User talk:Banaticus/archive2011b

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! :)

Huggle Bonk 122.144.116.212 please

Could you put the next level of warning for 122.144.116.212 please. I just don't think he is getting that his updates on the Fraternity page for the Philippines is unhelpful...Naraht (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot as it looks like 122.144.116.212 is making good edits (after being warned). Banaticus (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I see no good edits, his last two have simply replaced a citation needed with a date with no references.Naraht (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes people take a few minutes and a few edits to get something right. I could see that he had made a couple changes in how the template was presented, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for a time. ;) Banaticus (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at his previous edits, this one is no different than the others in result. I may be up against the 3RR, so I'll personally let it go at least overnight.Naraht (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mark Bryan (Artist)

A tag has been placed on Mark Bryan (Artist), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks, I should have put a speedy delete tag on the original page after moving it. Banaticus (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for help

Thank you so much for your help. It's much appreciated. LordVetinari (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. (oversight) :) Banaticus (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Francis Gurry

Thank you for the quick review and the offer for help. I added a few more sources and posted in Wiki markup. Would appreciate any further help you may have for me. Thanks. :) --Fabiow 2011 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Kerry Ellis

Kerry has just answered questions on the fansite 'Kerry Ellis Web' and one of them was on the matter of Laine Theatre Arts. They asked "Wikipedia states you went to Laine Theatre Arts for only a year? is this true or did you do the whole three year course? and did you audition at any other drama or dance schools?" and Kerry replied "I did three years , the only other college I auditioned for was Doreen Bird and I didn't get in!". http://www.kerryellisweb.co.uk/press/interviews/1102-ask-kerry.html I was correct. It's called updating thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.19.29 (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the way you added it, she could not possibly have done three years as she graduated at 19 (one year after "starting" there, since she was 16 in 1995, also see her birthdate). However, she did leave school at 16 and her non-summers (summers were spent with Starmarkets) are currently unaccounted for in the article. Laine Theatre Arts enrollment criteria is that one be "of school-leaving age", so she might be able to qualify at 16. I'm still inclined to turn a skeptical eye to her statement, though -- I'd prefer a statement from Laine Theatre Arts (such as an alumni page) but their website is kind of poor as far as information goes. There's also the self published information criteria to consider. If you wanted to add the "three years" back, say that she started at 16, and add a reference to the link you just gave me on her website, I'd have no objection. Banaticus (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Kaniz Ali deletion

Hi, thanks for the note on my page. I found the Kaniz Ali article, and saw that it required some evidence of notability, so I added 8 refs, linked to articles which deal with the subject of Asian women and fashion. I was not sure whether to remove the original tag or not. I admit this sort of subject matter is not the normal type of thing I contribute, but there did seem to be evidence for notability out there, unlike a couple of other articles I also found. Bob1960evens (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The article creator is apparently trying to delete the article. Since you'd made a number of edits to the article, I wanted to let you know in case you were attached to it. If you weren't attached to it, then I was going to prod it. I just deleted the Facebook reference as a non-reputable source. Having done that, there's only two references in the article. The article also reads like an advertisement, "Kaniz still continues on with her passion and work in make up as well as invests into other side projects." That being said, since you seem attached to it, then I won't try to delete it, but it does need that notable tag back on, urging that more references be added to the article. :) Banaticus (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I don't know whether I'm attached to it or not really. It has an orphan tag on it now. I normally work in the UK Waterways arena, where such tags are relatively easy to fix, but am not sure where to find other articles that might link to this one. I agree with your comments on advetisement, but could not fix everything at once. The tag said it needed refs, so I addressed that first. Someone else PRODed it, but I removed that tag, as it said I could, if I was going to improve the article. From experience, these tags are completely baffling to new editors, and User:Katie allana, the article creator, was a new editor. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Born This Way cover.png

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ℥^nding·start 23:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please hold off on deleting it. Despite the link from Lady Gaga's website to the preorder at Target and the preorder at Amazon, both of which show that picture for the CD album item, some people apparently say that we don't "know" whether or not this is actually the album cover. I didn't realize until receiving this message that someone had removed the image from the website. So that I won't be edit warring, I'll discuss on the article talk page. Banaticus (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Census Number

Hi, Thank for comment to 206.188.51.1 IP Address at King County Library System in Auburn, Washington. This is Ross Degenstein. I still made edit in list of cities and counties in Washington in 2010 Census Results. Click to http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb11-cn45.html Then click to "Custom tables" is excel. But, I don't know how to make and fix to references to the article? My User:Rossdegenstein have been blocked from edit. You can edit back to Spokane County, Washington It's 471,221 in county and 208,916 in Spokane city. Thank you. Have a good day! Ross Degenstein (talk) --206.188.51.1 (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Adoption

Yes I would like for you to adopt me. Thank you. $plat! (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Five Pillers

The first pillar states that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and incorperates elements of encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. It is not, however, a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents.

The second pillar states that Wikipedia has a nuetral point of view and shares no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".

The third pillar states that Wikipedia is free content and any body can edit and distribute. We should respect copyright laws, and avoid plagiarizing our sources. Non-free content is allowed under fair use, but we should strive to find free alternatives to any media or content that you wish to add to Wikipedia.

The fourth pillar states that Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. We should respect and be polite to our fellow Wikipedians, even when we disagree.

The fifth and final pillar states that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone. We should be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Our efforts do not need to be perfect; prior versions are saved, so no damage is irreparable.$plat! (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Adoption

hello banaticus, I am new to wikipedia and very much interested in creating articles on wikipedia. I think it would accelerate my learning about wiki article creating, if you could adopt me for mentoring. -rahul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul1990gupta (talk • contribs) 07:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. If you go to my Adoption page, it will give you your first lesson. Follow those instructions and I'll create an adoption page for you. :) Banaticus (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ziplocal revisions

Hi Banaticus and thanks so much for helping me out with the article for User:Misterkellas/ZipLocal. I have written a first draft of the article revisions and would really appreciate your input on them. I have put some notes on my User_talk:Misterkellas/ZipLocal page that explain. Cheers to you! Misterkellas (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Edited the article some more, requested the last deleting admin to move the article to Ziplocal (at User_talk:RHaworth#Ziplocal). I think the article should be Ziplocal instead of ZipLocal because 1) the logo doesn't capitalize anything, 2) the company seems to refer to itself in its press releases and in its Corporate section as "Ziplocal" instead of "ZipLocal". Banaticus (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your guidance. It is appreciated more than I can express. :) Misterkellas (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

fringe board

Hello, the fringe board polygenism section needs to be deleted. the conversation its been finished. so why leave it up? 86.10.119.131 (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Because you're going around to multiple userpages and discussion pages trying to delete all traces of the conversation. Just let them fade away on their own. This also makes it easier if anyone else needs to review the conversation months from now for any reason (probably won't happen, but in general just don't delete those things). :) Banaticus (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ziplocal-logo.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The "What Links Here" mentions the page that links to it now -- I would move the article myself so that it's in the right place, but Ziplocal was protected a few years ago. Anyway, RHaworth knows about it and is presumably going to do something about it. :) Banaticus (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Warning over speedy delete tagging

Please do not nominate articles for speedy delete that are not advertisements. For example Mobile enterprise application framework. The things to nominate as spam are those that are pure promotion saying how great the product or company is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The only "reference" to the term "Mobile enterprise application framework" is a single press release by one of the three companies on that page and other than that the phrase basically doesn't appear anywhere else on the internet. Since that press release isn't as voluble as the article is, it seems like original research to me. "Mobile enterprise application framework" seems like a buzzword (which hasn't caught on yet) which means, "any program that can run on well, anything." Normally, we would hardly have external links to three separate companies -- what are we demonstrating with the links, how can those companies aid us in understanding what the article is about? I think it's a spam page, that those companies are only posting there to increase their visibility. Banaticus (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Compromised

DarkfireII2 was compromised,the admins blocked it,and now I am DarkfireII13,will u adopt me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkfireII13 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Before I can help you, you need to post on your new user talk page and request to be unblocked. You should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Compromised_accounts. Banaticus (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ya i tried,then they told me to stop asking,then they blocked me from talking on my talk page forever.also,i turned in those questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkfireII13 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Banaticus, some other admins blocked him and one of them told him to make a new account; probably without thinking about the fact that they had made that impossible (due to the autoblock). Another admin and I created a new account for him and removed the autoblock. His old account is not eligible for unblocking as it policy that compromised accounts do not get unblocked. He is under strict instructions that any funny business or hints that this account is compromised and he won't get another one - that isn't to say we don't believe the compromised account claim, it's just a common defense and you can only claim it once or twice before folks decide your account security apparently isn't good enough to have an account. It was recommended that he get an adopter or mentor to help him toe the line really carefully and I for one would like to see some evidence of productive (read "article space") non-controversial editing very soon. You may want to start by discussing with him why this edit which is apparently a response to User:Tnxman307 was probably poorly thought out; Tnxman was the blocking admin. You should probably also review Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Compromised accounts with him as he hasn't fully complied yet. I hope you can help him develop into a productive editor. I think he just tends to try to do things without knowing how we do it here and gets into trouble with those who think it's vandalism, such as with this edit. Later edits suggest he thought he was suggesting protection of the article itself not trying to mark the talk page as protected. I think he just needs active guidance. Thanks for your time and commitment to help people.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Entry for Sidney Meyers

I don't know what you mean by inappropriate external links. The 2 external links are not meant as advertisements and you haven't removed them. The poster of The Savage Eye is totally relevant to to written material and since its for a film screened over 50 years ago is clearly not an advertisement or Spam. All the best, 80.179.118.131 (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I was reverting your addition of File:Savage Eye poster.jpg -- I presumed you were just dumping in to advertise it a performance of the movie or something. Its "Fair Use Rationale" says that it basically can only be used in The Savage Eye article. I don't see how the poster is relevant in the Sidney Meyers article -- I don't see anything that says Sidney Meyers created the poster. It was probably created by someone at the Image Entertainment studio. Banaticus (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The poster certainly seems appropriate to me as an interesting illustration for a film in which Meyers's input was central, as noted in the written text. Don't see what his not having designed the poster itself has to do with it. Attributing to me a plot to use this Wiki entry as a secret means of advertising a showing of the film seems unusual, to say the least. But if you insist, I'll get rid of the poster. All the best, 62.128.62.1 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I have no idea who Sidney Meyers is or what the Savage Eye is. I saw the edit of the poster going onto the page, though, and saw that the poster was copyrighted and shouldn't be used there. I saw that the poster was avant garde enough that it really isn't a good representation of a movie, and presumed that it was being stuck into some unrelated place to eventually advertise a local performance. Apparently I was wrong about the advertising part, but I still don't see how the image is relevant in the Sidney Meyers article as I hardly see how such a poster can be "representative" of the film or of Sidney Meyers work. It's copyrighted to someone else and we can only use it under fair use rules -- we can't use it merely because it's "interesting". Banaticus (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If you were to read about Meyers you'd know that the poster is relevant as an illustration. But since you still seem to feel that it doesn't belong, I'll get rid of it, since I bow to your authority. 80.179.118.130 (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to enlighten me -- this is quite literally an open debate forum. As I said before, the poster is so avant garde that it really isn't representative of either the people in the movie or the situations that those people go through. It likely wasn't created by Sidney Meyers. I really don't see how the poster increases our understanding or appreciation for the Savage Eye movie. I don't wish to be snarky, facetious, or sarcastic -- I am sincerely looking to be enlightened since I'm apparently missing something. :) Banaticus (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the otter pictures

I sent an e-mail from araguaia.org granting permission to publish the pictures.

Questions:

1) should I expect a response?

2) will I have to send an e-mail every time I upload a picture from Instituto Araguaia, or is there a way to grant blanket permission to a particular user (me)?

Thanks again Rio Cicica (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you should expect a response. It will probably come within the next few days. I believe you will have to send an email every time you upload a picture, unless you clearly mark it by doing something like putting it on your website with an open license on it or something, but you'll have to ask them to be certain. :) Banaticus (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the deletion tag, and marked the image to note that the email was sent, and it is pending OTRS review. See this edit.

Rio Cicica, processing can take many days, but you may use the picture whilst we wait - it will not be deleted. If there are any further concerns, then the OTRS team will contact you. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

@Banaticus: The OTRS permission has been received, and checks out; all 4 pictures that the user uploaded are now tagged with an OTRS ticket. (See User_talk:Rio_Cicica#Update_-_permission_received) - Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks for a quick response. :) Banaticus (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

ECJ asked to rule on re-sale of software licences

Thanks for taking the time to look at the proposed edit. I've added some comments to the talk page on discount-licensing.com that I hope clarify some of the points you raised.(Jonhorley (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

Entry for Sidney Meyers

Before creating Wikipedia entries I carefully reviewed quite a few entries of this type (the life and work of an artist, whether in films or other areas). Most entries are accompanied by illustrations. The latter may not be strictly necessary as part of the content, but add interest to the "page." The poster of Savage Eye which generated your ire is certainly of interest in its attempt to say something about the experiences of the main character of the film via a drawing, rather than simply using a still from the film, which is what most posters do. Since the Meyers site includes a section on this film (which is considered an important part of his oeuvre, even though he's "only" credited as editor) I feel that the poster definitely belongs, even according to the strictures of "fair usage". Re the copyright issue: as you noticed, the same poster appears on the Wikipedia entry for Savage Eye. It was posted there in Jan. 2008, i.e. over 3 years ago. Since no copyright issues have apparently been raised vis-a-vis the latter case of "fair usage," I assumed that it could legitimately be used for the Meyers site. Was I wrong about this? I, too, want to be enlightened. A more general point: Over the last 6 months I've worked on 3 Wikipedia entries: I created the first two from scratch and edited the Meyers entry, which I turned from a stub (just a couple of sentences, actually) into a complete entry. I've kept strictly to the Wikipedia guidelines as to objectivity, references, etc., all of which I not only accept, but understand and identify with. I was therefore unpleasantly surprised when in each case a Wiki critic (I don't recall the precise term for your task) commented only on illustrations. Indeed, I had the feeling that the critics didn't bother reading the text. Pardon me if this doesn't apply to you; but that's been my definite sense. In any case I (very unwillingly) got rid of the offending poster. All the best, 80.179.118.131 (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Tasmanian Devil IS iconic

Hi Banaticus,

My edit was an over-zealous response to the general overuse of the word 'iconic' - anything that has well-known associations is now described as 'iconic'. I agree with user 124.183.163.127 that my edit was incorrect here. I am off to edit the phrase 'Baby and bathwater'. Dick Shane (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I just asked because of this edit request. Thanks for the quick response! :D Banaticus (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

help at Duncan's Taxonomy

Thanks for your help with the edit and suggestions regarding releasing copyright and so forth. Apologies for the belated response; two conference papers and The Day Job have demanded attention. I'm not sure whether IEEE still has rights to my ancient article (1990) or not. Some academic sites have scanned versions of it up, so perhaps not. I'll investigate but first hope to slog through filling in descriptions of the architecture classes. A taxonomy isn't very edifying to read about if it doesn't state what its classes and subclasses are.  ;) Regardless, thanks for the help and best wishes. (Ralph Duncan) Rvduncanjr (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your help is appreciated -- Hedge fund

Thank you for reviewing my contribution to the Hedge fund article and moving it into the mainspace. Your suggestions about seeking help are good, and if you become too busy to review my proposed work, I will definitely use the {{help me}} template. I look forward to your help in making that article a better resource. --Bryant Park Fifth (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, Banaticus. I've just prepared an improved version of the article's introduction, explained in a note on the article's talk page, and you can review my draft here. If you are willing to have a look at it and see if you agree, please move it into the mainspace or let me know there if it would be acceptable to move myself. Thanks. --Bryant Park Fifth (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, with one trivial change noted in the article edit and on the talk page. Excellent work. :) Banaticus (talk) 05:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Higley

I don't see "criticism" sections for any of the other school districts in the general Phoenix area. See Mesa Public Schools or Tempe Union High School District. So would it still be best to just remove it altogether? Raymie (t • c) 21:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the information verifiable (sourced)? Is it relevant? Based on the answers to those questions, should the criticism be removed from Higley Unified School District or should it be added to Mesa Public Schools/Tempe Union High School District? I think the section has a fairly NPoV. What do you think about the first two questions? Banaticus (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I asked at WP Schools about it. User:Kanguole gutted the section, saying it was full of BLP violations. It was sourced OK – most were local news, but two others were blogs. But still, I was very discouraged by the overall tone and the fact that there wasn't much with which to balance a criticism section of this type. I agreed that it had to go. It may remove some references, but it leaves a balanced article in its wake. Raymie (t • c) 18:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. :) Banaticus (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Torry Harris Business Solutions

Thanks for the comments Banaticus. I regard them as constructive. I realise that in the desire to put in references, I have done away with some of the information that would have added more meaning to the article. I have given it another shot. Cheers Itkidontheblock (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's looking better, but it still needs more work. I responded further in the talk page of the article. Banaticus (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

block

can you please block me from posting new thing

Nikkotg (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC) nikkotg

I see you were blocked yesterday per your request on another user's talk page. I hope you return one day when you feel that you are ready. Banaticus (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Five Pillars

Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia. Neutral, unbiased, accurate and verifiable information is presented. Free content ensures common ownership of information and wikipedians aim to be respectful in their contributions and communications. Wikipedia recommends that editors 'be bold' but not reckless.

Dear Banaticus,

I am a new wiki contributor, and today set up the page 'Laura Keeble'. I'm really interested in developing material for wiki and haven't the foggiest what I'm doing. The opportunity to be adopted would be excellent. I liked the fact that you wanted short and sweet. In truth, I don't understand much of the content of what you do, I'm just following my instincts here.

In the long term, I would like to work in the area of art and social practice, as this is my specialist area.

I hope the summary above is to your satisfaction and I hope to hear from you!

Best Regards,

Madelaine Murphy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madelainemurphy (talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! It appears that you would like to be adopted, so I created an adoption page for you at User:Banaticus/Adoption/Madelainemurphy. If you'd like any further help, contact me here on my user talk page or put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk page and someone else will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Ambassador Program

Hi Banaticus!

Congratulations! Your application to join the Wikipedia Ambassador Program as an Online Ambassador has been accepted.

First off, I apologize for the following info-dump. If you're wondering how to get started or are wondering what's going on, please contact me.

If you haven't already done so, take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines: Wikipedia:Online_Ambassadors/Guidelines

The "mentorship process" section lays out approximately what will be expected of you as a mentor. If you'd like, you can also volunteer to be the coordinating online ambassador for a class or two.

Please add yourself to the top of the list of available mentors, and note the number of students you think you'd like to mentor next term (it doesn't have to be a final answer, this is just to help with matching students and mentors once the students start getting active) and if you'd like to take on the coordination role for any classes note that as well: Wikipedia:Online_Ambassadors/Mentors (Don't add yourself to the lower "Additional online ambassadors section; that's for ambassadors-in-training and ambassadors who are already mentoring all the the students they want to take on.)

To coordinate between Online Ambassadors and Campus Ambassadors, we've been using a Google Group as a mailing list. It's not required, but almost all the ambassadors are on it. Would you like me to subscribe you? Email me with your email address if so.

You can catch with what's been going on so far with the first major message this term, with details about what the group should and shouldn't be used for: Wikipedia_talk:Ambassadors#Information_for_Ambassadors_about_January_-_May_2011_term

You can also check out the first two ambassador newsletters, which have more detail about what's going on right now. You'll get future editions delivered to your talk page.

If you use IRC, please consider adding #wikipedia-en-ambassadors and #wikipedia-en-classroom to your channel lineup.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: Talk:Herpes simplex#editsemiprotected

Thanks for your help with that. I knew something was wrong with it, and you summed it up pretty well. – Ajl^talk 20:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was happy to help. :) Banaticus (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

adopting still?

hey do you think u could adopt me? I had a previous account, but I lost it… Anyway.. I would like to be Anti-vandalism,/wikignome/WP:WC active. Oh and the wikicode/template editing too. Let me know! Libertarianrule (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I sure am adopting still! Please go to User:Banaticus/Adoption and follow the instructions there for your first assignment. I'll then create an adoption page for you and you can get started. :) Banaticus (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks. I'm working on it.

Libertarianrule (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hands of God

Replied your request here. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

five pillars

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone. You can edit them yourself, help others edit them, or suggest. OR you can just read. It isnt a dictionary or anything like that. We must keep a neutral, non biased POV while editing articles. Anyone can edit and distribute, as WP is free content. WPians should act respectfully towards one another. No flame wars, or anything like that. WP rules are interpreted by the spirit, not by their very letters. Libertarianrule (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Btw.. If you didnt notice, i give short concise summaries at first, i will revise if requested.Libertarianrule (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks good, it's a quick summary. I created an adoption page for you at User:Banaticus/Adoption/Libertarianrule. :) Banaticus (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

OK cool thanks.Libertarianrule (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

really weird question.

I only have this account on en.wikipedia, but my global says I have one here: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Libertarianrule

what gives? VoteDemOut! (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a Unified Login? Stop, before you create one if you haven't already... This page says that the account was just created yesterday. The user contributions for user Libertarianrule on the Polish Wikipedia says that there have been no contributions on the Polish Wikipedia by a user named Libertarianrule, however I have no idea what the Polish rules on usurping a username are if it's not really yours. If you don't have a unified login, you should look into getting one -- it will reserve the name "Libertarianrule" for you on the majority of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects so that this doesn't happen again, but before you do that, I notice that you're now displaying your username as "VoteDemOut!" -- did you want to permanently change your name to this instead of "Libertarianrule"? I generally recommend that a person use the same username that is displayed for them, or at least something close enough that there won't be any confusion. Let me know if you'd like more help. :) Banaticus (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn’t get the unified account, it automatically did it… It combined them and gave me the account… So yeah… VoteDemOut! (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And no, I dont want to give up Libertarian rule, but I may if I cant fix the polish one. He can access mine which is making me mad, I cant delete his. VoteDemOut! (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, "He can access mine"? If you have the unified account, don't try to delete the Polish account or do anything with it, just ignore it. Banaticus (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I mean that I signed in here, and I got on his account, so he signs in there, comes here, vandalizes and gets me blocked(worst case scenario I know, but still..) But OK Ill ignore it. Libertarianrule(talk) 13:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

G6 images

Thanks for your help. I've undone all my edits, so the G6 tags are back in place. I can understand why these shouldn't be categorized, then, but I don't understand why the categories can't just be removed. Why the G6? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To continue that analogy that I used earlier (the apple's on the table, we're outside, we don't write on the glass), if we remove the glass, then nobody else can come and write on it (and we'll still be able to see the apple just as well). Luckily, it doesn't rain on the internet. ;) Banaticus (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, but the analogy thing isn't working for me : ) Why did the transcluded image have to be speedily deleted the precise moment I categorized it? How did putting it in a category suddenly alert someone that the entire thing needed to be deleted? Again, can't the category just simply be removed? Obviously not, but I'm not understanding why not. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I think I get it. In terms of your analogy, what you're saying is that I was writing on the window and that tagging it G6 allows the window to be, essentially, replaced. In other words, the history of that transcluded page is removed entirely (deleted). Is that correct, then? I guess I don't see why that has to be done, but if this is true, then there's at least one Commons image left that wasn't tagged G6, but I will go ahead and tag it as such. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can't write a note on nothing, so when you added the category, the "glass" was created automatically. When you attempt to edit the page here that is for an image which is on the Commons, there should be a warning above the edit box which says, "This image is on Wikimedia Commons—not on Wikipedia. Any descriptions should be placed there. This page should rarely be used except to indicate featured pictures. Please see the image description page on Commons for file information, a list of pages that display this image, or view the full-size version of the image." The real notice has all sorts of links to other pages and you can see it on this attempted edit page here. If you look at the history for one of those images you'll see that the page was automatically created when you added the category. :) Banaticus (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, it's all becoming clearer. And since I was using HotCat, I never saw the warning; the edits—the categories—were being made directly to the main page. Great! Thank you!! Sorry it took me a while to understand. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) Banaticus (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting

I agree with you that Elizabeth Taylor was beautiful for many reasons beyond her violet eyes. I do think it is interesting to consider the context of current media reports. Consider this report. IHaveBrownEyes (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do say that her eyes are beautiful, as beautiful as the rest of her body, but they aren't called out as her most salient defining feature. Banaticus (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree, and from what I see the rhetoric has toned down a bit. Thanks IHaveBrownEyes (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thanks for the help! I already added all the references but will look for more, since the series is nothing popular. I just contacted the creator and asked a few questions, and watched and learned as much as possible about the series. Thanks for the help! I hope other than that the article is a good resource. I change it almost everyday. Thomasbum98 (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98

You're welcome. Talking to the creator can be a great aid for clearing up confusion, but a primary source like the Pepper and Kad creator can't be used as a reference for an article on Wikipedia, because there's no way for any of the rest of us to verify what was said. Ask him if he can copy off his scrapbook for you -- the record of where his work has been featured or profiled (good news websites that aren't blogs, newspaper articles, magazine articles, any awards the show has won, etc.) -- he probably has one because it makes a portfolio more valuable. The things that have profiled him will likely talk about his work and you can use those statements as references to improve the article. He probably has one, because being able to show that others value your work is a great aid in making your portfolio more attractive and perhaps he can list things off to you so that you can use them in the article, because it really needs things like that. Good luck, let me know if there's more I can do :) Banaticus (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hedge fund

Hi Banaticus. Thank you very much for reviewing and moving my proposed introduction section. Two questions for you: first, would you be willing to review and comment upon or move a new section I have tackled? It's the one currently called "Regulatory issues" (though I suggest this should just be "Regulation") and the draft is available in my user space, as before. I've explained a bit more on the Hedge fund Talk page, although a thorough explanation of what I have changed might well be longer than the section itself. But I think it speaks for itself. Do let me know what you think.

Second question, another editor (PaulTheOctopus) has added a new sentence to the first paragraph, which I am quite sure does not belong. It's awkwardly written and seems to be arguing a narrow point, so perhaps it should be moved to the "Hedge fund risk" section. But I'll add, the sentence is a misinterpretation of the source (which I can explain in more detail) so I think it should be reworded. But perhaps I should propose a replacement later. In any case, let me know if you agree it should at least be moved further down, for now. --Bryant Park Fifth (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Banaticus. You seemed to be busy, so I've asked for input from editors on the WikiProjects the Hedge fund article is associated with, though they don't seem to be particularly active. I suppose I'm inclined to go ahead and make these edits, as I am quite sure they'll improve the article and the article is not too active to begin with, but I thought I'd check one more time with you. Best. --Bryant Park Fifth (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I did move forward with those updates, and explained as such on the Talk page. I'm quite open to discussing the details if anyone comes along, but I think it should be OK for now. --Bryant Park Fifth (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for putting this issue on the backburner for a few days. I agree -- I think you're OK for now. Your edits have been well thought out, researched and verifiable, neutral, they're good edits. :) Banaticus (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, I appreciate your interest and you have been quite helpful. Meanwhile, I have been able to spend more time on this research project recently and have now prepared additional updates to two related sections, and explained in more detail on the Hedge fund Talk page. But if you are busy, that is fine, as another editor seems to be involved on the page now, and we have had a good dialogue. But please do offer your thoughts, if you are so inclined. --Bryant Park Fifth (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Found one vandal

OK so diff is Software Bazar, blocked user, edited their talk page.. edit thing says blanked the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Software_Bazar VoteDemOut! (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC) oh as in the person IS blocked, and they blanked their page. VoteDemOut! (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

found another here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahya_Sofian_Al-Torkomany whole text is Yahya Sofian Al-Torkomany aka Yaya or aka Yayo......IS AN AWESOME PERSON

VoteDemOut! (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible vandalism. -336 and no edit description. Other edits by this guy don’t seem to have edits more than Religion: or Category: for notes.. btw its an IP doing it.. 159.91.238.228

VoteDemOut! (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, those pages have been deleted, so I can't see the diffs. From what you describe (page blanking for no reason and adding a sentence that is obviously vandalism) you did a good job of recognizing vandalism, so I'm going to mark you as finished with the first assignment of Vandalism 101. :) Banaticus (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the first page.. the userpage and I think it is because he got banned temporarily. Now banned indefinitely bc of the page blank. and thanks! VoteDemOut! (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research

Please do not revert again to retain new material in a core content policy that people are objecting to. The default for the content policies has to be stability, or there's no point in having them. Also, don't template the regulars. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe I was not the only one to revert your edits as unconstructive (you removed a section because you didn't understand what the words meant?). Please come to a consensus on the talk page before editing such a widely referenced Wikipedia policy. By the way, do template the regulars is also a Wikipedia essay which is neither policy nor a guideline. I agree with it, though as I feel that an edit should stand or fall on its own merits. ;) Banaticus (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

When someone objects to an addition to a core content policy, the usual thing is to discuss on talk, not to keep reverting. And I didn't understand what it meant because it means nothing as written, so it can't stay as it is.

But I can't fix the writing, because I have no idea what it's trying to say, and when I did try to fix one part of it, I was reverted. This is poor behavior on a content policy, Banaticus. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

See my response on that talk page. If you have no idea what it's trying to say, ask. "...the usual thing is to discuss on talk, not to keep reverting." Yeah, I sort of agree -- perhaps you're right and you should have discussed it on talk instead of trying to revert the addition of that content. ;) Banaticus (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The trick is to write properly, then people won't have to ask what you mean. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right, good point. :) Banaticus (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

vandalism

1.What is vandalism? Defacing a page, or creating pages that do not need to be, such as that one i pointed out..

2.What are "obvious" indicators of a vandalism edit while watching recent changes?

Blanked the page, or deleted the page in a edit

3.How do you revert vandalism?

by going in the edit history and going back to the previous non-vandalised version.

4.What warning template would you use if a user removed or blanked all the content from a page? (Use this page for help.)

any of these: Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. This is your last warning; the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

5.What warning template would you use if a user add the words "i really hate wikipedia!" to an article?

I would guess disruptive editing.. Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive; until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• 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. 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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing.

6.How do you add an article to your watchlist?

Clicking the little checkbox beside the This is a minor edit box.. Like to its right.

7.If you misuse such tools as Twinkle or VandalProof what could happen?

You could get banned...

BTW I cant use twinkle. I have IE any other tools then?? VoteDemOut! (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I haven't used IE for a long time -- I like that other browsers "preserve state" (when you hit the "back" button, generally everything you typed in will still be there). They're great because I can go forward and back through my history while typing a reply or editing an article and I never have to start from scratch. I do keep IE around for my bookmarks on my Google Toolbar, though, which I sometimes use (since I can't really delete IE). Anyway, I'll look into what tools you can use. I rather like Huggle which is mainly browser independent (it brings up IE if you hit Ctrl+N for a new page). Also, if a situation like this happened again, you should just link to the template instead of actually posting the template. ;) There are a few ways that you can do that. 1) Put a colon in front of the name and inside the double brackets like a normal link. 2) Use a special linking template and pass the template name as a parameter.

Example: [[:Template:Current time with daylight savings]] makes Template:Current time with daylight savings (note that the "Template" Namespace is included.

Example: {{tl|Current time with daylight savings}} makes {{Current time with daylight savings}} Note that the namespace is not included. "tl" stands for "template link" if that helps you remember it.

By the way, I just made that template (the current time with daylight savings template). :) Anyway, that's a good vandalism writeup. There was one thing -- if you use the current default skin, there's a second way to add a page to your watchlist -- you can click the star to the right of the "view history" tab up at the top of the page. In older skins, it used to be a tab that said, "Watch".

I added the full checkmark next to Vandalism 101 on your Adoption page. :) Banaticus (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

help

Hi, I'm mashar, looking for help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masharmakuir (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I will be right back with you in few hours...I need to talk to my professor first. Thanks for waiting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masharmakuir (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, how may I help you? Banaticus (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The article that I'm going to edit is Sudan which is lacking NGOs section. Since I'm also from Sudan, I decided to work on that article to improve it. As a result, I will need your help in terms either language or other issues related to improving articles. I will be sending you section to take a look at it before posting....Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masharmakuir (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: nothing was ever sent. Banaticus (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)