User talk:The Banner/Archive06
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:The Banner. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Signpost: 16 December 2015
- In the media: Wales in China; #Edit2015
- Arbitration report: GMO case decided
- Featured content: An unusually slow week
- WikiProject report: Women in Red—using teamwork and partnerships to elevate online and offline collaborations
- Traffic report: A feast of Spam
London Borough templates: tube and rail stations discussion open
Hello and a Happy Christmas. Thanks for your recent contributions, improving London's coverage. I would like to invite you to: Category talk:London borough templates.- Adam37 Talk 15:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 December 2015
- News and notes: WMF Board dismisses community-elected trustee
- Arbitration report: Second Arbitration Enforcement case concludes as another case is suspended
- Featured content: The post-Christmas edition
- Traffic report: The Force we expected
- Year in review: The top ten Wikipedia stories of 2015
- In the media: Wikipedia plagued by a "Basket of Deception"
- Gallery: It's that time of year again
January 2016
Regarding my previous edit at Big Four international beauty pageants, I've added info about the new ownership of the Miss Universe that is WME/IMG. Also, I've reverted back the full list of the winners including the new winners at each big four international pageants so I don't sew anything wrong with my edits there. But I really appreciate your concern with it most especially that I'm just a Wikipedia editor for a year. That would made me more cautious in editing. Thanks for that! Plopeniopaolo (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- What you are doing is flooding the article with irrelevant information. You should stop with that. The Banner talk 16:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 January 2016
- News and notes: The WMF's age of discontent
- In the media: Impenetrable science; Jimmy Wales back in the UAE
- Arbitration report: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case been decided
- Featured content: Featured menagerie
- WikiProject report: Try-ing to become informed - WikiProject Rugby League
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Miss Earth 2015
I have removed the {{better}} template for listings that I have added reliable sources to. Why do you keep adding it back? This does nothing to improve the article. North America1000 12:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Why do you not reliable sources conform WP:RS? What you do is approving related sources. What you are doing is in my opinion close to vandalism and certainly not in the interest of the article and/or Wikipedia. The Banner talk 12:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Some of the sources I recently added include the following, which are most certainly reliable and independent. It's unclear why you think these are related to the pageant, because simply put, they certainly are not. Furthermore, the addition of reliable sources such as those I added are the not vandalism whatsoever. North America1000 12:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- But you removed the better-template from several angelopedia-sources. And that is definitely not a reliable source. That template is, in my opinion, only applicable to the source it follows, not any other source. The Banner talk 12:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Primary sources are allowed to verify content, but secondary and tertiary sources are preferred. The template was removed because a better source was added, which negated its continued existence for those entries. Also see {{Better source}} where it states, "If you have the time and ability to find a better reference, please do so. Then correct the citation yourself, or correct the article text. After all, the ultimate goal is not to merely identify problems, but to fix them." North America1000 13:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- There are repeated request for better, independent sources. And still, you add or defend related sources. The Banner talk 13:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- No. I have not added a single non-reliable source to the article. You are again mistaken regarding this matter. North America1000 13:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Your reading is awfully bad: you add or defend related sources. The Banner talk 13:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- No. I have not added a single non-reliable source to the article. You are again mistaken regarding this matter. North America1000 13:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- There are repeated request for better, independent sources. And still, you add or defend related sources. The Banner talk 13:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Primary sources are allowed to verify content, but secondary and tertiary sources are preferred. The template was removed because a better source was added, which negated its continued existence for those entries. Also see {{Better source}} where it states, "If you have the time and ability to find a better reference, please do so. Then correct the citation yourself, or correct the article text. After all, the ultimate goal is not to merely identify problems, but to fix them." North America1000 13:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 January 2016
- Community view: Battle for the soul of the WMF
- Editorial: We need a culture of verification
- In focus: The Crisis at New Montgomery Street
- Op-ed: Transparency
- Traffic report: Pattern recognition: Third annual Traffic Report
- Special report: Wikipedia community celebrates Public Domain Day 2016
- News and notes: Community objections to new Board trustee
- Featured content: This Week's Featured Content
- Arbitration report: Interview: outgoing and incumbent arbitrators 2016
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
The Signpost: 20 January 2016
- News and notes: Vote of no confidence; WMF trustee speaks out
- In the media: 15th anniversary news round-up
- Traffic report: Danse Macabre
- Featured content: This week's featured content
RM discussion
You previously contributed to discussion on the naming of the article currently at Ring, Co. Waterford. There is currently a Requested Move discussion on that page, which you may wish to contribite to. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 January 2016
- News and notes: Geshuri steps down from the Board
- In the media: Media coverage of the Arnnon Geshuri no-confidence vote
- Recent research: Bursty edits; how politics beat religion but then lost to sports; notability as a glass ceiling
- Traffic report: Death and taxes
- Featured content: This week's featured content
Miss International 2000
Note that the content you removed from Miss International 2000 has a source (diff), and as such is not WP:OR as you state in your edit summary. Please do not remove sourced content from articles. North America1000 04:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- You could have seen that it did fit in the description "irrelevant parts/fancruft". And when adding sources, could you take care that you add reliable and independent sources conform WP:RS instead of using related and/or company websites, North America ? The Banner talk 09:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Please help
We need more neutral opinions here. Please help! Thanx! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- I apologize sincerely for having done something that upset you. Heve never asked for more input on an RfC before & am only trying to follow the instructions I could find and use the list that you're on. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your support
|
Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award |
| Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 03 February 2016
- From the editors: Help wanted
- Special report: Board chair and new trustee speak with the Signpost
- Arbitration report: Catching up on arbitration
- Traffic report: Bowled
- Featured content: This week's featured content
The Signpost: 10 February 2016
- News and notes: Another WMF departure
- In the media: Jeb Bush swings at Wikipedia and connects
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Traffic report: A river of revilement
Ennis
I've reverted your last edits in which you reintroduced not just some pretty basic grammatical errors but spelling mistakes as well. Haldraper (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- In fact you are messing up the article and I start to consider your mess as vandalism. I know you are not local, and that is visible in your edits. earlier you were removing the Irish name of Ennis (why?), now you are, among others, defacing the Franciscan Abbey (a name, not just a type). I don't want to edit war with you, but your own edits are often clunky and make articles more difficult to read. Go on with that and I will revert those edits as vandalism. The Banner talk 11:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I really think you should have a better level of English if you're going to edit English language pages, e.g. reinserting "on-wards" in place of the correct spelling "onwards". Haldraper (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- It would be helpful when you stop your POV-pushing first. Even when you discretely remove it from your own talkpage. The Banner talk 16:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes - Issue 15
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)
- New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
- #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
- New branches and coordinators
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 February 2016
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Traffic report: Super Bowling
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
The Signpost: 24 February 2016
- Special report: WMF in limbo as decision on Tretikov nears
- Op-ed: Backward the Foundation
- Traffic report: Of Dead Pools and Dead Judges
- Arbitration report: Arbitration motion regarding CheckUser & Oversight inactivity
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – March 2016
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Project News
Article alerts 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. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Food and drink articles by quality and importance
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 March 2016
- News and notes: Tretikov resigns, WMF in transition
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Traffic report: Brawling
The Signpost: 09 March 2016
- News and notes: Katherine Maher named interim head of WMF; Wales email re-sparks Heilman controversy; draft WMF strategy posted
- Technology report: Wikimedia wikis will temporarily go into read-only mode on several occasions in the coming weeks
- WikiCup report: First round of the WikiCup finishes
- Traffic report: All business like show business
The Signpost: 23 March 2016
- News and notes: Lila Tretikov a Young Global Leader; Wikipediocracy blog post sparks indefinite blocks
- In the media: Angolan file sharers cause trouble for Wikipedia Zero; the 3D printer edit war; a culture based on change and turmoil
- Traffic report: Be weary on the Ides of March
- Editorial: "God damn it, you've got to be kind."
- Featured content: Watch out! A slave trader, a live mascot and a crested serpent awaits!
- Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel article 3 case amended
- Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #120: Status of Wikimania 2016
Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – April 2016
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Project News
Article alerts 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. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Food and drink articles by quality and importance
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 April 2016
- News and notes: Trump/Wales 2016
- WikiProject report: Why should the Devil have all the good music? An interview with WikiProject Christian music
- Traffic report: Donald v Daredevil
- Featured content: A slow, slow week
- Technology report: Browse Wikipedia in safety? Use Telnet!
- Recent research: "Employing Wikipedia for good not evil" in education; using eyetracking to find out how readers read articles
- Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #121: How April Fools went down
The Signpost: 16 March 2016
- News and notes: Wikipedia Zero: Orange mobile partnership in Africa ends; the evolution of privacy loss in Wikipedia
- In the media: Wales at SXSW; lawsuit over Wikipedia PR editing
- Discussion report: Is an interim WMF executive director inherently notable?
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Technology report: Watchlists, watchlists, watchlists!
- Traffic report: Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States
- Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #119: The Foundation and the departure of Lila Tretikov
Holy wells
There is more
[4] and all the ones linked from the bottom template. Did you have a plan for them? Legacypac (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- The plan was not to overflow the loving people and wait a couple of day before nominating the rest.
The Banner talk 14:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- By the way, I have filed an SPI due to some fishy action (re-adding the list of win by country) at List of Miss Universe titleholders here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mf. von Karma The Banner talk 15:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I group AfD'd what I believe to be the balance of them. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Asia_Pacific_1968 Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Saper
The source is not valid. To be honest it s a bit gossip portal. And there is a mistake in what you write. Srdjan Saper is mentioned in Panama Papers but it was not about "money laundering operation". At that time Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, now Serbia was under international economic sanction, and even when UN and international community remove sanction, there is still not possibility for money transfer with others ex Yugoslav republic now independent states because of bad relationship which cause the civil war. So the only way to transfer money to other countries was to do that with offshore companies. I will not remove the source, but please remove "money laundering operation". You can check that in other source. Hope I answer on your question. Sinecerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rade Radisa (talk • contribs) 11:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 April 2016
- News and notes: Denny Vrandečić resigns from Wikimedia Foundation board
- In the media: Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright case; Tex Watson; AI assistants; David Jolly biography
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Traffic report: A welcome return to pop culture and death
- Arbitration report: The first case of 2016—Wikicology
- Gallery: A history lesson
Books & Bytes - Issue 16
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)
- New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
- Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
- A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
- Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Agricultural chemicals DS
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.
This is a reminder because of your recent edits at Organic food relating to safety where content involves pesticides. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Brilliant, you guys have found another way of keeping positive information out of the article. I say a lot about the POV used that I get a warning and Yobol not... The Banner talk 07:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- The comment at the actual article was directed at everyone with respect to 1RR. If you read the template, it is not intended as a warning, but to inform people of the sanctions. I was operating under the good-faith assumption that people forgot the sanctions apply for this content or weren't aware of them at all in your case. I guess I can't say I'm surprised you're going back to raising drama with comments like yours above, but that's the actual intent of these DS templates if you read it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just read the article and see the pattern of removing everything positive by Yobol, Jytdog and a few others. This warning, especially when handed out selectively, fits in that pattern. The Banner talk 19:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- The comment at the actual article was directed at everyone with respect to 1RR. If you read the template, it is not intended as a warning, but to inform people of the sanctions. I was operating under the good-faith assumption that people forgot the sanctions apply for this content or weren't aware of them at all in your case. I guess I can't say I'm surprised you're going back to raising drama with comments like yours above, but that's the actual intent of these DS templates if you read it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Most of the time
I agree with your deletion nominations but on the template I couldn't because there was a article on the subject of the template.
I didn't look at the Big Four article other than to note it existed. So many of the pageant articles are a mess.
Beauty pageants don't interest me a real lot though I am portraying one in a future ebook(I have 14 for sale right now at Amazon). What started me monitoring some of these articles is Tatiana Capote and what happened at Miss World 1979. She was a contestant who had her swimsuit fail. At least one pageant website says this led to Ms. Capote being disqualified. News articles written in 1979 say no such thing. I fixed the article and have kept an eye on it ever since because at least four or five editors have come along and re-inserted the wrong information.
There are lots of sockpuppets and other editors who will constantly recreate delete articles or do nonsense edits. You do good work and I do try to help out a little. Cheers!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is totally frustrating, especially with a admin - not you - who is actively protecting those spammy articles. I don't know how many SPIs I have started by now (8?) and I have participated in quite a few more. It is totally horrible how the rules, regulations and time limits of the CUs works in favour of the spammers and sockpuppets.
- I have a few busy days ahead but as soon as possible I start despamming those templates. The Banner talk 09:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
AfD
You might want to look again at your edit here... - thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, that was not what I had in mind. Copied it, reverted it and made the correct entry. Thanks for the warning! The Banner talk 17:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 April 2016
- Special report: Update on EranBot, our new copyright violation detection bot
- Traffic report: Two for the price of one
- Featured content: The double-sized edition
- Arbitration report: Amendments made to the Race and intelligence case
Need help
We need more neutral opinions here. I've followed instructions here and at Wikipedia:Feedback request service and to used the user lists there. I've sent a message for neutral input to everyone active recently and available for 10 per month or more on the lists in the Language and linguistics, Media, the arts, and architecture, Society-sports-culture, Unsorted and All-RFCs lists, none of whom have interacted with me before, that I can remember. Have done my best to act in good faith to try to get more neutral opinions. Please help! Thanx! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 2 May 2016
- In the media: Wikipedia Zero piracy in Bangladesh; bureaucracy; chilling effects; too few cooks; translation gaps
- Traffic report: Purple
- Featured content: The best ... from the past two weeks
May 2016
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Miss Spain 2004, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that.
Please stop blanking and redirecting the page at Miss Spain 2004. The deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Spain 2004 closed as merge. As the creator of the deletion discussion, it comes across that you are attempting to circumvent the consensus at the discussion to get your way. Please don't do this. North America1000 21:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- It seems that you don't even know what you are doing yourself. Your were merging at Miss Spain but now you deny that. Get your game right, Northamerica1000. The Banner talk 21:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- If you disagree with how the deletion discussion was closed, Wikipedia:Deletion review is that way →. North America1000 21:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Don't do a job half and criticize people for getting it wrong then. Finish the job or shut up. Don't start throwing with silly templates. The Banner talk 21:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- If you disagree with how the deletion discussion was closed, Wikipedia:Deletion review is that way →. North America1000 21:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
A Dobos torte for you!
.jpg)
|
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 May 2016
- Op-ed: Swiss chapter in turmoil
- In the media: Wikimedia's Dario Taraborelli quoted on Google's Knowledge Graph in The Washington Post
- Featured content: Two weeks for the prize of one
- Traffic report: Oh behave, Beyhive / Underdogs
- Arbitration report: "Wikicology" ends in site ban; evidence and workshop phases concluded for "Gamaliel and others"
- Wikicup: That's it for WikiCup Round 2!
A barnstar for you!
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| Superb work Ratel (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC) |
- Thanks! Much appreciated. The Banner talk 09:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Removal of external links
You've recently removed the external links from dozens of Miss International articles. Although the given links were dead, they are readily restorable via the Web Archive. Your removal of these links is simply creating additional, and unnecessary, work. Please stop doing that. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- As a website related to the subject, it does not add anything reliable to the article. The Banner talk 03:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Related to the subject"? How so? NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Goody, I would have expected that you at least were knowing what you were doing. And you could expect that pageantopolis was fed and sponsored by the pageant industry and not an independent newsagency... The Banner talk 17:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Related to the subject"? How so? NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 May 2016
- News and notes: Upcoming Wikimedia conferences in the US and India; May Metrics and Activities Meeting
- Special report: Compensation paid to Sue Gardner increased by almost 50 percent after she stepped down as executive director
- Featured content: Eight articles, three lists and five pictures
- Op-ed: Journey of a Wikipedian
- Arbitration report: Gamaliel resigns from the arbitration committee
- Recent research: English as Wikipedia's Lingua Franca; deletion rationales; schizophrenia controversies
- Traffic report: Splitting (musical) airs / Slow Ride
Please comment on Talk:Hilton Worldwide
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hilton Worldwide. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Reverted edit
You reverted my update on the ranking for Heston Blumenthal's Fat Duck restaurant. Please don't assume vandalism just because the user isn't signed in, especially when there is a reference you could easily have checked. I guess next time I will sign in, but it's very discouraging to see that attitude on Wikipedia. WP:AGF
Missimack (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do you not think that it looks rather stupid that a restaurant is nr. 73 on a top 50 list? The Banner talk 06:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Good point and I missed that, so I will change it now. However, did you not have any issue with leaving wrong information in the article? You should've just fixed the issue, not put back erroneous information. What you did comes across very aggressively and I hope you don't do it often. Missimack (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have had issues with loads and loads and loads of vandalism on that article. But with the given source, the info was correct. Outdated, but correct. The Banner talk 10:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Good point and I missed that, so I will change it now. However, did you not have any issue with leaving wrong information in the article? You should've just fixed the issue, not put back erroneous information. What you did comes across very aggressively and I hope you don't do it often. Missimack (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- It was incorrect, not just outdated, because it said that it 'is' (present, therefore currently) at a ranking spot that it is not. A person reading the article would not see that the information pertained to a previous year (was outdated), but would think the information is true right now (which it is not, and is therefore incorrect as well as outdated). After all, most readers don't check references unless they have to. It's up to editors to make sure the information is as correct as possible. Additionally, the reference was no longer valid since the link was broken, so a reader would have to trust that the retrieved date was true.
- It would be a different story if they article had specified the year for which that ranking was given. Only then would it be outdated but correct. I'm by not means a new editor so I don't particularly care, but your attitude could be very off putting to a newcomer. Missimack (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is your point of view that is was incorrect. I disagree as the source backed up the statement made. The Banner talk 18:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- There was no source: it no longer existed. Missimack (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is your point of view that is was incorrect. I disagree as the source backed up the statement made. The Banner talk 18:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
- Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Emma Watson
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emma Watson. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 June 2016
- News and notes: WMF cuts budget for 2016-17 as scope tightens
- Featured content: Overwhelmed ... by pictures
- Traffic report: Pop goes the culture, again.
- Arbitration report: ArbCom case "Gamaliel and others" concludes
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Video Games
A change of pace from your restaurant fare. Your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ehm, how could I help? By nominating it for deletion? I have more sympathy for the other side: Willem Pieter Landzaat. But to be true, I do not know much about Mussert. The Banner talk 16:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe you have access to sources I don't have...or nothing better to do today... Drmies (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Or help me translate Ouwehands Dierenpark, so you can place the link in your Landzaat article! Drmies (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I just got blocked by Moira, a plain revenge block. So I have a bit more time available, although I continue with checking the articles written by Februari, as I do not accept removal based on the name of the original author alone. The Banner talk 17:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I will not promise anything due to being busy IRL and depression, but I will do my best. The Banner talk 17:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Moira? MoiraMoira? God wat tref ik het weer, dat ik tussen jullie inzit. Moira, dit is misschien wel een wat laag-waterige spijker. Er moet wel een heel serieuze voorgeschiedenis zijn om een blok hiervoor te geven (en ik heb de ArbCom zaak gelezen), ook al omdat de opmerking van Renevs eigenlijk ook blokkeerbaar is, of in ieder geval laakbaar. "Baiting", bijvoorbeeld, is van toepassing. Ik zeg dit hopende dat je weet dat je mijn favoriete Nederlandse Wikipediaer bent.
Banner, I love you like a brother, maar je laat je wel makkelijk in dit soort situaties manoevreren (kan ik al niet eens meer in het Nederlands spellen...). Kom, zeg dat je het niet meer zal doen, en probeer het niet meer te doen, en dan strijkt Moira misschien wel de hand over het hart...
Trouwens, wat bedoel je met "articles written by Februari"? Drmies (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- What happened before? I am critical about her admin-behaviour. Especially when she acts as prosecutor, judge and executioner in a case. No defence possible and no real argumentation given (transparency, anyone?). She thinks that as a hard working administrator she is automatically excused from following rules and explanations. The Banner talk 21:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Moira? MoiraMoira? God wat tref ik het weer, dat ik tussen jullie inzit. Moira, dit is misschien wel een wat laag-waterige spijker. Er moet wel een heel serieuze voorgeschiedenis zijn om een blok hiervoor te geven (en ik heb de ArbCom zaak gelezen), ook al omdat de opmerking van Renevs eigenlijk ook blokkeerbaar is, of in ieder geval laakbaar. "Baiting", bijvoorbeeld, is van toepassing. Ik zeg dit hopende dat je weet dat je mijn favoriete Nederlandse Wikipediaer bent.
Fashion show stuff
FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky Groove. I think you cleaned up some on the earlier socks. —SpacemanSpiff 13:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 June 2016
- News and notes: Clarifications on status and compensation of outgoing executive directors Sue Gardner and Lila Tretikov
- Special report: Wikiversity Journal—A new user group
- Featured content: From the crème de la crème
- In the media: Biography disputes; Craig Newmark donation; PR editing
- Traffic report: Another one with sports; Knockout, brief candle
Books & Bytes - Issue 17
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria
- New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
- Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
- New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Confused About Your Reversion at Baylor University
I'm terribly confused about this edit you made at Baylor University. You used the edit summary "undue weight, certainly not history" which greatly puzzles me. First, my edit moved the material from its own dedicated section and placed into one paragraph in the article's history section. So I'm puzzled why you believe that your edit that moved the material back to its own dedicated section gives the material less weight. Second, I don't understand at all how this event isn't part of the university's history. It's certainly recent and the events are still unfolding but a series of events that lead to the firing of the university president are certainly a notable part of the institution's history, right? Finally, please explain exactly what about my copy edits you find so objectionable as to revert every single one without explanation. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- 1: The scandal is running now, so it is not history
- 2: By putting it prominently in the history section at the beginning of the article you gave the scandal extra weight by making sure more people would see it.
- 3: By moving the scandal to the end of the article it has a less prominent place (not every person will scroll that far) while at the same time retaining the info
- 4: Start reading the history of the article and you will see that I have made just two edits at this article and that I am certainly not reverting each and everyone of your edits.
- 5: When reading the history here, please note that both my edits had an explanation what I was doing.
- 6: See the talkpage of the article.
- The Banner talk 19:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- I would very much appreciate you not making assumptions about my motivations. I placed the material into the history section because that is where it best belongs, not segregated into a inherently POV section by itself as if these events are disconnected from everything else at the institution. It's typical for history to be the first section in a college or university article; it helps set the context for readers.
- Contrary to your beliefs, your revert didn't just move the material to the old section but it also reverted other edits. If you think that the material should be in a section, move it. If you disagree with my copy edits, revert them (with an explanation, please). But don't do both of them while claiming to only do one of them. ElKevbo (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- I do not make any assumptions about you motivation. But I must say that you have convinced me about the fact that you read very badly and selective. Good night. The Banner talk 19:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
RUAG
You will be waiting a long time for FFA P-16 to act upon your request to fix up the RUAG Aviation article. His English is not good enough to be editing on the English WP (which he himself has admitted several times) and he doesn't see the need to source information properly either. YSSYguy (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- But if I start throwing out stuff without prior warning, he will start edit warring. And I have other things on my mind to bother with that. The Banner talk 08:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's a no-win situation - he will edit-war with or without any advance notice from other Users. He prefers a shit article that he thinks has the "correct" information over a better-quality article without the information. YSSYguy (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have discretely waited till he did an edit. And then axed... The Banner talk 08:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I hope my moving it into Draft space was an acceptable compromise. By the way, of course I will say the same as you when I agree with you, I am a little surprised that an editor as experienced as you might have thought otherwise. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- It sounded differently...
- But it is rather tough to accept that FFA sees every criticism as a personal attack and that he has made no (visible) improvement in his mastering of the English language while he is demanding that we have to improve is articles. (Sometimes I really don't understand what he had written.) The Banner talk 13:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ow, and when you are not too busy. Please review the relevancy of this picture here. The Banner talk 13:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- I hope my moving it into Draft space was an acceptable compromise. By the way, of course I will say the same as you when I agree with you, I am a little surprised that an editor as experienced as you might have thought otherwise. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have discretely waited till he did an edit. And then axed... The Banner talk 08:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's a no-win situation - he will edit-war with or without any advance notice from other Users. He prefers a shit article that he thinks has the "correct" information over a better-quality article without the information. YSSYguy (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For all your pageant related work. The ANI thread is mostly balderdash from people who don't understand the level of pageant article garbage there is around here. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC) |
July 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Michelin stars in Drenthe, Netherlands. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- For your information: what I did was filling the row and changed all other templates in this series accordingly. So I have solved the issue of the empty rows. The Banner talk 12:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 July 2016
- News and notes: Board unanimously appoints Katherine Maher as new WMF executive director; Wikimedia lawsuits in France and Germany
- Op-ed: Two policies in conflict?
- In the media: Terrorism database cites Wikipedia as a source
- Featured content: Triple fun of featured content
- Traffic report: Goalposts; Oy vexit
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you are involved. The thread is located at The Banner. Thank you. North America1000 12:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Too bad for you. The Banner talk 12:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- I closed the discussion. You may be surprised that one option I considered in this close was an immediate indefinite block, but I don't believe there is consensus for this yet. However, this is a final warning due to a persistent battleground mentality after years of similar behaviour and repeated blocks and warnings. If you do not abide by these conditions, I believe that any admin will be justified in imposing an indef block without further warnings:
- 1. Topic ban from pageants for three months, starting today. No discussion of pageants or discussion of the editing of others about pageants;
- 2. No comments about other editors' behavioural issues, including their motivations (COI) or conduct, on article talk pages or other venues apart from those users' talk pages and appropriate noticeboard, i.e. no more casting aspersions;
- 3. Remain civil at all times. Please read WP:CIVIL carefully. You once commented "I'm just a rude guy" - I don't know if that was sarcastic or truthful, but from now you need to not be rude to other editors;
- 4. Respect consensus of the outcome of deletion discussions and other discussions - no redirecting when the outcone was merge, no merging when the outcome was keep;
- 5. All deletion nominations need to follow WP:BEFORE. Deletion nominations of many similar articles or templates must be preceded by a discussion and be done as a bulk nomination;
- 6. Follow WP:1RR on all articles and templates. Fences&Windows 12:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I will respect your decision but do not agree with it. Especially 4 and 5 are harsh, as they are very vulnerable to the way you look at it. At four: what is relevant info to merge? And at five: what is considered properly following WP:BEFORE? In fact, WP:BEFORE is asking an editor to clean up and improve even the most dodgy article before sending it to AfD...
- But I will abide your decision. The Banner talk 17:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
List of former populated places in Croatia
I have created this article in the first place few years ago, and it's to primitive for 2016. so I made it better. In the next few years all of red links will have articles so don't worry about that, I have put six different external links, two of them are from Državni zavod za statistiku which have all of these villages in list. Here they are: first one, second one and four others. If you want to do something useful for your world, please, create new, better articles and don't hate other people and nations. Croatia is my country and you can cooperate, but please don't be an idiot. Thank you! --BrunoMed (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- I do not hate you, I do not hate Croatia but I do hate very bad articles. The massive list of red links are just soso. The problem are the 85 different links to disambiguation pages. All without information to identify them. Instead of being critical about me, you better start looking at the quality of your work and fix those links to disambiguation pages.
- And please, we are trying to work together. Do not use any personal attacks. The Banner talk 15:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Apology
I am truly apologizing form my rude, childish behavior. I worked hours on that page. I am trying to do something that can help Wikipedia and other users, although I do the opposite, not on purpose. Once again, I am truly apologizing for all my bad actions, I promise it won′t happen again. --BrunoMed (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Apology accepted.
- I advice you to take a look at Wikipedia:WPCleaner, a tool used to solve links to disambiguation pages. It works on 1 article at a time. Using it of my own articles and draft articles, it gave my quite a few nasty surprises but I could fix them before they came into the open. It is, in my opinion, a very helpful tool!
- Good luck! The Banner talk 09:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 July 2016
- Discussion report: Busy month for discussions
- Featured content: A wide variety from the best
- Traffic report: Sports and esports
- Arbitration report: Script writers appointed for clerks
- Recent research: Using deep learning to predict article quality
Friendly suggestion
In future, please make sure to explain why you're reverting someone in the edit summary when the person you're reverting explained why they made that change. Thanks. FabulousFerd (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I noted that the info you had removed was relevant and not just a filler. When you disagree, discuss it on the talk page. The Banner talk 21:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ow, and please note the you breached the Discretionary Sanctions on the Donald Trump article that stated that there is a 1RR (1 revert per 24 hour) in place and that challenged edits have to be discussed on the talk page. The Banner talk 21:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Cephalonia
Please see https://en.m.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Cephalonia&welcome=yes#/talk
Ofir HonorTheIsland (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- I do not know what you want with that, but I see nothing about cities on island without population. The Banner talk 19:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Google listmania
per your edit of Google Earth. It appears there is a yet another walled garden and possibly extended bunch of same socks: [5],[6]. Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coverage of Google Street View. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Ring, County Waterford
I did not add a false source. A two sources, one to show that the correct name for the three electoral divisions in question is indeed An Rinn, Baile Mhac Airt and Aird Mhór, and the other for the figures given for 2014. Please stop introducing inaccuracy into the article by reverting it to the incorrect ED names and removing the citation for the 2014 figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.167.183 (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your source was false, as it does not contain figures about 2014, something you claimed by using it as source for 2014-figures.. The Banner talk 16:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
In added two sources for two different purposes. One source to verify that the Electoral Divisions are correctly called An Rinn, Baile Mhac Airt and Aird Mhór. The other contained the figures about 2014. Please stop introducing inaccuracy into the article by reverting it to the incorrect ED names and removing the citation for the 2014 figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.167.183 (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do you really think that a pdf named "Nuachonrú ar an Staidéar Cuimsitheach Teangeolaíoch ar Úsáid na Gaeilge sa Ghaeltacht: 2006–2011" also covers 2014? Come on! I checked that source and there are no numbers for Ring/An Rinn. Not for 2007 and not for 2014. The Banner talk 16:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The report was published in 2014, and that report is where those figures came from. In 2007 a comprehensive linguistic study or the Gaeltacht was published, that is where the fist figure comes from. In 2014 an update of that review was published and that is where the second figure comes from. The year 2014 in the article referes to the year that the report was published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.167.183 (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- But it contains not the figures of 2014... The Banner talk 16:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
There have been two major reports on the use of Irish in the Gaeltacht, one in 2007 and the other in 2014. 2014 refers to the year of the report. The report itself is given as a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.167.183 (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- BUT IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE FIGURES OF 2014! Do you read that badly? The Banner talk 17:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
My ability to read is just fine thank you very much. It seems to be yourself that is displaying a batelfield mentality and POV pushing. As I said previously the year 2014 refers to year the report was published. As does the year 2007 in the case of the previous report. The article could be changed to reflect the 2002 census and the 2011 census if you are that obsessed, it would ultimatly be the same thing, but would replace a secondary source with a primary source and that would be counter to WP guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.167.183 (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sigh, you really don't understand. The Banner talk 18:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- See WP:IMOS: "Where the English- and Irish-language names are the same or very nearly the same, but the spellings differ, use the English spelling."
- See: WP:COMMONNAME "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". And check it out: Ring is far more often used than An Rinn.
- The Banner talk 18:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ow, and can you give the page number where I can find the 2014 percentage about Ring/An Winn in your pdf? The Banner talk 18:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Please clarify, and help?
On FP Top 100 Global Thinkers you reverted the entire section for the year 2012 list, with the edit summary of "full list and arguments is not coptright free". Can the list be modified to be usable? I don't see the main difference with the other years that are listed. It is disconcerting to not at least show other years' lists exist. 69.58.42.90 (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- You can use FP as a source, but you can not copy the full list. The Copyright laws MUST be abided at all times. The Banner talk 13:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Help Me
Dev (Leader) article is about a great leader for in Jagnaryan, Chhotki Ramnagar Nepal. So, help me to create this article; if there any web type or ruled cannot involve in this article. And also help me to work as admi on editing in Nepali/Nepalese/Nepal. Thanks for leaving talk above. Twitter @devdhawal98702 / @FscRup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev Dhawal (talk • contribs) 01:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is plain self promotion and a total chaos not based on reliable sources. Beside that, the article is already remove three times as Dev Dhawal. Stop this. The Banner talk 02:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Ramsay
Apologies if i came over as blunt, especially if you have tried to keep the peace on Ramsay's page (I haven't looked at the edit history beyond the opening page). Scottish-born British is not a term I have ever heard him described as. To state he is a Brit is accurate, to then elaborate further by stating his background (born in Scotland, grew up in England) is perhaps more appropriate. RyanTQuinn (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC))
- Good luck with the edit wars that you will be triggering with this edit. The Banner talk 23:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Brit is not contentious though (at least it shouldn't be). We can't come up with a compromise just to appease those that disagree with it. Looking at the number of times Scottish-born has been removed in the first edit page alone is telling. In the case of Ramsay it is extraneous. British covers it, especially someone born in one part of the UK and raised in another. If he self identified as being Scottish that's a different matter, RyanTQuinn (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC))
- The number of edit wars between Scottish POV-pushers and English/British POV-pushers is also telling. But as I said before: have fun with those edit wars. As you could read on the talk pages and the archives, there was a serious reason for this phrase. The Banner talk 23:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- It didn't solve it though did it? Looking at the first edit page alone tells us that. His nationality (to which he is commonly known), followed by his background (to elaborate further), I can see nothing as clear as that. As I said though, if he were to state "I'm Scottish" then it's a different story. RyanTQuinn (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC))
- If I recall correctly, he did claim to be Scottish. And that was sourced. The Banner talk 00:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Scottish by birth, UK chef Gordon Ramsay was brought up in Stratford-upon-Avon, England, (...) [1]
- Scottish celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay (...) [2]
- "I'm Scottish by birth but it would break my heart to see it divide as a unit. "There's so much Scottishness in me … and I understand the importance of individuality," he added, saying it was not his job to stop any move to break away. (...) [3]
- The Banner talk 00:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- It didn't solve it though did it? Looking at the first edit page alone tells us that. His nationality (to which he is commonly known), followed by his background (to elaborate further), I can see nothing as clear as that. As I said though, if he were to state "I'm Scottish" then it's a different story. RyanTQuinn (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC))
- The number of edit wars between Scottish POV-pushers and English/British POV-pushers is also telling. But as I said before: have fun with those edit wars. As you could read on the talk pages and the archives, there was a serious reason for this phrase. The Banner talk 23:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Brit is not contentious though (at least it shouldn't be). We can't come up with a compromise just to appease those that disagree with it. Looking at the number of times Scottish-born has been removed in the first edit page alone is telling. In the case of Ramsay it is extraneous. British covers it, especially someone born in one part of the UK and raised in another. If he self identified as being Scottish that's a different matter, RyanTQuinn (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC))
The Signpost: 04 August 2016
- News and notes: Foundation presents results of harassment research, plans for automated identification; Wikiconference submissions open
- Obituary: Kevin Gorman, who took on Wikipedia's gender gap and undisclosed paid advocacy, dies at 24
- Traffic report: Summer of Pokémon, Trump, and Hillary
- Featured content: Women and Hawaii
- Recent research: Easier navigation via better wikilinks
- Technology report: User script report (January to July 2016, part 1)
Hi there. In this edit you removed the AfD notice that you recently added. Since the AfD is still open, I presume this was unintentional, so I've added it back. --Michig (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I expected an edit conflict instead of overwriting. Thank you for correcting. The Banner talk 18:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Save the article Nikolai Noskov
Don't worry Banner, be happy! And undo template delete! You must be save the article Nikolai Noskov! I want your kind voice! --Анна Озерова (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I filed a request to get you blocked, so far the "kind voice". The Banner talk 11:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Joseph Stalin
Hi. You reverted my edit to the lead of Joseph Stalin, saying that it was "standard style for biographies". I don't believe this is the case; compare Vladimir Lenin and Nikita Khrushchev, which both omit Russian-language names from the lead. MOS:FORLANG also gives appropriate guidance which suggests it's better addressed elsewhere; If more than one foreign equivalent is needed, put them in a separate sentence in the lead or in a Name section rather than in the opening sentence. Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology.
—0xF8E8 (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- See Konstantin Rokossovsky, Semyon Timoshenko, Zhang Xueliang, Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Semyon Budyonny, Vasily Blyukher, Nadezhda Krupskaya, Luo Yixiu, Yang Kaihui, Demis Roussos, Vangelis, Isoroku Yamamoto, Akihito
- The Banner talk 09:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- The crux of my argument is about clutter; none of those include a pronunciation or an additional surname. I'd be open to maybe keeping the Russian-language name, it's just the combination of the pronunciation, birth surname, and Russian-language name that bothers me. The lead should generally be concise; not all information has to be covered within it. I point to Lenin and Khrushchev because they're contextually similar examples of high-profile quality biographies (good and featured articles, respectively) of Russian figures; they both cover their subjects appropriately without a Russian-language surname in the lead. Do you see the Russian-language surname as particularly necessary? If so, perhaps the pronunciation and birth surname could be omitted, as it's a well-known pronunciation and we can address his name in the "Early life" section. —0xF8E8 (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Even de Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies allows (and in one example points at) the use of names in a foreign script in the first sentence, including the correct pronunciation.
- And you were not moving the name, you bluntly removed it. So no, I disagree with your edits as they are not in the best interest of the encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 14:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I certainly didn't intend to bluntly remove it; it's just already covered in the Early life section, so there was no real way to "move it". When it comes to the Manual of Style on biographies, the example I presume you're referring to is Muammar Gadaffi, which is similar in this case but somewhat appropriate because the pronunciation is unusual (at least to an English speaker) and there are wildly variant ways of romanizing Arabic. Stalin is consistently romanized the same way, has a commonly-known pronunciation, and the birth surname can be covered elsewhere. If you see any of these things as particularly important, they can be kept, but I don't see any justification so far. I think the Gadaffi article is also kind of awkward at present (since it was added as an example for MOS, the lead sentence has changed a bit), but it's not the same kind of case. Would you be willing to compromise (say, Russian-lang surname but not pronunciation or birth surname)? I see you've opened a discussion on the help desk, which I hope will be useful; you might have better luck over at the talk page for MOS, though, since they probably have more relevant input. —0xF8E8 (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- The crux of my argument is about clutter; none of those include a pronunciation or an additional surname. I'd be open to maybe keeping the Russian-language name, it's just the combination of the pronunciation, birth surname, and Russian-language name that bothers me. The lead should generally be concise; not all information has to be covered within it. I point to Lenin and Khrushchev because they're contextually similar examples of high-profile quality biographies (good and featured articles, respectively) of Russian figures; they both cover their subjects appropriately without a Russian-language surname in the lead. Do you see the Russian-language surname as particularly necessary? If so, perhaps the pronunciation and birth surname could be omitted, as it's a well-known pronunciation and we can address his name in the "Early life" section. —0xF8E8 (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@The Banner: I've put the info about the surname in a footnote; do you find this an acceptable compromise? —0xF8E8 (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I see you didn't get any response to this at the Help Desk. I'm not sure where to tell you to go.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
B 465
Hello The Banner, thank you very much, you help me often with your edits. This time a little mistake happened, it is Biberach an der Riss. Don't worry. Kind regards--Buchbibliothek (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter (August 2016)
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Gorilla Sandwich
There was only one disambiguation to be found pepper!? I fixed it via dablinks: http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py?page=Gorilla_Sandwich. According to Wikipedia regulations when less then four disambiguation the template can be removed so I sill remove it now.Vonlandsberg (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 August 2016
- News and notes: Focus on India—WikiConference produces new apps; state government adopts free licenses
- Special report: Engaging diverse communities to profile women of Antarctica
- In the media: The ugly, the bad, the playful, and the promising
- Featured content: Simply the best ... from the last two weeks
- Traffic report: Olympic views
- Technology report: User script report (January–July 2016, part 2)
- Arbitration report: The Michael Hardy case
Removed templates
Hello, I removed maintenance templates from Worldwide energy supply only after resolving the problem as much as I could. I made it clear that I only used data published by institutions such as the International Energy Agency - they did the original research, I didn't. I used Wiki Markup to improve citations. Please tell me how to improve the article further, if necessary. Greetings, Rwbest (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Warning
Please stop harassing me. You have reverted or disagreed with me on no less than four separate talk pages. That have nothing to do with each other and are nearly every page I've participated on. It's very clear you are going through my history and following me around looking to harass me. I demand you stop or you will be blocked from editing. 50m race walk (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- LOL, bullying rejected. The Banner talk 07:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Deep Medi
Hi The Banner, just made an edit so now it doesn't sound promotional. It has all the sources, is this ok now?
Jalexlb (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
What is wrong with it? I just made another edit
Jalexlb (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes - Issue 18
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads
- New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
- Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
- TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
- OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Geography links
Please stop jumping to conclusions. you cannot have an island with 10 people living in it but it has ZERO villages. learn some math. I would appreciate if you block me for bad links, BUT - only if you would block yourself for not paying attention to the statistics. you have an article of Trinket Island with Trinket village as its capital and a population of 2. then you decided that the trinket village is from an island 1000 KM south of there. at least do the math once before you block us both. I would appreciate it.
- It would be better when you start paying attention to your own links. Like the "Kamorta tehsil" that does not exist. (Kamorta is a village) And a source that does not back up the information it is supposed to source. If you had read your own source, you should have spotted your own mistakes. Far too often you add total rubbish. The Banner talk 20:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: September 2016
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Project News
The following articles were nominated for GA status: ReaLemon Carrot Malvern Water (bottled water)
Article alerts |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Food and drink articles by quality and importance
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Systems of inheritance among various peoples for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Systems of inheritance among various peoples is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systems of inheritance among various peoples until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
| For trying to help with those long, long essays. You are a nice person and a credit to the project. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 06 September 2016
- Special report: Olympics readership depended on language
- WikiProject report: Watching Wikipedia
- Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between
- Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit
- Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them
- Recent research: Ethics of machine-created articles and fighting vandalism
Supreme commander
Ok. So I don't really understand the benefit in using a redirect in the template. When redirects are used and the template is added to the page where the target is all that happens is that the link stays as a blue link instead of being filled like it's supposed to do when the template is on it. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how that's an improvement, Could you explain?*Treker (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- The difference is that the original link is a link to an disambiguation page. As such, automatic maintenance programs will detect that (as they already did) and mark it for repair. The link to "Supreme commander (disambiguation page)" in fact fools the automatic maintenance programs as the redirect itself is not a link to a disambiguation page. At the end, the reader will end op at the desired page (Supreme commander) but it will not trigger any programs marking it for repair.
- The intentional redirect helps avoiding bigger trouble. The Banner talk 08:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I use Wikipedia:WPCleaner for repairing links to disambiguation pages mentioned on the maintenance page "Templates with disambiguation links". Twice this week the template showed up in this page, triggered by "Supreme commander". But after fixing it to "Supreme commander (disambiguation page)", nor WikiCleaner nor the bit filling the maintenance page will find it. I hope that this will make things clear why sometimes redirects are intentionally used. The Banner talk 08:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- But none of that helps the fact that when the template is added to the page the link won't fill in and it will look awkward.*Treker (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, it will not look awkward. If you apply the link correctly you it will become [[Supreme commander (disambiguation page)|Supreme commander]] but the reader will only see a link to "Supreme commander" as the effective link is hidden by the piping. See also: Wikipedia:Piped link. The Banner talk 14:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion that looks awkward. That's not how it's supposed to look on templates. Just let the militant link be and leave out the unnecessary disambiguous link, It's not needed since all the links on that article are going to be added to the template anyway.*Treker (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Believe me, it is not awkward but a service to the readers. You and me see what is really in the template, the reader does not. But due to the piped link, he or she will arrive at the right article. The Banner talk 14:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- And let me be straightforward with you: you have added a lot of function titles instead of ranks to the template. And now you show me that you are willing to editwar over mistakes. To my opinion, all your job titles are superfluous to the template and could be removed... I have fixed thousands of links to disambiguation pages, just believe me. The Banner talk 14:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well that's your opinion and I don't agree, roundabout links are annoying. I like to do things consistently and for things to look consistent. If the template cannot be added to an article or page and work properly it shouldn't be there anyway. Templates should only include articles where it is in, and as far as I can now that I have looked a template shouldn't even be in disambiguous pages. I don't want to edit war. I just simply disagree with you, no different than what you are doing with me. I'm sorry if I have come across as impolite.
- The reason the job titles are there is because it is incredibly hard to define what exactly is a rank and what isn't. I doubt you would have an easy time figuring out that exactly either since no place or article seems to do a good job of it.
- I can easily revert it to the plain overview of the ranks as it was before. Without mistakes. The Banner talk 14:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't agree that that it would be that easy or that it is a good idea. It will go back to be a simple copy of the star rank template. It's better of as it is now. If you disagree maybe start a conversation on the military history talk page. As I said I don't want to edit war with you and I'm sorry if I came of as impolite.*Treker (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I can easily revert it to the plain overview of the ranks as it was before. Without mistakes. The Banner talk 14:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion that looks awkward. That's not how it's supposed to look on templates. Just let the militant link be and leave out the unnecessary disambiguous link, It's not needed since all the links on that article are going to be added to the template anyway.*Treker (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, it will not look awkward. If you apply the link correctly you it will become [[Supreme commander (disambiguation page)|Supreme commander]] but the reader will only see a link to "Supreme commander" as the effective link is hidden by the piping. See also: Wikipedia:Piped link. The Banner talk 14:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- But none of that helps the fact that when the template is added to the page the link won't fill in and it will look awkward.*Treker (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I use Wikipedia:WPCleaner for repairing links to disambiguation pages mentioned on the maintenance page "Templates with disambiguation links". Twice this week the template showed up in this page, triggered by "Supreme commander". But after fixing it to "Supreme commander (disambiguation page)", nor WikiCleaner nor the bit filling the maintenance page will find it. I hope that this will make things clear why sometimes redirects are intentionally used. The Banner talk 08:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of bus routes in London
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of bus routes in London. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of bus routes in London
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of bus routes in London. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Clonbony GAA for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clonbony GAA is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clonbony GAA until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America1000 04:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Beauty pageant socks
Hey there, a couple of weeks ago you dropped a link on my talk page in regards to an SPI I filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnLivinova. The user I'd suspected of being a sock of AnnLivinova, CyberBrinda, now has an ANI case. I still feel they're a sock of someone, as does SpacemanSpiff, but I'm not familiar enough with the beauty pageant socks to know what to look for. Any info you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have a topic ban about pageants (somebody did not like it to have his dodgy actions questioned), so I can not comment here about it. The Banner talk 23:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Beauty pageant socks
Hey there, a couple of weeks ago you dropped a link on my talk page in regards to an SPI I filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnLivinova. The user I'd suspected of being a sock of AnnLivinova, CyberBrinda, now has an ANI case. I still feel they're a sock of someone, as does SpacemanSpiff, but I'm not familiar enough with the beauty pageant socks to know what to look for. Any info you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have a topic ban about pageants (somebody did not like it to have his dodgy actions questioned), so I can not comment here about it. The Banner talk 23:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 September 2016
- News and notes: Wikipedia Education Program case study published; and a longtime Wikimedian has made his final edit
- In the media: Wikipedia in the news
- Featured content: Three weeks in the land of featured content
- Arbitration report: Arbcom looking for new checkusers and oversight appointees while another case opens
- Traffic report: From Gene Wilder to JonBenét
- Technology report: Category sorting and template parameters
WikiProject Food and drink Newsletter: October 2016
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Project News
ReaLemon Carrot One new GA nomination: The Restaurant Marco Pierre White | start review) by Miyagawa. Some do's to do..
Help us out by...
Article alerts |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Food and drink articles by quality and importance
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject Food and drink Newsletter: October 2016
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Project News
ReaLemon Carrot One new GA nomination: The Restaurant Marco Pierre White | start review) by Miyagawa. Some do's to do..
Help us out by...
Article alerts |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Food and drink articles by quality and importance
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you move these back to their former names. The IP was supposed to create a new template, not overwrite the current ones. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- In effect, I created the desired template when fixing the mistake: Template:Packers1967DraftPicks and Template:Colts1971DraftPicks. Why you were overwriting Template:Colts1974DraftPicks with 1971 is a mystery to me, useless and reverted. The Banner talk 19:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- And you did the same with Template:Packers1966DraftPicks. Stop that. The Banner talk 19:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't notice you created the other templates but their page histories are incorrect. Template:Colts1974DraftPicks originally had what Template:Colts1971DraftPicks has now before an IP changed it when he should have instead created Template:Colts1974DraftPicks at at different page. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- In that case you have to ask an administrator to fix the mess. But I like to advice you to read the history of an article before you start complaining (and certainly before you start overwriting articles). The Banner talk 19:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't notice you created the other templates but their page histories are incorrect. Template:Colts1974DraftPicks originally had what Template:Colts1971DraftPicks has now before an IP changed it when he should have instead created Template:Colts1974DraftPicks at at different page. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- And you did the same with Template:Packers1966DraftPicks. Stop that. The Banner talk 19:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Look, he's doing it again, lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Inapropriate link
The links shows a possible layout for an Arabic Keyboard with the ability to interact with it ,why does it add nothing to the article ? Is putting it on the external section,ok ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnerd360 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, it shows a translation program in need of users (= promotion). Not a keyboard lay out. Beside that, Arabic keyboard already shows four different types of keyboards, and more clearly than your page. The Banner talk 17:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 October 2016
- News and notes: Fundraising, flora and fauna
- Discussion report: Cultivating leadership: Wikimedia Foundation seeks input
- Technology report: Upcoming tech projects for 2017
- Featured content: Variety is the spice of life
- Traffic report: Debates and escapes
- Recent research: A 2011 study resurfaces in a media report
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Wash whites separately (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank, I replied, showing your behaviour. The Banner talk 21:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
"Wikimedia" disambiguation rv
Hi there, can I know why you revert this disambiguation edit, since "Wikimedia" this word can relate to a lot of stuff like WMF and others. Thanks, NgYShung huh? 11:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Because wikimedia is, through a stub-template, used in more then 5000 (if I am correct even more then 6500) articles. I suggest that you create Wikimedia (disambiguation) to suit your edits. The primary topic is Wikimedia movement anyway. The Banner talk 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
WPCleaner version
Hi, I see that you're using an old version of WPCleaner (v1.39), I have released v1.41 yesterday and many improvements were added since v1.39 
. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 09:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Got Talent
I am very disappointed and unhappy with what you do on Got Talent page.
I know you may think a list of guest judges is unnecessary for the page, but in reality, the information is still valuable to the page. If you think guest judges should not be listed, then the whole list of judges for China's Got Talent can be deleted because all the judges from season 3 and 4 are guest judges and none of them are permanent.
Since 2010, names of the guest judges has been written on the page, when Louis Walsh was a guest on Britain's Got Talent. Since then, all the name of the judges has been added according to their corresponding show. If we think we should delete that lengthy list of judges, then after some years, say 10 years, when the list of judges is also that lengthy, are we going to delete that column as well?
Some pages such as Armenian version did not have a proper Wikipedia page, so what you suggested, putting the names only on those pages, may not be successfully done.
I know the list is lengthy, so I have tried to shorten the list by adding a Collapsible Table in Russian Version of Got Talent, for me that is difficult to search for the judges name and type them one by one, but I think that is worthy because the page needed, we all want the information in the page is rich enough and the members for guest judges are not useless. People who just watched Got Talent will be curious about the names of them as their name are not appeared on the list, by adding guest judges name on it, they can know more about the judges. Therefore, I strongly advise, and insisted, to put back the judges' name on the page.
I feel terribly sorry if I made anything that offended you as I thought you are one of the trouble-maker in the page you may have noticed. The reason is because you have deleted some main judges on the list of Georgian version, I hope you understand.
I think we need to have a chat for putting the names on it or not, thank you very much.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedco Chan (talk • contribs) 11:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest that you write the country specific articles to put in the list of guest judges. For the world wide overview they are just not relevant. The Banner talk 11:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- By the way, there is a Russian version Minuta slavy, so there is really no need the list in Got Talent. The same for China: China's Got Talent. The Banner talk 11:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Beth El Congregation (Pikesville, Maryland)
Hello. Thank you for your review of the Beth El Congregation (Pikesville, Maryland) article that I created. You tagged the page with an {{advert|date=October 2016}}.
I want to improve the article so that the tag may be removed. May I ask which specific portions of the article merited the tag?
Thank you kindly. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- In fact the lead and the sections "Clergy and leadership" and "Religious programs and activities". That part is really promotional and lacks neutrality. The rest of the article also lacks neutrality. The Banner talk 21:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Bgwhite (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Forum shopping... The Banner talk 09:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Promo?
"Reverted 2 pending edits by ReZawler to revision 746202353 by The Banner: revert promo" - PROMO? Do you even care to check it? They're not promo, they're actual details about Spinnin' Records sub-labels. I spent 20 minutes finding sources to put it there and you just dismiss it as promo without even checking? Admin needs to remove your pending reviewer's rights, in my opinion.- ReZawler (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Start with checking the history of the article first. The list of sublabels is this calender year alone at least four times removed. The Banner talk 18:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying that (at the Teahouse). I apologize for causing any inconvenience but I felt upset about having my edits dismissed as PROMO, which is not true. If you have said it on the edit summary, it would have been easier. - ReZawler (talk • contribs) 08:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
This user has created 238 redirects in less than 24 hours. I have no idea what to do in this situation, just asking for some help; I mean, just become something isn't notable doesn't mean it has the right to be a redirect, RIGHT??!?!?!? Even REDIRECTS have some degree of notability. Є𐌔ⲘО𐌔𐍄 𐍄𐌀ℓК 18:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think you have to judge them one by one. And nominate all those that point to a record label or back to itself.. The Banner talk 19:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hey! Thank you for your question (at the Teahouse). I do not really count how many redirects I have created but I do it with sole intention of sending the readers to the relevant pages so they do not get misguided by not being able to find the article they wanted to find. - ReZawler (talk • contribs) 08:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Uhm...
Hey, just wanted to talk about my edits on Southeast Asia, can I get a clearer picture of what I didn't do right with my edits? Sorry, it's just, I spent a lot of time on them, going through course notes and all trying to add to what hasn't been said on the page yet :( Ccxlslr98 (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Banner, i'm going ahead and undoing your reversion so I can try to fix the disambiguation issues :) hopefully after that you'll be happier with my changes! Please notify me first about any issues if you're going to revert it again! Thanks!! ^^ Ccxlslr98 (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- You edit has be reverted again by someone else as WP:OR. With everything unsourced, I can agree with that. The Banner talk 07:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Worldwide energy supply - sources
One editor playing with fire...
|
|---|
|
Cleaning up my talk page I move some of your stuff to here. I consider the sourcing issue solved. As you know quite well sourcing is as good as, or better than, in other articles having IEA data tables. But you discriminate. Verification is easy. But you deny what is evident. Here is some harassing editing of yours. Rwbest (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
|
- Good, at your own risk. The Banner talk 18:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
October 2016
Please stop making disruptive edits.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.
You are in violation of the ArbCom decision about labelling of pseudoscience. It is not negative if it's true, and labelling is not so much permitted as required. You should revert so as to refrain from violating: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Obvious_pseudoscience Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Did it ever come to your mind that you are in breach of that? The Banner talk 10:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- That by labelling I am in breach of the provision to allow labelling without further justification? No. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- It is CFCF's repeated habit to bully any other editor who dares interrupt his obsessive personal editing agenda. Don't let his obnoxious and aggressive behaviour intimidate you. He is a hypocrite. Afterwriting (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- As CFCF earlier claimed, this discussion will definitely end op at AN/I as the first point of the principles in the case referred to by CFCF is 1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article (...) Negative labelling is not a fair representation. The Banner talk 13:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- That by labelling I am in breach of the provision to allow labelling without further justification? No. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: November 2016
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Project News
The finished watchlist will show here.
Help us out by...
Article alerts |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Food and drink articles by quality and importance
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 19
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti
- New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
- New Library Card Platform and Conference news
- Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links
19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 November 2016
- In the media: Washington Post continues in-depth Wikipedia coverage
- Wikicup: WikiCup winners
- Discussion report: What's on your tech wishlist for the coming year?
- Technology report: New guideline for technical collaboration; citation templates now flag open access content
- Featured content: Cream of the crop
- Traffic report: Un-presidential politics
- Arbitration report: Recapping October's activities
Could you please give me a clue why it's still not NPOV? I've removed all the ads and left IMHO easily verifiable facts --Biskup2010 (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are kidding? Are you in some way involved in the company? The Banner talk 11:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, I'm not kidding. I don't know that's why I asked you, the more experienced Wikipedist, for help. Since you found this article NPOV you probably have exact reasons. So please share them with me and I'll fix the article. --Biskup2010 (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Biskup2010 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- When you start using phrases like "prestigious award" and "and the unique member of the company.", all POV-alarm bells start ringing. The awards should not be in the lede, and the section about the awards should be sourced. The text should be neutral in style and tone while statements should be independently sourced (conform WP:RS). Are you in some way involved in the company? The Banner talk 12:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- You're right. Some words have connotations which I cannot see. I've removed all the words I found suspicious and added references where I know the independent sources.
Editing Wikipedia is not my job I'm paid for. Wikipedia is my hobby since 2010.--Biskup2010 (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)- There is still more work to do... The Banner talk 14:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- You're right. Some words have connotations which I cannot see. I've removed all the words I found suspicious and added references where I know the independent sources.
- When you start using phrases like "prestigious award" and "and the unique member of the company.", all POV-alarm bells start ringing. The awards should not be in the lede, and the section about the awards should be sourced. The text should be neutral in style and tone while statements should be independently sourced (conform WP:RS). Are you in some way involved in the company? The Banner talk 12:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, I'm not kidding. I don't know that's why I asked you, the more experienced Wikipedist, for help. Since you found this article NPOV you probably have exact reasons. So please share them with me and I'll fix the article. --Biskup2010 (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Biskup2010 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Removal of your talk on the Burren
Apologies - error; I was reverting vandalism on my watch-list and must have hit your post by accident. Sarah777 (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I forgive you. The Banner talk 21:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Images in Templates
Hi The Banner, regarding your edit here [7], could you point me to a Wikipedia rule that says images cannot be incorporated into a Template? 神风 (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Navigation template#Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative. The coin you added did not assist in the navigation but were merely decoration. The articles about the kings should have those pictures. Beside that, nearly all your wikilinks were malformed. The Banner talk 12:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi The Banner, thank you for your link, but I don't see anything specific about avoiding images in a template. And the usage of these coin images is not an "arbitrary decoration". Actually, displaying all the coins in this format is very useful because, as you might see, there is a huge evolution of coin shape (round to square) and material (gold to silver to brass) across the territories and the periods, and from Greek type to Indian type over a period of nearly 3 centuries. Also, and quite importantly, the quality of coinage illustration decreases down to the 1st century, which is quite clearly shown with this format. Coinage evolution is an important point of Indo-Greek history, and actually one of the most important since most of these kings are only known by their coins, and their chronology is mainly established by the evolution of the coin types. Moreover, I checked the history of the Indo-Greek Template [8]: almost 10 years, and apparently nobody ever complained about the way the coins are displayed. I do believe it is very informative, so I would like to ask for your understanding. Thank you! 神风 (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Why is the shape and quality of coins of any relevance to a navigation template about kings? It is a rather common practice to remove non-relevant images out of navigation-templates for two main reasons: 1) a navigation template is only mend for navigation, not to give new information; 2) a navigation template is supposed to be used on many articles. Images make the templates heavier, increasing download times and (especially for people with small internet bundles) cost more MBs.
- I suggest that you develop a separate (stand alone) article about the coins and their history. The Banner talk 16:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- You may have noticed that the Template in question is not just about giving a list of kings. It is also (and mainly) about explaining the chronology and the territories of these kings, and coinage is very relevant to that (most of the time, coinage is actually the ONLY indication of chronology and territory in those parts). If it was just a list of kings, I would agree with you, but it is not, it is much more than that. Since this is visibly not breaching Wikipedia rules, and it has been apparently a satisfying approach for the last ten years or so (and I happen to think it is very valuable as well), can I ask not to delete the work that has been done? Thank you 神风 (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- For a navigation template it is absolutely not relevant. The info you want to add belongs in the articles, not in a navigation template. The Banner talk 17:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that's just your opinion, and since no Wikipedia rule is breached, and since this template has seemingly been appreciated by many other users for many years, I don't see any reason why anybody should feel forced to follow your point of view. 神风 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts (and your template is a table). But before you start an edit war, let me call in a third opinion. The Banner talk 23:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Assistance is requested here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#Images in navigation templates. The Banner talk 23:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- 神风, at the moment I'm in agreement with The Banner on this one. If this were a navbox about the coins and/or their significance, then I would be all for including them. However, this is a navbox for the kings themselves. To paraphrase the image use policy, the images don't increase the reader's understanding. If anything, it confuses the reader; when I first clicked the link The Banner posted at WikiProject Templates I thought this navbox was about the coinage itself (it's not). So, I suggest leaving the template as it currently stands, sans coinage. Primefac (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that's just your opinion, and since no Wikipedia rule is breached, and since this template has seemingly been appreciated by many other users for many years, I don't see any reason why anybody should feel forced to follow your point of view. 神风 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- For a navigation template it is absolutely not relevant. The info you want to add belongs in the articles, not in a navigation template. The Banner talk 17:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- You may have noticed that the Template in question is not just about giving a list of kings. It is also (and mainly) about explaining the chronology and the territories of these kings, and coinage is very relevant to that (most of the time, coinage is actually the ONLY indication of chronology and territory in those parts). If it was just a list of kings, I would agree with you, but it is not, it is much more than that. Since this is visibly not breaching Wikipedia rules, and it has been apparently a satisfying approach for the last ten years or so (and I happen to think it is very valuable as well), can I ask not to delete the work that has been done? Thank you 神风 (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi The Banner, thank you for your link, but I don't see anything specific about avoiding images in a template. And the usage of these coin images is not an "arbitrary decoration". Actually, displaying all the coins in this format is very useful because, as you might see, there is a huge evolution of coin shape (round to square) and material (gold to silver to brass) across the territories and the periods, and from Greek type to Indian type over a period of nearly 3 centuries. Also, and quite importantly, the quality of coinage illustration decreases down to the 1st century, which is quite clearly shown with this format. Coinage evolution is an important point of Indo-Greek history, and actually one of the most important since most of these kings are only known by their coins, and their chronology is mainly established by the evolution of the coin types. Moreover, I checked the history of the Indo-Greek Template [8]: almost 10 years, and apparently nobody ever complained about the way the coins are displayed. I do believe it is very informative, so I would like to ask for your understanding. Thank you! 神风 (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Joan Baez article main photo caption
Hello. I once again reverted your edits to my change to the main photo caption on the Joan Baez article. The photo title (Joan Baez 1963-original.jpg) is incorrect. The photo is a cropped version of the photo used on her second album cover, Joan Baez, Vol. 2 , which was released in September 1961, therefore the photo would have to be from 1961 (or even before). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.110.14 (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence? You will have to prove that the photo is identical and that was not handed out as a "1963 Press Photo Folk Singer Joan Baez" as stated in the description of the picture. And the constant re-adding of a load of links to disambiguation pages is also not useful. The Banner talk 21:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Siege of Tobruk
You recently reverted an edit I made on this page; I have opened a discussion there if you wish to comment. Moonraker12 (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
PS: You've reverted another change on this page since; there is a discussion on that, too (here). Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Why Kathleen Londsdale should have stayed on "Ireland" article.
Hello TheBanner, I believe your reason to revert my change made on "Ireland" article to be unnreasonable. I argue that Kathleen Lonsdale should have remained in the "science" section of said article. You reverted this as she was "already on the List of Irish peoples" article, but almost every other scientist on "Ireland" was ALSO on this page (including Robert Boyle, Johannes Scotus Eriugena, Sir Ernest Henry Shackleton, John Tyndall, Nicholas Callan, Ernest Walton, Lord Kelvin, George Johnstone Stoney, John Stewart Bell, John Lighton Synge).
You said the addition of information regarding Lonsdale was "superfluous", however her contribution to science is just as note worthy as previously mentioned names on "The List of Irish People". She would also be the only female in the science section, which I think improves the article as it would have a wider scope.
I believe the basis of the revert to be weak, but us both to have the same goal; to make wikipedia useful. I appreciate your contribution to the article, however I will be undoing your reversion. I hope my point of view convinces you, as to escape an edit war. Please write back as I would like to see your enlarged point of view. After all this is what wikipedia is about.
Darnburn98 (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Worldwide energy supply
I wrote 21 Nov: The citations are adequately addressed in the discussion following the deletion nomination in October 2016: "adequately sourced", "Plenty of sources".
You commented 24 Nov: It is not and you know that.
Your comment implies that I'm lying. That is an unfounded and unacceptable accusation. I deleted your comment. Rwbest (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Do not censor an article talk page from unwanted comments. Solve the problems! The Banner talk 10:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- And no, I never said you are lying. That is entirely your conclusion. I maintain my stance that the sources are inadequate and that the article is at least partly WP:OR. The Banner talk 10:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Worldwide energy supply without proper attribution by Rwbest.
- No, a mistaken believe is not lying. The Banner talk 12:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Right, but irrelevant. I don't believe, I ascertain that "The citations are adequately addressed ...". Your comment "It is not and you know that" is equivalent to "You lie". Lying is: saying something knowing that is not true. Your comment is unacceptable. Rwbest (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- So you have no other arguments than personal attacks and accusations? What a pity! The Banner talk 15:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Right, but irrelevant. I don't believe, I ascertain that "The citations are adequately addressed ...". Your comment "It is not and you know that" is equivalent to "You lie". Lying is: saying something knowing that is not true. Your comment is unacceptable. Rwbest (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, a mistaken believe is not lying. The Banner talk 12:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
End of copied work from [[Talk:Worldwide energy supply without proper attribution by Rwbest.
Actually, this unattributed copy is just what is the problem in that article: not properly attributed information. Do-it-yourself stuff. The Banner talk 10:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1086-1300) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1086-1300) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1086-1300) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 10:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1-1085) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1-1085) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1-1085) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 10:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 November 2016
- News and notes: Arbitration Committee elections commence
- Featured content: Featured mix
- Special report: Taking stock of the Good Article backlog
- Traffic report: President-elect Trump
Adnan Ibrahim revisions
hi The Banner. You undid my revisions to the Adnan Ibrahim article because you considered the videos references as "self-published YouTube-clips". In fact the first two videos are from the official youtube channel of Adnana Ibrahim. Can I put my revision again? --وسام زقوت (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, you need independent, reliable third party sources. The clips on that channel are not reliable sources (as YouTube is user-generated). It are also not independent (as you said: the official youtube channel of Adnana Ibrahim). What this article needs are third party sources. So not Ibrahim writing/talking about Ibrahim, but a national newspaper writing about Ibrahim. The Banner talk 08:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- I put the same paragraph with [citation needed] at the end but you didn't accept that, which sounds strange for me, considering that there are different unproven claims that needs a reference in the same article.
- I also believe we need an independent third source when we want an opinion about something, but here we are not looking for that, instead we want to cite what Ibrahim said word by word from his own videos.
- You also mentioned the need for a "national newspaper writing about" him. I don't believe this is a rule here in Wikipedia. We have here so many different kinds of references.
- One last point, I think one of the resources that is used heavily in Wikipedia is MEMRITV, which is not reliable nor independent. It is very biased, agenda driven and in some cases its translations are full of intentional mistakes. --وسام زقوت (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Talk page comments
Hello, I don't know if you realized it but you placed your talk page comments between comments to me and my reply. This makes it look like I was replying to you. Otr500 (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Due to the indentation it must be clear that I did not reply to you. The Banner talk 10:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1086-1300), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1-1085), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
No idea WTF your on about mate. Please spare me any lectures on Wikipedia policy. I am not interested in advertising anybody or spreading spam. Djln Djln (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- That is okay and I will not lecture you. But when you copy sources (by now I think that is the root of the evil), please check what you copy. As you can see here there where seven instances of "author=Website design and website development Tibus". Thank you for your attention. The Banner talk 15:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Bowers Museum
Dear Banner: You deleted an article I edited (rewrote, really) for the Bowers Museum. Please help me. Let me know what parts of it you consider to be unacceptable. Thank you. Also, how to find your comments, as I did not see them on my talk page. Thank you. Susan M Anderson (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, I did not deleted an article of you but I did revert all your edits. It was written as an advertisement in marketeer-language. It was not an encyclopaedic article any more. The Banner talk 08:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Elastance (Disambiguation)
Why did you revert the creation of the DAB page? The term has two well defined meanings, both clearly described in the target pages. The meaning it currently redirects to (capacitance) is actually not the primary meaning I have seen. I have always seen it used in the physiological sense of the word. Most likely that simply reflects my biomedical background. Regardless its clear that elastance has at least two commonly seen and commonly used meanings, which were linked to in the DAB page I created. Thus, this DAB page is necessary. Please explain your reasoning for the revert. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, it was changed back to the DAB now, sorry, I didn't see that. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- @HighFlyingFish: The reason fro the revert is Template:Network analysis navigation, where it creates a link to a disambiguation page. Upon checking that, I found that your dab-page has no proper targets as both go to another article only to explain that it is the inverse of it. The present state of the dab-page is misleading, confusing. and incorrect. The Banner talk 08:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- There was previously an article at Elastance (once called Electrical Elastance which was then moved to Elastance) about the quantity in electricity but it was instead redirected to Capacitance. There is no article right now about elastance in physiology but it's discussed in the compliance page. I'd be ok with creating two stubs about the two definitions of elastance and making the Dab page target them if you feel that would be the appropriate way to handle this. As it is, the redirect was incomplete because it redirected to a page that (barely) discussed only one definition of a term with at least two (possibly more) definitions in common usage. A disambiguation page is thus needed to distinguish between the two. See also the points raised in the AFD. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- @HighFlyingFish: The reason fro the revert is Template:Network analysis navigation, where it creates a link to a disambiguation page. Upon checking that, I found that your dab-page has no proper targets as both go to another article only to explain that it is the inverse of it. The present state of the dab-page is misleading, confusing. and incorrect. The Banner talk 08:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
As to the template issue the simplest solution would be to have it link to here Electrical elastance instead because I agree that having it link to a DAB can be confusing. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Better? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks on the Delegate charts
Thanks on the clean up of links to disambiguation pages at the delegate charts at two of the Virginia Conventions. I'm not trying to cause trouble, as you might imagine, the mass data entry is difficult to manage. I intend to learn how to publish new bios for the nineteenth Virginia politicians and disambiguation pages related to the hundreds of names in each chart. In the meantime, I see your contribution as helpful. I have an Apple, and am reluctant to download the java program as I don't know about programming. Yesterday I worked up the chart for Virginia Loyalist Convention of 1864 (only 17 names), and there is 1861 (secession), 1861 (Wheeling), 1868 and 1902 to go. I'll use the subset of names now showing in black as the first bios I will write up. Thanks again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Still now answer
Hi, I asked you at several talk pages where you accused me of creating autdated cycling current team teamplates. Can you please explain where I created these templates for current teams, without stating it's the current team? I still don't understand it. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 09:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- And that is exactly why you should stop creating those templates, point blank. You do no know your own arguments for keeping them. Make your own homework first. The Banner talk 10:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- And look at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 3 The Banner talk 10:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well I know I created these template, but these are not current team teamplates. So why are you always calling it current team teamplate, and using outdated as a reason? Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 11:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- You have stated a number of times that the templates are necessary as they can be easily updated during the year. Even when the squad was years old. Stop playing games and doing innocent. The Banner talk 11:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- And I think it's a good reason, but I still don't see why it are only current team templates. I also explained for the older templates I created that the squad was the team at the end of the year, so changed during the year should be added. Others are doing it the same way for the men's teams. See for instance Category:2015 UCI WorldTeams templates. So these are also not about the current team templates. So I think it is that you thought the templates are made only for current team rosters, while they are never removed after the current year. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 13:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- You have stated a number of times that the templates are necessary as they can be easily updated during the year. Even when the squad was years old. Stop playing games and doing innocent. The Banner talk 11:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well I know I created these template, but these are not current team teamplates. So why are you always calling it current team teamplate, and using outdated as a reason? Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 11:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation bot
I very much would appreciate it if you would run the disambiguation bot on the following articles: Fifth Virginia Convention, Virginia Secession Convention of 1861, Wheeling Convention, Virginia Loyalist Convention of 1864, Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1868, Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1902. Thanks in advance for any help. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation bot update
Your disambiguation bot erased fourteen of the ninety-six links at the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1829-1830, Here is the update for my first inspection of the results.
For "John W. Jones”, listed in Pulliams thumbnail sketches as “John Winston Jones”, WP has the unambiguous bio for a former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Easy peasy.
For seven of the fourteen, Pulliam makes no note of them in his sketches, or there is merely a note of where they were born or when they died. No biography is noteworthy of an article for these.
Pay dirt: six of your fourteen names have sketches in Pulliam but have ambiguous names, so they can be distinguished as (Virginian) -- though one is born in Ireland, he makes his career here -- and incorporated into the Project Biography. Thanks.
John W. Jones, - link as John Winston Jones, Samuel Taylor (Virginian), Mark Alexander (Virginian), William Anderson - no bio, William McCoy - no bio, John Baxter - no bio, John Urquhart (Virginian), Richard Logan - no bio, David Watson - no bio, Alexander Campbell (Virginian), John Scott (Virginian), William Campbell - no bio, James Saunders - no bio, Joseph Martin - (Virginian) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I have no "bot" to correct it. I use an automated assistant to fix them manually. I would suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia:WPCleaner. The Banner talk 10:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Dealing with typo's
FYI: When you notice a typo or tiny error it's appriciated if you correct it, in stead of only complaining regarding to every single thing you notice. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 16:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- FYI: read your articles before you post them and fix your own mistakes. In relation to Eugen something: none of yours sources states that he was missing in action, still that is what you claim in the article. The Banner talk 18:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Even after people told you a few times, do yourself what you told me to do: start reading first. here is the source again. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 20:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- When missing in action, you have no fixed date of death. The Banner talk 20:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's not what this section is about. See the AFD you started yourself. And see my edit I made this afternoon. If something is wrong in your opinion, start reading this section again. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 21:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- That is why you started following me around? The Banner talk 21:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Probably again the other way around, as you refer at some place on Wikipedia to about every edit I make. But is your opinion following things or users is a bad thing? Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 21:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- When you start disturbing things, yes it is. Like on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Praça TV, what is way out of your normal editing pattern. Ad that you are referring to WP:BEFORE is a big joke, as you are not even able to fix your own articles. The Banner talk 14:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Probably again the other way around, as you refer at some place on Wikipedia to about every edit I make. But is your opinion following things or users is a bad thing? Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 21:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- That is why you started following me around? The Banner talk 21:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's not what this section is about. See the AFD you started yourself. And see my edit I made this afternoon. If something is wrong in your opinion, start reading this section again. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 21:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- When missing in action, you have no fixed date of death. The Banner talk 20:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Even after people told you a few times, do yourself what you told me to do: start reading first. here is the source again. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 20:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 December 2016
- Year in review: Looking back on 2016
- News and notes: Strategic planning update; English ArbCom election results
- Special report: German ArbCom implodes
- Featured content: The Christmas edition
- Technology report: Labs improvements impact 2016 Tool Labs survey results
- Traffic report: Post-election traffic blues
- Recent research: One study and several abstracts
Deletion of List of Surveillance Companies
Hi, you posted on my talk page about a list I created which was a useful work in progress. It was nominated for deletion and then deleted without much discussion and without any of what I said being taken into account. I keep asking on the talk page of the guy who deleted it to explain why he did so but I have had no engagement or response from him. Can you help? I just want to understand why the decision was made. --Jwslubbock (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion took place here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surveillance technology companies. Just your arguments were not convincing according to teh administrator. But you can try WP:REFUND. The Banner talk 18:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Redirects with purpose
I can appreciate intentional redirects, but can you clue me in on the purpose of them in Template:Campaignbox Anglo-Spanish wars? Auguststorm1945 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- De redirect prevents the link showing up as a link to a disambiguation page at the maintenance page "Templates with disambiguation links". Effectively, you fool the bot checking the links. The Banner talk 15:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thanks for your unflagging (no pun intended) efforts amid the tedium and repetition. Happy Holidays and a Prosperous 2017. Quis separabit? 17:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
- Thank you very much! Much appreciated. The Banner talk 20:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Why not talk to me first
Rather than undo 2 hours work with a flick of the keyboard, why not talk to be about my edit first, and give advice on suitable reference formats. This kind of behaviour gives wikipedians a bad name and just encourages me to disengage from the whole process. Did you think of visiting my talk page? Vicarage (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I hope you now start reading the edit summaries. What you are doing is adding promo and most of the time based on related sources or no sources at all. Beside that, your "work" is of a low quality as it give no info about the guest (why should they be mentioned at all?) so with the five links to disambiguation pages it is absolute impossible to straighten those links. What the article needs are independent (not in anyway related to the subject), reliable (no blogs or social media), prior published sources, as described in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Promo is not allowed and articles should be neutral in style, tone and content. The Banner talk 00:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
As your fellow editors seem to support your approach, Wikipedia is not a community I want to be associated with. So congratulations, you have killed one more contributor to the project. I hope you reach your target for the year. Vicarage (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Stop whining, I know you are not a newbie. The Banner talk 11:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, I want the wikipedia I joined a decade ago Vicarage (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Michael Patterson (Producer) revisions
Hi The Banner. You deleted my revisions & asking for more citations but didn't let me know for what, or where. I'm new to this & just learning, as I'm sure you can see instead of giving helpful, insightful & community building feedback, you just delete? Also, you claimed that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (December 2016) I'm not sure where you're getting that from!? Do you just post unwarranted & misleading content without any proof? I'm actually a student at MI & we had to pick a producer and curate all their work & display it in an organized and cohesive manner for our final grade. But instead of helping me learn, you make false accusations & just delete everything. Also, do you have an issue with the tables I am using? I have seen it on other producers pages, that i am mirroring i.e wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cobb so I'm not sure why you have an issue with me doing it? Please actually explain the issues so I can learn, grow & contribute to the community. Thank you. -- BellPop (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Start reading Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Certainly Biographies of Living People (BLP) MUST be sourced. You have added a lot of info to the article without sources thus violating WP:BLP.
- For the Conflict of Interest suspicion, please read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Except for edits on my talkpage and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, 'all your edits were about mr. Patterson. Beside that, you have never declared that you were doing this as school work as is common on Wikipedia.
- And as a learning moment:
- when you add info to BLPs, make sure the info is sourced by reliable (no social media), independent (not in any way related to the subject), prior published sources
- when you do school work on Wikipedia, declare that, including school, teacher and course
- when you add links, please check them. It is possible that links go to the wrong person (namesakes!) or nowhere at all (disambiguation pages). Make sure the link brings the reader where the reader is supposed to go.
- respect copyright, do not copy info but create something sufficiently original.
- Make sure the article you have written is neutral in style and tone.
- Complaining at noticeboards without giving me chance to reply is very unfriendly.
- The Banner talk 21:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
SvG clean-up
See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up. I will ask Fram to also comment, then perhaps broaden to other involved editors. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)