User talk:The Banner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Night of the Big Wind)
Jump to: navigation, search
I try to the best of my knowledge and belief to contribute to the small red block of the image

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014[edit]

Happy New Year![edit]

Happy New Year The Banner![edit]

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox album[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox album. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion[edit]

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

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

Feeling happy...[edit]

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Manhattan[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Manhattan. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Company 3[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Books and Bytes - Issue 9[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

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

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

Read the full newsletter

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

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


Reply By Abhishek tiwari ji[edit]

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

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

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

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

Warning from trurle:excessive deletionism[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phoenix Living Poets edit[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

FFA P-16[edit]

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

PLK Vicwood KT Chong Sixth Form College[edit]

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

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

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]

Ratel/TickleMeister/Jabbsworth[edit]

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Uber (company)[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Uber (company). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

On SOL Laptop[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ratel... meatpuppetry?[edit]

¿¿¿???

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

Please comment on Talk:Enid Blyton[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Enid Blyton. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Doctor[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Doctor. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)