User talk:Banaticus/archive2011a

This is an archive page of my user talk page. If you wish to reopen an archived discussion or otherwise respond to me, please do so on my user talk page. Thanks! :)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LDS Calling Info

Template:LDS Calling Info has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted this on the Templates for Deletion discussion page and am reposting it here because I know these won't ever be deleted, but I don't know about the template discussion pages, "As the template's creator, I have no objections. I don't remember why I created it (almost two years ago now) and I presume that since it isn't used by other pages that other people have since replaced it with something else. There's only been one other editor, so this should be a fairly uncontroversial deletion." Thanks for bringing it to my attention, This, that and the other. 23:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

stop it

Will you please stop blocking my posts as they are correct. You are depriving people of the truth!--Sapec (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Winstanley College does not have its own Large Hadron Collider and you haven't pwned the Blackburn Rovers. Good try, though. :) Banaticus (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't you consider this information libelous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.206.41 (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just trying to set the truth free. :p That second edit you made to Winstanley College was good, though, it follows the Wikipedia policy to remove such language from article pages. Banaticus (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

then can you correct the link?

The link for Hurricane Records is redirect to some person named Beverley Knight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverley_Knight). I'm not sure about you, but I'm pretty positive she doesn't have anything to do with the statistical ananlysis and/or documentation. I was attempting to redirect the page to List of tropical cyclones, which then shows the record-breaking cyclones (Northern Hemipshere) as well as the hurricanes (Southern Hemisphere). As you are unhappy with my edits, would you mind correcting said link to redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_tropical_cyclones please?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.253.242 (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Records (capitalized) is the record label owned by Beverley Knight. You want "hurricane records" (no caps). Beverley apparently hasn't used her label to publish anyone else's music but her own, so it's not important enough to have its own article. On Wikipedia, capitalization makes a difference -- the record label is a company and its name would be capitalized, while the list is just a list and wouldn't be capitalized. So, how about we put a link to lists of tropical cyclones on "hurricane records" and put a disambiguation link on Beverley Knight's page noting that there is another hurricane records page. Banaticus (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

36M (3 6 Mafia Clan)

Thanks for helping out here Banaticus, I was about to restore the 'speedy' template when you beat me to it. Thought they took it off again! I restore it and have given them an appropriate {{subst:uw-speedy2}} warning (after using the wrong {{subst:uw-idt2}} template initially) Oh it's gone anyway! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 12:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. I was about to invite you to get an account, but I see you think they're overrated. That's cool -- thanks for the good editing. :) Part of my references page that I put together has a a speedy deletion guide that I use to quickly grab what I'm looking for. Banaticus (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, had a look at your "speedy deletion guide" a while back. BTW the party in question came back after a lvl 4 warning and was misbehaving again! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 15:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it happens. Thanks for letting me know. :) Banaticus (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Free Banking

Note to self, check the talk page later, the external links section is rather a mess. Banaticus (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

MBTA infobox

Please see Gfoley's Talk page for more information. A consensus was reached to update the infoboxes to the "T" Style. MBTA uses all caps in its stations signage. Like many other transit networks on wikipedia, the consensus was reached to display the name in the infobox in a similar maner to how the transit system does (see South Norwalk (Metro-North station) or Hollywood/Highland (Los Angeles Metro station) for examples. As you will notice in this photo, for example, MBTA capitalizes all letters.--Enfiladekh1 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. :) Banaticus (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Bart Simpson

Hi This is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Talk:Bart Simpson that you may be interested in.--5 albert square (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'll repeat there what I said on Pek's talk page. :) Banaticus (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Twitter

Alexhch 00:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC) what is the poblem? what I have done is that I want to make it better than now....give me reason! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexhch (talk • contribs)

Short answer: the Wikipedia policy on external links to avoid -- see #9 in the list. Long answer: with 142 references on the Twitter page and some external links already on there, a news site that aggregates news posts that mention Twitter isn't really necessary. Imagine if every news aggregator site on the internet started posting links to their sites on Wikipedia pages. Now imagine that all of those sites start adding on all of their foreign language versions as well. You can see how quickly the number of duplicate links would grow. By the way, did you notice that you didn't even link to the main ibtimes.com site but instead linked to the Chinese-oriented version? That site is a good source to find additional secondary news sources for more information on Twitter. If you can find other news sites (books, good webpages (not blogs), newspapers, magazines, TV articles about ibtimes.com then you could list it on its own page as a research tool, but otherwise it's just not notable enough to be listed. I hope that helps. If you have any further questions or want a more detailed answer, just help me know and I'll be happy to help. :) Banaticus (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Schumacher elevator revert

im really sorry of whqat i did and i will never ever do it again i might as well delete on wikipedia account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkotg (talk • contribs) 02:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate that you took the time to say that -- there's no need to delete your account, you're welcome to continue editing -- just make good edits. :) If you'd like help/assistance or have another question, let me know. Banaticus (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

how do i upload a photo

hey i was wondering how do i uplaod a photo on a wikipedia article because i took a photo and i am curious on how to upload it on a wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkotg (talk • contribs) 22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you'll want to make sure that you're aware of the official Image use policy.

1. Go to the article that you want to use the image in
2. Edit that article (or part of the article) and add something like [[Image:NameOfYourImageHere.png]] Once you save the edit, then
3. You'll then see a red link where your image should be. Click on that link and you'll be taken to a special version of Special:Upload, with various pointers and helpful suggestions. Don't go straight to the upload form, instead (since you took the photo yourself)
4. click the "It is entirely my own work" link -- some of the other categories have special disclaimers that are important to learn about before uploading other types of photos.
5. After clicking that it's "entirely your own work" (you took the photo), then if you agree to give up all rights to your photo and let other people do whatever to it, then upload it to the Wikimedia Commons. If you don't want to give up all rights, then since Wikipedia isn't a file hosting site, you probably shouldn't upload it. You'll be taken to a new page with a number of forms to fill out.

Fill everything out as completely as you can and tell it where to find your photo on your computer (it has a little file browser button down there by the upload button). Once your photo uploads, it can take 10 to 20 minutes for the Wikipedia servers to process your photo and display it on the page. The servers are usually pretty fast, but if it's not showing up right away then just wait a few minutes. There are some advanced things you can do to display the photo differently, such as forcing it to display in a smaller size, that are discussed at Wikipedia:Images, like [[File:YourImageHere.png|thumb|120px]]. There are a couple other ways to upload images, but they're more complicated and easier to get wrong -- this is the easiest method for you to use. Let me know if you'd like help with anything else. :) Banaticus (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ventnor City, New Jersey Page

Hello, I added an external link to the Ventnor City, New Jersey page. It's a link to sign-up for the City's new monthly email newsletter for residents and visitors. I received a message back saying: "The link you gave is just a subpage of the official website, which is already linked in the external links section." That's actually not correct. It is not a link to any part of the City's official website. It is a link to the newsletter sign-up screens which are not on the City's official website. The newsletter itself also does not appear on the City's official website. It is distributed by email only. Pmokover (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Peter

The link to the email signup is on the official website -- it's right down at the bottom of the page on the city's official website. The link says, "Subscribe to the Ventnor Community News email newsletter » CLICK HERE". See reason #10 on the list of external links to be avoided. Wikipedia's policy is that we just shouldn't ever link to email signup thingies that belong to a 3rd party other than Wikipedia. If Ventnor city doesn't want anyone reading past email newsletters and doesn't bother hosting them, well, that's another matter entirely -- maybe they should think about doing it, but that's a whole different topic. If there's anything else I can help you with or anything else about Wikipedia that you'd like explained, just let me know and I'll be happy to help. :) Banaticus (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

My page is about to be deleted

David D.A Doman (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC) How do you suggest I save my page from deletion?

I don't think there's anything you can do about it. If you can get a reputable news agency of some sort (online, magazine, newspaper, whatever) to give you an interview then if they printed good things you could use that as a source for why you're reputable, but as far as people "outside the business" can tell, you're nearly invisible. The references on the page don't really show anything at all -- allmusic can't find a "Doman", "David D.A. Doman", "D.A." and there's only reference for a "D. Doman", while the other two references show nothing other than what we already knew -- you wrote something at some time for JLS. I could only find one site that referenced the "firestorm of controversy" over the "leaked" song and the only site I found was just talking about your Twitter post, it didn't reference anyone else talking about it. I hate to say it, but it's my recommendation that the page just get deleted, I'm just not really seeing much out there on you. My advice is to go get other businesses and news agencies to tell us about you, because notable second hand reputable sources like that are supposed to be the only ways to have a Wikipedia article talking about you. Maybe you could release something on your own somehow? Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help you, other than trying to save that article. It just sort of looks like, I hate to say it, self serving spam.

Banaticus (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for the response I appreciate it. I do meet the notability guidelines for musicians (numbers 2,3, and 11 apply to me) so will that save my page from deletion? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.210.101 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's see. 2) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. 3) Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. 11) Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. If you can demonstrate those things, then yes. The problem is that you aren't really a musician as the public never sees you perform. As a writer you'd have to look at the "Criteria for composers and lyricists" just underneath the musician section, which is a pretty difficult list to meet. There really isn't a "short list" for producers at all. As you understand, I'm sure, it's a lot more difficult to become notable when the public never really sees the contributions that you make. Even for musicians, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases".

That composers and lyricists section ends with, "Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work" which is just what's happened with you so far -- you are listed in the infobox of those works you've contributed to which have sold well. As far as I can tell, you've never really given an interview to anyone about "you", so all of your personal history basically comes down to self reporting, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. I can't find any sites on the internet that talk about you either. Perhaps you know of some trade magazines with large publications that have talked about you in some way? Perhaps you could write up a really interesting biography on yourself then see if some of them want to publish it -- I don't really think that you meet the notable requirements for a stand alone article otherwise, sorry. Keep collecting press clippings that talk about you -- let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. :) Banaticus (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Templates

As you should know, the Big Ten is far more than just an academic league. Are you entirely unaware of the Academic Big Ten? It includes the University of Chicago, which doesn't even have much of a sports program. Nyttend (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I said on the discussion page for that template. 'I realize that the phrase "big ten" also has a sports definition, but if the topic of discussion is law schools, then the big ten of law schools should be the ones [that I] listed [which were the top ten law schools, instead of the ones you listed]. Otherwise, there's absolutely no need for a template that conflates schools of law of widely varying caliber as somehow being equal to each other.' Let's continue the discussion over on the template discussion page, since you responded in both places. :) Banaticus (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I object to you trying to close these discussions by declaring consensus to be in your favor. I think your understanding of some of the !votes is flawed but even if it wasn't I would still object. Let the closer decide for him- or herself, please. ElKevbo (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This was in reference to the two template for deletion discussions going on what about what are essentially the same templates: Big Ten Business Schools and Big Ten Law Schools, right? Well, all the posts are from a roughly 24 hour period. Nobody's replied further in about half a week. Even you, who were quick to respond when I posted again, haven't responded to any of the concerns raised by any of the delete statements.

Now, it could be that we're all stepping back away from the subject so as to not become too emotionally involved with it. That being said, there are currently three "keep" statements of opinion and three "delete" statements of opinion and out of the three "keep" two of them only relate to the initial manner of starting the deletion discussion, which was corrected last week by the user who did it. Banaticus (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I maintain that your understanding of the keep !votes is incorrect. I haven't replied to the delete !votes because (a) I think I've said my piece already and (b) I hate when folks are badgered after expressing their good-faith opinion. I think it's unfortunate that folks with no expertise in the subject matter are jumping in with uninformed opinions but that's their right and I won't pester them.

I'm happy to let this play out. I simply don't think it's right for you to add comments that appear to be cheerleading for your opinion and I would feel the same even if we agreed. I'm sure that you're trying to help and I don't think you really had any ill intentions but I hope you can understand my viewpoint and why I object to your posting. ElKevbo (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I always understood your viewpoint, I just don't agree with it in this instance. Go read my responses on the template for discussion page and respond. If you just say something in the beginning then don't ever bother responding again then how are we supposed to reach consensus? ;) Besides, nobody's yet shown that these schools actually do cooperate in any way. Sure, there's an advertising website (run by the universities) which says that they do, but it has no details and I cannot find any other details anywhere else. As far as I can verify (noting that the standard of Wikipedia is not "truth" as one person understands it but verifiability) these schools no more cooperate with each other than they do with every other business and law school in the nation. Banaticus (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Australian head of state dispute

Hi mate, I changed the Judicial Sources on the Head of State question for the simply reason that section is a blant copy and paste of a paper I wrote last year (December 2010) on the matter - I have yet to publish my finding in a journal article on the matter. Hence, it does not acknolwedge me as the source, nor am I comfortable that my Honours Thesis has leaked throughout Wikipedia and the internet. I have an idea who leaked it- probably a very eager colleague of mine. Cheers, Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Publius89 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. My hands are tied in a situation like this, but there is a method of redress available to you. Email OTRS at info-en-c@wikimedia.org with an informal request. Please cite the exact URL (the "address" or "Location" of the page as shown by your web browser, as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...), and provide enough information to substantiate your claim of copyright ownership. Your correspondence will be answered by a small team of volunteers. Let me know if you need more help in the future. :) Banaticus (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Equine coat color genetics

Hi, thanks so much for your reply!

I did try putting the info that the lethal roan question is still not guaranteed to be settled on the roan (horse) page itself, but it was removed!

It's very tempting for people to state as fact that there are true-breeding classic roans, because that's what people want to be the case, and so leap on anything which suggests that it may be the case, but at the present time not enough work has been done on the equine genome map for this to be stated as absolute fact (or even 'most likely'), and there are other explanations for the apparently true-breeding classic roans which would have to be completely ruled out before one could say with certainty that homozygous Rn/Rn as a stand-alone (i.e. not affected by other genes in combination with it) is non-lethal.

Where there is a 'faulty' gene which can cause lethality when duplicated because there is either no coding or wrong coding for a needed protein, sometimes another variation of another gene re-introduces either that protein, or enough of it, or a functional alternative to it, for survival. And in the absence of a 'corrector gene', the homozygous form of the other one would still be lethal.

I have recently contacted Cecilia Penedo at UCL Davis vet genetics lab on this one, and am waiting to hear back. I suspect that it may take a long time to resolve fully, because as yet I don;t believe that the alternative roaning genes (rabicano, etc.) have actually been mapped, and there are likely to be several different alleles of it (Rabicano), which makes the whole thing more complex. It's only recently that it's been confirmed in the lab that there are (at least!) two active alleles of equine agouti (seal and bay), though it's been obvious on a logical basis that this must be the case for quite some time. And it's unlikely that the seal and bay agouti types are the only ones, too!

See http://www.seaspiritoftheforest.co.uk/equine/colourhistory.html (section on 'Agouti: One Lump or Two?') which shows how these necessary questions arise before they are resolved in the lab. (PippaRivers (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

In his "The Value of Science" address to the National Academy of Sciences in Autumn of 1955 (according to Wikiquote), Richard Feynman said something that we both agree with, "The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty damn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain."

Unfortunately, to go off on something of a tangent for a moment, if Cecilia Penedo contacts you and says something one way or another, we can't use that as the basis for a Wikipedia article. Here's the problem. Sometimes, there's something controversial like a civil war/rebellion and both sides say that the other side started it. A few hundred years later, both sides are still blaming the "other side". In order to stop edit wars where both sides claim to be "right" and both sides are attempting to prove the "truth", Wikipedia's official stance is that it doesn't matter who's right, just whether or not it can be [Wikipedia:Verifiability|verified]]. If it can be verified, great, that's what goes on the page. If it can't be verified, referenced, cited, noted, whatever, then it shouldn't really be here, unless there's some verifiable speculation. If there is some controversy about something, then both sides cite their references and anyone who reads the article can then go look up the primary sources and decide for themselves who is telling the truth or not and what's more likely. So, you'd have to get Cecilia Penedo to publish on that topic, not just respond in an email or a letter or whatever, and then her paper could be cited as a reference.

At this point, it comes down to what's been published scientifically. In current scientific literature, what does the lethal roan question look like? Has anyone stepped forward and said something? I'm sure you know more than I do about the topic, so just find some reference like a published thesis or article or any other good source like that, cite it and put it in the article. I'm not trying to say that you're wrong, I'm just going by what I can verify. Again, you know more than I do, and perhaps Cecilia Penedo can point you in the direction of additional sources. Sorry for the long answer -- does this help? Banaticus (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult, isn't it, lol!

At the moment there is no DNA test available specifically for the classic roan (Rn) gene, only 'roan zygosity testing', which is not quite the same thing as a definite proof of Rn/Rn inheritance. It's highly likely that the vast majority of white spotting patterns will be found to be part of the KIT gene (on ECA3), so the Rn and other roaning genes are going to be very much in the same place.

The http://www.vgl.ucdavis.edu/services/Roan.php website (Veterinary Genetics Laboratory at UC Davis) says:

"Roan is inherited as a dominant gene but the specific mutation has not yet been identified, so there is no direct test for the gene [italics mine]. VGL has identified DNA markers in Quarter Horses and Paints associated with Roan that can be used to determine if a horse has the roan gene and how many copies."

... and the Roan Zygosity Test Information (cited at 1 in the Roan (horse) page) links direct to that page; but most readers wouldn't have the genetic knowledge to know the difference between a zygosity test and an absolute test for a mapped and known gene, so could easily end up believing that testing has proved that Rn/Rn is not lethal, when in fact the Rn gene can't even be reliably tested for yet. It's unhelpful that the Hancock Horses pages (also cited) mistakenly state that their horses have been tested to be definitely Rn/Rn (almost certainly in good faith, being what they believe, without realising that the current test isn't definitively a Rn test). The DNA markers used by VGL would pick up on the Rn gene, but they clearly recognise themselves that the gene is not directly testable; those DNA markers point to an area, not a specific gene, and other genes appear in that area. The problem we have is that 'other genes', which haven't yet been mapped, are actually less visible in the lab (we don't know where to look, or quite what to look for!) than they are to the naked eye; the phenotypical expression of those genes is different. (Rabicano throws white tail flashes, coon tail and skunk tail patterns, with uneven roaning, topline frosting, etc. whereas classic roan does not express as those particular patterns)

What can we do here to avoid misunderstanding? (PippaRivers (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

Just adding (having had a nap - amazing what a bit of shut-eye can do for us!): I think the thing that makes me more uneasy than anything else is possibly a bit pedantic, but the way the page (and others referring to the 'lethal roan question' seem to be worded) is that they are saying there may not even be a question any more. BUT .... if the question cannot be conclusively answered as yet, either one way or the other, the question itself remains. It would be more neutral, at this point (and more correct) to say that homozygosity for Rn 'may not be definite', which I would think would indicate less of a bias towards a particular point of view on it. Does that make sense? As there is nothing in the scientific literature which goes as far as to say that Rn/Rn is not lethal, I don't think we can afford to give the impression that the question over it can safely be brushed under the carpet.

(Oops, sorry, that was me forgetting to log in again!) (PippaRivers (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

I don't know if it will ever be "conclusively" answered, because there may always be something that we apparently didn't know well enough which may impact the accepted theory. Dr. Bowen didn't find any actual lethal red cases -- the only horses that have tested as being capable of having a problem like that aren't. It's true, actually testing/examining the DNA isn't done, it's just testing for homo/hetero-zygosity. Again, though, it comes down to verifiability -- I don't know of anything that contradicts or questions Dr. Bowman's initial findings, which makes a strong case for no problem existing. So, although it still could exist, as far as Wikipedia goes, I think that for most people the question of a potential lethal red problem when considering how to mate a horse can be safely brushed under the carpet, until more evidence presents itself stating that it is a problem, unless you know of sources which, irrespective of Dr. Bowen's work, state that it continues to be a concern. Is there something like that? Banaticus (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Quick answer: I don't know, off the top of my head! I shall have to try to find the time to go hunting for something. It would be soooooo nice if a world existed where one could tempt the lab-workers by saying "Hey! Look into this one - you could end up publishing something really groundbreakingly cool!" without having to compete with the guys saying "Hey! Look into this one and we'll pay out loads and fund some other projects for you!"

P.S. I think you meant 'Bowling'.

(PippaRivers (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

Yes, you're right I did mean Bowling. As far as ease of finding information goes, you're preaching to the choir! :) Perhaps if more people took an interest in things like this or if it was mandatory that someone send in samples of all horses that die for any reason, just so the science could be more fully explored -- with the price of some stud fees, you'd think people would be willing to investigate more. But then, most people aren't so willing to cut up their dead pet and vets are pretty expensive too. Anyway, good luck, let me know how it goes for you. :) Banaticus (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I shall definitely have to keep hunting stuff down (but so much stuff, so little time ......). I think that Dr Bowling's research didn't use only those horses that were specifically (and only) the distinctive 'classic roan' with no other roaning patterns to muddy the waters (but I could be wrong, I could be wrong!). Without having access to pics of every horse used (in the absence of access to the horses themselves) I can't be sure on this one. There are many ways of roaning ..... only the 'classic' roan always displays in the exact same pattern every time. If only the allegedly-lethalised-roans had been available to be examined - but the theory is / was that homozygosity for the classic roan gene caused either failure to embed, or early abortion, or even resorption of the embryo! If we'd been able to inspect them, we'd probably know what actually killed them. If it did. Ho hum - back to the drawing board! Luck? I'll certainly need it! (PippaRivers (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

One of the real problems that researchers face is the habit that so many breed societies have the habit of 'lumping together' a number of colours / patterns under one heading and calling them all the same thing! For example, here in the UK most of the breed societies register any and all 'dunny-coloured' animals as being 'dun', when in fact many of them are cream-dilute buckskins and have no real dun in them at all. Amber champagne animals would also be registered as 'dun' in most of our breeds. And many, many breed societies register any animal with any kind of roaning as 'roan', making no distinctions at all between the various roaning patterns, and therefore no separate recognition of the distinctive classic roan. So an animal with apparently 'all roan offspring' (from pedigree and registration records) could well be simply producing several different types of roan offspring, some of them being classic, some rabicano-types, some sabino-types, and some of them being roan-hybrid 'marbled roan' types owing their coat colour to a combination of different roaning patterns. I do hope that the lethal roan question can and will be revisited in a study which involves only those animals showing absolutely clear classic roan influences, and which absolutely excludes any animals with any other roaning patterns at all, regardless of whether they also show the classic roan influence. P.lS. I forgot to mention earlier; think you meant 'lethal roan' above, not 'lethal red', too! I'm choosing to assume a simple typo ;-). (PippaRivers (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC))

I did, thanks. :) Yeah, those are the problems you run into when you go from a historically "what color your eyes see" system to a more technical and exacting system -- inaccuracies that are "grandfathered" in. Taxonomists started having the same problem when DNA studies appeared to show that Rhizaria and Chromalveolates were much more closely related than they'd originally thought. Banaticus (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Banaicus, I explained the roan thing a bit over on Pippa's page, just FYI. Pippa is right that there is a lot of inaccuracy in naming equine coat colors and it varies by nation to some degree, but the real short answer is that there are some other colors that have links to lethal genes, but roan isn't one of them. That said, prior to the development of modern DNA testing, it's probably no wonder a few odd theories were put out there. But Bowling was a very meticulous researcher, and UC Davis VGL has a reputation for wording everything with excess caution (I've dealt with Penedo directly on a different genetics issue, and I swear if you said the sky was blue, they'd ask which time of day you were considering and suggest further study was needed before the question could be fully answered -- and by the way, they need more grant money for that "further study" ... grin) Montanabw^(talk) 20:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That's great to know. You can properly verify those statements, right? ;) I really don't have anything else to say on the issue -- I look forward to working with both you two again in the future. :) Banaticus (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, for your input. I can see I shall have to either (a) do a lot more communicating to get to the in-depths of the sampling, and / or (b) see if I can get some nice post-doc-team to do some studies into all the different kinds of roaning and (haha!) try to map'n'mol-identify each and every single one of them (fat chance!), and / or do a follow-up study/ies on the ways all the various roaning genes interact. Hmmmm. The thing that really concerned me about it was that thye Hancock Horses page which showed pics of their 'guaranteed homozygous Rn' stallions showed stallions which clearly had other roaning patters, too ..... and in that breed, anything with any roaning pattern would be registered as roan. I shall be sure not to attempt any further edits without having first hunted down more/ better sources, or alternatively coerced some poor researcher somewhere to do something they would otherwise probably rather avoid! Again, many thanks, both of you. :-) (PippaRivers (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

(Oh my Gawd, it's me again, lol!) On the subject of lethality, think what could have happened in the studies on OLWS if the samplers hadn't been able to differentiate between Overo, Tobiano, splash-white, and sabino whte-marked animals, and they had all been included in a study on 'is white-marking lethal when homozygous'? I do appreciate that lab studies into particular genes will always be more scientifically accurate than 'by the eye' stuff, but sometimes you do have to be able to differentiate, visibly, between various different patterns. I am a pain, I know! (PippaRivers (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Actually, that's not the way gene studies work: They still have not located a gene or created a test for splash overo and only one gene (SB-1) has been identified in the Sabino family, and it doesn't account for all sabinos. LWS was isolated in part by using Arabian mares (who never carry lethal white) as a control group to help isolate the right allele. And "by the eye" has its limitiations: LWS was found in what looked like apparently tobiano and apparently "solid" horses because the frame overo patterns were either minimally expressed or masked by more dominant colors/patterns. So yes, one has to make a preliminary assessment based on visual examination, but when you are a breeder, genetic testing is the only real way to avoid inadvertently producing something that carries deleterious ("bad") genes. Montanabw^(talk) 19:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I do kinda understand the way it works. I was suggesting a hypothetical study having been done into 'white-markings being homozygous-lethal', without anyone first having sorted the 'white-marked animals sample' from each other first (maybe using the bog-standard beginners guide of separating out the 'coloured body patches surrounded by white' from the 'white body patches surrounded by colour' phenotypes). PippaRivers talk 12:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC))

I have to say, this has been a really interesting series of discussions. I'm sure enjoying learning more about this. :) Banaticus (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Pippa, before you get too cranked up about the white markings stuff, read dominant white. (smile) (<--And Banaticus too -- how did we get to discussing this here, anyway?) Also check out pinto horse and compare tobiano to overo to see how we classify the big spots. (your "X surrounded by Y" classifications are tobiano and overo over here) The only "for sure" lethal white is lethal white syndrome, linked to the frame overo gene. The homozygous lethal thing in dominant white has been documented in some alleles (notably the Camarillo White Horse), but the methodology of the studies is somewhat open to debate. I personally suspect there is lethality in at least some homozygous dominant white alleles, but the studies weren't properly done. I also know that a lot of the "lethal white" hysteria was completely overblown over here. In the 80s everything from cremellos to tobianos to SB-1 sabinos got "tarred" with the 'OMG it's lots of white so it must be LETHAL' brush at times, and none of those have any connection to lethality. The real deal is that frame can hide. And a lot of the "weird" markings reflect that a whole bunch of different color patterns get mixed up in the same horse -- frame can be hiding in a mix of "mutt" coloration real easily. Montanabw^(talk) 08:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalisation of Wikipedia pages

My edit was not disruptive, it was true, in fact I was helping by a) adding to an edit to give more detail and b) trying to rectify an error, so I don't see why I should be banned from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertuxkart (talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a good source for the death of James May? The first one that I saw was on a site that's on Wikipedia's blacklist. The site also stated, "Hes funeral will be in May when they scratch out whats left of him. It truely was a sad day when he died. Also Harry Potter is actually not fiction and he is alive living man. Harry James Potter(78) was also found dead the same day. He was ran over by a truck and hes remains will be sent to London beside James May’s remains." I appreciate that you're trying to edit Wikipedia and add useful information, but I don't really think that website is a reputable source. Banaticus (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Willis (and Archangels)

Thanks for your help keeping Patrick Willis page clear of vandalism. On a different topic, in the interest of fairness would you please review my changes to LDS archangel section? I asked User:Zahakiel to help because he seemed to know a lot about the subject, but did not receive an answer from him. Thanks. Canstusdis (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems good to me -- what was removed seemed somewhat to digress from the main topic. It provided additional background material, but such isn't necessary on every topic that touches on LDS philosophy. I'll post on Zahakiel's page, letting him know you were bold. ;) Banaticus (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. : ) Canstusdis (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Apricot

Well Alexander the Great introduced the apricots into all Southeast Europe. Since he was from Macedonia, Macedonian king, also his name was actually Alexander the Macedon it's quite normal to stay Macedonia. Another information in this context is that Greece didn't existed during Alexander role, part of it (except Sparta) was incorporated into the Kingdom of Macedon, just like Ancient Egypt, Persia and all other countries that he conquered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.53.38.9 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia vandalism

 Recieved communication regarding Wikipedia vandalism. The IP address (omitted to avoid attracting malevolent attention) in question is a public facing address for a private ip range. Attempts to trace the vandalism to a user was not possible. Currently the logging neccesary to trace and archive this behavior is inadequate. If possible the logging to trace and archive this type of activity will be put in place. The decision to block the ip in question is a good decision and is one I completly support! 

Webmaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.163.166.110 (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

DarkfireII2 (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

ok i will be adpoted by you

Sounds great -- just a comment, usually a person signs their statement after the post, instead of putting it in the subject header. Please go to User:Banaticus/Adoption and follow the directions there to complete the first assignment. I'll then create an adoption page for you and explain what will follow. Have a great day. :) Banaticus (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

ok, I did that--DarkfireII2 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Egyptian protests

Please have a look at the talk page and the archives. I have been working on the article since I started it. I have opposed moving or renaming it until this day. My reason have been mentioned in the talk page for why I support now. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I missed the archived discussion back in Archive 3. Anyway, I still support not renaming it "at this time" for the reason given on the talk page. Let's wait and see whether or not this was actually something that sparked revolutionary changes or merely a really big protest that caused a new person to be in the top position of power with no real political/economic/social changes (and with everyone else from the former regime still in power too). Banaticus (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Bob Frank

what I edited re: "bob frank" was all relevant. I have to be logged in or it doesn't count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.192.100 (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was reverting this edit and the rest of your edits came along with it. Although some IP editors have contributed greatly, I generally recommend logging in, so that all of your edits from any computer will be held together well, you'll be able to create pages (such as pages in your user space), and if you ever move or switch ISP's you'll still keep the same username. But, go with whatever floats your boat. Anyway, sorry again about reverting your edit -- I reverted my revert. :) Banaticus (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!  :)

Hi! I wanted to thank you for your kindness towards me. Don't have my husband with me this weekend and shouldn't be on the 'net during Sabbath. I'd like very much for you to help mentor me so I won't feel so lost here. Tamara Zion (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure -- if you'd like to double adopt, go to User:Banaticus/Adoption, read it and follow the instructions in the "How you can help" section. Otherwise, you can always feel free to leave me a message on my talk page here or put the {{helpme}} template up on your user talk page and someone will be shortly. :) Banaticus (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

PP & 3rr & Planned PArenthood (sic)

Do you and your opposer mind taking the debate to the talk page for a bit please. All these reverts are going to land you both in trouble before long. There is plenty of discussion on the TP and you are, of course, welcome to have your say. Thanks. Sitush (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm really not sure which article you're referencing. Banaticus (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a warning that you are violating 3rr. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 05:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood. I would also suggest using caution in how you use the rollback feature in Huggle. Some of the actions may not satisfy the criteria for using the rollback feature. In particular, it should not be used as a tool in a content dispute. Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but it would really help if you referenced which article you're talking about. I've recently reverted quite literally dozens of articles -- all of which generally appeared to have been vandalised. 3R doesn't apply in clear cases of vandalism. Banaticus (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have now reported it at the 3rr noticeboard, the edits you undid appear to be good faith edits if illconceived, they don't look like vandalism. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 05:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I missed Tcncv's post -- possibly it was because we were posting in two different sections and not editing the full page, perhaps, knowing that I had a new message from WikiManOne, I didn't look at the latest edit then just hit [End] and grabbed the bottom section to edit. Any, I've responded over at the administrator's Edit Warring noticeboard (currently it's at this section header although that latter link will go invalid change when a result is posted). Banaticus (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was going to go withdraw the nomination, but its already been closed with no vio. Sorry for the troubles and the ambiguity, I had assumed that you were in a "real" edit war and was just focusing on that article, also I saw the "PP" article header by Sitush which explained it to me and when I noted that I had reported it saw that someone else had already specified which article it was. Anyways, sorry for the bad start here, good luck with vandal patrolling. :) _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 07:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, WikiManOne, I don't have any hard feelings. Stuff happens, you know? :) Banaticus (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I find it scary that someone can do so many edits, so quickly that they cannot make the connection between "PP" & "Planned Parenthood" 2 minutes or so after they have edited the thing. But, hey, that's what happens when automatic tools are used, I guess. Everyone else who has been involved with that particular article for some weeks has referred to it as PP. Anyway, next time (hopefully there won't be one!), I'll put the full article name in - lesson learned, my bad. Sitush (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that's what happens when I pay more attention to users, their names, their recent and current edits, the section they're editing, the references in that section, and how their edits impact that section than the almost inconsequential name of the article, as I explained on the administrator's edit warring noticeboard. But then I guess different people have different priorities and that's ok. Wikipedia editing takes all kinds and whatever floats your boat is all good. :) Banaticus (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

new to this

i was wondering if you could give me some tips and tricks? recommendations how to contribute? Nikarvidsson (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to leap into the deep end with both feet, start on the Cleanup page. If you want more mentoring first to learn more about Wikipedia and how to edit, I recommended being adopted by someone. If you'd like to be adopted by me, then go to my adoption page, read the page, and complete the first assignment. Or, if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them here or put a {{helpme}} template on your page and someone else will be by to help you. Good luck. To add your email to Wikipedia, go to your Special:Preferences page (there's also a link up at the very top of every page), then just scroll down and put it into the e-mail section. :)Banaticus (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I did post a link to our research project at one point, that may fall under “advertising platform”? I do realize now that I should contribute more in different areas of interest. Changes commas and spelling errors, to the best of my ability, etc? I think I could need help in direction, if to add info and how to go about doing it. I should read up more on faux pas etc.

I have previously thought that I can best contribute in the area I know well, but that does risk begging the question…if I contribute in an area I also research, do I not effect the field of research in a way that might risk to be biased? Any reflections Banaticus?

Great, love it. One thought. On your page you say you “work on reverting vandalism”. I would like to help out if possible?

always

I like the adoption program. Sorry for not writing extensively, if you have any questions to me please just ask. I am from Sweden by the way. Ohh, I like to get feedback full on, pure critism. open cards. Nikarvidsson (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, keep your comments a bit more condensed and indent paragraphs with colons (with :'s). Anyway, go to my adoption page, read the page, and do what it tells you to do. I will then start an adoption page for you -- the adoption process will answer your questions. :) Banaticus (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

will do, thanks for your help so far Nikarvidsson (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit

Hello,

You may not be aware that this edit is completely acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines. If you took the time to check, you would know that CourtTV changed their name to truTV and that the the investigatory parts of the Discovery Channel now have their own channel, Investigation Discovery. Oh yeah, and by the way, even though the template that you obviously slapped on my talk page with Twinkle says that I should cite "significant edits", by my standards this does not qualify as a significant edit. From now on, I will not hesitate to log into my Wikipedia account. Being labeled as a noob sometimes inclines people like you to go apeshit for trivial things. 71.223.149.202 (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies -- I reverted my revert. It's good to know that you'll be logging into your account for your edits now -- that's a good way to avoid sock puppetry claims. If you'd put in any sort of "edit summary" saying that the names of the TV stations had changed, I probably would have left it alone, but you left the edit summary completely blank. Leave some sort of statement in the edit summary, some citation, some reference, just something to let other people know what you're changing and why you're changing it if you're not going to put a reference into the article. Also, responsibility for my edits rests with me, not with whatever tool I use (which wasn't Twinkle in this case), so leave off the tool-slamming -- it's not it's fault. :) Banaticus (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, if anybody is to be sorry, it should be me. The whole thing was my fault due to pure laziness. Then, to make matters worse, I went out attacking you. Won't happen again. 71.223.149.202 (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that -- my apologies again for the revert. :) Banaticus (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving article from user space

Greetings Banaticus. Thanks for responding. I was able to migrate the article into the mainspace and correctly name it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hills Still have quite a bit of editing to do and will attempt photo uploads next. Can I keep you on file as a source of advice? Are you experienced in Wikipedia formatting? John Monsoonique (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if you have a question, feel free to ask it here or put a {{helpme}} template on your user talk page and someone else will stop by to help. While you're thinking about uploading photos, you might want to take a look at the picture tutorial. Also, you have a broken reference somewhere in there. See how to make references in footnotes -- one of your references is using a / improperly, which is why you're getting that red warning at the bottom of the page. :) Banaticus (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Adoption lesson summarizing the five pillars

An essay for Banaticus
Jimbo and The Pillars 5

Wikipedian "Himbo" made good faith contributions and typical mistakes newcomers make. He was feeling overwhelmed by the environment and needed help. Specifically, he needed help from The Pillars 5.

Himbo knew of The Jackson 5. He was not aware of The Pillars 5 when he created a new article with content copied and pasted from the Michael Jackson Hoax Death Investigators external website. The sudden flash of an orange strip announcing new messages on his talk page had indicated the presence of the Pillars. His new article had been nominated for speedy deletion by the blue being known as Pillar 1. "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia", said Pillar 1. "Conspiracy theories are considered a form of original research. Have you considered joining WikiProject Michael Jackson"?

"More than half of the Wikipedians involved in WikiProject Michael Jackson believe in the death of Michael Jackson; less than half believe he is alive", Himbo complained.

"More than half? Less than half? Are you sure your statistics are verifiable? You'll need reliable sources for your contributions here. Be prepared to cite your sources and be aware that unverifiable content you add may be challenged or removed".

"That's because Wikipedia has a neutral point of view", added the green being known as Pillar 2. "We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Multiple points of view may be represented. Your personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions are considered original research. Credible, authoritative sources must be cited for controversial topics or when the subject is a living person, if Michael Jackson IS alive".

Himbo noticed that his article had been deleted during the conversation with Pillars 1 and 2. "The CSD tag on my article said it was deleted for G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement".

"You copied and pasted the content from the Michael Jackson Hoax Death Investigators' external website which belongs to them", said the yellow being known as Pillar 3. "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit and distribute. Respect copyright laws, and avoid plagiarizing your sources. You're welcome to have your own blog or external website but it really, really, really should not be on Wikipedia. If you're aware what Wikipedia is, you'll be aware what Wikipedia is not".

Himbo sighed, annoyed. "How can I add anything new to Wikipedia? The jackass 5 won't let me include the information or the link"!

"I know you're upset but please remain calm", advised the orange being known as Pillar 4. "Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. If you want us to assume good faith please do likewise and assume ours. Treat your fellow Wikipedians with respect. Don't make personal attacks and let other editors work with you towards reaching consensus".

"I want to obey the rules," said Himbo, "but it will take weeks, maybe even months, to memorize them all".

"Don't worry", said the red being known as Pillar 5. "Wikipedia does not have firm rules. You're welcome to bring something bold and new to Wikipedia. You can be bold without being reckless. Even the most all-around amazing Wikipedian admins and sysops were once new and needed help. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it".

Himbo removed the dunce cap from the top of his head and tipped it as a gesture of respect to his five new friends. "Now I see with 2020 vision. You've been so helpful", he said. "What should I do now that I know The Pillars 5"?

"Let Banaticus adopt you", they said, "and happy editing"!  :)

Tamara Zion (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Hy !

I edited the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rony86/Orlando_Mohorovi%C4%87 I added a lot of sources and removed some text. Please take a look, I hope it will be ok, I really worked hard all day on this.

If it's ok, I would be very grateful if you could move the article from my workspace to a main page, and remove the messages about missing sources.

I really look forward for your positive answer.

Thank you very much

Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rony86 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's done, the article is moved. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rony86 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure -- I was happy to chat with you on IRC and help you improve the article. If you'd like help with anything else, leave me a message here, or put a {{help me}} template on your user talk page and someone else will be by to help. :) Banaticus (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

help me template that didn't seem to work

Hello Banaticus, Placement of Help Me template on my Talk Page seems OK now, no error message followed. Seems I was using a truncated bbcode character string that was incomplete. Thanks! merlynne6 (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, have a great day! :) Banaticus (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Experimenting

I have been Experimenting with my page and have made a user box,How do you like it?DarkfireII2 (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is that your Alabama one? I like it! I don't think the Wikimarkup course will be too difficult for you. Was that userbox inspired by my Southern California userbox? Don't forget to do the first adoption assignment -- go read up on the five pillars and post about them and I'll create an adoption page for you. It's helpful to get in the habit of always putting something in the edit summary box -- it lets people find a given edit more easily (usually) than searching through every edit made. :) Banaticus (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

got it,i also made another and yes my alabama one was inspired of of your south carolina one user box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkfireII2 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you read my edit summary on your reversion?

Read it again. It's been moved here to save space. Dr. Zombieman ^brains.../_{the infected} 08:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies -- it looks like that new page is up for speedy delete, though because there's not enough there to really qualify as its own article. I agree with that speedy delete, that the new page "does not expand upon, detail or improve information within the existing article(s) on the subject, Trip hop". I'd offer to revert my revert, but it looks like you already did that. Would you like me to put the information back on the Trip hop page, presuming that List of trip hop artists will be deleted? 211.30.17.104's post is a completely separate matter -- it was the edit I made after reverting your removal of content. Banaticus (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You'd better wait until it is deleted; you never know... Dr. Zombieman ^brains.../_{the infected} 08:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem -- see you tomorrow. :) Banaticus (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It was not deleted per the content is split from the article. Also, I'm live in Britain so it's not see you tomorrow. Dr. Zombieman ^brains.../_{the infected} 15:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant that I was coming back the next day (~24 hours later), so it's tomorrow no matter where you are. ;) The article has not been speedy deleted, but it still does not meet the notability requirements and it will be deleted in the future unless more sources are added. Banaticus (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrestling edit

how would you know man it is dudd billiy bob is ausome so it viptel and pub squash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.17.104 (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure they are. Unfortunately, we can't just say that someone is awesome, we need to find a "reliable source" that says they're awesome, like a newspaper, magazine, you know, so that other people can also go read about how awesome they are. You probably didn't want to delete all the other information on the page either. :) Banaticus (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Also awesome is not the best word for an encyclopedia. Dr. Zombieman ^brains.../_{the infected} 08:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

5 Pillars of Wikipedia

The 5 pillars is about explaining that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,nothing else. That Wikipedia has a neutral point of view,that we shouldn't put 1 point of view as the "best view". The third pillar states that anyone can edit,but respect copyright laws and don't plagiarize,no one owns any article. The fourth pillar says we should respect other Wikipedian's avoid edit wars and personal attacks on other peoples. THe last one says be bold but not reckless don't worry about mistakes you can go back and redo it. DarkfireII2 (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Good work -- I created a user adoption page for you. :) Banaticus (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Permissions

1. What is a permission? The ability to edit,or do stuff that only registered users can do
2. Which pages are un-registered users able to edit? They can edit articles that are not semi-protected.
3. What is an auto confirmed account? An account that has been aactive for four days or more than 10 edits.
4. What permissions do registered accounts have?They can move pages,edit pages,uplode files.
5. Who can grant rollback?Administrators.
6. What privileges do acccountcreators have and why? They can delete accounts,and confirm them.
7. Who can grant accountcreator and how do you request it? Autocreators,you go to their request page.
8. What does rollback enable you to do? You can undo multiple edits at one time.
9. What should you not use rollback for? make a vandilism fight.
10. What are administrators able to do? Delete accounts make bots,delete pages.
11. How do you request adminship?Go to the page saying Guide to requests for adminship.
12. What are a bureaucrat's main duties?run bots and rename users,
13. What technical abilities do stewards have? admit people in.
14. What does checkuser enable a user to check?They look at the ip address.
15. What is oversight?Advanced deletion
16. What type of a user must you be to be granted oversight?steward or admin
17. What is a reviewer?reviews edits.
18. What is a researcher?search deleted history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkfireII2 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Note: Rollbacking another person's edits that you don't agree with isn't generally called a "a vandilism fight" but rather an "edit war". Right now you're at 72% - try it again and see if you can get over 85%. If you get stuck, let me know and I'll give you more links to where the answers can be found. The following are incorrect:

• What privileges do acccountcreators have and why?
• What are administrators able to do? (I added more information to the course page -- also, see what a bureaucrat can do)
• How do you request adminship? (very close page, though)
• What technical abilities do stewards have? (they can do a lot more) ;)
• What type of a user must you be to be granted oversight? (missed one)

Banaticus (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

new userbox

†This user is a Christian

this is a new userbox i made.you like? DarkfireII2 (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I like it -- it evinces a good sense of style. :) You can see more userboxes at the bottom of the Userbox page -- there are links to the Gallery and you can follow the "See more" link to see more userboxes that were moved by various people in the great userbox migration that happened a few years ago. What's that migration? Well, I'll tell you.

Several years ago, almost half a decade ago, it seemed to some people that having all userboxes in "real" template space seemed to be giving them all some sort of official "ok" and frankly some userboxes were a little embarrassing to have out there in "real" template space, such as the infamous "This user is a pedophile" userbox.

The German Wikipedia had recently decided to move all non-Wikimedia-specific userboxes into userspace instead of template space. This was discussed and after a while the consensus was that the English Wikipedia should do the same thing. At first this was called the German Userbox Solution, but some people thought that title was a little offensive, given the historical context of a German solution so the big move was called the "userbox migration", which is also a much clearer description of what was happening.

I generally don't put any political/religious userboxes on my user page, as I feel it helps me to remain neutral in my editing. My favorite history teacher in high school refused to tell us whether he was a Republican or Democrat. He said that although he certainly was something, what it was wasn't important -- his job was to present the facts and let us form our own opinions. He did an incredible job giving balanced presentations ("on the one hand, but on the other hand"... however... although...). To this day, I still don't know what his personal opinions are.

That's not to say that having a political/religious userbox on your user page means you can't be neutral in editing -- many people who are great editors with long histories of good contributions to Wikipedia have strong religious or political preferences which they declare on their user page, but I think some people tend to jump to conclusions when they see that a user is already embracing a certain viewpoint. That's just my opinion -- like I said, others disagree and that's fine -- I'm stating my own opinion and I want you to form your own opinion, whatever that ends up being. Anyway, there are a number of "I'm a Christian" userboxes if you want to look through those. I think yours is very tasteful. :) Banaticus (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with Carrotmob

Banaticus, I appreciate the help fixing up the Carrotmob page. It's now much better than it used to be! I don't see all the deleted parts as self-promotional (for example, I only organized 2 campaigns, and the rest of the 120 were created by organizers around the world), but I defer to your judgment. Thanks again! Schulkin (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) Most of the things that I remembered removing were <ref>'s (references) to the company website as a primary source for information (see SELFPUBLISH, because anyone can say whatever they want to about themselves on their own website), mention of website tools given to users (that I didn't see when I dropped by the website to check it out), some things like that. The paragraph you're probably talking about seemed to somewhat delve a little too deeply into minutia that would have to be regularly updated as carrotmob campaigns continued, which seemed to be against the general policy on things that tend to quickly go out of date, as I presumed that more campaigns would happen on a regular basis. I wasn't sure how I could discuss some campaigns without the article growing into a huge list of every campaign (presuming that most would have been mentioned in a newspaper), so I thought I'd err on the side of caution instead of the article basically growing into a copy of the press release department of Carrotmob. I could easily be wrong -- that was just my personal opinion, formed on the spur of the moment while editing. :) Banaticus (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)d

Mark bryan (Artist)

Thank you so much! Will work on it in my own space. --Wikicate (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles for Creation

Hello Banaticus, I was just wondering why you removed the AfC submission template from User:SargerasReborn/ArtInsights. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Because it's not in the AfC area anymore. Why should it retain the AfC submission template? :) Banaticus (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought the submitter wanted it to be reviewed and moved to mainspace. That is why I am a bit confused on why you moved it and took the template off. Best, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, Zabiart (who claims to be Brambleclawx), aka SargerasReborn, aka who knows (but they seem to just be hopping and basically not engaging in sockpuppetry), expressed a desire last night on IRC in #wikipedia-en-help to work on the article in user space after the initial article review was declined and some difficulty was being encountered meeting the notability guidelines. I know, it can be difficult dealing with a person who is Legion. ;) I didn't think there was a problem with it (although I could be wrong), since AfC is mostly a tool we use to give unconfirmed accounts (IP addresses) the ability to have a page created for them, although we tend to direct all new editors in that direction so that they are more easily made aware of options available to them. Banaticus (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I was just curious. Thanks for the explanation. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 01:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)