User talk:The Banner/Archive03

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

• From the editor: Wikipedia, our Colosseum

• In the media: Is the Wikimedia movement too 'cash rich'?

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser a success; Czech parliament releases photographs to chapter

• Technology report: Looking back on a year of incremental changes

• Discussion report: Image policy and guidelines; resysopping policy

• Interview: Interview with Brion Vibber, the WMF's first employee

• Featured content: Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review

• WikiProject report: New Year, New York

• Recent research: Wikipedia and Sandy Hook; SOPA blackout reexamined

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

please stop messing with my page

i am keeping this short. please stop editing and removing my content. mark robertson is authorized to upload content and data as it has been provided by myself. i will start a dispute now with wikipedia to prevent further involvement. what interest or right do you have to remove my content and edit my page??? what interest or right do you have to upload incorrect dates or births, birth places etc. stay off my page. billie ray martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.231.226 (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please see User talk:Blinsenlinsen for more on this - thanks. DBaK (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not your page. You don't own that page. The Banner talk 18:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Secondly, we work here from published sources, not from hearsay or personal information. If I stated things incorrect, come up with independent and reliable sources containing the right information. Promo, directly by you or by someone very close to you, is not desired. The Banner talk 18:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I will keep it short: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VPanton The Banner talk 19:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Talk:Aan_de_Poel.
Message added 21:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BO | Talk 21:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

• Op-ed: Meta, where innovative ideas die

• WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Episode IV: A New Year

• News and notes: 2012—the big year

• Featured content: Featured content in review

• Technology report: Looking ahead to 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

question...

hi banner

you wrote the following: "I am sceptical about the neutrality of research organisations receiving massive donations from companies growing rich by or through conventional agriculture." and i wrote a kind of sharp response... this statement kind of upset me and i am sorry for the sharpness... but i just don't get where you are coming from. You seem, in general, to be a more rigorous thinker than the kind of thinker that produces this kind of hand-wavy, vaguely conspiratorial, and very useful for brushing away research results you don't like, statement (how is that for some germanic syntax, btw?) In any case, where are you coming from? Do you really think that way? i do hope you explain. thx.Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ever seen the movies "Food inc." and "The World According to Monsanto"? Those movies are good enough to make the innocent believer to become a believer in the conspiracy theory that Monsonato and agrochemical friends "control" the United States.

As far as I can tell, those movies tell the truth and the agrochemical industry has a very unhealthy influence within the US Government. But I am also aware that those movies are biased and that I can't believe them for 100%.

Yep when I started this project last summer I watched them both....and they insulted my intelligence, over and over and over. I know they are important to the anti-GM community which is why I stuck with them and watched them all the way through. But I ~hate~ being lied to and manipulated and they are both over the top in that regard. And as I have written several places on the organic food talk page, my good faith (really!) efforts to verify most of what the anti-GMO crowd says have yielded clear trails of exaggeration and misconstrual of facts or standard business practices... which just made me sad. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

More or less as a compromise in my head, I turned sceptical. Sceptical insofar that I think that the near total lack of positive results towards organic farming, is to some extent "funded" by by the agrochemical industry. No directly by manipulating results but by preventing positive research to be finished or published. He who pays the piper, calls the tune. As long as is not completely disclosed how a certain research is financed and out of what sources, how the research institution is financed and how the scientific magazines are financed, I will stay sceptical about the neutrality of the researchers, research institutions and magazines.

Thank you for explaining that. I hear you. Can I respond to this? Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion MEDRS-sourcing origininally is truly set up to avoid dodgy sources coming up with spectacular health claims (like the diet invented by Cornelis Moerman, who claimed that cancer could be overcome with a special diet and food supplements). But I really think that Wolfie and Yobol misuse MEDRS to prevent information into the article out of other sources than strict medical sources. Their plain refusal to allow published, peer-reviewed research from specialised agricultural institutions, even when connected to a reliable university, is an example of that. Their stance seem to be that positive research about organical farming is automatically unreliable and that negative research automatically reliable. The Banner talk 18:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

They have surprised me too - but interestingly they have not challenged the structure of the article with respect to separately describing chemical differences. I found some good sources I want to introduce in those sections. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And just look at the way Yobol is "raping" Organic milk. Negative, negative, negative. The Banner talk 18:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at that article.... should I?Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please! Our interaction gave me enough faith in your neutrality and dedication. The Banner talk 19:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Funny attempt by a POV-pusher to chase me away

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yobol (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice try to chase me away, but unfortunately it won't work. I want truth, and not POV on Organic milk. The Banner talk 19:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is enough

This Your 2 Warning if You did it again You will be Blocked 5 Days Because you want to Delete List of tallest Buildings in Iloilo City user:Jeb2003 7:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess you disagree? But block me, if you can... The Banner talk 11:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Bishop of Limerick has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Wikipedia has a policy called "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", which discourages such edits. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reference to a reliable source. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

AFD at List of Star Wars characters

I've gone ahead and closed your AFD on this article, as it's clear that you want the redirect List of ancient Jedi deleted instead. For that, you should head over to Redirects for discussion and follow the instructions there. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ehm, ooooooops... I guess I was fooled by the redirect itself. I have now but up the redirect for deletion. The Banner talk 21:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

• Investigative report: Ship ahoy! New travel site finally afloat

• News and notes: Launch of annual picture competition, new grant scheme

• WikiProject report: Reach for the Stars: WikiProject Astronomy

• Discussion report: Flag Manual of Style; accessibility and equality

• Special report: Loss of an Internet genius

• Featured content: Featured articles: Quality of reviews, quality of writing in 2012

• Arbitration report: First arbitration case in almost six months

• Technology report: Intermittent outages planned, first Wikidata client deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Logic failure

ONE: moves should not be done without discussion and consensus. (A large number of GAA articles were moved without discussion or consensus.)

TWO: an article that has been moved controversially, without discussion or consensus, should be moved back and a move discussion opened. (I moved them back and opened a talk page topic for each move.)

These seem to me to be fairly basic rules. Yet, when I move articles back under rule two above, you not only move them back but try to get your move protected! Brocach (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat what someone else did nor use that as an excuse to ignore a running discussion. The Banner talk 14:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

WorldMap

Banner: Can you explain as far as you can tell why you/they are deleting the WorldMap article I created? Is it sources? content? writing? I am quite surprised I have to admit. Richmond9 (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Laurel Lodged

Laurel, who is currently blocked, has asked me to notify you about the discussion on their talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

James Porter

I haven't been the one reverting and removing sourced information.Swampyank (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Start counting, you have by now done 4 (four) reverts today: [1], [2], [3], [4] The Banner talk 19:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

nomination of deletion of Eric Everard

I note your nomination of deletion of the page Eric Everard - you may wish to comment on my nomination of related pages EasyFairs the company to which he was related, and fellow directors Jean-François Quentin, and Julian Kulkarni. ---- _nonsense ferret 00:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I note your interest in deleting my article on Eric Everard. How is Belgium's Manager of the Year of less interest than an Irish restaurant that closed in 2003? You have some strange criteria for what constitutes "encyclopaedic"! User talk:EdWalker58 —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have expected a less pitiful reply from a professional writer/journalist. The Banner talk 12:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And I would expect you to respond to the points I made, rather than resorting to personal insults. How many awards and honours must Eric Everard win before you remove your nomination for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdWalker58 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You are promoting your own boss. The Banner talk 13:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Armstrong's Barn

I am just curious, what precisely is the value of so many wikipedia articles (in English and Dutch) about long-defunct Irish restaurants? User: EdWalker58 —Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Far more then the promotion of your boss, mr. Marketing employee. The Banner talk 13:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it would be possible to have a sensible discussion rather than resorting to personal abuse and innuendo? I am not an employee, I am self-employed. I would like to understand your motives for wanting the Wikipedia page removed. --EdWalker58 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Reasons: promotion, advertising and puffery. Plus a conflict of interest of the author: (...) then you are very strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral. The Banner talk 14:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to be neutral and avoid conflict of interest issues. I will re-review to ensure that this is the case. Feel free to edit if you feel that anything specific on the Eric Everard entry is incorrect, misleading or lacks objectivity. Best regards --EdWalker58 (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Unicode characters and redirects

Please do not unlink symbols on unicode tables. Instead, if you find an issue with it, fix or flag the redirect instead. Thank you. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you just stop creating links to disambiguation pages? Just link them to the right pages, not to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 23:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

• News and notes: Requests for adminship reform moves forward

• WikiProject report: Say What? — WikiProject Linguistics

• Featured content: Wazzup, G? Delegates and featured topics in review

• Arbitration report: Doncram case continues

• Technology report: Data centre switchover a tentative success

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I've left a comment in this discussion. It must surely be clear to you all by now that edit-warring, multiple moves/requested moves and shouting matches on WP:IE, WP:IMOS, WikiProject Gaelic games and AN/I is not solving anything. I urge the three of you – Brocach, The Banner and Laurel Lodged – to put your heads together and take your dispute to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, and in the meantime declare a cease-fire and stop hitting your heads off a brick wall. I am posting the identical message to each of you. Scolaire (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Useless exercise. The Banner talk 09:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Causing disruption all over the shop is useful, but even thinking about dispute resolution is useless? I give up! Scolaire (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not causing the disruption! And I have no confidence that Brocach is willing to compromise in any form, while Laurel Lodged is prepared to accept topic ban alongside Brocach if that is decided to be the best option for the encyclopdia. The Banner talk 13:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

But as a compromise, I willing to accept a topic ban for Laurel Lodged, Brocach, you and me. The Banner talk 14:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If the topic is the GAA, then I would gladly accept that compromise. A topic without endless disruption from you lot is preferable to a messed-up topic with the odd uninspiring edit by me. Go ahead and propose it. Scolaire (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, but hadn't you better include Mabuska as well? His proposals on WT:IE are part of this problem as well. Scolaire (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL, you make it loud and clear that you don't want mediation and a compromise but just want everybody out of the way that does not agree with you. The Banner talk 16:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, not necessarily. Isn't there someone else who agrees with Brocach? I can't remember his name off-hand. Stick him on the list as well and we'll topic-ban everybody. Works so much better than going through a dispute resolution process. Scolaire (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Rene Redzepi

Please check my comment on the talk page about Rene Redzepi page referencing to his father. I write you because i saw that u were the last one that has done something to the page.Daci92 (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance,

but what does "c/e" mean in relation to page edits? JD2 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it stands for CopyEdit. The Banner talk 22:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response! Feel free do delete this section/question if desired.JD2 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Panama population

I did; As a matter of fact, if you review the content present in the citations I provided, you'll see they were right. If anything, your content is outdated or wrong. Mainly because Las Cumbres is within San Miguelito, and Panama City has a population of 800,000+ citizens. Additionally, any population inside a district is not a city, but part of it (in Panamanian terms, there's no distinction between city and district).

In fact, I think some cities after the top four are also wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocoliras (talk • contribs) 06:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware that those edits are incorrect; Those statistics from the City Council's site are correct. If we didn't use them, then the largest city would wind up as the smallest. Las Cumbres is a part of the city. Look again please. The government is to be trusted as the ultimate information source. Any others are inferior and can be ignored or disregarded as not being correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocoliras (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sir, those numbers belong to provinces/region. Provinces are no cities. Regions are no cities. Please, look at the [http://www.citypopulation.de/Panama.html#Stadt_gross source I have provided. As you can read in your own source, the 800k is for Panama Region, not for Panama City. The Banner talk 19:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This link of the city government's page still disagrees. Read the description, or shall I provide a translation? Cocoliras (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The city's page itself says the population as per the government's site, hence why we believe it instead of a shady foreign website that may have or highly inacurate data. Cocoliras (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Bejaysus, we are talking here about the biggest cities of the state of Panama. The Banner talk 05:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright; We are talking about the largest cities in the entire country right? Are you aware that the country's largest city Panama City has nearly 800,000+ inhabitants?

That's Panama City; You are placing lots of areas that are NOT cities but PARTS of the city. There's nothing in that page saying province! And yes, Panama uses PROVINCES not states.

Cocoliras (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

When those part have their own City Council, they are not counted as part of Panama City. The Banner talk 10:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

They don't have their own city councils. The city council's page (which is the one in the address) is the one you're looking at; The corregimientos are part of the city. If you don't know it; with it's metro area, Panama City has 1,400,000+ inhabitants Cocoliras (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That was not clear in the sources you provided! Often enough suburbs have their own city or town council. The Banner talk 14:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

• In the media: Hoaxes draw media attention

• Recent research: Lessons from the research literature on open collaboration; clicks on featured articles; credibility heuristics

• WikiProject report: Checkmate! — WikiProject Chess

• Discussion report: Administrator conduct and requests

• News and notes: Khan Academy's Smarthistory and Wikipedia collaborate

• Featured content: Listing off progress from 2012

• Arbitration report: Doncram continues

• Technology report: Developers get ready for FOSDEM amid caching problems

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Peace offer (from WP:ANI page)

":If Brocach and Finnegas will agree to a self-impossed ban on all GAA related articles for a period of 2 months, then I will too. If not, let the ANI case continue (on the arguments hopefully, not the personalities)." Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

I assume you are following the discussions at AN/I but in case you have lost it in the detail, I have asked all parties to desist, immediately, from any renaming or recategorising of articles linked to the GAA. This applies even to correcting an article that has been amended to the 'wrong' version. The AN/I thread has grown to astonishing length with very little interest from anyone except those already engaged in the dispute. Nevertheless I will block anyone who makes further changes to these categories before a true consensus is reached, ideally at WT:GAA but frankly any venue will do! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish you good luck with all the blocking. I have no faith any more that it can be solved by discussion. By now, everybody is sick of it, as you have seen in the discussion. The slightest edit in a way that is not to Brocach liking, and you have an edit war. ([5]) Even when it is according to policy. And the behaviour of Laurel Lodged is, to put it mildly, completely stupid.

Blocking and topic bans are the only way out. As you plain refuse to go the way of topic bans, blocks are left as only possibility. Good luck with that! The Banner talk 01:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC) The GAA is not my main goal on Wikipedia, just a side show. No problem to watch is from a distance while the others kill themselves off.

A topic ban can't be enacted by a solo admin. It's not that I'm refusing to implement one: I simply cannot. Only the community can do so and the community (at AN/I) has shown a spectacular disinterest in this issue. So blocks are what we are left with, I fear. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fair. The Banner talk 01:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Gaelic games

Hi. I have reformatted the Article and category naming conventions proposals according to your suggested format, and with Mabuska's added proposal. I hope that means we can go ahead. Scolaire (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your preferences at the WT:GAA page - it's very helpful to have this calm and well-ordered discussion on what has previously been a very heated topic! There is a new proposal which has come in after your contribution, which you might also like to comment on. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It was a pity that is started off with such biased questions and package deals. Now we have something better. The Banner talk 11:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Byrnes Cove for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Byrnes Cove is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ShaneMc2010 21:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ulster-Scots on Irish people

I have reverted your removal of the Ulster-Scots on the Irish people article. In what way are the BBC and Tourism Ireland unreliable sources? You're editing against the stable version, so please seek consensus for your changes on the article's talk page. Thanks, — Jon C.^ॐ 14:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tourism Ireland is a dead link and even when it was a valid link, it would only lead to a plan of action, not to a scholarly source. The BBC website is also not scholarly source and it is unsourced. Beside that, why should we add a dialect among languages? The Banner talk 14:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

How about because Scots is one of the three languages, alongside English and Irish, spoken natively in Ireland? More to the point, you are still edit-warring: you've been here long enough to know how the bold, revert, discuss cycle works, so I can only conclude you're trying to force your own version without discussing it first. Poor form. — Jon C.^ॐ 14:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I am bold, I did revert and I have opened a discussion on the talkpage, something you did not. The Banner talk 14:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

• Special report: Examining the popularity of Wikipedia articles

• News and notes: Article Feedback Tool faces community resistance

• WikiProject report: Land of the Midnight Sun

• Featured content: Portal people on potent potables and portable potholes

• In the media: Star Trek Into Pedantry

• Technology report: Wikidata team targets English Wikipedia deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems you are reluctant to acknowledge actual foreign input to the battle of the Boyne

I changed the armies' statistics to reflect the actual national representation of the Williamite army @ Boyne battle plus a documented detachment of 1500 Jacobites as a garrison troops previous to battle, but you revert to one showing only English Irish & Netherlands. while in fact there were many Scots, French & danish troops as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.174.224 (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have sources to prove it? The Banner talk 16:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Simplest at the moment is Osprey's campaign # 160 (Boyne) listing William's forces as: 1 French cavalry regiment & 3 infantry, 9 Netherlands cavalry, 1 dragoon, 6 infantry (incl 1 regiment of 2 very large guard battalions), 3 Danish cavalry, 8 infantry. British isles' forces are given w no break up but are: 11 regiments of cavalry, 4 dragoons, 22 infantry. As this was prior to the act of union Scotland was (as well as Ireland) a separate country w its own military. Some regiments present were Scots' (like Douglas's Regiment or George Hamilton's ), one may also possibly be largely Welsh (but Wales was legally part of England) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.174.224 (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I want sources. Where did you get those numbers? The Banner talk 17:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I just gave you one, Osprey's Campaign book # 160, If you want to look for yourself there's also Peter B Ellis Boyne Water: Battle of the Boyne, Story's An 1690, John MacDonald's Great Battlefields of the World, plus many more. George Storey also lists various nationalities & numbers in "An Impartial History of the most material occurrences in the Kingdom of Ireland during the Two last years with the present state of both armies" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.174.224 (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I overlooked Osprey. When you change the numbers, please make sure to add these sources to it. You can simply do this by adding <ref>details of the source, as detailed as possible</ref>. Do this for each source separately! Good luck. The Banner talk 18:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

• Op-ed: An article is a construct – hoaxes and Wikipedia

• Featured content: A lousy week

• WikiProject report: Just the Facts

• In the media: Wikipedia mirroring life in island ownership dispute

• News and notes: UK chapter governance review marks the end of a controversial year

• Discussion report: WebCite proposal

• Technology report: Wikidata client rollout stutters

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

Please refrain from deleting this disambiguation page for a few days until I can sort out the page on "What difference does it Make? (quote). It will get reinstated. Thanks Paululrich (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I will not. Instead: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mdandrea. The Banner talk 22:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Shiro (restaurant) for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Kei Pilz for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kei Pilz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

• WikiProject report: Thank you for flying WikiProject Airlines

• Technology report: Better templates and 3D buildings

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation declares 'victory' in Wikivoyage lawsuit

• In the media: Sue Gardner interviewed by the Australian press

• Featured content: Featured content gets schooled

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sheringham lifeboat Forester’s Centenary ON 786

I do not understand why you should wish to delete this template!. Whats your problem!!! I have left the comment below on the comments page

Keep This template was created to add to the page Sheringham lifeboat Forester’s Centenary ON 786 which has been done. If you delete the template this carefully gathered information will be lost from the article. It is a vital part of the article. I can not see why you should have a problem with it?  stavros1  ♣  23:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response to my question, but you still have not explained why you want to have the template deleted. I have inserted this information into the article in this form to shorten the script required on the main page. It also is less complicated for less competent editors to contribute to the main article without destroying the format of the table, a situation which has occurred several times on other lifeboat articles with this type of table.  stavros1  ♣  07:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

See Help:Template for how to use templates. The Banner talk 11:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. your above comment is very patronizing. This was really unnecessary and unhelpful, You might want to review WP:CIVILITY.  stavros1  ♣  12:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

LOL, patronizing? I just tell you that you have used that template the wrong way and I point you towards a page where you can get more info. Nothing patronizing in that, not even intended. The Banner talk 14:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

• In the media: Ex-WMF trustee creates "Wikipedia Corporate Index" for PR agency

• Recent research: Wikipedia not so novel after all, except to UK university lecturers

• News and notes: "Very lucky" Picture of the Year

• Discussion report: Wikivoyage links; overcategorization

• Featured content: Blue birds be bouncin'

• WikiProject report: How to measure a WikiProject's workload

• Technology report: Wikidata development to be continued indefinitely

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ireland Reaching Out

Hi Eddy

I notice that you have been removing external links from the Wikipedia pages for various parishes in county Clare to the Ireland Reaching Out pages for the corresponding parishes and describing these links as SPAM. I have been unashamedly encouraging people on an Ireland Reaching Out training programme to create these links. On what grounds can they be considered SPAM? To me, the objectives and methods of Wikipedia and Ireland Reaching Out seem to be very similar, so it seems natural to provide reciprocal links, parish by parish.

I have not seen you at Clare Roots Society meetings for a long time!

Paddy Pwaldron (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you have figured out who I am! Unfortunately, genealogy is at the back-burner as I am not able to make any progress. Lack of sources is the main problem.

Strange enough I have found myself more or less involved in the National Famine Commemoration. I have to speak Brid Hedderman what kind of activities are on the cards for the Community Garden, where I have a plot.

About the Reaching Out-pages: according to Wikipedia:External links External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. Most of the RO-links were in fact empty links, offering no additional information to the articles. So these links are irrelevant (at the moment). The fact that they suddenly appeared on multiple pages by multiple accounts (including unregistered) made it look like a spam-run, although your name made me a bit confused... The Banner talk 23:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I take your point about empty links (in Wikipedia-speak, I guess they are really IrelandXO stubs), but you also removed the link for Moyarta, where I have put a great deal of effort into the IrelandXO page. I have now restored that link. I could also have copied and pasted most of my Moyarta text from IrelandXO to Wikipedia, but then the Wikipedia police would be accusing me of breaching my own copyright! If the IrelandXO training programme achieves its objectives, then we should see improved content on the IrelandXO pages for many parishes, making these useful inclusions in the External Links sections of the relevant Wikipedia pages. The familysearch.org parish pages, to which I also encouraged making reciprocal links, are also mostly effectively stubs at the moment. The audience amongst the diaspora for which the IrelandXO pages are intended are likely to have heard of Wikipedia and familysearch and to go there first, and then find the links to IrelandXO for the genealogy-specific information they want.

Pwaldron (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, The Banner. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ivan Tyrrell's Page

I have addded some information to the page of Ivan Tyrrell which you undid, the information is autobiographical and includes some bibliographic references. It's simple and adds an extra dimension to the page, so I think it merits inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNevil (talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_23#Template:Parliament_.28band.29.
Message added 17:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

• Op-ed: We must do more to turn readers into editors

• News and notes: Outing of editor causes firestorm

• Featured content: Slow week for featured content

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Television Stations

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

🔔

I have reverted your change to 🔔 because targeting the redirect page was the outcome of an RFD. If you want it to be targetted somewhere else please either take it to WP:DRV or start a new WP:RFD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, now you have linked it again to a dp with all side-effects of that. So I have put another RfD in to get or targeted correctly or removed altogether. The Banner talk 09:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Rene Redzepi".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 11 March 2013 From the editor: Signpost–Wikizine merger News and notes: Finance committee updates Featured content: Batman, three birds and a Mercedes Arbitration report: Doncram case closes; arbitrator resigns WikiProject report: Setting a precedent Technology report: Article Feedback reversal Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC) About Kike San Martín Hi The Banner. I have been looking at the references of Kike San Martín, done some small editions as well. So far, everything written seems to be true (except for the "branding" part, which frankly speaking I don't really understand what the concept is all about, and thence I cannot judge if it is stated in any of the references given). In short: yes, Kike San Martín is famous, and he has photographed lots of stars. Hope this helps! Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Hi, The Banner. Im the user Misty2011. Warmings Greetings from Miami, Florida, USA! I dont have a close connection with its subject. Im working as a journalist for The Miami Herald (spanish version) (newspaper) and after 20 years in the entertainment industry, you know 'everybody', any artist in Miami. Regards, no intention to "advertise" nothing in Wikipedia, never! I like to make contributions, articles and specially my photos with high definition. Im sorry if I caused any conflict, but it is not my style. Feel free to correct my article, but let me apollogize if I did something wrong. Thank you so much. --Misty2011 (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 18 March 2013 News and notes: Resigning arbitrator slams Committee WikiProject report: Making music Interview: Meeting in the middle: Wikipedia and libraries Featured content: Wikipedia stays warm Arbitration report: Richard case closes Technology report: Visual Editor "on schedule" Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Michelin stars You may want to have a look at this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of three Michelin starred restaurants in the United Kingdom. The user who created the nomination seems to have a secret list of Michelin star related articles he wants to delete which includes yours on the Netherlands and Ireland stars, and also someone is quoting your two star deletion discussion already in the arguments. Obviously I'm not asking for you to go in and yell keep at the top of your lungs, because if this actually a copyright problem then we might as well fix it before either of us pile anymore work into the subject. But I thought you would want to know before he/she starts to use the arguments from this deletion discussion when they get around to requesting the deletion of your articles too. Miyagawa (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Even after a short look at it, I get a persistent sockpuppet smell in my nose... The Banner talk 18:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC) My first guess for sockpuppets were the notorious anti-Michelin editors Pyrope and Jeremy43. But looking at their edits, this dirty trick seems way out of their habit. So I have deemed them unlikely candidates. His opinion that my templates about Michelin restaurants in the Dutch provinces are copyvio, is quite hilarious. I like him to prove that! I have developed those (and the one about Ireland) completely by myself... The Banner talk 19:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC) your signature FYI, your signature violates WP:SIG#NT. it would be great if you could make WP:BOTREQ to substitute all transclusions (or just substitute them by hand), and use a standard non-template signature in the future. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Working on it. Only started using in the 23th. The Banner talk 16:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the timely warning. As far as I know all the (luckily few) uses of the template are now reverted and the related pages referred to speedy deletion. It is an unfortunate situation, as on the Dutch WP the signature template is the preferred option over a long signature. I did not notice that it was plain illegal here. The Banner talk 16:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC) I've addended my proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink I've addended my proposal to include modifying the page tabs at the header. Since you already supported, I need to advise you of this addition. Please review at your convenience, and thanks! Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink#Proposed layout changes to this project's main page. Message added by Northamerica1000(talk) 14:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Disambiguation pages Hello. Since there is no telling when the Toolserver may get back to (what passes for) normal, I've generated User:RussBot/Templates with links to disambiguation pages to give us something to do in the meantime. It is likely that this list contains some false positives, but it is better than nothing. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Yippeee... The Banner talk 18:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 25 March 2013 WikiProject report: The 'Burgh: WikiProject Pittsburgh Featured content: One and a half soursops Arbitration report: Two open cases News and notes: Sue Gardner to leave WMF; German Wikipedians spearhead another effort to close Wikinews Technology report: The Visual Editor: Where are we now, and where are we headed? Recent research: "Ignore all rules" in deletions; anonymity and groupthink; how readers react when shown talk pages Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at WP:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_4. Message added 16:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Talkback Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_11. Message added 10:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Could you please stop deleting my contributions to the page "Dromoland Castle" and other pages. I am getting somewhat exasperated of you deleting the information which I add to the page that is "Dromoland Castle", more specifically the section concerning famous guests who have stayed at the castle. Also, just as a note for your awareness, I am not a hotel marketer in any way; I am just a guest who has stayed at these hotels, and I believe that the material on these hotels Wikipedia pages are to a degree mediocre and are far from detailed enough. I add new information to these pages to make them more beneficial to the viewer, so that they can learn something interesting about the hotel, I am not trying to approach some kind of marketing strategy, like you have suggested, whatsoever. Of another note is the correctness of your punctuation, it is rather inadequate, my reason for editing the page also because, there is a clear negligence concerning the addition of a comma in between "Juan Carlos I of Spain" and "Nelson Mandela". In the future, I shall be appeased if you abstain from erasing the additional information that I bring to the page. Many thanks, B.R.E. Corkhill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.R.E. Corkhill (talk • contribs) 13:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Summerized: NO. To be true, I take your request to "f**k off" as an alarm bell connected to a spam-alert. The Banner talk 15:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC) I tried to put my point across in an intelligent manner, but however you reply in a polar opposite manner, an immature manner. Sorry, I wasn't aware that you own this site, and that no one else can contribute to Wikipedia but yourself. And, you have also shown that you don't just have poor punctuation but also poor vocabulary by using expletives, how refined of you. This is a free country, I can put whatever I want on this site, perhaps yourself would be better off in an un-free country, China for example. Maybe you should consider getting a proper job instead of surveying what people are doing on Wikipedia. The comments which I have placed on the "Dromoland Castle" page and other Wikipedia pages regarding hotels are based on first-hand and personal experiences of staying at these hotels on multiple occasions, what "experience" are your comments based on? B.R.E. Corkhill (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Instead of throwing in personal attacks, you could also read the comments on your talkpage and comments other people made on your edits. The Banner talk 16:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Mr. Corkhill - you are not the only person on this web who is been bullied by - The Banner - (he is Dutch and not English!) - as he has been doing this to a whole list of people who he tries to intimidate - including myself - see below ! He uses the same culture on the Dutch wikipedia web site where they work in groups to attack contributors but now they are also bringing that culture to this web site too !Glemmens1940 (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damnation (Ride the Madness) We have featured articles on albums that have never charted, and there is no policy or guideline saying that only albums which have charted warrant articles. A number of decent sources have been found which cover the album, and it has been reviewed in several print publications. Perhaps you could reconsider? J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC) You have all my sympathies Mr. Milburn ! The Banner does read the references and Links - he goes immediately go into attack. He does not help with the articles he has got it in for deletion. In general his only aime is to destroy articles by nominating them for deletion - that is the culture in the Dutch Wikipedia web site where he originates from (he is not English at all although his pseudonym does not indicate that) and now they (they work in groups too!) are infiltrating this web site too ! What they do not realize is that Cyber Bullying is an offence in the U.K. but when I point that out to him - he says that I am threatening him ! He has just nominated my new page Adrianus Johannes Lemmens also for deletion because it is too speculative but he does not point out which part or parts are speculative in his opinion ???? Glemmens1940 (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Sock Mmmm, I'm more than concerned with this outcome... it seems the whole thing was resolved offline and that the only restriction was to not open AfDs for a week. And, ironically, he now is proposing himself as a mediator for solving a dispute involving you. Funny how he's gaming the sistem! I was sure you had to do with him again, but not so fast! Cavarrone (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Kidz Bop 30 tracks I HAVE PROOF OF KIDZ BOP 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5 3O TRACKS. 18 tracks is only for people who buy in stores. and your lying because the 19th track of Kidz Bop 5 isn't real. AND HAVE you even seen the Kidz Bop commercials because they say 30 tracks. I been trying to editing the Wiki Kidz Bop pages for months but "The Banner" tells me I vandalizing and I'm not. I AM THE BIGGEST KIDZ BOP FAN I know everything about them. Go here for the exclusive tracks: Unwell (from KidzBop 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR0MYYQOL-s Pinch Me (from KidzBop 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTJ_3yN-vNI Who Let The Dogs Out? (from KidzBop 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAFtEw3ip9s We're in Heaven (from KidzBop3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAW7fMm5-LU All I Have (from KidzBop 4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb1dvJDXdog Mmmbop (from KidzBop 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TomcVZtS154 LaLaLa (from Kidz Bop 5 Cool Songs) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLcyGT8WONg NOW That I've shown you proof. CHANGE IT PLEASE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GermanDude100 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Sorry, YouTube is not considered a valid source. The Banner talk 00:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC) YEAH BUT IT PROVING THAT THEY EXIST WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TAKE PICTURE OF THE CDs AND SEND THEM TO YOU!!!? Better yet, give me your email address. I'll send you some tracks. Stop shouting please. And could you please raed: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Thanks a lot. The Banner talk 00:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry I'm getting mad but I've been trying to prove they exist forever. Bottom line is you know I'm right about these songs. Kidz Bop doesn't advertising them anyone. I guess the reason is because people were buying them in store instead on calling 1-800... or ordering online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GermanDude100 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC) So are you going to change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GermanDude100 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC) You use the wrong way for that! There are reliable sources for the 18-song CD's. You just have to prove that there were also 12 bonus tracks, that you could get by ordering the CD in an alternative way. So find reliable and independent source that you would get bonus track A, B, C by ordering by Alternative1; bonus track D, E, F by ordering by Alternative2 and so on. The difficulty is that the sources should not be related to KidZ Bop in any way. So try magazines, newspapers and so on. But the CD's itself are unusable, because it is Original Research. Good luck with your search. And please, calm down. I am not unwilling. The Banner talk 00:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC) I JUST SAID I would send you a pictures the CDs because Kidz Bop / Razor & Tie doesn't advertise them. I just want the songs to viewable on the page. Where they come from isn't important, but where the proof of Kidz Bop 5's Track 19 that song doesn't exist. ALSO why do I have to have prove this to you? Wikipedia have never been a 100% reliable source? But anyway if you just leave the songs viewable on the page I'll be happy. THANK YOU Sorry if I seem angry. As long as they are reliably sourced. Unsourced content will be removed from all four articles. The Banner talk 01:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC) And please be aware of Wikipedia:Edit warring and Burden of evidence. The Banner talk 01:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Kidz Bop 1 & 2 has 30 tracks too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GermanDude100 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC) No, my friend. The original CD has 18 songs, as is verified by reliable sources. The other 12 are bonus tracks and by now they are still all unsourced The Banner talk 13:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Ok just because most people don't have the exclusives track doens't mean it's false information. Do you even have these Kidz Bop CDs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GermanDude100 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC) You just have to give proper reliable and independent sources for those bonus tracks. The Banner talk 13:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC) THIS is reliable information. Amazon & YouTube they are reliable it's obvious that it's not FAKE. You just want the info to be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GermanDude100 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC) YouTube is not reliable. I will take a look at the Amazon stuff. The Banner talk 19:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC) If GermanDude100 will provide the required links, I am inclined on accepting Amazon as a "primary" reliable source about the alternative extended versions of these compilations and their tracklists. Its use in such circumstances appears allowed by our policy as it is not used to analyze a fact nor to measure the notability of a topic but just to document something there referred as "descriptive statements of facts". What we should avoid, instead, is writing things such This album had 30 tracks available online, and 18 available in stores with 2 exclusive songs. These unsourced claims about selling arrangement need a strong reliable verification, otherwise they are clearly original research (and speculation too). That said, as currently (if I have not missed anything) we have a big nothing in terms of coverage, GermanDude100 should provide the available sources about these 30 tracks (that could even be Amazon, the website of the label, something to start...) before going ahead with these claims. And some random YouTube videos surely are not acceptable to document a tracklist. Cavarrone (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC) HOW is YouTube not reliable source? It's obvious the videos are not FAKE. But I don't believe the Kidz Bop 5 "Something Moore" is real. Amazon won't let you buy it. HOW ABOUT IF I uploaded a 0:30 sample of each track. Would you FINALLY leave the page alone!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GermanDude100 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC) AFTER searching I FINALLY found a source. Turns out musicspacekids is advertising them again. Kidz Bop 5: http://shop.kidzbop.com/product.aspx?productid=46&categoryid=0&productcode=MS1153 Also if go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_on_Kidz_Bop_albums the complete lists Kidz Bop songs on Wikipedia the exclusives are list1ed. They have been for years AND WITH NO reference. Good thing I remember so now what do you gotta say?!! First, you should add the source directly in the article. Secondly, KidzBop.com is a good primary source, but the website only documents the tracklist for Kidz Bop 5 and nothing about other compilations: the related pages about vol.1 and vol. 4 show the usual 18-songs-tracklist and make no mention of the claimed longer versions. For now I have reverted your additions about these volumes until a valid source will be provided. Cavarrone (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC) All articles of the Kidz Bop series are sourced for the 18-song CD. Just take a look at them. Each and everyone has a valid, independent, reliable source. So stop whining. You have added a valid source at Kidz Bop 2 and that source is still there (although I had to restructure the article). The Banner talk 09:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC) HOW MANY TIMES DO I have to say Kidz Bop.com doesn't advertise them anymore. Here's a commercial for KidzBop 1 stating the 30 tracks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iH2jJLfR0o AND did you even look at the List of Kidz Bop songs on the Wiki becuase the exclusive tracks are listed. If you keep changing the page I just gonna keep changing it. I'm right and most of the Wiki pages don't have references. GO BOTHER ANOTHER PAGE! Dicussion at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:GermanDude100. Cavarrone (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 01 April 2013 Special report: Who reads which Wikipedia? WikiProject report: Special: FAQs Featured content: What the ? News and notes: Grants given for Wikipedia Library, six others; April Fool's Day ructions Arbitration report: Three open cases Technology report: Wikidata phase 2 deployment timetable in doubt Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC) AN/I Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. If you have any input to the ANI discussion, post it here and I will transclude it over. 132.3.33.81 (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Thank you, mr. IP! Wish I could help in the discussion on AN/I. You can find some arguments in the unblockrequest above. The Banner talk 20:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC) I've closed the ANI. At this stage, the unblock should be reviewed using the regular process by an uninvolved admin. Since The Banner has used the proper unblock form, one will be along shortly. I noticed that NewYorkBrad has already commented on the blocking admin's page, asking RHaworth to provide a clearer rationale than the block log currently has. I'm confident he will provide more info soon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC) I would have thought that Stavros' message at User talk:RHaworth#Cyber bullying gave a necessary and sufficient explanation of the block. But I will spell it out: you raised six AfD requests for articles by Stavros1 (talk · contribs). All these were !voted "speedy keep" or similar. Stavros feels that your action was bullying and I agree. Ignoring any previous altercations, we would like to know why you considered these six articles to be advertising. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Point 1: I did not know that geographical entities are always kept, no matter how much spam is in the article. If I had known that, I would have removed the spam without nominating. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Platja Port d’es Torrent - advertising, large unsourced article. After keeping, I removed the spam, reducing the article with about a third. Cala Vadella - advertising. No reliable sources added. Partly WP:OR. After keeping, I removed the spam, reducing the article with about half its size. Cala Tarida - advertising. No reliable sources added. Not yet unspammed, but I consider the section description, facilities and getting there as spammy. I also consider the sentence The resort is 25 minutes from Ibiza Airport by Taxi[2] or tourist bus. as spam, due to the source used. Last: I consider a link to a timetable of the bus service as spam. Cala d’Hort - advertising. No reliable sources added. After keeping, I removed the spam, reducing the article with about half its size. Cala Bassa - advertising. No reliable sources added. After keeping, I removed the spam, reducing the article with about two thirds. Platja S'Estanyol - advertising and largely unsourced. WP:OR. After keeping, I removed the spam, reducing the article with about half its size. Cala Salada - advertising. After keeping, I the spam, reducing the article with about two thirds. Cala Benirrás - advertising, largely unsourced. Not yet unspammed, but I consider the description and facilities as SPAM. Agua Blanca (Ibiza) - advertising. MrX removed removed promotional and non-encyclopedic content When allowed, I would make some minor other cuts. Hope this clears it a bit. The Banner talk 23:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC) I know that sometimes, someone will go an nominate several articles by the same author, and I've likely done that myself, because that one author doesn't understand the policies. So there are some circumstances where multiple nominations of articles by a single author are not harassing and is addressing a genuine problem. I also see where The Banner has been blocked more than once previously for harassing behavior, so good faith only goes so far. You have been here long enough that you probably should have known that all geographical areas are generally kept per common outcomes. I will say that I would have likely made the same deletions of content you made, including the worldtaximeter.com citations. So the question is "were the AFDs created in good faith or no?". I tried to use the Intersect tool to view all the different places these editors have crossed paths, but the tool server is down. I wanted a better overview of the previous relationship here before entertaining anything else. The links provided in the unblock request do show that Stavros1 has been more than a little abrasive with The Banner, but this isn't ANI and that alone gives a motive for bad faith nominations at AFD. This puts me on the fence regarding the faith in The Banner when he nominated them for AFD, so I can see how it could be perceived as a pay back, whether it was or not. The real question is: How does The Banner expect to proceed from here? What is his master plan to prevent another situation where it might be perceived that he is paying back for prior personal attacks against him? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC) I have noticed that mr. Stavros and me have little interests together, so walking away would be my idea of solving this. We can stumble upon each other through "Templates with links to disambiguation pages", but I have not the slightest intend to keep in touch with him. "Being around here long enough" is rather relative as I only seriously moved over to ENWP in 2011 from NLWP. The Banner talk 01:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC) I'm leaning towards an unblock, with the understanding that you expect to avoid the other editor where possible, and now understand how your actions can be perceived. I'm about to be gone for the night however, and prefer to leave this unblock request open for another admin to review, as in a borderline case, I would prefer a second opinion and would ask they take action based on that. I completely understand why RHaworth decided a block was necessary, and I also see how this might not be all it seems. I'm not a mind reader, so I can't say I know what was in your heart when you decided to go to AFD with those, which is why I'm more concerned about how we move forward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC) What I do not see here is an acknowledgment that The Banner did indeed go through the other user's contributions and picked up on a couple to nominate for deletion, but what I read above is "there were things wrong with those articles and now I know the guidelines better". RHaworth's case seems pretty clear to me: tit-for-tat AfD nominations. Until that is addressed I don't see a reason to undo the block. Sorry The Banner, maar zo zit dat, en niet anders. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC) You can see it like that. I call it: catching a serial spammer and acting upon that. And as a result, the spammer walks free and I get blocked. Strange world. The Banner talk 08:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC) And that is how I see it. But after one "catches" a spammer one reports them at WP:AIV, for instance. Filing a bunch of specious AfDs simply makes you disruptive. I'll be glad to give you a medal for your spam catching, but those AfDs were silly and a waste of time. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC) I am mostly with Dennis here, however, the WP:NOTTHEM unblock request, and Banner 's reply immediately above show me that he doesn't yet understand the problem. He has been here long enough to know how to handle spammers, and this is obviously the wrong way. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC) You've articulated it better me, and that is what is bothers me as well. Since I can't read his mind to know his motivation, this is why explaining the path forward is so important. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Clearly making mistakes can get you blocked. Okay, then I wait a few more days. The Banner talk 09:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 08 April 2013 Wikizine: WMF scales back feature after outcry WikiProject report: Earthshattering WikiProject Earthquakes News and notes: French intelligence agents threaten Wikimedia volunteer Arbitration report: Subject experts needed for Argentine History Featured content: Wikipedia loves poetry Technology report: Testing week Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Goodbye It is clear that you are obliviously working on some sort project to go through my contributions with a fine tooth comb. Get a Life!!!. you should perhaps calm your temper. I wish you no ill feeling but I will say goodbye to you. I do not intend to communicate with you again. others will deal with your disruptive attitude and your form of cyber-bulling.  stavros1  ♣  18:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Laughing out loud! What are you going to do, report me? Bring me to AN/I? Hang me high? Sue me? The Banner talk 19:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Long time ago I came across such a funny man at Wikipedia! A good laugh is very healthy! Another person who has been cyber bullied by The Banner ??? 109.157.140.87 (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC) No, mr. Lemmens. Just another cyber bully like you. The Banner talk 09:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Cyber Bullying This person - as you can see from above - might fall in the catagory of Cyber Bullies ?? He does NOT read the references of the new pages but goos immediately like a bulldog into the attack and without mentioning the reason nominates pages like - Adrianus Johannes Lemmens - for deletion. He is one of a group of Dutch Cyber bullies who first tried to bully me on the Dutch Wikipedia page and now tries to bring this same culture to the English Wikipedia. For instance on the page mentioned above he works with another one - Robotje (talk | contribs)‎ - who also falls into that catagory when you look at his talkbox you can notice the same pattern ? They cowardly hide behind a pseudonyms and even more cowardly work in groups - they inform each other. What he does not realize is that Cyber Bullying is an offence in the U.K.! I think Scotland yard should be informed as Wikipedia English speaking page is in danger at present ? He does not seem to read other contributors pages or write his own pages on Wikipedia NL or Uk but only is out to criticise other contributors. What kind of person behaves in such a detrimental manner, I wonder ?? Glemmens1940 (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC) /me keeps mirror in front of mr. Lemmens. The Banner talk 10:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC) What do you mean with that pigeon English sentence - me keeps mirror in front of mr. Lemmens - I wonder?? /me .. - I think instead should be I - and Mr. Lemmens should be with a capital M!!Glemmens1940 (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC) See you at AN/I, Lemmens. The Banner talk 10:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Mr. The Banner should I take that as a threat?? Poor soul or poor soulless ? Glemmens1940 (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC) No, just as an announcement. There is a notification on your talk page. BTW: it is not speaking page but talk page. And when you want to insult me, try it with pidgin English instead of your pigeon English. The Banner talk 11:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC) I have already learned - may be you not yet - that one can not insult soulless people. Glemmens1940 (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC) That is why I am insulted and you not. The Banner talk 09:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Another block See User talk:RHaworth#Cyber bullying. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC) See below. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Spammer protection. The Banner talk 09:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC) WV and KY say Thank you! Hey there. Many thanks for the disambiguation links for places in Kentucky and West Virginia. Yes, I am being sincere. Most of the articles are ones I created and it is difficult to document the places as there were so very many. Your links help people and I for one wanted to say thanks. If I can help, let me now how. I guesstimate another 3 or 4 thousand such places in Kentucky and Virginia still need to be documented. I have only been able to document just under 2400 of them.Coal town guy (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC) You are welcome. Thank you very much for the compliments! In fact, it was not difficult to solve the links in the templates. I have seen them far more difficult. I was more or less racing through them. The Banner talk 15:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC) This is a skill set that would help me with a few hundred articles I need to create. Do you have any tips for me?Coal town guy (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC) In short: Wikipedia:WPCleaner and plain old fashioned experience. I am hunting down links to disambiguation pages for years now (four or five) and I must say that I slowly learned all the different methods for disambiguation. Reading the articles for other links is helpful, and as an alternative I often look up related articles on the subject or from the author. The Banner talk 15:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Many thanks. My ongoing effort is to document coal towns globally. My experience is US centric, but I am learning of course.Coal town guy (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC) I have noticed that even after so many years on Wikipedia, I still learn new facts and tricks. The Banner talk 15:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC) You won't fool everybody with you accusations, mr. Spammer. Hi, Dont understand why you have posted this on my talk page "You won't fool everybody with you accusations, mr. Spammer." are you accusing me of spamming? Regards --palmiped |  Talk  13:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC) No, sorry when I was unclear. It is a reply on mr. Stavros who is widely claiming that I am a cyber bully after I caught him spamming around. He even managed to get me blocked for that. The Banner talk 13:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC) ISBN If you actually own this item, please verify that the 2001 Michelin Benelux actually has ISBN 2-06-006298-2 printed on it. Such a number is invalid per the ISBN specification, should never have been used, and hence if it actually was printed that way then it would be regarded as a publisher error. Such errors do happen occasionally, but very rarely, and it is for more common for invalid ISBNs to result from editor input errors. As far as WorldCat / Amazon / Google Books / etc. are concerned there is no such ISBN as 2-06-006298-2, so having it there is not actually helpful. I think it more likely though that volume corresponds to this with ISBN 2-06-000299-0, or equivalently ISBN 978-2-06-000299-6 on the 13-digit system. Dragons flight (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC) No, you did catch a typo in the ISBN, so I have fixed this. I had typed 2-06-006298-2 instead of 2-06-000298-2. Corrected now. But the second ISBN you "corrected" was there on the book.The Banner talk 00:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 15 April 2013 Op-ed: How do we fix RfA inactivity? WikiProject report: Unity in Diversity: South Africa News and notes: Another admin reform attempt flops Featured content: The featured process swings into high gear Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Paul Rankin Hi, I'm concerned about your attitude regarding the Paul Rankin article. In your last edit to the article you state a whitewash is being attempted regarding the flag protests. However the reference you yourself provided states it was only a confirmation of his decision, not the deciding factor. So if you could please explain why you are choosing to put your own spin on the references I would be very grateful. If I have misunderstood some part of this I will be happy to let you explain. Thanks & kind regards, Mark. Mark83 (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC) April 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Equiangular may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave my operator a message on his talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 22 April 2013 In the media: Wikipedia inaccurate, says Florence; New Wikipedia app for breaking news WikiProject report: WikiProject Editor Retention News and notes: Milan conference a mixed bag Featured content: Batfish in the Red Sea Arbitration report: Sexology case nears closure after stalling over topic ban Technology report: A flurry of deployments Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC) "Bag Lady" I did not plan to "add the cleaner and the receptionist of the studio to the people contributing to the song" to "Bag Lady", as they did not provide vocals nor instruments to the video. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Singing background vocals is just as non-relevant as cleaning the studio. The Banner talk 06:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Reply - I disagree, but OK. --Jax 0677 (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Jax 0677's talk page. Message added 15:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Talkback Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Jax 0677's talk page. Message added 17:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Talkback Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_17. Message added 12:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Alternative for Germany Dear Banner, I hope you are a vivid person and not a machine. It was my purprose to hold the article neutral and it was me who proposed the chapter "Reactions". But there are some ghost writers not registered as Idaho ore Lucati who "warned" me to intervene. Are they machine administraters??? Normally there is to be expected that every user provides for his own registration. There are a lot of people who think they are rulers of this page. Hi --Stonepillar (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC) As far as I know I am a human and not a machine. I have noticed how Cruks and Lukati spread the word worldwide about their political toy. The Dutch WP, where I am working also, removed the article as political propaganda. I agree with that and I am convinced that both editors mentioned above are closely related or even in the pay from AfD. They are certainly not neutral. The Banner talk 09:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 29 April 2013 News and notes: Chapter furore over FDC knockbacks; First DC GLAM boot-camp In the media: Wikipedia's sexism; Yuri Gadyukin hoax Featured content: Wiki loves video games WikiProject report: Japanese WikiProject Baseball Traffic report: Most popular Wikipedia articles Arbitration report: Sexology closed; two open cases Recent research: Sentiment monitoring; UNESCO and systemic bias; and more Technology report: New notifications system deployed across Wikipedia Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Biggest cities Hi there, I see you reverted my info on the biggest cities in Bosnia. The reference you are using at the moment is not accurate nor does it contain reliable numbers. This is a very disputed source and it does not have references to its datas. Another thing is that no cities in Bosnia have numbers within the city limits, only urban and municality statistics exists. Therefore so called city numbers are in most cases made up. As you can see from my update (if you checked my references at all), the update numbers are based on data from statiscial institutes in Bosnia with very accurate numbers and data. Therefore please put back my update as it contributes to improving the quality of the article. Sorry, but your source was giving numbers for 2010 while you were claiming that these were from 2012. That is why I reverted. The Banner talk 23:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Ok, if you revert my contribution I will change the year. This is the only reliable source for population in Bosnia since, the institutional claims found other places are a target for ethnic rivarly. Best regards I know about the ethnic rivalry (a distant cousin served in Dutchbat in Sebrenica, one of the first contingents). That is why I regard an outside source, even when it are estimates, more reliable then sources originating in what once was Yugoslavia. The Banner talk 10:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC) The source you are using have no sources of their data what so ever. As described above; no data have ever existed for population within city limits in Bosnia, only urban and municipality. The datas used in my reference is financed and collected by: Center for civil sience, Open Society Institute and Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation in Bosnia. This is the most reliable source available at the moment. The numbers you are using now are misleading, unreliable and from a disputed page. I only want to improve the quality of the article. The correct heading should be "biggest municipalities and cities". The city population consists of the municipality population if the municipality center is regarded as a city, if not; it is called municipality. The urban population can be within a municipality or go across munipality borders. City of Sarajevo for example constists of 4 municipalities making up the city; the urban population goes across the whole canton. The city population then; is de facto the municipality population; this is the law now. This is the same for all municipalities regarded as cities. So the present list is not in correlation with the right methodology. Interesting enough is your source also nothing but an estimate! See: English version. So why would we use an estimate instead of an estimate, when the new estimate is two years older? The Banner talk 00:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Because the source is gathered by international agencies and they are using the right methodology. The methodology itself should be a trigger. Read above about the definitions of a city in BiH. It is also available both in Bosnian and English. This is a project funded for this porpuse; while the existing numbers are based on a webpage with no sources. Better to have accurate numbers from 2010 than fictive from "2012". The website itself says her figures are incomplete, because there are no numbers available from the Serbian Republic. The website itself says that they have only estimates. Your source is not more reliable than the present source and it is two years older. Sorry. The Banner talk 10:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC) I see you are not familiar with methodological methods, statistical accuracy nor do you understand that there is no argument to claim population in cities within municipalities; as this border does not exist. The only thing you are focusing on is the term estimate without showing deeper understanding to the research conducted in the two estimates. If you look closer; you will see that they use 12 different sources; also Republika Srpska in thier methodology; just for 2010. In your present overview you claim that Banja Luka city have the same population number as the municipality; while in Prijedor and Bijeljina you dont do the same; here you claim to have a number that does not exist according to any law, regulation and methodology. It is not consistent and therefore misleading and it should be a question mark around numbers that do not have one single source nor right methodology. As this is my competence and area of work; I higly recommend you to use a reference that has profound research rather than a website that anyone could have edited. Best. Your source is just as misleading. I highly recommend you to read WP:RS.The Banner talk 11:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC) About Annelies Nuy Hi The Banner. I usually annoy Drmies about articles in Dutch language and Dutch people, but I've decided to annoy you instead. . Could you possibly have a little read over the article? There is some mention of Ms Nuy in Google News, but the one in Brabants Dagblad 404-s.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I am not exactly sure what you want. I have checked the article in Brabants Dagblad but that article has completely disappeared. No traces left. However, there is another source that confirms that she was present in Amsterdam in 2008. The Banner talk 13:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC) 512 St. Clair The infobox in 512 St. Clair was actually repaired. There is a problem in many articles and I don't know the origin, but they can usually be fixed by using {{infobox rdt}}. Except in this case the route diagram is overly large and crashes. Please take the time to look at what is really happening. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC) So the problem is in your infobox rdt not in this route diagram The Banner talk 14:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC) If you revert everything back, including the use of {{infobox rdt}} you will see it does work. You reverted my elimination of the extra trackage information before reviewing the article it is used in, where it now did not work, then you continued a series of reversions which made it impossible to work. Look at the article now! Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC) STOP this nonesense. I have asked you to "look before you leap". The problem is not just here and will not be fixed in one place! Secondarywaltz (talk) Go away and give me some time for testing. In the mean time: contact the author of the template and suggest a split of the template into a rough one and a detailed one. Don't destroy information because you are unable to solve the problem otherwise. The Banner talk 14:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Repaired your dodgy cutting. The Banner talk 14:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Now you have restored almost everything to the way I had it - and it works! To stop forced breaks in the diagram, you need to use "auto" for the box width Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC) The main change is that I have split the template in the right place, not the wrong place as you did... The Banner talk 15:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC) That is patently untrue. You removed exactly the same portion of the diagram as I did. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Not exactly, my friend! See the differences between your removal and my removal The difference is |} that I left behind. The Banner talk 15:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 06 May 2013 News and notes: Candidates nominating for Foundation elections; Looking ahead to Wikimania 2014 Technology report: Foundation successful in bid for larger Google subsidy Featured content: WikiCup update: full speed ahead! In the media: New Wikipedia for Schools edition; Anders Behring Breivik's Wikipedia contributions WikiProject report: Earn $100 in cash... and a button! Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Alternative for Germany Hi The Banner! I mainly edit in the German Wikipedia, also in the German article de:Alternative für Deutschland. So I looked, what happens here in the english version of the article. I think you're right in the conlusion, that the english version of the article has no neutral point of view. The party has a straight social media strategy and it seems, that the Wikipedia articles in the most important languages shall be a part of this strategy. The most IPs and contributors, which edited in the article, are German IPs and users in the German Wikipedia, e.g. User:Lukati and User:Ich901. User:Ich901 is temporarely banned in the German Wikipedia because of his non-neutral edits in the German article version and his behaviour against other users. You're also right with your conclusion, that some contributors to the article (Lukati, Ich901, some others and the most IPs) appear to have a close connection with the party. Many of them sympathise with the party. Maybe you could ask here in the WikiProject Germany or directly ask some users here in the WikiProject Germany to find some interested users (some of the users there write, that they're competent in German politics), who are more neutral and can help you to transform the Alternative for Germany into a neutral article. -- Many greetings from Germany to Ireland :-) -- Kleiner Stampfi (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC) AfD of Lotus Racing What the hell was that all about? — Jon C.ॐ 17:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC) I don't want to get involved in an editwar with someone who does not understand what a disambiguation page is for nor does not understand the manual of style. The Banner talk 17:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Content of Lotus Racing Hi The Banner. Leaving aside piping issues for the moment, I'm fairly happy with the current content of Lotus Racing (i.e. the specific items listed above and below the "See also" heading). Do you think it's worth starting a discussion on the talk page about the content of the article at this point? Or do you think that moment has passed and it would actually hinder rather than help? DH85868993 (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC) The guy probably never read the Manual of Style, so I just send him a link. Specifically to the section about piping and redirecting. I hope he reads this. Otherwise, this stupid editwar will go on and on. The present wording and linking is okay to me. The Banner talk 00:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 13 May 2013 News and notes: WMF–community ruckus on Wikimedia mailing list WikiProject report: Knock Out: WikiProject Mixed Martial Arts Featured content: A mushroom, a motorway, a Munich gallery, and a map In the media: PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market? Arbitration report: Race and politics opened; three open cases Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Paul Rankin ...think that's sufficiently news-worthy and fully sourced...? Basket Feudalist 15:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC) I will stay away from it for now. The Banner talk 15:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Draft Looks good. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 20 May 2013 Foundation elections: Trustee candidates speak about Board structure, China, gender, global south, endowment WikiProject report: Classical Greece and Rome News and notes: Spanish Wikipedia leaps past one million articles In the media: Qworty incident continues Featured content: Up in the air Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Topic Ban Proposal Some whining Dear Banner: I saw that you have written a topic ban proposal. I ask you, can you name one navbox that I wrote related to music started AFTER the RfC on me was proposed for closure (on April 25, 2013) that was not done at least reasonably correctly? Again, this is the first time I have created university navboxes, I don't have the skill set to change the color of the navbox, so there are going to be setbacks on these particular templates. Additionally, you have submitted many navboxes to TfD that should not be there in the first place, therefore, an RfC could be filed against YOU. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC) You have created more than a 1000 nav boxes and still claim not to know how to write them? Nonsense, my friend, nonsense! Too late now for whining. The Banner talk 16:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC) BTW, you did do some templates correct. The problem is that too many of the templates you create do not make the quality threshold. The Banner talk 16:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Reply - Your response indicates why you are proposing the topic ban . The question that I asked (and that you ignored) is: "can you name one navbox that I wrote related to music started AFTER the RfC on me was proposed for closure (on April 25, 2013) that was not done at least reasonably correctly?" Any time that I have created navboxes, I have copied the navbox from another navbox and modified things that needed change. I did the same with University navboxes, which again I am working on for the first time ever . I changed the category(ies) to relate to education. The fact that words related to music were in the coding of the navbox is an oversight, and those words do NOT show up when the template is displayed. Even though the color of the navbox may not be consistent with the colors of the university, all of the links related to the university were still in the navbox, and I have obeyed WP:BRD. Many of the navboxes at TfD that now have four links (not including the parent article) were made before the RfC, and some were made before WP:NENAN was modified to exclude the backlink. Also, navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative. Neither a topic ban nor an RfC are popularity contests, and if the question above cannot be answered, then the topic ban should most definitely NOT apply to music navboxes (if it should be applied AT ALL, which I don't think it should, as these are the first university navboxes that I have created). Also, why am I expressly prohibited from responding to charges made against me or the navboxes that I create? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Because you are incredibly disruptive when responding to the charges. In fact, being hugely cynical of course, I see your "branching out" into other types of navboxes as a way of gaming any attempts for a general topic ban. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Reply - Banner, I respectfully disagree that I am, in fact , "incredibly disruptive when responding to the charges", coming from someone who said I am filibustering or stupid. I simply answer all of the charges against me forthwith and in good order. My questions on the other hand have been blatantly ignored in many cases. I do not know how to change the color of the navboxes (which I do not believe is required for an educational navbox). My navboxes have mostly centered around organizations, music and schools. The fact that you did not name one navbox I created about music since April 25 that I have royally screwed up further proves my point. And to answer your latest charge, I am NOT trying to "[game] any attempts for a general topic ban", as I have been working university navboxes for quite some time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Do you mind to read the message again and please pay extra attention to the signature? The Banner talk 23:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Reply - Apologies Banner for not reading the signature carefully. I am owning up to this mistake immediately. That being said, if I have answered all of the issues brought up in Luke's message, and have royally messed up zero music navboxes since April 25, 2013 (if I am mistaken, please show me where), how does the fact that some of my university navboxes (which I am new to) were not optimized (though most to all of the correct links were there, and the basketball season links were deleted from the UNI template) rise to the level of a complete topic ban on navboxes? Regarding the May 8, 2013 TfDs on my navboxes, none of the navboxes that I contested were deleted, not a one. The template for Londonbeat had a grand total of 7 links from the start. Why is it OK for The Banner to list navboxes on TfD that do not belong there? Despite the number of signatures, this is not a popularity contest. The recent XfDs on music are simply mistakes walking out of my past, which should curb over time. Also, I am not responsible for maintaining templates nor articles that I create for an indefinite period of time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC) This is not the first time you show the "good doggy act", I am not buying it. You are to late now. The Banner talk 01:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Reply - My latest music navboxes (and your not answering my questions directly) speak for themselves. There is a learning curve involved with editing Wikipedia and creating university navboxes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC) No, I am not answering your questions any more. I have better and more pleasant ways to waste my time. The Banner talk 09:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Reply - If you cannot name a music navbox that I have royally messed up since April 25, then I rest my case. It has therefore been concluded that the university navboxes that I created were not optimal solely due to my inexperience with creating university navboxes, and the topic ban should not go forward. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Template:The Amenta (just 4 relevant links) Template:Analog Rebellion (just 4 relevant links) Template:Bad Azz (fantasy links, wrong headers) Template:Anata (just 4 relevant links) And it does not matter that you are new to university nav boxes. You screwed them up. THAT is the problem. The massive amount of screwed up templates that you created. The Banner talk 21:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Reply - WRT Amenta, Analog Rebellion & Anata: WP:NENAN is an essay, not policy, one Template is easier to maintain than four "See Also" sections, I made and last modified the navbox before April 25 , the articles in the navbox do not all link to one another without the navbox, several other navboxes such as those for WFAHM and Sonny Throckmorton have passed TfD with only four articles, and my error (if that is what it is) IMHO is marginal not atrocious WRT Bad Azz: The navbox Template:Bad Azz has always had five relevant links, Related articles MIGHT not need the navbox added to them, but could still be suitable to have the navbox added to them, WP:NENAN is an essay, not policy, one Template is easier to maintain than four "See Also" sections, the articles in the navbox do not all link to one another without the navbox, several other navboxes such as those for WFAHM and Sonny Throckmorton have passed TfD with only four articles, and my error (if that is what it is) IMHO is marginal not atrocious Truth be told, I feel that I am now being chastized for even the smallest of errors, which is not what Wikipedia is about. I have made mistakes in the past, but have worked hard to correct them, and my corrections do not even matter. I am also being told that I am not permitted to legitimately respond to charges made against me. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Truth to be told: after making what feels like a million mistakes, you will be hammered. Promise. Your sorry excuses are not enough to get any mercy from me. That time is long gone. The Banner talk 22:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Reply - Fortunately, bans are made to protect, not punish :) --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC) True, and Wikipedia has to be protected against your sloppy work. The Banner talk 08:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Reply - My work has not been sloppy since the RfC has been closed, and even you can't attest to that. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC) The closure comments of the RFC/U: While their are not additional "outside views", the number of endorsements of the certifiers position and the discussion on the talk page make it clear that there is a consensus that Jax 0677's creations are problematic. While there was apparent progress during this RFC, it appears it was only temporary and there was no lasting effect. As it seems discussion is moving on toward a topic ban, which a user RFC cannot impose, this procedure is closed in anticipation of a formal request for a topic ban to come. If the topic ban does not get support or is not effective I'm afraid the next stop is probably WP:ARBCOM. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Is that clear to you? The Banner talk 15:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Reply - That statement is the closing editor's opinion, and I was not given a chance to respond to it. I ask you again, can you name one navbox that I wrote related to music started AFTER the RfC on me was proposed for closure (on April 25, 2013) that was not done at least reasonably correctly? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC) WP:FOOD Needs You! Hi there The Banner! I've noticed you have yourself listed as a member of the Food and Drink Wikiproject. Unfortunately it looks like the project has been slowly sliding into inactivity except for a couple of people. That makes me a sad potato, and nobody likes a sad potato amirite? If you'd like to turn my frown upside down, can you do two small things? First off, go here and add {{Tick}} (Y) next to your name if you're still part of the project. Second, go to the project talkpage and participate in a discussion about how to make the project more active, and how to go about making articles in our area of interest a lot better. You don't want to make me cry, do you? Potatoes have a lot of eyes you know. So come on, join in! :) — The Potato Hose 18:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Noticed that you said you're moving into food production, so welcome to the industry! Just remember the only two words you ever need to know: "Yes, chef!" ;) — The Potato Hose 21:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Hmmm, you better read that as growing vegetables and home producing flavoured rapeseed oil The Banner talk 21:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Derp! Well, couple little protips: 1) never use raw garlic in flavoured oils. It carries botulinum spores, which are anaerobic. If you want to do a garlic flavoured oil either blanch the garlic in water, milk, or cream (the latter two make for some tasty macaroni & cheese) until fully cooked through. Alternatively, put a lot of garlic cloves in a roasting pan, cover with neutral oil, roast at 350 until golden. Strain. You now have lots of roasted garlic (freezes well!) and lots of garlic oil. 2) If you decide to make flavoured vinegars, strain bits out using wet cheesecloth--this prevents the cloth from sucking up the nice flavour. — The Potato Hose 22:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I did not know the the cheesecloth-trick. The Banner talk 22:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Template:OlivierAward LightingDesign Two years ago when I started creating Olivier award templates, I just followed the format of other stage and film acting templates and formatted them all in 20 or 25 year segments. It cuts down on the number of links being transcluded into really important bios.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC) P.S. I am open to a discussion of undoing the segmenting of these templates, but it would have to be across all templates (Academy Awards, Emmy Awards, SAG Awards, Tony Awards, Drama Desk Awards, BAFTA Awards, British Academy Television Awards and Olivier Awards).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Balance is everything. It makes maintenance easier for not-experts but loading-times are also an issue, especially for users with a landline phone connection. The Banner talk 09:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 27 May 2013 News and notes: First-ever community election for FDC positions In the media: Pagans complain about Qworty's anti-Pagan editing Foundation elections: Candidates talk about the Meta problem, the nation-based chapter model, world languages, and value for money WikiProject report: WikiProject Geographical Coordinates Featured content: Life of 2π Recent research: Motivations on the Persian Wikipedia; is science eight times more popular on the Spanish Wikipedia than the English Wikipedia? Technology report: Amsterdam hackathon: continuity, change, and stroopwafels Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Jax's templates Regarding those templates, I don't even know how "guest musicians" on one or two tracks can be worthy of inclusion in a navbox for a band. Just more examples, albeit older ones, on how Jax thought he can do the bare minimum that doesn't necessarily benefit the encyclopedia. Going strictly by the wording of NENAN, I don't feel these two don't meet the threshhold. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Then I will hammer them. I am working my way down the list of created templates (1290!). I have fixed one today and with these two I will send 6 templates to TfD, out of about 25 checked templates... The Banner talk 17:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC) ...and yes, he would be able to go to WP:REFUND to request userfication of a template, as userspace editing of templates is expressly permitted. Please don't suggest otherwise (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC) That is quite debatable, as it request on WP:REFUND fall under "broadly construed" in my opinion... The Banner talk 12:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC) So, he's fully able to work on templates in his userspace, but he's not allowed to request userfication of a template? Really? That's rather illogical - besides, as the closing admin, I have clearly advised him that making REFUND requests - as long as they're not disruptive (for example, excessive quantity, etc) - are fully permitted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Yep, your the boss and we are just foot soldiers. The Banner talk 17:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Irish neutrality Hello, I've undone your edit on this article, it is hardly irrelevant to state the consequences of the Irish Free State's neutrality, especially considering the preceding comment about how technological advances had reduced the Treaty Ports relevance. I'm perfectly happy to negotiate with you to modify the article so it pleases us both but ask that you don't just arbitarily remove my contribution without some compromise to form a NPOV Shamrockawakening — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamrockawakening (talk • contribs) 23:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC) It is totally irrelevant regarding the Irish neutrality, so I have reverted it. Please add only information that is relevant to the article. Problems of other countries due to the Irish stance are not relevant. The Banner talk 23:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Would you explain? Hi, banner. I'm BlueSkyWhiteSun (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC). Would you explain why my contribution on Sōryū-class submarine and Joseon missions to Japan is not constructive?--BlueSkyWhiteSun (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC) And onemore question, Do you think things in history that you think it is not a constructive should be removed?--BlueSkyWhiteSun (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC) At the Sōryū your remove sourced information, claiming that it is unsourced. And I consider it vandalism what you did at "Joseon missions to Japan" as it is unconstructive and a an degrading interpretation of what is shown on the picture. The Banner talk 10:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC) About the Sōryū-class submarine, the source you insisted on is not reliable. And at the Joseon missions to Japan, the interpretation is not wrong. The picture originaly have an Japanese description "朝鮮通信使（조선 통신사）の一行が町人が飼っている鶏を盗み逃げようとしたところ喧嘩になった様を描いている絵。"[6] which mean "Korean envoys to quarrel with the townspeople to steal chicken" in english.--BlueSkyWhiteSun (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Why is that source unreliable? Why would you use that picture other than to add a degrading comment to the article? The Banner talk 16:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 05 June 2013 From the editor: Signpost developments Featured content: A week of portraits Discussion report: Return of the Discussion report News and notes: "Cease and desist", World Trade Organization says to Wikivoyage; Could WikiLang be the next WMF project? In the media: China blocks secure version of Wikipedia WikiProject report: Operation Normandy Technology report: Developers accused of making Toolserver fight 'pointless' Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Nominating templates for deletion You can nominate up to 20 templates for one discussion. If templates go under one rationale, then it could be clumped together into one discussion. Kingjeff (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Although the rationale is often the same, the cases itself are often different enough to justify separate nominations. The Banner talk 10:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I agree each case needs to be discussed separately, but the number of templates being nominate could be overburdening the TfD process. I appreciate the efforts you've put in cleaning up another's mess, but it's an awful lot to look through and review for anyone. I'm not sure the best way to limit it, except maybe to nominate the worst of the worst and/or don't nominate more than 5 in any single day. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC) They don't all need to be discussed seperately. Here is an example of where it could be combined. You could have combined many of the templates you listed here. If they all must be listed separately, then the template that list 20 wouldn't exist and would meet the requirement for deletion. Kingjeff (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC) When the sheer volume is a problem, clustering would indeed be the best way. But I have to look what is the best way to do that and when it is effective. Could you give me an example from my nominations. (You have my permission to cluster them!!) The Banner talk 19:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Moved 3 TfDs into one cluster. Hope I did this correct. The Banner talk 21:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I really not going to insist on it this time. But it's just easier to put them together and to have a discussion on it in one place. If you're worried that all templates will fall under one result just because they're together, Here is an AfD with two results in it. Kingjeff (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Something this? And did I do that correctly? The Banner talk 22:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Looks good. Kingjeff (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I'd still rather just see a few nominations a day at most. It's too much to look at and not worth my time to go through a set of 10 rather than picking and choosing a few individually. The discussions for the most part have just come down between you and User:Frietjes (with occasional but infrequent input from others such as BHG, Whpq, or myself), and I'm not sure if that is productive. I won't be participating in any bundled nominations, although I'll try to fix one here and there that stands out to me, such as I did with {{Cathy Dennis}}. I'm not saying totally let it go, but there's got to be better uses of your time than to clog up TfDs with Jax's garbage templates. But if you want to clear out as many as possible through the TfD process, I ain't gonna stop ya. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC) To be true, I hate what I am doing because it is so annoying and frustrating. That is why I use such a ferocious pace. But I am not out to kill as much as possible. There are enough templates out there that I have given mercy assuming that the fifth link will arrive soon. And I have a long list of templates set aside for rescue/improvement. On the positive side: I have just 220 templates to check, out of 1290! I really have no clue how many incomplete templates I have left behind just because they comply to WP:NENAN at this stage. Quite a few, but it is impossible to me to do real background checks. So I do that more or less at random or intuitively (although in some other cases it is an open door to kick in). The Banner talk 11:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC) ITE_College_East This is ITE College East we are not advertising or promotion, we are an institution and we are stating the information on our website. Please stop editing our page. Thank you. —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC) What you are editing is not your page, Wikipedia is not a hosting company. So stop your spamming! The Banner talk 03:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Amazing! There are no templates with links to disambiguation pages. Not one! A very rare occasion! Hallelujah! The Banner talk 23:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Template:Tony Särkkä I had to undo your edit because there was no discussion linked to. Would you mind nominating the template again? --217/83 17:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Strange, because it was definitely there. Some strange has happened. The Banner talk 23:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Very strange glitch so nominated again. The Banner talk 23:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Very strange indeed. --217/83 07:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 12 June 2013 News and notes: How Wikimedia affiliates are spending $8.4 million; PRISM scandal Featured content: Mixing Bowl Interchange In the media: VisualEditor will "change world history" Op-ed: The tragedy of Wikipedia's commons Discussion report: VisualEditor, elections, bots, and more Traffic report: Who holds the throne? Arbitration report: Two cases suspended; proposed decision posted in Argentine History WikiProject report: Processing WikiProject Computing Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Templates: broadly construed What do you think about Jax adding existing templates to articles or creating articles in attempt to influence opinion for templates at TfD? Both seem to be a way to continue his activity with templates. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Reply I have fully complied with the ban, but telling me not to add or edit articles is going too far. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC) As they relate to templates. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC) You are banned from all activity in relation to templates, Jax. So take this as a warning, next time you will be hammered. The Banner talk 10:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Clarification: Adding templates to existing articles is in my opinion an infringement of the ban. Creating new articles to shore templates (and include the template in there) is on the edge but I think just allowed. The Banner talk 11:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Show me a diff of him "attempt(ing) to influence opinion for templates at TfD" and I'll deal with it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Reply - I have asked on at least one occasion for a detailed description of what the ban does and does not permit. I don't mean to be rude, but the description so far is kind of vague. I have not violated any explicit terms of the ban in simply creating articles such as "Dead City Radio and the New Gods of Supertown". Regrettably, the ban prohibits me from speaking freely, so I can only say that I have only created and edited articles that I am allowed to create and edit. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC) The conditions of the ban are clear enough. In plain language: stay away from templates. 100% of the time. When in doubt, assume it is illegal. The Banner talk 22:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC) By the way, Jax: it is good to see that you have discovered the "See also"-section. What is not good, is that you now have started producing sloppy articles. We need quality articles, Jax, not garbage like She's Playing Hard to Get, Keep It Goin' On or 2069 (album) The Banner talk 22:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Reply - Per WP:IDEALSTUB, "When you write a stub, bear in mind that it should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it". BTW, the closing admin allows me to utilize WP:REFUND, so "100% of the time" may not work. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC) You just keep gaming the system, isn't it mr. Jax? You can go on with that but sooner or later that will seriously backfire at you. The Banner talk 03:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Reply - I am not "gaming the system". Since again, I am not allowed to speak freely, I can only say that there is a huge difference between short articles and other types of "abbreviated" Wikipedia pages. Short articles do not directly affect the a "good" or "featured" rating of other Wikipedia pages [case in point Clash of the Titans (tour) and Slayer]. --Jax 0677 (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC) To make it clear, I am checking all templates of Jax. Unfortunately, due to the sheer volume of launched templates I only check on WP:NENAN. Sometimes I improve incomplete templates, sometimes I give them the go ahead due to their potential to comply to NENAN later. I do not check the quality of the underlying links. Assuming good faith, I expect that Jax has enough self-respect not to move into dodgy, sloppy articles but will produce quality articles that really add something to Wikipedia. By now, I would say that I have to hammer/improve about 20%-25% off all templates, what is a horrible high number... The Banner talk 12:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Jax, I strongly urge you to change your approach. You currently appear to be trying to skate as close as possible to the limits of your ban. You may get away with that, but you may find instead that you simply exhaust the patience of the community. By the time a topic ban is imposed, an editor is already drinking in the last chance saloon, and is not likely to find themselves being cut much more slack. Your creation of poor-quality stubs on non-notable recordings has been controversial before, and is likely to come into closer focus now that you are banned from templates. Article such as 2069 (album) are a disgrace: poorly-formatted, and no evidence of notability. If you are creating this sort of page in good faith, then there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, with which you need some assistance. To avoid further sanctions on yourself, I urge you to seek help from more experienced editors before creating mainspace content. The best way to do this would be to create pages as userspace drafts, and engage a WP:MENTOR to guide you on whether and when they are fit to be moved to mainspace. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Reply - BHG, I appreciate your feedback. I will try to do a better job of formatting and inserting sufficient content and context in the future. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC) His skating along the edges is growing quite tiresome, and will be stopped very shortly if it continues (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Reply - OK, I just redirected "2069". Had my article been deleted, I would have followed WP:BRD. I feel that I am being asked to follow rules when I don't know what the rules even are, because the topic ban given was vague. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC) What was vague? You may not edit templates, discuss templates, add templates you have created to articles. You may create templates in your personal userspace, and you may only at REFUND request userfication of deleted templates - unless those requests become disruptive on their own (such as quantity of requests). Those limitations were very very clear from the start - don't pull any crap about vague. What the heck does "broadly construed" mean to you???!?!?!?! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Reply - That's much better. I was NOT aware that I could not "add templates [I] have created to articles" until now. Broadly means over a wide spectrum, and construed means encompassing, so broadly construed means encompassing a wide spectrum, which itself is a relative term. I will therefore assume that I cannot add templates that I created to articles that I start (or articles that I do not start). --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Tssss, and you are an engineer?? It was not for nothing that I said earlier: stay away from templates. 100% of the time. When in doubt, assume it is illegal. Mr. Wilkins graciously allowed an exception to your own working space and WP:REFUND. Everything else regarding to templates is or plain illegal or a dangerous minefield. The Banner talk 18:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Waiting for improvement as incomplete Checking on completeness is only done at random with extra attention to bands/musicians I know. Template:The Righteous Brothers - just 5 of their 12/13 songs mentioned  Done 19:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Template:Dick Dale Template:Chemlab Template:Cubanate Template:The Flying Luttenbachers Template:Deadliest Warrior Template:Monstrosity Template:Steve Stevens Template:Del Shannon Template:Lou Rawls Template:This Day Forward - band has more than one member Template:Grip Inc. Template:Cary Brothers Template:Cheryl Lynn Template:Lipps Inc Template:Sean Lennon Template:Krayzie Bone Template:Kelly Osbourne Template:Janis Ian Template:John Lee Hooker Template:Engelbert Humperdinck Template:Roger Whittaker Template:Luniz Template:Chris de Burgh Template:Benny Goodman Template:Louis Prima Template:Brian Setzer Template:Nancy Sinatra Template:Sascha Schmitz Template:Alexander Paul Coe Template:Bing Crosby Template:Maggie Reilly Template:Jennifer Warnes Template:Jean Shepard Template:Cilla Black Template:Afrika Bambaataa Template:Judy Collins Template:Sherrié Austin Template:The Jets (British rockabilly band) - that lazy cow even skipped the surnames of the band members, although available Template:Jon Oliva's Pain - quality? Not part of the dictionary of Jax Waiting for improvement as messy and unclear Template:Subway restaurant - unclear what he wants with this template Template:China National Petroleum Corporation Template:Illinois Tool Works Template:Crane Co. Template:ITT Corporation Template:Eaton Template:Danaher Template:Gabriele Kerner - better known as (singer) Nena, who has a long, long list of recordings. Template:Nena - about the band Nena Template:TRW Template:GenCorp Template:The Aerospace Corporation Template:Atlas Corporation Template:Prestolite Electric Template:Teledyne Template:Dana Corporation Template:Rockwell International Template:AM General Template:Hillenbrand Industries, Inc. Template:Navistar International Corporation Template:Dassault Group Template:Cummins Template:Meijer Template:Nash Finch Company Template:Dorel Industries Template:Safran Template:Zodiac Aerospace Template:Konica Minolta Template:Cargill Template:Archer Daniels Midland Template:Herman Miller Template:Knoll Template:MTD Products Template:Husqvarna Template:Briggs & Stratton Template:Knorr-Bremse Template:Adecco Template:Tomkins plc Template:Melrose plc Template:Tektronix Template:Ernst Leitz GmbH Template:Beckman Coulter Template:Finmeccanica Template:BTR plc Template:Dunlop Holdings Template:Smiths Group Template:TI Group Template:Dowty Group Template:ThyssenKrupp Template:Stanley Black & Decker Template:Motorola Template:Computer Sciences Corporation Template:Magellan Aerospace Template:Unisys Template:Azure Dynamics Template:MacAndrews & Forbes Template:Dassault Systèmes Template:Renco Group Template:Heuliez Template:PSA Peugeot Citroën Template:Peugeot bicycles Template:ABB Group Template:SAGEM Template:Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Template:SMA Engines Template:Sud Aviation Template:SNCASE Template:SNCASO Template:AGCO Template:Techtronic Industries Template:Alcoa Template:Zippo Template:Cobham plc Template:GKN Template:Manpower Inc. Template:Brush Traction Template:Westinghouse Template:Invensys Template:Pirelli & C. SpA Template:Brunswick Template:Krupp Template:Thyssen Template:L-3 Communications Template:Rheinmetall Template:Marconi Electronic Systems Template:General Electric Company plc Template:Blohm + Voss Template:Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Template:ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Template:Transrapid Template:Aircraft seat manufacturers Template:Sendo Template:Menards Template:Allis-Chalmers Template:Dyson Template:The Hoover Company Template:Bendix Waiting for improvement as piping is too difficult Template:The Three O'Clock  Done Template:Psychic TV  Done Template:Parliament (band)  Done Template:Bill Wyman's Rhythm Kings  Done Not gaming the system? Is this just a not-so-funny backdoor or is this not allowed? See: Jax on Frietjes talkpage. The Banner talk 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I agree completely. It's creating articles related to a topic which just happens to have a navbox that Jax created and was nominated for deletion, and then notifying an editor who takes part in numerous TfDs about the creation of those articles. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC) It continues on Frietjes talk page. I'd consider this canvassing in an attempt to save templates that he created. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Are you an expert of Bulgarian politics? Just asking. If you want to make improvement of style here, do it. I don't guarantee to write properly even in Bulgarian when outraged with despicable socialist politics. --Aleksd (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC) When outraged, you should not write. Anger is not a good advisor. The Banner talk 22:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Really? And who is going to write the news in articles then? See at my talkpage too. --Aleksd (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Somebody who is uninvolved and not angry. Wikipedia is not a news service. The Banner talk 23:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Please stop your disruptive edits. Its is not more important your edits than the relevance of content. --Aleksd (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Indeed encyclopedias refer not only about things that happened ages ago but have a current content, I am sorry if you are unaware of the fact. --Aleksd (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Could you please calm down? The Banner talk 22:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Speedy deletion contested: Cologne Business School Hello The Banner, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Cologne Business School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks Hello The Banner, Thanks for all your instructions. I just started my work on Wikipedia, and I would like to be constructive like you. I went through some pages to edit. I read about reliable and secondary references and added to a page. I want to edit more, thanks for your instruction. I started on apache and I would like to work on others. Can you advise me whether I researched good and added enough citations to the page started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaoutlets (talk • contribs) 03:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Hello Ban, should the page I am editing be like this one http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Javedanfar . This one has no reference and only three lines. Hello Banner, your suggestions are helpful. What should be done? First thing you should do is starting to write on the bottom of a discussion, not on top. And secondly, you should give up pretending that you are a new and inexperienced user. The Banner talk 11:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Ok, I will probably stop editing. I just wanted to help. I just added almost 45 reference and secondary citations to the page which had been there several years Majid Rafizadeh, even adding to references to words. I was trying to start on Alireza Nader, Mehdi Khalaji, and Karim Sadjadpour. But it is ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaoutlets (talk • contribs) 03:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC) activist Hello Banner, The page, Rafizadeh, has been significantly revised and edited based on your suggestions to remove bias, negative, and major contributor's words. Farhikht removed everything that were added by the major contributor and major contributor's account has more likely been warned. The page has turned into what it was originally published without issues listed. Someone who publicly says does not like the human rights activism of the subject and posted negative things, blanked the page, but other professional editor returned the page. Would you check? Remobk (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Meet someone to talk to what is your problem? because you obviously have one. you have your own rules of editing that have nothing in common with even having a little respect of the work of other editors. --Aleksd (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC) You should show some respect for the encyclopedia, not alone for your own political agenda. The Banner talk 19:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC) It is you who should show respect to both encyclopedias, Wikipedia community and editors. Aleksd (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC) LOL, you are editwarring and POV-pushing. You really don't understand how an encyclopaedia works. The Banner talk 19:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC) You are bureaucrat with out any ethical feeling. You abuse many rules while pointing to others. How is that called, hm? Aleksd (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Wrong, mr. POV-pusher. You are the one ignoring Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please read them and adhere to them. If you keep ignoring them, the consequences are yours. The Banner talk 19:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC) How is it called when you have no knowledge whatsoever on a topic, still insist to edit on it, interrupt other editors, reverse over template, delete sources, disrespect efforts and give needless suggestions? Aleksd (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC) You know quite well that you are talking nonsense, hijacking an article and are disprutive. Read the guidelines and policies before making an even bigger joke of yourself. And for God's sake: please calm down! The Banner talk 19:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 19 June 2013 Op-ed: Two responses to the 'Tragedy of Wikipedia's Commons' Traffic report: Most popular Wikipedia articles of the last week In the media: South African learners want Wikipedia; Editing of Israel topics WikiProject report: The Volunteer State: WikiProject Tennessee News and notes: Swedish Wikipedia's millionth article leads to protests; WMF elections—where are all the voters? Featured content: Cheaper by the dozen Discussion report: Citations, non-free content, and a MediaWiki meeting Technology report: May engineering report published Arbitration report: The Farmbrough amendment request—automation and arbitration enforcement Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC) June 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Clare Smyth may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: Smyth grew up on a farm in [[County Antrim]. She was the youngest of three children to her father William, a farmer, and mother Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Fixed, my mistake. The Banner talk 23:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Unitech may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: *[[Infogix, Inc.]], formerly known as Unitech Systems, Inc.]] Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 26 June 2013 Traffic report: Most-viewed articles of the week In the media: Daily Dot on Commons and porn; Jimmy Wales accused of breaking Wikipedia rules in hunt for Snowden Recent research: Most controversial Wikipedia topics, automatic detection of sockpuppets News and notes: Election results released Discussion report: Privacy policy, X!'s edit counter, old rangeblocks, and the Article Incubator Featured content: Wikipedia in black + Adam Cuerden WikiProject report: WikiProject Fashion Arbitration report: Argentine History closed; two cases remain suspended Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Baden Hello. I would like to elaborate on the rationale behind these edits [7][8]. 'Baden' and 'Württemberg' are historically ambiguous names; they may refer either to a series of historical polities or to their respective historical regions. Especially in the case of 'Württemberg' none of the historical polities could be described as a primary topic in either English or German usage. That is why the German Wikipedia has a dab page for 'Baden' and a geography-related article about Württemberg and that is why the English one should have them, too (see Baden and Württemberg and note that 'Württemberg' was also a geography-related article in the English Wikipedia until -Ilhador- sneakily made this merging without prior discussion; this edit was also a copyvio since he just copypasted text from one Wikipedia article to another without proper attribution). Of course, I do recognize that redirecting 'Württemberg' to 'Württemberg (disambiguation)' is also problematic since 'Württemberg' is currently linked from a large number of articles. But we can solve this by directing these ambiguous links to articles dealing with the specific meaning intended. A sidenote: User:Jack Bufalo Head who created the afore-mentioned redirects [9][10] is a blocked sockpuppet of User:-Ilhador-: almost all of this user's redirects are highly controversial. Since January 2012 -Ilhador-'s agenda has been to substitute the use of Electoral for the adjective 'Palatine' and promote use of 'Palatine' only in the noun-form of 'Palatinate' — unlike standard English (which prefers, e.g., 'Elector Palatine') (see the relevant discussions here and here). This editor's changes tend to confuse historical polities with geographical regions. This editor's redirects in which they identified 'Baden' with the 'Grand Duchy of Baden' and 'Württemberg' with the 'Kingdom of Württemberg' were sudden and unilateral changes that followed a similar agenda. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC) That might be true, but it screwed up several templates who were referring to either the duchy or the kingdom. The Banner talk 23:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC) You were right in reverting my edit then. I am planning to work on disambiguating all those links. But first I will start a thread on the relevant talk page requesting the revert of this editor's moves. -- Omnipaedista (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC) It is a mistake more people make: assuming that all edits are bad when the editor turns out to be bad. The Banner talk 23:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Well, the first paragraph of my rationale contains specific arguments why confusing a historical polity with a geographical region is bad practice. I also indirectly quoted WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "if there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page". --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 03 July 2013 In the media: Jimmy Wales is not an Internet billionaire; a mass shooter's alleged Wikipedia editing Featured content: Queen of France WikiProject report: Puppies! News and notes: Wikipedia's medical collaborations gathering pace Discussion report: Snuggle, mainpage link to Wikinews, 3RR, and more Technology report: VisualEditor in midst of game-changing deployment series Traffic report: Yahoo! crushes the competition ... in Wikipedia views Arbitration report: Tea Party movement reopened, new AUSC appointments Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Zenith etc My input was not meant to be a promo, it is factual and no more a promo than the paras above it. It IS in media / broadcasting, as is other radio station information. Sorry, it was a plain advertisement including detailed info about the company running it. The Banner talk 11:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Sometimes it's best not to have the last word. Life's too short. RashersTierney (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC) You are right. He is so disappointed that he can't promote his own business that the only thing left to him is issuing personal attacks. With his last reply I realised that he is unwilling to engage in useful discussion so I ignored it (barely). Or he leaves when ignored, or we will see him soon at WP:SPI. The Banner talk 11:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 10 July 2013 Op-ed: It's time to stop pretending the English-language Wikinews is a viable project WikiProject report: Not Jimbo: WikiProject Wales Traffic report: Inflated view counts here, there, and everywhere News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation Board appoints world expert in women's issues, global south Dispatches: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look? Featured content: The week of the birds Discussion report: Featured article process governance, signature templates, and more Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC) You're misunderstanding policies Enough of the drama. POV-pusher has proven he lost the game. The policies you have given do not state that discussing something no.matter how long the discussion goes is disruptive editing. Discussion can.never be disruptive. If I would have engaged in an edit war it wouldn't have been disruptive. As I said earlier that you misunderstand policies. I have not made any personal attacks and have been respectful to everyone and Eben when I called Lukeno94 bully because it appears that he was trying to impose his views. I request you to read the next line carefully please. Providing reliable information is the main goal of Wikipedia. Additionally I think it will be better if we take the topic to ANI even though all requirements to include the name of the victim in the article have already been met. Let me assure you. If the family would have said not to reveal her name then I wouldn't even have touched the article or talk page. However the family has actually granted permission. Lukeno94 was on the other hand saying that they're family hasn't granted permission but his statement turned out to be untrue. It is clear he made up the statement on his own. I am only working according to Wikipedia policies. And reliable info is Wikipedia's main policy. In case info is not reliable or significant then a consensus should be held. As I've said I respect everyone's views but I respect Wikipedia policies too. I hope you understand. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Hammering on your POV against consensus is disruptive. It is you who refuses to adhere and to understand the policies. The Banner talk 15:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC) I perfectly understand the policies. I'm sorry to say but I think your misunderstanding the policies. Haven't I stated the truth in all my comments. The name is verifable and the family has granted permission. I also do not like saying the same thing again and again. Even I sometimes wish to quit the discussion. But quitting will against both Wikipedia policies since the info is correct and it should be added. Please take this subject of including victim's name to ANI. If you want then I can take it there. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) What would taking it to ANI do? We don't deal with content disputes there. Yes, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is disruptive, and can lead to a block. Someone - if necessary an admin - may need to close the discussion based on the policy-based WP:CONSENSUS, but the person who continually draws out an argument ad nauseum is usually going to be the least listened too (by the way, I don't even know what article is being discussed - I'm focussed on Trans' misbelief on behavioural norms) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape case The Banner talk 15:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC) No, sir, you don't understand the policies. First of all: Wikipedia:Consensus has preference over Wikipedia:Verifiability. When the community decides not to mention a fact, even when there are ample sources available, the fact will not be mentioned. The consensus was and is not to mention her name, so stop pushing. The Banner talk 15:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC) An admin has himself advised taking this to ANI. Apart from that 2 users me and Gandydancer say the name should be included. You and Lukeon94 say it should not. Khazar2 has a mixed position and can't decide. Your statement that consensus favors not including her name is completely incorrect. Apart from that I'm still searching whether that consensus over verification importance is even there. A consensus has still not been reached. Both options of including and not including the name have equal votes. I hope you take notice of this. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Yep, you don't understand the concept of consensus. Read that policy, mr. TransVannian, and you will see that it is not a vote. The Banner talk 16:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Also as I have already said I'm.not pushing my POV. It is you who is pushing your POV. TransVannian (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Yippie, the classic turnaround pointing move from the guy who is out of arguments. You loose, my friend. The Banner talk 16:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Wait just a minute I didn't ever say I was wrong. I have said that I am looking into the claims you made. I'm looking into the claims you made because I already know your wrong and by proving it with evidence I can complaint about you. Thank you so much for proving yourself that you are the POV pusher hete . Your last comment has itself states that you have never discussed the matter in a civil manner and also to counter your false claim that consensus is against including the name of victim I proved that only one editor is with you. You are a POV-pusher and you've proved it yourself. Also the words you used like POV pusher has lost the game prove your disruptive behavior. TransVannian (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Closed discussion at Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape case Hi, When i closed the discussion, I was kindof hoping that nobody would reply now. Obviously the editor needs to know a lot more about Wikipedia policies, and if I had closed before they got a chance to make the latest replies, I suppose we would have to deal with another bout of dramah. Can I request you to remove your reply to him and move it to his talk page? That way, the article talk page won't need to be spammed with irrelevant discussion and pointing of fingers. Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC) You can, but I refuse. He is already crying on my talkpage that I see it entirely wrong and that I don't understand the policies. That guy is hopeless and doomed. The Banner talk 15:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC) stop your harassing Just take a look at your language. I've seen your earlier comments with other users and they prove you are a POV pusher. Does this discussion seem.a game to you? It is you who has no respect for the victim. Disruptive editors like you should be blocked. TransVannian (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Stop posting threats You at least know that when a user doesn't want you to post any more comments in his talk page you shouldn't right. You'll be proving yourself a disruptive editor again if you still continue to.post. Thank you. Also I'm taking the matter of victim's name to Dispute resolution noticeboard. You're welcome to talk about it there. Thank you and happy editing. TransVannian (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Dispute resolution noticeboard - Name of victim of 2012 Delhi rape Extremely sorry I posted it on it's talk page by mistake. TransVannian (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "2012 Delhi gang rape case". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Hi, Just a reminder that you CANNOT re-add any removed warnings on another user's page. Users retain full right to remove anything from their talk pages, including warnings and others' messages. Only failed unblock requests are exempt from this rule. Please do not re-add any warnings to anyone's talk page unless it is a different warning. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC) I miss a remark on TVs talkpage about removing parts of my talkpage. The Banner talk 19:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC) I'll tell you the same thing I did to Luke. There is no point or need for any of us to reply back to this editor and increase the length of all the discussions pointlessly. Lets just ignore wherever possible, and let the DRN volunteer take over and solve the situation. We have an article to make, lets focus on that :) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC) I miss a remark on TVs talkpage about removing parts of my talkpage. The Banner talk 22:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Enough is enough How many times do I have to tell you to not to comment on my talk page. Can't you understand what I am saying. Stop trying to harass me. Next time you paste a comment on my talk page and won't even think once before reporting you at ANI. TransVannian (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Look in the mirror, dude. And the offer for the archiving-bot was a genuine one. The Banner talk 09:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harley Pasternak I found coverage about him, about his work, and he has his own Nintendo video game. SL93 (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Talking GMO hi banner, as i said on the Talk page, hi! nice to hear you there. i did realize that you saw the RfC and came to join - that is why I welcomed you! anyway, thank you for toning down your last comment. folks have been remarkable civil so far... hope we can keep it that way. (don't know you if you remember me - we worked on a couple of organic articles together in what i thought was a good interaction) Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Yep, I remembered. I find it rather remarkable that in an article about "Genetically modified food controversies" you can not say that the so called broad consensus is a controversy on its own... The Banner talk 22:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC) POV disclosure: got today the results for two courses I did and scored "distinction" on Food Crops and Organic Production Principles. Hi, yes it has been hard on that page for a while now. There are genuine controversies around GM food - most of them about environmental and economic issues... there is no real scientific controversy about health issues. But this is the Red Flag that opponents wave and the public pays attention to and tries to get politicians to act, on the basis of. It is frustrating. Because it is BS. (organic, conventional, and GM are all just "food", healthwise, the best that science can tell us. There are LOTS of valid reasons to buy organic and eschew GMOs and other products of industrial ag ... health is not one of them, from any defensible scientific perspective. There is always the "excess of caution" perspective, but that is not based on science). I don't know if that makes any sense to you but there it is. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Who is telling us that it is just "food"? Those scientist that are depending on Monsanto and friend to get their funding? The Banner talk 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Hi Banner, this line of argument basically comes down to conspiracy theory and there is no way I can respond to it. It is a viewpoint definitely outside mainstream science. I know there are a lot of folks who really believe that any science connected with companies is hopelessly tainted, and it is a sad thing to me - on many levels - that this kind of thinking is so widespread. Like I said, there is no way to respond rationally to conspiracy theory. I am sorry. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC) In the earlier discussion we had with Yobol, he made a habit out of it of dismissing every research that did not support his stance. The effect was that he made me even more critical about "mainstream" and sponsored research. The Banner talk 10:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Not accepting as neccessarily true any study you read or any news report on the latest "health" thing is reasonable; dismissing it out of hand if it comes from a company and is connected to a product is lazy, sloppy thinking. Novartis owns, developed, and has published on Gleevec, which has saved the lives of thousands of people. And made Novartis a lot of money. Ditto companies that have developed HIV drugs. Companies can do good. And they can do good, reliable science. Sure they sometimes do bad. Both are true of academics, who can have their own axes to grind. The hand-wavy dismissal is just ... silly. Not respectable. You seem like a reasonable guy, and it is hard to understand how you could let yourself be that sloppy, much less try to advocate such a position.... regardless of what other people have said and done. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC) When a company publishes something, you know that there can be a bias. That is why third party sources are so important. It is just that I am critical of "third party research" funded by the company. And yes, this critical stance is not always appreciated. But my critical stance on various subjects proved very right a few times. A property developer was quite pissed off when I told him in 2007 that within 5 years the Irish economic bubble would burst. He did not go bankrupt, but he only narrowly avoided that... And the long run prove more often that I was right. The Banner talk 13:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC) and when an academic publishes something, you also have to know that there are all kinds of forces on him or her that distort results. The journal Nature has been really honing in on crappy research that gets published (see here for example). Publish or perish is a real deal - and so people cherry pick their data (throwing results that don't fit the hypothesis), they make lame statistical analyses based on very small Ns.. that sort of thing. And of course journals don't publish negative results which puts more pressure on researchers to find something positive to claim. My point is that nobody's work should be dismissed out of hand - everybody's work should be read critically. Of course you look at the published work of folks with a clear conflict of interest with more care, but you don't start with a presumption that it is fabricated BS... that is what is unreasonable. I respect careful, critical thinking a great deal! Blind enthusiasm, or blind rejection, I struggle with. And to the extent that you have written things that are hand-wavy dismissive of research funded by companies, you are indeed getting pushback on that from me and others. On the other hand, if you were to pick up a study funded by BayerCrop science and show that paper's flaws, and surmise that they were due to skewing done to serve Bayer's interests, that would be a different story (there would be concrete flaws to discuss). (Congrats on spotting the Irish bubble btw! I hope your clear vision spared you some pain) Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Diederik Stapel. Always stay critical... The Banner talk 14:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC) ay yi yi! Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 17 July 2013 WikiProject report: WikiProject Square Enix Traffic report: Most-viewed articles of the week News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation's new plans announced Featured content: Documents and sports Arbitration report: Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case opens; July 22 deadline for checkuser and oversight applications Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Johnnyminardi and Sean O'Keefe Hi, The Banner. I've mentioned you in a reply to User:Johnnyminardi at WP:HD#Sean OKeefe discography. --ColinFine (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 24 July 2013 In the media: Wikipedia flamewars WikiProject report: WikiProject Religion Discussion report: Partially disambiguated page names, page protection policy, and more News and notes: Wikivoyage turns ten, but where to now?; Wikipedia Zero expands into India Traffic report: Gleeless Featured content: Engineering and the arts Arbitration report: Infoboxes case opens Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 31 July 2013 Op-ed: The VisualEditor Beta and the path to change Recent research: Napoleon, Michael Jackson and Srebrenica across cultures, 90% of Wikipedia better than Britannica, WikiSym preview Traffic report: Bouncing Baby Brouhaha WikiProject report: Babel Series: Politics on the Turkish Wikipedia News and notes: Gearing up for Wikimania 2013 Arbitration report: Race and politics case closes Featured content: Caterpillars, warblers, and frogs—oh my! Discussion report: Defining consensus; VisualEditor default state; expert and layperson terms in article titles Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC) About your comment about an article I wrote Hi, Banner! My main source for the article about historical inheritance systems is Murdock's "Ethnographic Atlas". I have recently gained access to the complete version of this precious work and I planned to add many more peoples to the list, beginning with those who employ patrilineal primogeniture and ending with those who employ completely egalitarian inheritance, but your comment made me reconsider my decision. Thank you!Ansegam (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Okay, the number of people the IP added seemed rather unbelievable but now I believe you that you are making a genuine effort. Please add as much sources (book and page numbers) as you can to improve the quality and sourcing. And please, is there a possibility to split the article? The Banner talk 13:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Beside that, could you look at the links you are adding? You add a shocking load of links to disambiguation pages... I ask you for a little patience. Writing in Wikipedia is not my only occupation, I have other things to do as well. I have split the article into different sections as you asked me, and I have also added more peoples to the lists as you wanted. I have to solve the links to disambiguation pages yet, and I assure you I will dedicate all my efforts to it this weekend. Is that ok with you? ~~Ansegam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam (talk • contribs) 06:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Hmmm, I think I have solved most links to disambiguation pages. Please, if you don't mind, check my article to see if most links are now solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.189.3 (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Proposed Northern Ireland Wiki Meetup A Wikimeet is proposed for Northern Ireland in the next few months. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Most take place on a Sunday afternoon in a suitable pub but other days and locations can also work. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Northern Ireland topics. Please add your suggestions for place and date to the discussion page here: Proposed Northern Ireland Wiki Meetup. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Too far away. The Banner talk 23:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Issues with my Wiki article Dear The Banner, thank you for alerting me to the issues with my Wiki contribution. I had to research and add to the page of composer Mark Chan for my school project. I removed some information from the article after suggestions from my teacher and classmates today. Could you so kindly review the page again and let me know what else I can do to improve on it, please? I appreciate your help. Thank you. Jwyj (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC) An important issue is the lack of neutrality and too much non-relevant information. Example your text 2003 – Little Toys: jointly commissioned by the Hong Kong and Singapore Arts Festivals 2003, Little Toys premiered in Hong Kong in February 2003 to a standing ovation and 5 curtain calls on its opening night. It continued to win widespread critical acclaim in Singapore, Shanghai, Paris and Copenhagen. Chan wrote a score to the Chinese classic silent film of the same title, starring 1930s screen goddess Ruan Lingyu as a courageous yet soft-hearted toy maker, who refuses proposal of a rich man to elope with her to Shanghai but instead chooses to be with her ailing husband and children during the tumultuous period of war in China. Little Toys was performed at the Images of Asia 2003 in Copenhagen. In 2007, Little Toys was performed at the Shanghai Concert Hall as part of the Singapore Season, a showcase of Singapore arts and culture in Beijing and Shanghai. It was praised for being the only show throughout the entire series of events that had a Shanghai connection. Chan selected Little Toys after watching 15 silent films. He described the film as “the hardest one to set to music.” Together with composer Belinda Foo, Chan orchestrated his score for erhu, pipa, cello, piano, percussion, guanzi, and assorted keyboards. He provided the vocals and played keyboards and winds himself during the production. The historical setting of the movie moved Chan because it was about a China trying to move forward as a country. Chan admired Ruan’s portrayal of an “artistic, entrepreneurial and determined woman.” The scope and breadth of the story allowed for grand and intimate musical themes. Example relevant text 2003 – Little Toys: jointly commissioned by the Hong Kong and Singapore Arts Festivals 2003, Little Toys premiered in Hong Kong in February 2003.. It got critical acclaim in Singapore, Shanghai, Paris and Copenhagen. Chan wrote a score to the Chinese 1933 silent film of the same title. He orchestrated his score for erhu, pipa, cello, piano, percussion, guanzi, and assorted keyboards.. In short: write as short as possible avoid puffery (see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch use quotes only when really, really relevant (too much will become puffery) put references at the end of a sentence More questions? Just ask! Happy editing! The Banner talk 22:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Dear The Banner, wow! Thank you for your invaluable advice. I appreciate your feedback and insight. I had thought I had to put in everything I found out about Mark Chan, without realizing it made me sound biased. I have taken out all reviews, most quotes (except the ones I feel might be important) and kept the article short and factual. If you could so kindly review my article again and advise me how to further improve it, I would be most obliged. Thank you again for your time and help! Jwyj (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Dear The Banner, thank you for your help with my article! Much appreciation, Jwyj (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 07 August 2013 Arbitration report: Fourteen editors proposed for ban in Tea Party movement case Traffic report: Greetings from the graveyard News and notes: Chapters Association self-destructs WikiProject report: WikiProject Freedom of Speech Featured content: Mysterious case of the grand duchess Discussion report: CheckUser and Oversighter candidates, and more Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Your recent editing history at Abdul Ghafoor Hazarvi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Kom op Banner, you are in serious violation here. You can't so easily call this vandalism, enough to avoid a 3R charge. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC) I have warned the IP five times and mr. S. four times. As far as I can recall I have never ever used "vandalism" here. But I have slept well, thanks. The Banner talk 10:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Yeah, but you know edit warring is edit warring. Please call in the cavalry next time before it gets this far. I have slept less well, by the way, for off-wiki reasons, haha. You were working on St. Feuillien? I treated myself to one of their triples last week. Delicious. Cheers. Drmies (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Oh, and I said "call this vandalism" not to say that you said this (though the warnings suggest it, of course), but to suggest it as a possible defense against edit warring--see the second paragraph of WP:EW. Best, Drmies (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC) That guy and his alter ego are blocked now and there is massive attention for the article now. So, I take a back seat for now. The Banner talk 13:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC) I know--I did it. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Ai, this is a clear sign of more trouble ahead with that guy... The Banner talk 15:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Ow, and take a look here: Chen Hanwei. Another case of destroying an article and removing maintenance templates. The Banner talk 14:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC) It was a copyright violation. Such text, well-written but all-too positive and unsourced, should set off an alarm bell--found it here. You can help by removing the Chinese characters from the table, and maybe bring in some ELs as references. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC) My normal hobby is hunting down and executing links to disambiguation pages. The last period there is a lot of messing around with Asian articles. Sometimes genuine, like List of bus routes in Kolkata (manageble now) and List of named passenger trains of India (last count 42 different links) and sometimes not. But that is why I see so many different articles. The Banner talk 15:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways) Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC) inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. P. Patnaik The article on R. P. Patnaik indeed needs work yes... but it is no longer "unsourced". I think we'd serve the project better by encouraging improvements through regular editing, than by suggesting an improvable and sourcable topic be deleted because 12 months ago an anon IP inadvertently removed sources in an hopefully good faith attempt to improve the topic. SCHMIDT, Michael Q. 03:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC) In my opinion the article was beyond rescuing. Assume good faith, please. The Banner talk 09:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Many other articles have been thought beyond rescue, but I take WP:SOFIXIT to heart whenever able. No affront was intended. Thank you for revisiting and offering what looks to be a withdrawal. SCHMIDT, Michael Q. 10:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Edit warring on Cinc Sentits It sure would have been nice if you had engaged on the talk page before repeating your removal on Cinc Sentits. Toddst1 (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC) It should have been nice when you had checked the website I have removed. Now just just make a joke out of yourself. The Banner talk 23:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Deletion of Template:Lifeboat Stations in Suffolk Hi. I have nominated Template:Lifeboat Stations in Suffolk for deletion. As you were a particpant in the previous deletion discussion, you may wish to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 14#Template:Lifeboat Stations in Suffolk. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC) After all the abuse I received from mr. Stavros I prefer to stay in the background for a while. But I will follow the discussion and weigh in when necessary. The Banner talk 14:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Template talk:Infobox country Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox country. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 14 August 2013 News and notes: "Beautifully smooth" Wikimania with few hitches In the media: Chinese censorship Featured content: Wikipedia takes the cities Special report: Jimmy Wales: media favors entertainment over raising public awareness Discussion report: Wikivoyage, reliable sources, music bands, account creators, and OTRS WikiProject report: For the love of stamps Arbitration report: Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case closes Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Deletion of Cumann Staire Yes, the page is used, used to promote the history and to inform about the society. I fail to understand why it has been deleted. It is informative about the society which is one of the oldest societies in europe, been host to many notable speakers, had some very notable and esteemed members and was the first ucg society to have been addressed by the president of Ireland. Is wikipedia mission not to inform and provide information, why then so delete the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndevlin14 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Wikipedias mission is to provide relevant information about notable topics. So far you fail to prove that your organisation is notable. Why do you fail in that: 1) you fail to use independent sources by using your own website; b) you are using own research (interviews/testimony) contrary to WP:RS; c) adding irrelevant details and d) adding promo. What I can advice you is to write the article in your own sandbox and add independent, reliable sources to it. Not a passing mention or a report of some activity, but a real source that says something about the Cumann itself. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not free webspace or the Yellow Pages. The Banner talk 18:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Special Barnstar For clearing out the spam articles. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Wynne Paris Thanks for the help eliminating the disamb pages.Rosencomet (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC) List of Canadians by Net Worth Seeking opinion... Since you hate lists so much (Ahem, Travelers' Century Club), can you take a look at this... List of Canadians by net worth? Single source, the actual info behind the paywall, etc. Would it not constitute a copyvio?Truther2012 (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Brilliant, you really did not understand my point. And as far as I can see, no copyvio. Although I can not see how the original list looks like, it is clear that this list is derived from a top 100 (A list of the 100 richest people in Canada as of October 2011 is available at Canadian Business.) The Banner talk 21:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Apparently, so. Maybe I'm missing your derived comment - the list has to be the same down to the order of the names, by definition... Truther2012 (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC) True, but the author of the article made a choice and started working with a selection. The Banner talk 21:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC) So as long as it is not the entire 'Top 100' it's ok? Truther2012 (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC) No, not exactly. You must put in a reasonable amount of originality. A straight copy, like for example your lists at Travelers' Century Club, are still a nono. The Banner talk 21:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, thanks. Truther2012 (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Roundup (herbicide) Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Roundup (herbicide). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 21 August 2013 In the media: Chelsea Manning, Box-office predictors, and 'Storming Wikipedia' Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks Traffic report: Reddit creep Featured content: WikiCup update, and the gardens of Finland News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Wikipedia Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Your interactions with new editors in Wikipedia I'm contacting you about a study that I'm running with TheOriginalSoni exploring newcomer mentorship activities in Wikipedia. I'd like to ask you a few questions about your interactions with newcomers and to explore how a tool like WP:Snuggle might make your work easier. The interview and demo session will take 30 minutes to an hour depending on how much time we spend discussing things. If you're interested, let me know. If not, disregard this message and I won't bother you again. Study overview: meta:Research:Peer_mentorship_and_snuggle Consent form: meta:Research:Peer_mentorship_and_snuggle/Consent Thanks for your consideration. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 17:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC) August 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Berliner Tageszeitung may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: of ' Berliner Tageblatt'' by submitting an application to the [[Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt]] (Bureau for registration of inventions, trademarks and service marks and issue of patents in Germany, Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC) User:Tekken ReBirth 2nd:Revenge of the Academic listed at Redirects for discussion An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User:Tekken ReBirth 2nd:Revenge of the Academic. Since you had some involvement with the User:Tekken ReBirth 2nd:Revenge of the Academic redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). The Banner talk 15:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC) List of Marquises in Italy Thank you very much for reviewing my article List of Marquises in Italy, it has been a hard work and obviously plenty of mistakes I could not fix. As far as links to disambiguation pages are concerned, I think I fixed them all now, either by linking to the exact page or by canceling the link if the page I meant does not yet exist: could you please see if the {dablinks} can be consequently removed? As for the need for copy edit, I had problems with tables: everything inside is in bold, as you see. I could not fix this, if you can help me I would really appreciate. The article is a copy-paste from a word document I have been writing for a couple of months, since I did not want to publish anything fully incomplete: marquesses could get quite upset they happen to see their region missing! :) --Vadsf (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC) I have checked it and corrected a few minor mistakes. But for the rest is the article okay. Zero links left to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 23:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you again! Now I'll look for a possible category. --Vadsf (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 28 August 2013 In the media: Chelsea Manning, Box-office predictors, and 'Storming Wikipedia' Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks Traffic report: Reddit creep Featured content: WikiCup update, and the gardens of Finland News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Wikipedia Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter - September 2013 The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter Volume III, no. 1 – September 2013 Note: If you would like opt out from receiving future newsletters, please place a note next to your name on the project's participant list. Project News The project has been updated with new Goals, with target numbers of 500 each for Featured and Good articles, and for 10% of all project-related articles to be improved to B-Class or better. 500 good articles: 80% complete 500 featured articles: 10.6% complete 10% of all articles rated B-Class or better: 45.7% complete A new Welcome squad section has been added to the project's main page. If interested, please sign on! A new DYK articles page has been created listing food and drink articles that have been featured on Wikipedia's Main page as Did you know entries. Please add new food and drink DYK articles to the list! The project's Top-level importance nominations page has several new entries. New additions and discussion are always welcome. A proposal to create a Chocolate Task Force is currently being discussed. The new ' was created in June 2013. The Coffee portal was significantly expanded in May–June 2013. Breakfast foods WikiProject Breakfast was created in April 2013. Check it out! Please see the project's Tasks and To do sections for project and article tasks, and feel free to update the lists with new entries. Please feel free to contribute to the creation of the newsletter's next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome! The project's previous newsletter was published in August 2008. Its reintroduction has been performed in hopes to increase project participation. Apologies if you did not wish to receive this newsletter (see opt-out message at top). New members who have joined in July–August, 2013: Ailemadrah (talk · contribs) Ranking Update (talk · contribs) The project currently has 97 members. Please feel free to welcome the new members! New articles created in August 2013: Botak Jones Gingerbread Museum Ciulama Akçaabat meatballs Dry meatballs Meatball soup Farali potatoes Food Photographer of the Year Tire meatballs Death Wish Coffee Also, in July 2013, (at least) 41 new food/drink-related articles were created. To view a listing of them, see New articles. Also, please add new articles to the list when discovering them! Past newsletters: See Monthly newsletters Portals Portals Food and drink articles by quality and importance There are currently 26,063 articles and 10,184 stubs attributed to the project. 31 articles are at Featured article level, 114 are at Good article level, 2 are at Featured list level and 1 is at A-level. — View by clicking show — Article statistics Food and drink articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 7 8 16 31 FL 2 2 FM 60 60 A 1 1 GA 6 9 31 68 114 B 11 10 28 29 78 C 54 296 507 677 364 1,898 Start 40 412 1,255 3,014 2,002 6,723 Stub 4 99 726 4,306 5,049 10,184 List 6 42 49 131 31 71 330 Category 1,513 1,513 Disambig 55 55 File 682 682 Portal 427 427 Project 193 1 194 Redirect 391 391 Template 475 475 Assessed 122 877 2,604 8,241 3,838 7,487 23,169 Unassessed 2,894 2,894 Total 122 877 2,604 8,241 3,838 10,381 26,063 Posted by Northamerica1000(talk) 01:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Rick Stein Can you please explain the relevance criteria for biographical articles, thanks.Sealman (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC) What makes you think that his tutors for a degree in English Language are relevant for a head chef? For an author it can have some relevance, but not for a chef. Only his degree is worth mentioning. The Banner talk 19:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC) I take your point but I added the information on the basis that early life associations with other notable people can intrinsically be of interest. I was prompted to ask the question because your edit summary was limited to the words 'revert irrelevant additions' without an acknowledgement that they were added in good faith.Sealman (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC) In case of clear bad faith addition I always use the word "vandalism" or "vandalism?". That was loud and clear not the case. The Banner talk 21:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Elite Traveler Hello The Banner - I noticed that you removed references to Elite Traveler Magazine in a dozen or so articles. Perhaps you don't realize that this is an actual bona fide print magazine, and a clearly eligible citation for Wikipedia, see WP:RS. Your edits to the magazine's article on Wikipedia seemed to launch your process, and I agree that it lacked proper references itself. For convenience, I have undone your blanket removals. I have not considered the merits of your removals of the word Elite from other articles. Best regards,--Nixie9✉ 03:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC) A magazine that is launching spamrun after spamrun is not a bona fide magazine. The Banner talk 09:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Please educate me, what is a spamrun? How does Elite Traveler not comply with WP:RS?. FYI they are to be accepted. Is there another standard that you personally prefer to use?--Nixie9✉ 22:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC) See here and give special attention to the edits of the named spammers. And in most cases (not all, I have to admit) I removed double or superfluous references, with no real extra value.The Banner talk 23:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC) I made a comment at the spam link you mentioned re this magazine as a WP:RS. I believe that a more circumspect process is required, for example in Nicole Farhi, you removed the citation, but not the clearly factual content that it referenced regarding the launch of a new partnership. Same pattern in Arcadia Watches referencing the # of employees, Damien Dernoncourt referencing the CEO's name, Sonu Shivdasani referencing the designer's country of birth, PUNTACANA Resort and Club referencing the owners and their WP articles, etc. Despite questionable referencing by potential bad faith editors, the legitimacy of Elite Traveler as a WP:RS seems indisputable (it is a real print magazine with reporters, editors and fact checkers). I believe that factual citations should not be removed, and that you risk legitimate WP:POV criticism. I'm all in favor of reducing hyperbole, but we need to be more selective. --Nixie9✉ 23:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC) WT:Food Note: There is also a proposal at the page regarding the Sandbox 2 page, initiated by another editor. I've moved the discussion thread you contributed to directly below the first proposal. (It's possible you didn't see the first proposal, so sending you this message). Thanks for your input there. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Hello Banner, I wanted to let you know what is going on with this proposal of of Northamerica1000 for the main page of the Food and drink project. A few months ago, The Potato Hose, started a discussion about the future of the project. Several suggestions were made and I listed a few of the problems I have had with the main page which had been completely rewritten by North several months ago into the format it is now in. I set out to work on the site and one of the things I did was create a redesign of the main page. I have progressed to the point that I needed to do a live test as well needed comments from others on where I should go with the new design. About two weeks ago I made an announcement of my intentions, albeit the announcement was not as clear as it should have been. On the first of this month I went through with the change and was promptly reverted by North. I again placed the page design up with a very explicit explanation of what I was doing, that it was a temporary change to seek input from the community regarding my proposed changes and North reverted me again. He refused to participate in the discussion and stated he had a consensus that allowed him to revert any of my changes. Based on his behavior in this incident and several others in the past regarding this same behavior, I reported him to the edit warring noticboard. Once I made the report, he started this whole new line of behavior. All I was seeking was An RfC about a possible design change to the main page, and it has turned into the current fiasco. His proposed design change is nothing more than the current page formatted with the design cues I created to frame the design I had created. He has turned the RfC I was seeking into his personal side show designed to impose his personal preferences on the page. Sorry about the screed, I am just frustrated to hell regarding the way he has acted in regards to this situation. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 11:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, I had seen the edit warring earlier and was quite annoyed by it... And yes, your design is better and less cluttered. More is not always better. The Banner talk 11:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC) And for Northamerica1000: Jeremy and I are not friends due to his "disliking" of Michelin starred restaurants what is one of my major writing fields. (Now a bit on hold because my major sources disappeared behind a paywall.) The Signpost: 04 September 2013 In the media: Manning "put back in the closet"; State involvement in Azerbaijani Wikipedia News and notes: Privacy policy debate gears up Traffic report: No accounting for the wisdom of crowds Discussion report: Arbcom election procedures, Wiki Loves Monuments, Privacy policy, FDC, and more Featured content: Bridging the way to a Peasants' Revolt WikiProject report: Writing on the frontier: Psychology on Wikipedia Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case opens; Tea Party case closes ; Infoboxes nears completion Technology report: Making Wikipedia more accessible Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Civility Please don't remind me about edit warring when I'm not. Please don't remove links from pages. If you want to correct the link to another page, do so. In the meantime, leave the link to the disambigution page so someone else can sort it if need be. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC) You reverted three times now, that is close enough to editwarring to give a warning... Why don't you clean up your own mess? The Banner talk 22:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at EvergreenFir's talk page. Message added 00:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC) inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Alternative Media Group Looks like the nomination shook out a few puppets. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, that looks likely to me. The Banner talk 09:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Hollathag shows a deeply worrying edit-pattern. Among others, self-inventing quality ratings for his articles (B-class) and uploading copyright protect pictures. The Banner talk 09:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Yes... further signs of an inexperienced editor who does not understand the rules. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Hmmm, Hollathag is active on WP since 2008! The Banner talk 10:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Original Barnstar Dear The Banner, very thanks for the help by the Article Berliner Tageszeitung, I improve them. IrynaGruschwytsch (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Original Barnstar Thank you very much for reviewing my article List of Marquises in Italy, it has been a hard and long work and obviously plenty of mistakes I could not fix. Vadsf (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Schools' notability Just a friendly word that I find your comments in the current discussion are no longer constructive. If you would like a reasonable outcome to these discussions on school notability, please consider helping to keep them on an even keel. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, it is fully understandable that you don't like opposition that blows away your cosy dreams. The Banner talk 08:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 11 September 2013 In the media: Lawyer goes to court to discover Wikipedian's identity; Storming Wikipedia; Wikimedia UK Secretary in conflict-of-interest controversy; Does Wikipedia need a "right to reply" box? WikiProject report: WikiProject Indonesia Featured content: Tintin goes featured News and notes: As deadline approaches, Individual Engagement Grants looks for ideas Traffic report: Syria, celebrities, and association football: oh my! Arbitration report: Workshop phase opens in Manning naming dispute ; Infoboxes case closes Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Miss Commonwealth Beauty Pageant Thanks for your clean-up of Miss Multiverse and its related pages. Now, we are facing another same case of Miss Commonwealth Beauty Pageant, its author tried to make his/her beauty pageant become important and the same quality of premier and long history pageants of Miss Universe or Miss World (evidence). I really appreciate your hard work here. Best regards. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Hello, I notice that the Miss Commonwealth Pageant has been tagged for deletion-to clarify these it is difficult to get direct information in relation to the peagant because most of the girls who participate have different titles from other peagants/or are models example girls contsesting for 'our world of beauty'http://our-worldofbeauty.com/beauty-pageants/miss-commonwealth-portugal-2013/ get to represent the country in the finals at miss commonwealth and that is why they call it "investiture ceremony".It has a long history http://www.thebahamasweekly.com/publish/news/Bahamas_Queens_at_Miss_World_1966_-_2010_-_Miss_World_60th_Anniversary12663.shtml especially in the bahamas and caribbean, and has evolved to a more a stable platform in the past few years. Hope this gives some clarity? Thanks deefaith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deefaith (talk • contribs) 15:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC) When you have no indepent and reliable information, you should not write the article. Simple is that. The Banner talk 16:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Keeping things linear When you responded to my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Commonwealth Beauty Pageant, you place your new comment directly beneath your own initial nomination rationale, rather than beneath my comment. This makes it difficult to understand the flow of the discussion. In the future, when adding to a discussion such as this, it is best to either add your comment at the end of the page (with a proper reference to whom you are responding, such as "@WikiDan61") or to place your comment directly below (and indented from) the comment to which you are replying. This makes the flow of the discussion much easier to understand. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Incivility and Personal Attacks I'm not going to do anything, not even a template, because I'm too involved with you on various discussions. However, I would like to remind you that your comments do not go unnoticed in various places and on various users' talk pages, and sooner or later someone - perhaps not even an admin - may take exception and a raise a formal inquiry. Just take this as friendly advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC) I will take this as a threat and another attempt to silence my opposition to your stance. The Banner talk 14:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC) I've opened an ANI thread about you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Changes to Template:Roc Nation Sports The template is not to be deleted because is made only for an article about a sports management company. I appreciate it if you'd not do that again. Thanks.DBrown SPS 05:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBrown SPS (talk • contribs) I have restored the TfD-template as you are not the one to decide over it. It is in the TfD-procedure so you have to bring your arguments to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_15#Template:Roc_Nation_Sports. In due time a administrator will decide about the template, based on the argument posted there. The Banner talk 10:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Notability I was just wondering...can these websites be considered as reliable sources for references: http://www.trademarkia.com , http://dig.do , http://www.statscrop.com ?Midnight modding (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Depends on the context. When writing about that website/company you can backup certain minor claims by referring to their own website. In every other case it looks rather dubious and you better look for another source. The Banner talk 12:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Ok, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnight modding (talk • contribs) 12:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC) SPI on Ansegam Hi, I opened a sockpuppet investigation on Ansegam here. Thought you might want to present or possibly refute evidence, but either way thought you might want to be involved. Microphonicstalk 16:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Due to earlier conversations I assume that Ansegam en the IP are identical. My polite question was a way to give an escape way. Around 2 August I revert a number of edits from the IP but it was Ansegam who showed up on my talkpage (User talk:The Banner/Archives/2013/August#About your comment about an article I wrote), complaining about the revert. In his reply, he mentioned a book and I have always had the idea that he was copying that book... The Banner talk 19:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC) I honestly don't think he understands Wikipedia at all. He appears to be paraphrasing an entire huge book into Wikipedia without actual encyclopaedic style. It just seems mad. What does he hope to achieve, exactly? I'm not even sure whether he's doing it for the benefits of others or not – if he is, he certainly doesn't understand what readers of Wikipedia want, or what Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia wants... Annoying thing is, he could probably be a very successful writer on Wikipedia as he appears to understand sourcing and stuff very well. Perhaps he simply needs to be strictly taught to stop overdoing things. Regards, Microphonicstalk 17:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) perhaps somebody could WP:ADOPT Ansegam. He obviously edits in good faith and knows how to source statements and adoption could turn him into a better editor. W. A. Bulatovic (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm Ansegam. Well, perhaps The Banner is right in his accusations, but, as Bulatovic says, I didn't write that article to "troll" the Wikipedia; quite the contrary, I made the mistake of writing excessive information because I wanted to write an article that could satisfy everyone's needs, and give the information about the historical inheritance system that he or she could want from any culture. Obviously, that's an ideal impossible to fulfill, but I had that ideal in mind when I wrote my article. You say that such style is "un-encyclopedical" and you are probably right, but I am a little too perfectionistic and couldn't resist the urge to make an article as perfect and complete as possible. Of course, with all the discomfort I have caused among some editors, I won't add any more information to my article, nor will I write any article so long again. I apologise for not understanding Wikipedia's quality standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam (talk • contribs) 15:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your comment. I don't even think anybody believes that your intention was anything related to trolling — in fact, quite the contrary, considering the sheer volume of information you contributed. I see now that perhaps the AfD was an unnecessary and mistaken action, but in any case something needed to be done. Whether the article is deleted or not, I hope that you will contribute to future subdivided — key word here — articles on the subject once the dispute is resolved. As I have previously stated, I believe that despite your disaster of an article you could become a successful editor, and Bulatovic believes so too. Regards, Microphonicstalk 16:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC) The main problem is not as much the information you have put in the article, it is the way you present it. That is why I was asking to split the article up in several smaller articles. There is nothing wrong with a "article-subarticle" style for the presentation. The main article gives a brief overview over the info and from there you point to several other articles with more detailed information. Articles like "List of people using patrilineal primogeniture", "Historical inheritance systems in Africa", "Historical inheritance systems in Asia" and so on. No information will be lost but it will be present in a more convenient way. The Banner talk 19:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, this sums up all our thoughts precisely. That's the great thing about Wikipedia; you can present hefty amounts of information in very palatable and convenient ways. Writing a huge essay like that is just a waste of the opportunity! Microphonicstalk 16:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Hello, The Banner. I split my article into different sections as you told me. I hope my article is more readable now. Microphonics' account has been shut down because he has been accused of sockpuppetry... It is fairly ironical. Well, regardless of the truth or falsity behind that accusation, I have doubts about the viability of his AfD now that he's gone. Will the deletion be nevertheless carried out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam (talk • contribs) 19:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC) RIP I just wrote up Johannes van Dam. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Flip, that is sad. The Banner talk 01:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC) I knew that he was seriously ill with diabetes but 66 is horribly young. I hope I get more time from my diabetes... The Banner talk 01:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC) And I with mine, haha. Which reminds me that I should refill my pump. Later, Drmies (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC) [11]]. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Brilliant! And I don't understand why Sistermans did not get a Michelin Star for his cooking in Wilhelminapak. He did a great job (with star) at Mariënhof. Soon I hope to have finished round 1 of my Michelin starred restaurants (the ones with multiple mentions in the List of Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands) and then I will start with the "single mentions". I hope to make a DYK about De Rôtisserie, the sister restaurant of Mariënhof. That was absolutely burned down to the ground and buried alive by Lekker, only to get a Michelin star a few months later. The Banner talk 20:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC) No clue if he was drinking this, but the message fits Van Dam: Vakmanschap is Meesterschap. The Banner talk 20:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 18 September 2013 News and notes: Third time's the charm: the FDC's newest round of funding requests WikiProject report: 18,464 Good Articles on the wall Featured content: Hurricane Diane and Van Gogh Technology report: What can Wikidata do for Wikipedia? Traffic report: Twerking, tragedy and TV Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC) I cannot edit my article Hello, The Banner. I split up my article into different sections as you told me; however, when I tried to relocate the part where I talk about an study of 39 non-western societies around the world to the section "Other sources", I couldn't. It is now in the section "Empirical data", separated from the rest of subsections, which is not its proper place, of course. It is a pity because I had also included more concrete information of that study. My edit is visible only to me, not to unlogged users. Please, I ask for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam (talk • contribs) 13:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC) It was visible to me straight away but I have corrected the level of some headers. On the other hand, my advice was not to split the article into multiple section, but to split it into multiple articles. And final: why do you have a conclusion in this article? An encyclopaedic article don't need a conclusion! Or are you in fact writing your thesis here? The Banner talk 15:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC) How should I split it into several articles? I didn't separate my article into sections according to geographical areas, but according to other things (like "empirical data" or "social stratification"). I would like to know your opinion about the matter. After all, it's you the only one who is constantly pressuring me to reform my article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam (talk • contribs) 11:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 25 September 2013 Op-ed: Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia Traffic report: Look on Walter's works In the media: Fox News: Wikipedia abandons efforts to purge porn from online encyclopedia News and notes: Last call for Wiki Loves Monuments; Community–WMF tension over VisualEditor WikiProject report: Babel Series: GOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!! Featured content: Wikipedia takes the stage Recent research: Automatic detection of "infiltrating" Wikipedia admins; Wiki, or 'pedia? Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Category:Restaurants in the Netherlands Hi, any objection to this category being split into more cities? Makes sense for Rotterdam and the Hague, but ideally a city would have at least 5 restaurants with articles on here to make it worth splitting further I think..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC) I have no objection but I have no idea which cities are suitable candidates. Perhaps Maastricht, but that has only four articles (out of five). Splitting per province makes more sense to me. I still have 72 articles to go (plus what is coming at the end of November with the new Guide). See also List of Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands and the navigation templates on the article that are already organized by province (except the provinces of Flevoland, Friesland and Groningen that are bundled in one template as they share just 8 restaurants) The Banner talk 16:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Perhaps by province might work after Maastricht although as you say they're already organized by province in template, thanks anyway and keep up the good work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter - October 2013 The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter Volume III, no. 2, October 2013 Note: To opt out from receiving future newsletters, please click here for instructions.                                       Project News An updated front page, A new sister project and updates to our DYK page The project's main page has been redesigned and now has many new features; be sure to stop by and take a look! At Wikimedia Commons, the new WikiProject Food and Beverages was created by User:Willscrlt on September 5, 2013. Check it out, and feel free to join if interested. The project now has a new bot-generated list of new food and drink articles at AlexNewArtBot – New food and drink articles. A link to the page has been added to the project's main page. The project's DYK articles page was significantly expanded by User:Miyagawa and User:Jerem43 in September 2013. Please see the project's Tasks and To do sections for project and article tasks, and feel free to update the lists with new entries. Please feel free to contribute to the creation of the newsletter's next issue. Article alerts Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Article alerts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Fusce convallis, mauris imperdiet gravida bibendum, nisl turpis suscipit mauris, sed placerat ipsum urna sed risus. In convallis tellus a mauris. Curabitur non elit ut libero tristique sodales. Mauris a lacus. Donec mattis semper leo. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Vivamus facilisis diam at odio. Mauris dictum, nisi eget consequat elementum, lacus ligula molestie metus, non feugiat orci magna ac sem. Donec turpis. Donec vitae metus. Morbi tristique neque eu mauris. Quisque gravida ipsum non sapien. Proin turpis lacus, scelerisque vitae, elementum at, lobortis ac, quam. Aliquam dictum eleifend risus. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Etiam sit amet diam. Suspendisse odio. Suspendisse nunc. In semper bibendum libero. Proin nonummy, lacus eget pulvinar lacinia, pede felis dignissim leo, vitae tristique magna lacus sit amet eros. Nullam ornare. Praesent odio ligula, dapibus sed, tincidunt eget, dictum ac, nibh. Nam quis lacus. Nunc eleifend molestie velit. Morbi lobortis quam eu velit. Donec euismod vestibulum massa. Donec non lectus. Aliquam commodo lacus sit amet nulla. Cras dignissim elit et augue. Nullam non diam. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Aenean vestibulum. Sed lobortis elit quis lectus. Nunc sed lacus at augue bibendum dapibus. Feel free to welcome the new members who have recently joined the project. EdJF (talk · contribs) The project currently has 87 active members. Some recent food and drink new articles and content: Bahamian cuisine Honolulu molasses spill Red Lane Tavern French's Tavern International Cocoa Organization Keshi yena Yates Tavern Khao tom mad Karlie's Kookies Tortuga (cocktail) Figaro Coffee Company American Winery Guide Krinos Foods Canada Mission Brewery GrubHub Seamless Chee.Toz Evangelical feast St. Jacobs' Farmers Market Manto negro Pore (bread) Beer in San Diego County, California The Chile Pepper Institute Past newsletters Food and drink articles by quality and importance There are currently 26,552 articles attributed to the project, including 10,197 stubs. There are 32 articles at Featured article class, 120 are at Good article class and 3 are at Featured list class. Article statistics Food and Drink WikiProject article assessment Food and drink articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 7 15 31 53 FL 2 2 4 FM 140 140 GA 18 29 75 273 5 400 B 56 234 340 703 80 1,413 C 77 401 994 3,555 523 5,550 Start 22 328 1,679 12,014 3 3,902 17,948 Stub 17 543 9,020 4,951 14,531 List 12 71 115 535 23 277 1,033 Category 8,923 8,923 Disambig 218 218 File 3,022 3,022 Portal 811 811 Project 440 440 Redirect 10 72 641 2,865 3,588 Template 1,044 1,044 NA 9 9 Other 1 200 201 Assessed 185 1,099 3,833 26,775 17,698 9,738 59,328 Unassessed 18 1,980 1,998 Total 185 1,099 3,833 26,793 17,698 11,718 61,326 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 204,165 Ω = 5.12 Assessment log and Guide to Assessment Help on Editing and Sourcing Articles Delivered by Northamerica1000(talk) 20:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Jet set article Hello, the article cited by the edit you removed was entitled "the new jet set: a psychographic analysis of luxury spending". The Wikipedia article begins by mentioning "wealthy people who traveled the world to participate in social activities unavailable to ordinary people." Could you please explain at Talk:Jet set why an article focusing specifically on the subject of this article is irrelevant to the article? If you think demographic information is irrelevant to "history", should we create a new section for it? Shawnc (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microsoft Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microsoft. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Your edit on "List of Bollywood films of 2012" Your edit isn't good because it leaves an error! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBINDFAN (talk • contribs) 20:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC) And you were vandalising an article by removing correct part of perfectly okay links, making them incorrect links to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 20:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Bollywood films of 2012. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Stop using bad references that don't work and let people fix the error message that keeps showing up on the "Other Successful Movies". You introduced 22 errors to solve one typo? Come on. The Banner talk 20:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC) It wasn't to solve a typo! It was an error that prevented people from seeing the releases from January to March. Also the "Other Successful Movies" section is for movies that did good, so why do you keep on adding movies that flopped! Plus, all the BOXOFFICEINDIA references/links on the page don't contain any information on them! You need to fix that or I'll submit the page for deletion since some of the references don't work! I mean come on!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBINDFAN (talk • contribs) 20:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 02 October 2013 Op-ed: Commons medical diagnostic images under threat from unresolved ownership Discussion report: References to individuals and groups, merging wikiprojects, portals on the Main page, and more News and notes: WMF signals new grantmaking priorities Featured content: Bobby, Ben, Roger and a fantasia Arbitration report: Infoboxes: After the war WikiProject report: U2 Too Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Bonkers The Clown's talk page. Message added 11:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Hello! Hi The Banner! I am sure you're a busy editor and regret that I haven't had the pleasure of interacting with you until now. Nail clubbing is associated with chronic airflow limitation (although not COPD), although it is also associated with other conditions, such as hypothyroidism. I initially assumed your first edit was a malfunctioning bot whilst you were batch editing articles. Hope you're well, LT90001 (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC) It sounds really, really weird, so perhaps you could make that a bit more clear in the template. I did already find the association with lung diseases in the article but the first time I only looked at "respiratory system". The Banner talk 10:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 09 October 2013 Traffic report: Shutdown shenanigans WikiProject report: Australian Roads Featured content: Under the sea News and notes: Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed In the media: College credit for editing Wikipedia Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute and Ebionites 3 cases continue; third arbitrator resigns Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC) October, 2013 Please respect WP:BRD and do not edit war, as you have been doing in attempt to remove a citation link at Frédy Girardet. You should use the talk page to explain and attempt to gain consensus for any disputed edits. To clarify this specific case, gayot.com is on the spam blacklist but the link in question is not spam at all. It is a reliable source that adequately supports the cited fact, namely that Giradet is a critic of molecular gastronomy. Neither the site, nor the use of the link on that article, fits any reasonable definition of spam or unreliable source. For your information, the website was added to the blacklist because people apparently connected with the company were spamming the encyclopedia by adding an undue number of links, in order to prevent COI misconduct. That is not the case here. The link in question was added before the incident, and flagged by a disputed bot. Removing links without due attention is one of the problems caused by the bot. I'll revert as soon as the page goes off protection; if you disagree please feel free to use the talk page or follow other process. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Dude, instead of coming up with nonsense warnings you better read: MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. If you read that list you will see that gayot.com is on that list. Somebody, not me, filed a request to put gayot.com on that list for spamming. And after careful consideration an administrator has accepted the request. When you want gayot.com off the blacklist, you have to file a request here. Not start editwarring over it as you did. The Banner talk 20:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC) And you better read this: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June_2013#gayot.com. The original blacklisting was heavy spamming of site by multiple SPAs; use as 'reference' as rationale for link spam and that is exactly how you are using it... The Banner talk 22:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC) I have read that. This is your second caution. Please stop edit warring, take some time to understand the issue (it's clear you do not), and do not stalk my edits trying to sabotage articles by removing links to gayot. Stop this at once and discuss, or we are heading to WP:AN/I. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC) LOL, boss getting angry? File you next request to get gayot of the blacklist (your fifth?) The Banner talk 00:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC) What I read from the history is that the entire gayot.com site was put on the blacklist to defend against persistent socking by somebody affiliated with Gayot to spam the encyclopedia with links to the their site. The links the bot is picking up now are not related to the spam attack. They were all apparently added by other editors (including me) before the COI socking arose. There was never a finding that the site itself is a spam site. For the most part these are perfectly valid links, although as with any source their reliability and pertinence to the article are subject to good faith discretion of editors. Removing the nobots tag I have applied occasionally serves no function other than inviting the bot back to edit war. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC) A bot is stupid enough to just do what it is told to do. And as far as I know edit warring is not included in that. It is a living person who is edit warring against a bot. The Banner talk 09:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Final warning here. In your heart of hearts you may think you are doing something for the encyclopedia, but your latest spate of edits[12][13][14] is tendentious and not in good faith. At this point I'm going to ask you to stop dealing with gayot.com links. If you have an issue with gayot.com and spam links, you should be discussing the matter instead of aggressiveness and wikigaming. Really, surely you have something better to do than antagonizing other editors and making a mess out of articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Stop harassing me and stop adding blacklisted links. And when YOU have a problem with Gayot.com on the blacklist, it is YOU who should be doing something about it by making a request to get it removed. Trying to bulldozer and threaten me is not going to work. The Banner talk 08:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Could you please explain me about the removal of text from Bioreactor page? Hello The Banner I would like to know the reason for removing the texts from the page Bioreactor. Could you please help me to know about it? Because, it was about the new developments and improvements in that field of study which the user should know. It was more of a technical information about the bioreactor design. And discospinster told me that you are the one who removed the text and also the page lead to disambiguation pages. Moreover, the information present on the page now itself have faults and irrelevant information here and there. The text that was added by me would, for sure, give a clear idea about the present problems and solutions in the design of a bioreactor. Is the text removal that you had done related with the references and disambiguation pages? Then, it is possible to add more research papers on this context and remove the links to those disambiguation pages. Thank you for your help. Roja (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Roja Yes, main reason was that you dit not give a single source for the whole story. The excessive number of links to disambiguation pages was a secondary reason. When you write something you have to prove it. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for how to identify reliable sources and Help:Referencing for beginners for how to put them into an article. The Banner talk 11:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC) List of cities...etc. I'll replace it when done with the province. It is a disaster with phantom entries, omissions, misspellings, miscapitalizations, other errors, and a dearth of references. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Take your time! Especially when it is a disaster that needs fixing, a bit extra time can be worth it. Happy enough to know that you will take a look at it! The Banner talk 17:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Only write about people? I had a major SCOMN (snorted coffee out my nose) moment when your post on Drmies page led me to this. But your comments there did give me an idea: If you are wanting to write BLPs about people, there are dozens of jockey articles on women riders (as well as a lot of the male ones too) that badly need cleanup, and I'm taking some tentative steps to try and find some people interested in working as a team on them. Recently, I found a particularly interesting one on an Australian who came to the states named Kayla Stra. She's particularly interesting because she's had to deal with even more sexism than even the average woman jockey faces — she's a new mom who is still riding races, trying to breastfeed her infant in the jockey's room, and that caused all sorts of drama for California racing officials this past summer. Anyway, her article needs serious help, but I don't have a lot of time to tackle it solo, but often will find more time if someone wants to collaborate on a project. Not sure if you are interested in BLPs of women who are athletes, but if a unique personality adds some drama, let me know. Another one is Julie Krone who just was inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame a couple days ago. Montanabw(talk) 21:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC) No, that is not part of the plan. It is just a reality that marketing people can not write Wikipedia articles due to a wrong set of skills. Still, I have the idea that some business people can be notable but do not get a warranted article due to their own failing marketing department. It is often the new marketing intern that is pushed to write a Wikipedia article about the boss. The poor lad/lass has not a clue how to write an article so makes an article the way he is used to write: promo. Effect: article deleted, intern & boss disappointed. But no one is able to tell the marketing department that they just wrote the wrong type of article. The Banner talk 21:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC) On the other hand, a vivid imagination gave some great pictures of your SCOMN and made me laugh. That was something I dearly needed. The Banner talk 21:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC) I think SCOMN should become an internet meme and right up there with LOL, ROFL, ROFLMAO, ROFLMFAO, etc. Really quite accurate, more so than ROFL, actually. And, I checked, the only other use of SCOMN is Supreme Court of Minnesota. Which makes it even more fun! Montanabw(talk) 22:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC) As far as people's marketing departments screwing up wikipedia, I wholeheartedly agree. I think the actual money here is not in editing, but in training people about how to do it right. One thing that drives me f****ng nuts are the academic projects that make people go edit wikipedia articles without the course instructor having a clue themselves how to do it. The academic improvement stuff is great; the cluelessness is not. Montanabw(talk) 22:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Course instructor are in most cases plain non-notable. Some businessmen could be notable and worthy of an article but they get screwed up by their marketing department. The general idea is that I decide about notability and how to write the article. Only when finished they are supposed to show their gratitude in a donation, either towards my aging equipment or to the mentioned gardening organisations (all have them severely cash strapped). The Banner talk 22:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC) October 2013 Hello, I'm In Transit. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Little Theatre Movement because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Martinian Leave a message! 21:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Rough consensus Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Rough consensus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 16 October 2013 News and notes: Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin Traffic report: Peaceful potpourri WikiProject report: Heraldry and Vexillology Featured content: That's a lot of pictures Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case closes Discussion report: Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sintend What is it that you have against me. Is it wrong for me to agree with another user who is editing an article? Do you think that i'm going to put up with you bulldozing me and threatening me. If you continue this i'm going to report you to the Arbitration committee. Please stop harrassing me with vapid claims of vandalism and Sockpuppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sintend (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC) To my opinion you and the IP are one and the same. And the two of you are falsifying the article Waterford and Limerick. The Banner talk 20:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC) I have already stated that I do not know who this IP address belongs to but at the same time I am not going to sit here and listen to your accusatory tone!(Sintend (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)) Limerick: Revision history Please if you are going to edit an article I have put days of work into make sure your sources and figures check out (Sintend (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)) Just stop falsifying the article, dude! The suburbs are not part of the city but part of the county. And you are even <censored> enough to confiscate parts of County Clare. The Banner talk 21:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC) You are falsifying the article! You have the blatancy to say that I am falsifying the article yet you keep reverting edits I have made regarding conflicting CSO figures in this article. And do not dare try to turn this into a Limerick vs Clare grudge match as there are suburbs of Limerick in County Clare. If the people living in Shannon Banks, Westbury and Parteen are willing to take resources supplied by Limerick and NOT Clare then they should become a part of the city where they work, send their children to school, shop and use electricity and water.(Sintend (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)) Yep, but they belong to the Limerick urban area not to Limerick City. There is a significant difference between the two, you know. What is conflicting on the CSO-figures is your confusion between the city and its limits and the urban area named Limerick. Part of that urban area is governed by Limerick County Council, another part by Clare County Council and another part by Limerick City Council. So start researching where you are talking about. The Banner talk 21:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC) As someone who lives in Castletroy, Limerick about five minutes away from the Limerick-Clare border I know what I am talking about when it comes to this matter! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sintend (talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC) I severely doubt that. The Banner talk 22:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Please don't involve yourself in matters you know little about! I doubt you've lived in Clare long enough to get into a discussion about it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sintend (talk • contribs) 23:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Dude, stop crying and start studying. You are only two days on Wikipedia and act like you know it all. In the mean time, you are not even capable of properly signing your edits on my talk page. Stop messing around. The Banner talk 00:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC) You're not worth my signature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sintend (talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Article is now protected, so you can't work on it from your IP. And when you keep falsifying the articles, the response will be swift and merciless. How often do you want to ignore the sources? that Waterford is the oldest city in the country? The Banner talk 20:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Limerick founded 812 AD Wterford founded 914 AD. Please read it's for your own good; The city dates from 812 which is the earliest provable settlement ; however, history suggests the presence of earlier settlements in the area surrounding King's Island, the island at the historical city centre. Antiquity's map-maker, Ptolemy, produced in 150 the earliest map of Ireland, showing a place called "Regia" at the same site as King's Island. History also records an important battle involving Cormac mac Airt in 221 and a visit by St. Patrick in 434 to baptise a Eóganachta king, Carthann the Fair. Saint Munchin, the first bishop of Limerick died in 652, indicating the city was a place of some note. In 812 the Vikings sailed up the Shannon and pillaged the city, burned the monastery of Mungret but were forced to flee when the Irish attacked and killed many of their number.[ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sintend (talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Prove it with reliable sources, dude. The Banner talk 08:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Ow, and before about 1100 there were no dioceses in Ireland. At that time every abbot was also a bishop. Get your facts straight. The Banner talk 08:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Frédy Girardet Just thought you'd like to know, Wikidemon readded that citation without any discussion on the article's talk page. Transcendence (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC) I had seen it, but decided to let the kid play for a while until he had found other toys to breakplay with. The Banner talk 21:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC) I am not sure how you did that, but you are welcome. I actually have a lot of thoughts about that page, but am reluctant about leaping into another editor's space. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC) That is the handy part of a talk page, discussion can sharpen my ideas. And when you are wondering how to thank somebody: Look at my draftpage and find the line "Latest revision as of 23:45, 22 October 2013 (edit) (undo) (thank)". The Banner talk 00:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Progressive tax Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Progressive tax. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC) User:The Banner/Workpage28 You may want to edit User:The Banner/Workpage28 to indicate that you're just putting it up as an example, not as a solicitation. If you intend your page to be an actual advertisement for an editing service, then you're opening a rather substantial can of worms (as you know, by posing the question "is this legal"). Even if such a service were permitted (and I don't think it is), advertising is likely still problematic. I suspect you don't actually mean to offer such a service, or advertise it on the project, and are merely using it as an example of what service might be offered; I think it would be wise to denote it as such. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC) No, it is something I am seriously thinking about, for a long time already. But the riot caused by Wiki-PR makes me cautious. I don't want to loose my account over it, staying within the rules and guidelines is more important than some article. It should be loud and clear dat I make the decisions, not the one who wants the article. The Banner talk 21:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC) I would suggest you remove it. Offering to write things for remuneration (even if not cash), is still frowned upon, since despite your best efforts, your editorial judgement is compromised. Further, advertising your service on the project is not likely to looked on favorably either. I would think deleting the page would be advisable. I'd be somewhat inclined to nominate it for MfD if you're resolute about keeping it, since I think such advertising suggests not only that such a proposal is acceptable and encouraged by the project. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC) List of cities, towns and villages in West Azerbaijan Province Please see if it is now more to your liking (and WP standards). :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC) It was shocking to see that you left the enormous number of no less than two links to disambiguation pages for me to solve. Thank you very much for your work! And this sentence was serious! The Banner talk 22:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 23 October 2013 News and notes: Grantmaking season—rumblings in the German-language community Traffic report: Your average week ... and a fish Featured content: Your worst nightmare as a child is now featured on Wikipedia Discussion report: More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more In the media: The decline of Wikipedia; Sue Gardner releases statement on Wiki-PR; Australian minister relies on Wikipedia WikiProject report: Elements of the world Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Rresolution Youre not fighting USA/Western-centricism. Anyways, maybe we could better resolve this by an actual discussion to understand each other instead of behind the wall of the internet. It seems we're only a few miles away from each other. Perhaps a weekend in the city would be amenable? Temple Bar or something (though the city is fricking expensive...maybe more south ;)).(Lihaas (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)). I am not fighting Western-centrisme, that is true. It is difficult enough to explain to the Americans that there is a world outside their borders so I have no time to fight Europe-centrism. But back to the discussion at hand: we are talking about a subpage of List of terrorist incidents which claims to be "a list of non-state terrorist incidents". So we should adhere to that definition of non-state terrorist incidents. The despicable shooting of a guy climbing over a fence is just plain murder, not terrorism. And to talk about my attitude towards Israel: I admire many (not all) things they have done in wars, often against tremendous odds. The boldness of the raid on Entebbe was absolutely brilliant. But afterwards they lost sight of their moral standings. That is a pity because the Palestinians, with their righteous claim on parts of Israel, lost their moral standings more or less the same period. And now both parties are involved in a dirty war, continued by hawks and fools on both sides. (Sounds like the Troubles...) By the way: Dublin is the other side of the country for me. Just a week ago I was there. To arrive in time at the Dutch Embassy I had to leave home at 6.45am, to arrive at the embassy at 11.45am. The things you do for your Mummy... The Banner talk 12:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Well we gotta refine the whole thing to be NPOV True, and ive been to tel aviv and most ppl aint fans of the religious takeover of their socialist Zionist country next time youre around hit me up. UCD bar is cheap, I just figured out(Lihaas (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)). List of terrorist incidents You might wanna check out the talk page, I added my two cents. Thanks! Skycycle (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC) I have also joined in this conversation, since I believe the articles need to be saved, cleaned up and taken proper care of. Would be great to hear your view on what I wrote. Skycycle (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 30 October 2013 Traffic report: 200 miles in 200 years In the media: Rand Paul plagiarizes Wikipedia? News and notes: Sex and drug tourism—Wikivoyage's soft underbelly? Featured content: Wrestling with featured content Recent research: User influence on site policies: Wikipedia vs. Facebook vs. Youtube WikiProject report: Special: Lessons from the dead and dying Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC) Template:Smith-surname I guess you are looking at wrong version during reverts. Please take a look at the template as it is and say what is wrong with it. - Altenmann >t 17:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC) p.S. You got me consfused as well, sorry. - Altenmann >t 17:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC) I don't know what you were doing, but creating a link to a disambiguation page as you did with the name "Vonk" is not a helpful edit. I have also remove the source, as templates don't need sourcing. The linked article should take care of that. All names that you and I wanted in the template are now there in the correct manner. The Banner talk 17:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC) I don't know what were doing either, but Vonk was an article about surname, there was no page Vonk(surname. Since you prefer a revert war instead of clear explanation of your objections in article talk page, I created Vonk(surname to make you happy. Also it is sad you deleted the reference it the comment, which was left as a reminder for a person who will try to remove red link. But I guess you will be only happy to revert it, right? - Altenmann >t 03:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC) What you did with Vonk was creating a link to a disambiguation page. That was wrong it it and I had stated that before. The Banner talk 07:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC) What I did was linking to existing page with relevant information, which served the purpose of the navigation template. There is no rule that forbids linking to disambiguation pages. Linking to a red link does not serve the purposes of wikipedia, which is access to information. - Altenmann >t 03:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Why are identifying features are product spam Hello The Banner - Could you please elaborate why mentioning distinctive product features such as linux, or a PV array are considered product spam by your book? There's no positive or negative wording in there, just merely stating how the product operates. [User:DSNR|DSNR]] (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC) First: could you please add your stuff at the bottom of this page? Second: you are writing an article about a company, not about the product. Third: Adding non-relevant and promotional material about an product that is not the subject of the article, is advertising, otherwise known as spam. Hope this is clear now. The Banner talk 10:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Andreea Marin Bănică Hello, i writing you, because i can't understand what you delete my article about the Romanian presenter, Andreea Marin, this was my work for a day, to collect informations etc., please revert the version I edit with the reliable sources. Thanks --2A02:2F0E:D0AF:FFFF:0:0:BC18:8C24 (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Please start with reading WP:NPOV. What you produced is plain unfit for an encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 21:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC) China Entertainment Network I came across this as a reviewer. Someone massively added to the previous stub. You might like to have a look. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC) China Entertainment Television But yes, the usual spam in cripple English. The Banner talk 02:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 06 November 2013 News and notes: Alleged "outing" of editor's personal information leads to Wikipedia ban Traffic report: Danse Macabre Featured content: Five years of work leads to 63-article featured topic WikiProject report: WikiProject Accessibility Arbitration report: Ebionites 3 case closed Discussion report: Sockpuppet investigations, VisualEditor, Wikidata's birthday, and more Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC) AN Notice There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Recreating page after MfD deletion. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC) I beg your pardon!? And is there any need for the snotty edit summary, such as this one? I take it that you are exempt from WP:AGF? Wesley Mᴥuse 23:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC) There is no need to add links in other languages on the English Wikipedia. Certainly not to mask red links. The Banner talk 23:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC) Project Eurovision do it differently. They either create a redlink, as a reminder to other project members that an article may be required, or if there is one created on another language Wiki, then we link to that, and then inform project members via the newsletter, so that they may use that as guidance to translate (if they are able to translate) into an English article right here on English Wikipedia. And that is also in accordance to the manual of style (point 3) at WP:UNDERLINK. Wesley Mᴥuse 00:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC) Then make sure that you keep those articles out of my reach (= no links to disambiguation pages) because I remove them straight away as wrongly placed external link as soon as I see them. The Banner talk 00:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC) For your comfort: I dislike the Eurovision Song Contest so I stay away from that and anything related to it. But I hunt down links to disambiguation pages with a passion. If you dislike Eurovision, then why have you patrolled an article that is under Project Eurovision's scope? I do not create articles too early, which is why I have been entrusted with WP:AUTOPAT, just like yourself. I create new articles and/or templates for Project Eurovision with precise timing, to avoid deletions. I find that the template which you nominates, was one that was only created today, and it does come across as strange that it has been nominated so fast. The only times that happens is when an autopatroller has a bee in their bonnet. But I am assuming good faith on your part on this occasion. Wesley Mᴥuse 00:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC) And I actually find your remark above to come across as threatening. How do you propose that I make sure these articles are kept out of your reach? I cannot exactly place a template so that they are all hidden from you. If you do not like a topic, then it is your choice to avoid them, not mine! Wesley Mᴥuse 00:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC) To clarify: I will not look for them. When I come across them, that is due to links to disambiguation pages. That I fixed the template and the article was due to fact checking. There is no fear for you that I will follow you to other Eurovision, my priorities lie elsewhere. The Banner talk 01:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC) Oh, OK. I fixed the error on that template though, which I would like to thank you for pointing it out to me. I thought I had put semi-finalists, but mustn't have done. I noticed too on your main page that you speak Dutch fluently. Would you be able to help me out with translation of a few Dutch articles that could do with English language version, for (and you're going to hate me for this) Junior Eurovision 2013? Wesley Mᴥuse 01:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC) I don't hate you, I just refuse. The Banner talk 01:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC) LOL, thanks anyway. It was worth asking. I'm not good with translations, so I end up getting myself frustrated. Ironically I can understand when I hear someone speak Dutch, but I cannot understand when I read it. Does that make sense? Anyhow, I'll hunt around and see if anyone else can help. Thanks again. Happy editing! Wesley Mᴥuse 01:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC) It makes sense in your case. I always had trouble with German. I could understand it, speak it (with a bit more practise than I have nowadays) and read it, but writing it was always a tragedy. The Banner talk 01:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC) List of German painters Thanks for fixing the disambig links - I was going to work through them (honest!) Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC) You're welcome. The Banner talk 11:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 13 November 2013 Traffic report: Google Doodlebugs bust the block Featured content: 1244 Chinese handscroll leads nine-strong picture contingent Special report: FDC staff raise the benchmarks for activities, impact, planning, and governance News and notes: Trademark at issue again with the Italian Wikipedia and wikipedia.it WikiProject report: The world of soap operas Discussion report: Commas, Draft namespace proposal, education updates, and more Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Please note The Afd process is not where you choose the items that stay in the article from your perspective, most of wikipedia process requires consensus, most of the comments at the afd have not been answered, and in fact you have shown little understanding of the context of the organisation in Australia, and the actual issues arising. The revert you have just made has not answered the questions raised at the afd. I would strongly suggest you step back from your concern that such articles shouldnt exist, as you are WP:OWNING your blah blah analysis too easily. I suggest that each part of your edit, now that you have reverted mine, needs examining. I have no further comment apart from what I made at the afd, see you at the review. cheers assume you know the ropes in relation (a) to the review (b) 3rr satusuro 02:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC) And I hope that you adhere to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion and stop with adding irrelevant stuff and promo. You are mentioning a lot of nice big words, but it is plain advertising. So, you better step back without disrupting this process. The Banner talk 02:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC) I had said I was to comment no further. The whole 'revert' as you did, has component parts that need removing (as you have correctly observed), however there are other parts could have been left in, as for stepping back, your comments that conflate paid editing and articles about promotional companies shopws your colour which you in turn should step back. I was not defending the errors of the article, or the problematic parts that you illustrate, but am concerned just the admitted bias that you have clearly indicated to articles like that, and what you consider to be promotion or advertising - there might be other ways of looking at it. Also the blahblah and big words and nice attack are assuming a way of interacting that in my mind do not show good faith. I would much prefer a wikipedia, where we acknowledge different ways of looking at things, and can actually still co-operate and sort our problems. satusuro 02:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Sorry, but I don't have any mercy with marketeers. It is just my opinion that fighting paid editing is useless unless you also start fighting promo and advertising in articles. The Banner talk 11:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC) I can understand the attitude, it is just that picked on a bad article (I agree with that) that in effect is related to a specific notable phenomenon in the Australian music scene, just your bad luck I suppose you chose it. Anyways more power to you in the fight against really obvious promo/marketing it is indeed a scourge that is worth getting impassioned about. cheers satusuro 11:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC) The original article was just plain advertising. Even with companies that are perfectly notable, marketeers know ways to screw it up. To my opinion 100% of marketeers is unable to write an proper encyclopaedic article. A soft handed approach as "it can be solved by normal editing" is just an encouragement to marketeers to add more marketing blahblah. The Banner talk 11:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Beside that, I just found this. That page was at least too close paraphrased... The Banner talk 12:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the invitation, but I decline. Not that I don't want to participate, but because of the way I hunt down the links to disambiguation pages. I prefer to work article by article, what suits me best (and WikiCleaner). A long time ago I had AWB but I never felt comfy with that. I prefer to have "Templates with disambiguation links" (priority) and "Articles With Multiple Dablinks" (including the annoying "Indian Film Vandal") as hunting grounds. That I show up at the leader board is, from my point of view, accidental. The Banner talk 02:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC) I completely understand, and I appreciate your work. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Can you please explain the template you added? I was wondering if you could explain what you mean by "may require copy editing for excessive external links (some just wrong wikilinks)" in the article on Nicholas Amer that I expanded. I am new to editing on Wikipedia and of course I'm still learning. I thought I had done a thorough job on this. Can you provide some examples of what you mean? I may be able to correct them myself. Many thanks Scriptorscorpionis (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC) The use of external links in the normal text is strong discouraged. Far better is using plain text and adding the link as a references at the end of the sentence. You can doe that by using this: <ref>[link link name]</ref>. For links to Wiktionary you use: [[:w:link|link name]] Only wiktionary links, although in fact also external links, are allowed in plain text. Link to other Wikipedia's are not allowed and can not be used as source (just find the source in the other article and use that as explained above.) Secondly, you have deadly list of movies in normal text. You better convert that into a real list. Good luck! The Banner talk 21:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC) England Your recent editing history at England shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. . PS: You need to discuss this on the article talk page, not try to have a discussion via reversions and edit summaries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC) You are kidding, right? The Banner talk 19:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Just trying to get people to talk to each other properly, instead of via edit summaries, which is rarely productive. Seems to have worked.  : ) Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Ghmyrtle thanks for the tip, again you are very helpful. The Banner - Your comments are a little unfair and gratuitous to describe recent edits to the sports section as 'fluffy'. While I do intend on adding further text to the sport in England page, I believe that sport itself deserves relevant notation on the page England page itself. Why therefore is there mention of cricket and football but not england's success in golf and motor racing. However, you are right, the section is beginning to increase in size which defeats the object of other sections. However, I would argue that sport in england is at the top of cultural life and it deserved adequate notation. If you wish to remove the comments I will not dispute them again. Just want to make my point. But I have removed the images I added in the hope you accept this. Stufroguk (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC) I have further edited the text by reducing the content of the sailing and golf paragraphs in the hope that this will suffice. I will no longer add content to this page but rather to the page where the majority of sport content should be, as you suggested, on the Sport in England page. Thanks Stufroguk (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Thanks. That sport section in England is already becoming way too big, that is why there is a separate article about it. Keep the balance is the key-phrase here. If you are able to reduce that section even more would be appreciated. The article is almost 200kB, so some reduction/more subarticles makes it easier for those not on broadband. The Banner talk 19:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC) I did not realise memory/size capacity was an issue so thanks again for explaining that. I will reduce this complete summary again and move its content to the correct section. Stufroguk (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Sustainability Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sustainability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 20 November 2013 From the editor: The Signpost needs your help Book review: Peter Burke's Social History of Knowledge—ambitious, fascinating, and exhaustive Featured content: Rockin' the featured pictures WikiProject report: Score! American football on Wikipedia News and notes: Foundation to Wiki-PR: cease and desist; Arbitration Committee elections starting Traffic report: Ill Winds Arbitration report: WMF opens the door for non-admin arbitrators Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Llantos de Sangre listed at Redirects for discussion An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Llantos de Sangre. Since you had some involvement with the Llantos de Sangre redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). The Banner talk 12:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Template_talk:Turkish_cuisine Do you think you could move your comment to the choosing colours subsection. That ought to get the ball rolling in the right place. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC) I want to know first what reason he has for the red and white colour scheme. If it is a nationalistic reason, there is a problem. The Banner talk 15:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC) Added a suggestion Fair enough. Though we could ignore the reason and just go with a good colour scheme. And if it is selected to match the flag, why is that a problem? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC) Hi Hi Im new to this entire Wiki thing and find it very confusing an quite interesting. Im curious about something. I work for the management company that works with producer Jason Nevins. I see you keep editing his page and deleting the long list of official remixes he has done over the years. You seem to know quite a bit about the working of Wikipedia. Can you please tell me why you keep doing this ? Also, why do you find certain peoples pages to attack ? No one is trying to lie about his career - these are things he has actually done and have been released and by you deleting them, you are the one who is trying to defraud and alter information that is true and useful. Please let me know why you keep doing this. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popmusicgirl1988 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC) I am not attacking pages, I am maintaining them. What I am removing is an unsourced piece of advertising. Wikipedia is not for promotion or advertising. Beside that: your list is linking to a lot of disambiguation pages, not directly to the intended traget. I could be handy for you to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, what you clearly have. The Banner talk 09:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Hello again I just read your response. We would like to be able to put up this information that you keep deleting in the way that is "ok for you and Wikipedia". Im still not sure how you can be a deciding factor on what stays or goes on a Wiki page but I guess since you know more than I do- Ill have to go by what you suggest. Please tell me the "correct" way to post his discography since you seem to think the previous way was not ok. We dont mind doing things the "right way" if that's what it takes. We would just like you to stop deleting real information. He has remixed so many songs over the years, all which have been official and hired by the labels- we dont know how to prove each release. Some releases even though were hired and paid by the label may have not been a consumer retail release but official nevertheless. You claim you are "maintaining the pages" but if you had simply Googled any of the remixes listed you could have found information on the internet regarding each said remix. That list is not "advertising" as you put it but factual information of legitimate releases. By you just deleting the entire section- YOU are claiming that none of them are real or factual, which is obviously ridiculous as our client has been in the business for over 20 years with a huge discography. Please let me know how to have this section put back. Thank you kindly.Popmusicgirl1988 (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Did you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest at all? The Banner talk 10:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Yeah- I read it. Why is this ok then ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Aoki His page is no different than Jason's. Instead of pointing us to pages- why not tell us exactly what has to be done to make it right. We looked up a lot of things in Wikipedia and posting factual information such as his remix discography seems perfectly fine to post but AGAIN for some reason- you think you are the king of wikipedia and you can just decide to take it off. Help us do the way that you think it should be done so it can be posted rather than telling us to look at some COI article that makes no sense. Popmusicgirl1988 (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Zeg, grote wind Ik doe dit ff in het Nederlands, want we praten natuurlijk niet graag over dit onderwerp in het openbaar. Ik probeer al een paar dagen lang de nederlandse plee op de kaart te zetten, en zo'n ding heet toch "vlakspoeltoiletpot" (of een variatie daarop, met "closet" misschien). Probleem is, ik kan niks vinden, niet eens voor "vlakspoel", behalve een oud artikeltje uit de Kijk en een zootje sanitairsites. Het nederlandse "Toilet" artikel noemt het wel maar geeft natuurlijk geen bronnen. Is er een ander woord voor, een woord dat ik nooit geleerd heb? Bij voorbaat dank! Drmies (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Alsjeblieft, noem mij niet meer grote wind, dat roept ernstige braakneigingen op. Vrijwel de enige die dat nog gebruikt is dat Nederlands-Thaaise wanpropduct Waerth. Ik zit even te denken maar het enige waar ik zo aan moet denken is de gierput of latrine (militair). Probeer anders een een archeologisch tijdschrift want voor archeologen schijnt graven in zo'n put vrijwel schatgraven te zijn. (maar ik bedank voor de eer) The Banner talk 21:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Ik vind dat zo merkwaardig--zo'n standaard element in elk nederlands huishouden, en geen bron te vinden. He, ik kreeg gisteren de Sinterklaasletters in de post, van mijn vriend in Amsterdam. Heerlijk. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Varo Venturi - page Hello, I would need some help with this page: [[15]], it has some issues that I don't know how to fix. It is pratically the translation of the italian page: [[16]] and I would like also to link them together. Any advice and changes will be very precious for me, as I am a beginner here on wikipedia and my native language is not english. Thank you! Brainstorming85 (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Brainstorming85Brainstorming85 (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 04 December 2013 Traffic report: Kennedy shot Who Recent research: Reciprocity and reputation motivate contributions to Wikipedia; indigenous knowledge and "cultural imperialism"; how PR people see Wikipedia Discussion report: Musical scores, diversity conference, Module:Convert, and more News and notes: One decade of Wikisource; FDC recommendations raise serious questions WikiProject report: Electronic Apple Pie Featured content: F*&! Arbitration report: Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute case opens; New discretionary sanctions draft proposal available for review Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Whisperback Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 14:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Country Club Plaza Hello. I'd like to direct your attention to Talk:Country Club Plaza and the subheader "Switch flippers". I've created the section to discuss and hopefully reach consensus on whether a long list of celebrities who've flipped the switch to turn on the lights is appropriate for inclusion in the article. Thanks! Sector001 (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC) I want to encourage you to actually read what "coat racking" is, as well as how to properly resolve disputes and disengage in multiple "high-handed" reverts. Please don't assume to be the final word/judge until a resolution and consensus is obtained in a proper time-frame. I have responded on the talk page with examples of this in other articles and replaced the content. Please read: [17][18][19][20] Thank you! :) 74.62.92.20 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Just stop your marketing nonsense. The Banner talk 23:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Again, your opinion. I'm not pushing anything. For you to accuse me of that and think that makes me wonder about your motives. How about you please stop being disruptive? Best of luck! 74.62.92.20 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC) With your overly aggressive tone you make loud and clear that you don't want a serious discussion but just want it your way. Go on, but it is on your own risk. The Banner talk 23:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Not true. I have replied on the talk page of the article. It is my last message to you. Your messages come across as threatening and condescending when it's been you who has not followed proper guidelines and been uncooperative. Best wishes and happy editing! :) 74.62.92.20 (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC) You really think you know it all, don't you? The Banner talk 00:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Please see: [21] 74.62.92.20 (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Indeed, overly aggressive manner. The Banner talk 11:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC) The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2) Books & Bytes Sign up for monthly delivery Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world. Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations... Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries... Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference... Further reading: Digital library portals around the web... Read Books & Bytes The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC) FYI See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 7#Template:Aranda and others. 213.144.224.123 (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Response : 2013 SEA Games Is it OK if the section going to be like "this"? I mean like this past SEA Games article. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 15:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Catholic Church and Nazi Germany NPOV Hello Banner - Thank you for your note. Not engaged in an "edit war" per se. The edit that took place that I was addressing prior was a disruptive edit by wiki standards. If you go to the Talk page I think you'll see what I mean. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Yes, you are. You have reverted the same information over and over again. Stop that or face the consequences. The Banner talk 18:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Cuisine of Turkey You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Cuisine of Turkey. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Frietjes (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC) The Wikipedia Library Survey As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 11 December 2013 Traffic report: Deaths of Mandela, Walker top the list In the media: Edward Snowden a "hero"; German Wikipedia court ruling News and notes: Wiki Loves Monuments—winners announced WikiProject report: WikiProject Wine Interview: Wikipedia's first Featured Article centurion Featured content: Viewer discretion advised Technology report: MediaWiki 1.22 released Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC) I Remember (disambiguation) Hey, The Banner! I saw that you placed a CSD tag on this redirect. The tag you used wasn't accurate, though, and I'm not sure any of the other CSD fit either, so I declined it. Is there something I missed that made it eligible for deletion? Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC) It created a loop. As far as I know I tagged it for being a redirect loop. The Banner talk 11:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Irrelevant? Why have you removed the sourced Castlebar environ population from the Castlebar page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.62.248 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Still looking for answer on why it is irrelevant. Wy can't you do anything good for the page instead of letting it die with old pictures and half supplied info. Images need urgent changing and extra info should not be disallowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.59.13 (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC) I never thanked you The Barnstar of Diligence For taking care of all those bad template edits by DPL bot caused by the bad data on Toolserver. Your cleanup work saved me from a lot of annoyed editors, and I appreciate your help. JaGatalk 08:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Hopefully, now that we're on Tool Labs, the templating problems will be a thing of the past. --JaGatalk 08:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC) I hope so! The Banner talk 10:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC) December 2013 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ubuntu (operating system). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Codename Lisa (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC) My goodness, do you really fail to see what is going on? The Banner talk 13:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC) No, I do not: I see that you have a perfectly legitimate concern but you are resorting to the wrong methods of edit warring and retaliatory deletion discussion to mitigate said concern. This is very wrong. Edit warring and retaliatory AfDs are worse than COI. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC) No, it was not a retaliatory deletion discussion that I started. I was a second nomination because the author/founder/owner of the company reverted the article back to the situation of the first AfD. He plain ignores the outcome of the first AfD and is protected by everyone. This is plain throwing Wikipedia to the dogs/marketeers! The Banner talk 13:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Talking about retaliating: accusation of vandalism. That is the guy you are protecting... The Banner talk 15:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC) What I am protecting is Ubuntu (operating system). All interactions between you two have been non-collegial from the very beginning, but a non-collegial behavior does not justify reciprocating it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC) We will see, a sockpuppet investigation is filed. The Banner talk 21:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Would you look at that... Everyone is giving you warnings about your edit wars (not just on this article) but you keep at it... And you keep losing these wars. Perhaps you should take everyone's advice and stop it, that's not the proper way to edit Wikipedia. Learning how to cooperate with others isn't so tough now is it? DSNR (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Nice try, but we will see what the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation is. And you better watch out with that COI-warning. That could land you, after a procedure, a topic ban on everything related to WeWi and Sol (laptop). Your choice... The Banner talk 22:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Hmm...It looks to me like you've received enough warnings yourself from editors here... On other pages and other edit wars... Some reality check is prescribed for you DSNR (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC) /me keeps mirror up. You can't bluff me away, mate. That just does not work with me. The Banner talk 23:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC) I hope you have had enough warnings now with this sockpuppetry block. I hope you will now understand that advertising and promotion is not allowed and that you should stay a neutral facts, described in a neutral way. The Banner talk 04:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 18 December 2013 WikiProject report: Babel Series: Tunisia on the French Wikipedia Traffic report: Hopper to the top Discussion report: Usernames, template data and documentation, Main page, and more News and notes: Nine new arbitrators announced Featured content: Triangulum, the most boring constellation in the universe Technology report: Introducing the GLAMWikiToolset Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Nizamani Hello, I was going through my clan information page "Nizamani" and found out that you have removed all information associated with the page on 15:36, 5 August 2013. May I know the reason for doing so? --Asifniz (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Unsourced, non-neutral and poorly written information. It looked like original research. The Banner talk 13:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Well the things written in the article are all historical events dating back to 17th century, how do you expect me to get documented sources from that era? I belong to Nizamani community and I know all these events as true, the society at the time didn't work on written records and as there were no "White" people in our region at that time so there was no 3rd party to keep a record. All the information has been passed from generations to generations. And since when has Wikipedia decided to act as Big Brother? Does Wikipedia claim to know each and every article that is written here, the whole point of Wikipedia was user/community driven article writing and editing. So only a person from my community will know if the information is correct or not, not someone living thousands of miles away who has not even heard of my community/clan. Regards --Asifniz (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC) My advice: don't write in a language that is not the language spoken at home. People thousands of miles away might think differently and have other rules than your community has. Perhaps it is better to write your article for a Wikipedia-version that suits you better than the English-language Wikipedia. The Banner talk 11:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Fine, I can improve the English and writing style, but what about the references? I'm sure even after improving the English the article will be up for removal because of lack of reference. Wikipedia needs to realize that references are not always available. By the way are you an official editor at Wikipedia? --Asifniz (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Wrong, authors have to understand that only sourced information can get a place on Wikipedia. And those sources must be published before (in print or on the internet). The the sources must be in reliable sources. Not on Facebook, YouTube or other social media. Sources in English are preferred, but not mandatory. The Banner talk 21:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Mononomic's talk page. Message added 03:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. —Mono·nomic 03:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Template:Cuisine of Turkey Please join the discussion on the talk page. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Radchenko Would you please care to clarify what exactly your problem is with that page? The urban-type settlement link is compliant with WP:NC:CITY#Russia (see bullet 3) and WP:DABRL (a backlink is provided), and the platform link does not belong at all per WP:DABRL—there is no article linking to it. And lack of descriptions makes the links completely useless. What gives?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 26, 2013; 18:29 (UTC) I've also responded at Talk:Radchenko.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 26, 2013; 18:32 (UTC) Just stop the edit warring over it. When you read your own links, you will see that "my links" are completely compliant. And please bear in mind the existing of links to the places from other places, like templates. See for an example: Links to Radchenko, Leningrad Oblast The Banner talk 18:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC) I've clarified at Talk:Radchenko. Let's continue there.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 26, 2013; 18:37 (UTC) Jim Gordon Doris Hawrelluk (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)I was in the chat room and it was suggested that I email you asking if you are satisfied with the references I have setup for the article Jim Gordon (politician) Doris Hawrelluk To be true. NO. Not by far. And what chat room are you referring to? The Banner talk 17:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 25 December 2013 Recent research: Cross-language editors, election predictions, vandalism experiments Featured content: Drunken birds and treasonous kings Discussion report: Draft namespace, VisualEditor meetings WikiProject report: More Great WikiProject Logos News and notes: IEG round 2 funding rewards diverse ambitions Technology report: OAuth: future of user designed tools Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Todrick Hall and (COI) Sorry, I am just confused (Not COI), as to why pages such as AJ_Rafael, Andrew_Garcia, Traphik, Katie_Stevens, Scott_MacIntyre, Syesha_Mercado and many, many others are notable and not this artist? And I am concerned about the nature of assistance with the article. Based on some of the other editing done by some of the other editors, it seems a bit biased. I would like further help in making the article creditable and notable by wikipedia standards. Respectfully, Csmcgrier2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csmcgrier2 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC) I don't know all the other persons. Due to an excessive list of links to disambiguation pages I came across the article Todrick Hall. It is written like an advertisement and it severely looks like you are promoting a client (or at least you have too close a relationship to the subject). That is why I put on the COI-tag. And another advice:social media are not considered to be reliable sources as described in WP:RS. So, info from YouTube, Facebook, Vimeo, Twitter, Linkedin and a lot of others are no suitable sources. The Banner talk 22:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC) I am not promoting a client not a personal relationship, I simply used other wiki articles to make this article based on legitimacy. Whether I think it's fair or not to ignore the notability of the other names you do not know is now unimportant. The Youtube aren't sources, they are reference material which doesn't make or break the notability of this person and can be removed. And, I did not use any of those other outlets you stated. And I still am asking for further help because if it sounds like an advertisement, I would like to fix it and contribute to many other articles. A COI code reads as accusation that is either unintentional or misunderstood or both. But if I cannot be assisted, I'd rather the article be removed since wiki guidelines does not find this person notable. ----