profit social organization. I am doing it to increase my writing skill. ArnabKumarSaha (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I have read it as you said. ArnabKumarSaha (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
is the content is okey now? ArnabKumarSaha (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

last open greylock edit-request , plus #2 thing

Hello again TheBanner, not sure that we are going to have any feedback from User:Esmilcsncm about the *historical* investment strategy(ies) used by Greylock.

Although I found a bunch of sources, and stuck them on the talkpage, that kinda outline what greylock was doing in terms of their investment focus, for the past decade or so... they are pretty much inherently WP:UNDUE because I only did internet-sourcing and didn't check the financial pages of offline newspapers and such during the 1970s/1980s/1990s. So my question is, do you have interest (in the enjoy-working-on-them-sense), in the topic of VC firms generally, and greylock particularly? If so, do you want to take a stab at reading some of the sources I found, and stuffing a summary into mainspace, of at least Greylock's recent biz-model? I don't mind doing it myself, but since you might actually be interested in digging deeper and/or reading longer than myself, I figured I would offer to let you put your nose to the wiki-grindstone, before I put my own nose thereon.  :-)

While I'm here, I'll ask you a different tangentially related question -- I also am trying to help an editor that is publishing their wikipedia-autobiography, which is getting close to ready for mainspacing. We became wiki-buddies last month at some other articles where we have shared wiki-interests, so although I've tried to wear my cloak of neutrality well, and verify that the sourcing of this wikipedian's BLP-article is impeccably satisfactory per WP:42 (et al) in demonstrating wiki-notability, I would like some additional eyeballs to give the BLP-draft a once-over. Are you available for such informal-eyeball-requests? If not, no problem o'course, WP:CHOICE is my second-favorite wiki-policy. Talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about Draft:Roosevelt Mitchell III? If so, it will most likely again fail to get accepted in the AfC guys. To my opinion, the guy fails to prove why he is notable. And beside that: please read WP:RS. Press releases are for example no reliable sources (100% promotional). What the article need are third party sources about Mitchell. Not about his books, no interviews with. Honestly, the article won't stand a chance and will be shot down as soon as it is published! It is far better for mr. Mitchell to wait: if he is important enough, someone will write an article about him. The Banner talk 21:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Not that one, sorry, I was alluding to another one, whilst carefully avoiding mention of the actual draft-link, in case you would have preferred I tell my wiki-buddy to go via AfC-submit-channels or use {{edit_request}}-channels or whatever. Didn't want to tempt you with a bluelink, if your usual policy was please-follow-the-usual-procedures, in other words. Appreciate you going the extra mile and skimming my edits, though you found the 'wrong' BLP-article to critique; more on that 'wrong' one inside the greenbox.
side chitchat about probability of Mitchell-the-potential-wikipedian, and probability of Mitchell-the-BLP-article, feel free to skip if you wish
    Mitchell was somebody who I was helping via #wikipedia-en-help, they needed better references you are correct, but they also just needed really very-beginning-editor bog-standard-basic wikisyntax help. They were not using any wikilinks, they were hardcoding "SomeSentence.[4]" and then listing a hardcoded-four at the bottom manually, and so on. I expect that you are 100% correct about decline#2, though I'm not sure whether WP:NotJustYet applies, since there were some hits in the Missouri newspaper and such, in-depth details specifically about Mitchell-qua-Mitchell.
    Agree about the PR stuff, though not sure I agree about the book-reviews; as a teacher/author, he's mostly wiki-notable for his book, and (pun intended) in my book, when the author-BLP-article and the book-redirect are both the same ultimate bluelink, then the book-review-stuff should count as being 'specific to that ultimate article-bluelink'. Or at least, I've seen that logic used before, for instance there is a former-congressional-and-recently-nowadays-presidential candidate who has relatively maybe-not-quite-WP:42 coverage of his scientific work over the years, but in addition to that has plenty of press-coverage for his as-yet-unsuccessful-campaigns... since BLP'16-campaign is a redirect to BLP-article, I would see the sci-refs and the politician-refs as a *set* of material specific to the article-and-redirects-unto. Is that not usual in the wiki-tradition, or perhaps, has that recently become no-longer-wiki-traditional, and I'm just behind the times?
    Anyways, they were a pleasant person, eager to learn, trying hard to comply with the wiki-ways, once they understood what the AfC reviewer meant by 'inline cites' ... so rather than discourage the IRC contact (who was presumably also one and the same as the BLP-topic-matter), I went ahead and tried to give them some constructive criticism, set expectations that they would almost certainly need to keep returning to #wikipedia-en-help or teahouse for additional advice, and that getting an article was not guaranteed. Unclear whether they have the makings of a wikipedian, or are only excited about getting their own name in lights, but I figured it would not hurt to send them through the AfC-review-loop another time or two. If they *do* get interested in wikipedia, they were friendly, and willing to learn, which goes a long way methinks.
    If you think that there is no way the BLP-article will be ready for mainspace in 2015, aka 90%+ chance of deletion at AfD, and that additional press-coverage in 2016 and 2017 are mandatory, feel free to leave an {{afc_comment}} or a usertalk comment for the editor, explaining that you don't want them to be disappointed with doing the work to learn the wiki-syntax and the wiki-culture, but then not getting an article during 2015. They might be in a rush, but then again, they are free to leave their draft around, tweaking it once every three months or so to keep it from bot-deletion, while they await additional press-coverage of their activities. In other words, if you're worried that passing WP:42 for this BLP-article is hopeless, and don't want wikipedia to string them along, please feel free to toss a little cool water. Might save heartbreak. But I hope they have interests broader than just their own BLP-article, seeing as they are an educator in real-life, so I didn't want to discourage them unduly at this early point in their potential wiki-career.
  Anyways, sorry I didn't specify when I asked, since you were willing to take a peek... I'm actually seeking eyeballs about Draft:Ron_Schnell, which *is* properly sourced methinks. I've read WP:RS before.  :-)     But since the Schnell human is a wikipedian who I consider a wiki-buddy, I'd like some disinterested-neutral-eyeballs to make sure I'm not putting on rose-colored glasses, and seeing WP:42 where none exists. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Nutshell rationale, reasonably-in-depth-sources only: 1981_SETL,[1][2][3] borderline-1982_netTalk,[4] 1998_house,[5] 1998_startup,[6][7] borderline-2013_segway,[8] and ongoing-2015_politics,[9][10]

References

  1. ^ Linda Stevens (July 21, 1981). "The Whiz!". New York Post. ...14-year-old Ronnie Schnell...is one of NYU's youngest undergrads this summer. He's helping to test a new computer language called "Pseudo-Parallel SETL." ... He started at 9.
  2. ^ Lee Comegys, United Press International (October 18, 1981). "A computer genius at 14". The Record. p. E-10.
  3. ^ Miller, Robert (1981). "Evening news". Independent Network News (US). Season 2. Tribune Company. WPIX. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |city= ignored (|location= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ John Coll (October 1982). "The BBC micro dials the world". Acorn User (permission for legal republication claimed by http://8bs.com/aumags.htm). pp. 20–22. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
  5. ^ Julie Jacobson (February 1998). Julie Jacobson (ed.). "System Spotlight: Super Sundays!". Electronic House (magazine). Kenneth D. Moye, EH Publishing, Inc., Wayland, MA. pp. 54–57. ISSN 0886-6643. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  6. ^ Beth Feinstein-Bartl (March 6, 1998). "Business Corner: Mail Call provides e-mail retrieval". Sun Sentinel.
  7. ^ Plus, another half-dozen refs, Fast Company / PC World / Fortune / etc, about the company-and-synonymous-product, where Schnell was president-and-co-founder (company acquired in 2000 or 2001 and product now defunct for obvious reasons... not very many people need to check their email by calling a toll-free number and having a computerized voice 'read' it to them nowadays, since they can more easily check their email *directly* on their smartfon  :-)
  8. ^ http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/07/segway-polo-world-cup-everything-you-imagined
  9. ^ http://recode.net/2015/06/29/coding-for-liberty-on-the-ground-at-rand-pauls-presidential-hackathon/
  10. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/02/rand-paul-campaign-makes-pixelated-pitch-through-an-app/

Note that most, but not all, of these sources have been added to the draft. Sorry about the wild goose chase. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Hurtworld deletion?

I do not understand entirely why my Hurtworld page is going to be deleted. Catmando999 (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  1. Advertising
  2. No independent sourcing
  3. Crystal ball, as there is nothing yet.
The Banner talk 11:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks Banner Talk. What will most likely happen to the page? Catmando999 (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a big chance that it gets deleted. That has no further consequences for you as editor. Are you related to this game/company? The Banner talk 11:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
NoCatmando999 (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Banner, please stop stalking me.

Don't edit my own posts on my own User Page; don't try to get my user page removed; stop following me around. Thank you Banner. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Armstrong's Barn

Hello Banner! I have edited your article on Armstrong's Barn to include information about Peter Robinson who founded it. It was Peter who was awarded a Michelin star in 1977 (appearing in the 1978 Michelin Guide); perhaps you could edit your list of Irish star winners? Andrew K Robinson (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


Ah, I see you can't edit at the moment. I hope you will not mind if I make the edit myself? It consists of removing the name of Paolo Tullio, who bought the restaurant after it had been awarded a star, and inserting the name of Peter Robinson, who was awarded the star before he sold it to Paolo. Andrew K Robinson (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I see you also wrote the wiki entry on Paolo. I hope you don't mind if I edit it to say, instead of "In 1977 Tullio established Armstrong's Barn", "In 1978 Tullio bought Armstrong's Barn". If you want to contact me about it, my email address is given on my own web page Andrew K Robinson (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

Books and Bytes - Issue 13

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
  • Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
  • Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

disinformation inserted by the CIA

Errr... make that, Actually Useful Stuff.TM Do you have some time to help me out with Jeff Berwick? It is a bit of a mess still, but I've dug up some sources, on article-talk. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I see you just closed the berwick-section manually, as opposed to archiving. The unfriendly person was blocked by Sarah aka User:SlimVirgin if memory serves. I'm not them, I'm friendly.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Not interested. Just stick to WP:RS. Good luck. The Banner talk 22:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, no problemo. Talk to you later. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Swiss Air Force, C-17

How did a reader now can knew that the C-17 (if he doesnt knew that the C-17 is no more in production and only one C-17 is left for sale) is no more a option for the swiss air force? I think in some way this should be written there, the other aircraft (not only the C-130) are still candidats, knowing the swiss politics it could need years until a decision is made? Any ideas?FFA P-16 (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It is just no relevant information. The plane was in the running in the beginning but it is good enough just to state the final winner. Why and when the others dropped out or lost out is not relevant at all. The Banner talk 21:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC) And please, try to improve your English language skills. And use a spell checker.

But like it is now, the reader can not see, that this type is no more in the run, this is important. and something other, a Zero-G flight for the first time from swiss soil is important if the article is about the airbase who this flight started. Did you knew what a Zero-G flight is? Do you new from how many airports/airbases such zero-g flights took place in Europa? Its just a hand full One in france, one in germany.FFA P-16 (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it is totally not important. Just like the flight, absolutely not important. Swiss is not the centre of the universe. The Banner talk 22:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No one says that switzerland is the center of the univers.. but the Article is about the Swiss Air force base.. and so this was the first time in switzerland so , it is important. And no this flights took usualy not place everywehre in Europa.. usualy only from an airport in France, and one in Germany.. thats it-- and the Roskosmos IL--76 in Zuhkovsky. And no you can not rent this aircraft like an usual charter flight. this flight vwas also a topic of a Documentation on the swiss national TV on this day. FFA P-16 (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it is totally not important. It is only a type of flight and you hire a commercial company to perform that for you. Absolutely nothing special. The Banner talk 09:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


The part you delet this, is about the history of this air Base, so the first Zero-G flight for this Air Base, for the ETH Zürich , for Switzerland (its a swiss air Base) is important. ZeroG flight with start from swiss soil. But if you have a look at Zero-G you will see that such flights took part usualy only in Russia, USA, France, and Germany.

  • 2.1.1 NASA's Reduced Gravity Aircraft
  • 2.1.2 European Space Agency A300 Zero-G
  • 2.1.3 Others

You can see that only a handfull of aircraft exist for this (Fuelsystem has to be modified) an that in Europa usualy this flights are made fromthe 2,3 same Airports. Its not possibel to rent just an aircraft to do this. (and also to get an airspace who you can do this). As we don't agree to this I think other People should have a look at this. Lets see theyer opinion FFA P-16 (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW If a National TV Station reports about this, and the two biggest newspaper , it could not be uninportant...

http://www.nzz.ch/zuerich/von-duebendorf-in-die-schwerelosigkeit-1.18617556 http://www.zol.ch/bezirk-uster/duebendorf/schwerelos-ueber-duebendorf/story/26479258

http://www.blick.ch/news/schweiz/forschung-erster-schweizer-flug-in-die-schwerelosigkeit-id4190547.html http://www.20min.ch/wissen/news/story/30228839 http://www.srf.ch/news/panorama/der-parabelflug-die-stationen-in-bildern http://storyspots.com/2015/09/22/erster-zero-g-flug-von-der-schweiz-aus-von-duebendorf-in-die-schwerelosigkeit-neue-zuercher-zeitung/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH5-_PyMa5w


FFA P-16 (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes, it can still be unimportant. Wikipedia has a wider scale that Switzerland alone. And a local event seldom has an international relevance. It is a commercial company performing those flights, you just hire them... The Banner talk 10:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia has a wider scale that Switzerland alone. But this specific Article is about this Airbase , its a swiss air base so it is important because it is a first time event. Ther are at the moment only 2 aircraft who are used for such Zero-g flights in Europa. this airbus who usualy only makes this flights from Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport. and the IL-76 from Roskosmos operating from zhukovsky there is no other Aircrasft in Europa. and no its not possible to rent it just like a charter or private aircraft. Please read Zero-G FFA P-16 (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Zurich Airport

Hello The Banne I would ask you the reason about the deletion of Webcam section in Zürich Airport
The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant and promo, as I had said in the summery before. The Banner talk 20:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Zurich Airport.

Where is the article about The Circle? I could not finde it. FFA P-16 (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It does not exist and has to be written.
And what I wrote on the other guys talkpage:
  1. In fact I have only removed non-essential facts from that section about The Circle. That info is relevant in an article about the building but not for an article about an airport.
  2. The promo was the excessive use of maps to show where headquarters were located and how to get there (in one case in three languages). I have left the sources that gave the address, I removed the rest. All companies are still there.

Please, read before shouting. The Banner talk 21:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC) I was not shouting, just asking. So OK then. FFA P-16 (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edits tidied up a part of the article that certainly needed reworking. But some of your deletions meant that some statements went from properly cited to uncited. And the deletions on The Circle, far from leaving all the essential facts, actually reduced it to a single rather meaningless sentence that neither said what The Circle was (a 'multi-user complex' could mean almost anything) nor what its relevance to the airport was. I havn't reverted your changes, because there was good in them, but I have rewritten much of it. I've added cites where they were missing, trying to use dry 'legal' or 'contact us' pages rather than more marketing orientated pages to avoid charges of promo. I've archived all the cited urls. I've reinstated the text that explains what The Circle is a complex of, and where it goes wrt the airport. All of that is both relevant and necessary to this article. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
It was a nasty choice of leaving things uncited or leave it promotion. Uncited seems to be the less worst option. They are still building The Circle, so to say something about the contents of the complex is rather a Crystal Bol. But I think that that complex is perhaps notable of its own and should get its own article.
Anyway, thanks for the edits. They are a massive improvement. The Banner talk 10:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Administrator Notice Board

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --  R45  talk! 15:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

If you have no arguments, you can always go to AN/I to settle an AfD. The Banner talk 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Coonagh, 21st Oct 2015

Hi TheBanner, Apologies for the external links and non-neutrality of the updated Coonagh article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coonagh,_Limerick_City and for undoing again after you reverted to the neutral version. The reason I edited in the first place was because another user had put erroneous info into the article, which I then corrected and added to, and I thought it was this erroneous version you had reverted to. This was my first time editing/publishing an article, so thanks for the advice. I will move the external links out of plain text into an external links section and reword the article to make it neutral.

If you have any other advice for me, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks! ThadysLamp (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThadysLamp (talk • contribs) 16:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In short:
  1. You can make references by putting the information between ref-tags (<ref>...</ref>. Be as precise as possible by giving the correct link. Or in cases of books/magazines: the ISBN-number and the page-number.
  2. Social media like Facebook and YouTube are no reliable sources.
  3. Pieces about people must be sourced.
  4. Place the references as close as possible to the part it backs up.
  5. Your own knowledge is not a good source. Sources must be prior published.
  6. Do not write about things that you are directly attached to. That makes is far more difficult to judge the relevancy and neutrality of the text.
The Banner talk 20:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sleive League

I appreciate your work to protect the article against vandalism and the integrity of wikipedia, perhaps you can suggest to me a better way of addressing the ambiguousness of the article? I find there is a lot of public misinformation on this topic and I wanted to make the article clear and precise and remove the ambiguous language "some of" and the misleading "Island of Ireland". I know there may have been vandalism on the article in the past and unsubstantiated citations but I didn't intend for that to be in this case.

I know the bridge at Achill Sound well, I however don't think that disqualifies Achill from being considered part of Ireland. Although there is a bridge to the island of Manhattan I don't think anybody would discount it from the state of New York, the USA or the continent of North America. The Faroe islands don't even have a bridge, and yet they have the second highest seacliffs for a continent they are not even part of, Europe. Achill is usually counted as Ireland and Ireland is the context the reader brings to the article. I think the phrase "island of ireland" is deliberately misleading in this case if it just exists to discount any reference to Croaghaun on Achill. In most use "island of Ireland" is used to signify a case including both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, where there might be confusion. E.g. Belfast is the second largest city on the island of Ireland. In fact my last edit removed "island of Ireland' and changed it to a simple and inclusive "Ireland" to avoid such semantics."Britain and Ireland" and the problematic "British Isles" would also be accurate in this situation however I didn't think they were needed.

And I do feel mentioning Croaghaun in this article is as relevant as mentioning the cliffs of Moher, for it adds needed context. Especially since some other sources deliberately encourage the perception that these are the highest cliffs. Wikipedia should be more impartial and give an accurate statement on the issue. In regards to the cliffs the difference in height is quite substantial (87m) so I think it's clear that the cliffs in Donegal come second in height. This might be a petty fight but when both sides advertise misinformation I think it would be best for wikipedia to be clear. Perhaps you can suggest the best way of writing section of the article on this point.

If there were other reasons you didn't approve of my edit please let me know. Of course I am open to being wrong and very willing to reach a compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seastacks (talk • contribs) 21:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The article states clearly that Slieve League has some of the highest seacliffs on the island of Ireland. Achill Island is a different island. What you do is to create misinformation as it makes people believe that Croaghaun is on the island Ireland, what it is not. I have seen all three cliffs with my own eyes and I am pretty sure the information is 100% correct. The Banner talk 21:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
As it quite annoying that you every so often show up to spread your misinformation, I have indeed made a compromise. I have added a section "See also" with as text: "* Croaghaun, sea cliffs on the island Achill Island." That is as far as it goes. The Banner talk 22:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


Every so often? I'm sorry, I don't follow. This is my first time editing on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seastacks (talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You use the same misguide arguments as at least three predecessors. The Banner talk 23:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I can certainly use that today. Busy with an extremely early start. And on the Dutch Wiki the yearly administrator confirmation has ended. And the administrators have decided to vote in the most unfit administrator available. In fact, a stalker, firebrand and emotionless person. Frustrating. As as that guy is so revengeful, it won't take long before he will find an lousy excuse to block me. The Banner talk 06:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Spinnin's Records Sublabels

Hi, In late September, I added a section to the article Spinnin' Records. I noticed you removed this section, and I am curious as to why, though I understand that it lacked references. AnonymousMusician (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite simple: the sublabels are not notable at all. The Banner talk 19:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

Thought you might like this

Seemed you wanted to get former destinations into airport articles, here you go. Belfast International Airport. (There is consensus) 81.174.186.5 (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

LOL, insofar that I wanted present and former destinations but in a separate article. Halfway there... The Banner talk 11:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Good, I assumed you like it after I looked at Talk:Belfast International Airport. 81.174.186.5 (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

A question about United Kingdom military aircraft serials

Hello, In the past you had told by some of my work, that it is to detailed, or too deep into a topic for wikipedia. So my I dea is before I stard with something new is to ask for your opinion about something simelar.. do you think this is notable and not to detailed? United Kingdom military aircraft serials.FFA P-16 (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not too detailed as it only states the system behind the serials, not each serial.
Ow, and please, before you start writing more, could you start a course how to write proper English? The Banner talk 19:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

Request for Comment

I found your username listed under editors available for comments and picked you random. Please see Jehovah's Witnesses#RfC: Jehovah's Witnesses vs Watchtower SocietyRoller958 (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

Surface Magazine

Hi TheBanner, Thank you for your edits and feedback on the updated Surface Magazine article. You added that the article was written like an advertisement, and since then, I’ve made several edits in order to establish neutrality. Its still a work in progress, so I wanted to ask you if you could look at it again and let me know how it can be improved? This is my first time editing an article on Wikipedia, so any advice you have for me is greatly appreciated! Patmarr (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Patmarr

1 Windsor Terrace

Since I notice that you are working on Locks Brasserie, I want to give you a heads-up that User:Locks1windsorterrace, the new tenant at the location, is trying to write an article about their new restaurant. They are being told that their restaurant is not notable enough for a separate article, with a suggestion to merge their content into Locks Brasserie and even to take over the title. See User:Locks1windsorterrace/sandbox. —teb728 t c 06:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The Locks article needs a bit more work, so I will take care of that. But looking at the draft, I think the whole merge will boil down to a sentence like Since then, it reopened under the name <new name>. source> The Banner talk

November 2015 newsletter

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter
Volume III, no. 3, September–November 2015

Note: To opt out from receiving future newsletters, please click here for instructions.                                      

Project News

  • Potential upcoming project page changes by WikiProject X. Category discussions at CfD. (more below)
— View by clicking [show] —


  • WikiProject X may begin pilot testing to refine WikiProject Food and Drink's project's pages. A recent discussion regarding this occurred at the project talk page here.
  • During September–October 2015, several food and drink categories have been discussed at Categories for discussion. Notices for these discussions are sometimes posted at the project's talk page. Notice about a new discussion was recently posted at the project talk page on 8 November 2015.
  • There are presently 3,658 unassessed Food and drink articles. Assistance in reducing this number would be appreciated.
  • Please see the project's Tasks and To do sections for project and article tasks, and please update the lists by adding new entries and removing resolved or outdated ones.

Article alerts

— View by clicking [show] —

Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Article alerts

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.

Fusce convallis, mauris imperdiet gravida bibendum, nisl turpis suscipit mauris, sed placerat ipsum urna sed risus. In convallis tellus a mauris. Curabitur non elit ut libero tristique sodales. Mauris a lacus. Donec mattis semper leo. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Vivamus facilisis diam at odio. Mauris dictum, nisi eget consequat elementum, lacus ligula molestie metus, non feugiat orci magna ac sem. Donec turpis. Donec vitae metus. Morbi tristique neque eu mauris. Quisque gravida ipsum non sapien. Proin turpis lacus, scelerisque vitae, elementum at, lobortis ac, quam. Aliquam dictum eleifend risus. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Etiam sit amet diam. Suspendisse odio. Suspendisse nunc. In semper bibendum libero.

Proin nonummy, lacus eget pulvinar lacinia, pede felis dignissim leo, vitae tristique magna lacus sit amet eros. Nullam ornare. Praesent odio ligula, dapibus sed, tincidunt eget, dictum ac, nibh. Nam quis lacus. Nunc eleifend molestie velit. Morbi lobortis quam eu velit. Donec euismod vestibulum massa. Donec non lectus. Aliquam commodo lacus sit amet nulla. Cras dignissim elit et augue. Nullam non diam. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Aenean vestibulum. Sed lobortis elit quis lectus. Nunc sed lacus at augue bibendum dapibus.
  • Feel free to welcome the new members who have recently joined the project.
— View by clicking [show] —
Onel5969
Valoem
DangerousJXD
The project currently has 83 active members.
— View by clicking [show] —


Past newsletters

Food and drink articles by quality and importance

— View by clicking [show] —
Article statistics
Food and Drink WikiProject
article assessment
Food and drink articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 7 15 31 53
FL 2 2 4
FM 140 140
GA 18 29 75 273 5 400
B 56 234 340 700 81 1,411
C 77 401 994 3,550 522 5,544
Start 22 327 1,679 11,995 3 3,901 17,927
Stub 17 543 9,024 4,953 14,537
List 12 71 115 536 23 273 1,030
Category 8,923 8,923
Disambig 218 218
File 3,022 3,022
Portal 811 811
Project 440 440
Redirect 10 72 639 2,865 3,586
Template 1,044 1,044
NA 12 12
Other 1 197 198
Assessed 185 1,098 3,833 26,751 17,698 9,735 59,300
Unassessed 18 1,978 1,996
Total 185 1,098 3,833 26,769 17,698 11,713 61,296
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 204,066 Ω = 5.12

  – Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 23:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

Friendly Notice

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 41.248.186.227 (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Too late, already done. The Banner talk 14:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Books and Bytes - Issue 14

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
  • Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
  • Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Read the full newsletter

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Banner/Archive05&oldid=1125493422"