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

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Dear User "The Banner",

I really appreciate your work on Michelin star restaurants in the Netherlands. It is a superb source of data. Actually, together with a colleague, we would like to use this data for a research project. I have some additional questions related to the data and it would be great if we could get in contact about it. I have created the Wikipedia account "Researchguy11", but I am not sure if Wikipedia allows for communication and/or if you are interested in sharing your insights on Michelin star restaurants and your documentation efforts. If so, maybe you can write me on my "Researchguy11" page. Thanks and all the best! Researchguy11 (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[edit]

Nitramrekcap: SPI[edit]

Following Drmies' advice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#Enough is enough. I filed an SPI for the new IP emanation of the same: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nitramrekcap

The new IP is blocked already [1] --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring in organic food[edit]

Hi The Banner. This is to give you a friendly reminder that your recent reverts over at Organic food fall into edit warring when you ignore either requests to discuss content at the article talk page or discussions that have already taken place. It looks like you've been an editor long enough to know better, so I'll spare the links to relevant pages in the hopes that the behavior was just a temporary mishap in judgement. When editors are asking for content to be set aside for a moment for a breather so discussion can occur about resolving content discrepancies, it's not particularly helpful to stir things up with pointy reverts while not engaging in the discussion after being asked to do so. If you feel strongly about something, bring it to the talk page (and follow the discussion that's already occurred) rather than relying on reverting and edit summaries outside the discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not edit warring and you know that. The fact that you guys remove everything what is positive is making the article POV, and you and friends are to blame for that. The Banner talk 09:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Continuing to revert while ignoring the article talk page after being repeatedly asked to bring concerns there is one of the very definitions of edit warring, not to mention disruptive. Positive or negative content has never been brought up for the issue being discussed, and it's quite difficult to say the content in question is either positive or negative. The wording and content itself are rather neutral. It's been an issue of sourcing as the current content being discussed doesn't have a source directly supporting it due to synthesis issues as multiple users have pointed out now. It seems like you might have some other ax to grind with your deleting positive content remark, so I highly suggest stepping back for a bit and look into what's actually being discussed at the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You keep removing stuff and I have to step back? Are you kidding? You are now the one edit warring! The Banner talk 14:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed the content as part of the ongoing discussion, especially WP:STATUSQUO. We're discussing the content, while you were reverting content without joining the conversation. So yes, I am asking you to step back and read the discussion (not leave) because of that. That is why I was reverting your reverts. The whole point of the article talk page is to discuss and come to consensus. Right now we have multiple editors pointing out a sourcing issue, and Redddbaron is at the very least discussing it without resorting to reverts. You weren't doing that. Ignoring that discussion is disruptive, and I've been trying to point out how the content issue can be remedied without disruptive editing. Just set the content aside temporarily and see how we can work on it in the talk page. That's all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
First removal and then talking when reverted is no serious attempt to get consensus. The Banner talk 15:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
At this point all I can say is drop the pitchfork and read the actual talk page conversation and what I've explained to you. You're getting a very different idea of what's going on than what we're actually trying to do. Settle, read, and then discuss on the article talk page if you have something constructive to add. I can't offer much more help than that at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Pico de gallo[edit]

Hi. Thanks for trying to clean up the edit by the IP editor that I reverted earlier. However, you seem to have removed quite a lot of content from the previous versions of the article (before the IP editor came along), such as the whole "health issues" section. Also, quite a lot of the nonsense text remains, e.g., "fried tortilla chips is an option, can be transformed easily into guacamole but is not replaced by this" and the claim that it is "paradoxical" (rather than, say, obvious and complementary) that wet salsa goes well with dry pork. Honestly, I think my revert was the right thing to do: the 22nd June version of the article was a higher quality article than the version that's there now. Dricherby (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact, everything about salsa can be throw out, as it is something different. The Banner talk 10:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014[edit]

Goodbye Miss Supranational.[edit]

Well - goodbye Miss Supranational. Finally, the heels have come off that particular meat show. Now we can start clearing out the dead wood. I've already XFD'd a couple of the winners and requested speedies for others. Mabalu (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have the nasty feeling that many of those article are created or edited by sockpuppets/meatpuppets of user Mrdhimas. When you check google, you can see that he is a professional organiser of beauty pageants. The Banner talk 11:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey - For your info: I am trying to kick off a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Beauty pageant contestants, for your info. I think given the extent of the problem, we need some FIRM rules establishing. There has been a precedent in the past to consider individuals notable as national title-holders - and given that we have stubs on non-entity sportspeople who were once in a football team in the 1960s and never heard of again, I personally don't have a problem with these national title-holders having equivalent stubs (although I don't have to LIKE it.) Mabalu (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Rôtisserie Rue du Bois was accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Rôtisserie Rue du Bois, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 07:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I am truly amazed and delighted. Thank you very much. The Banner talk 10:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout. 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) 00:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014[edit]

Re: Thirteen[edit]

I appreciate your congratulations, but the article did not get promoted unfortunately, so they are unnecessary.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, you never made a comment supportive or unsupportive of promotion, so I am curious as to whether you believe the article was FA-ready or not. Thanks--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Oops, you are right, it was the article Megadeth that got promoted. Even when I had know that there was a vote, I would not have voted. As stated in my comment, I do not know anything about Megadeath and do not appreciate the music. So, I would not have been able to judge it. The Banner talk 18:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Well, in any case, I appreciate your input on the review. Happy editing--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles[edit]

Greetings! 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 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) 00:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org. 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) 00:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

George Tiller[edit]

Excuse me! The NYTimes article specifically says that he struggled with substance abuse, overcame his addiction and served on the Kansas Medical Society's committee on impaired physicians. The only thing I have added is the fact that the substances in question were prescription pain killers. Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Nor the painkillers, nor the addiction is mentioned in the article, so you should not mention it. The Banner talk 07:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have reposted it without the words "addiction" or "pain killers". Just words used in the NYT article.
Dr. Tiller's success in overcoming his addiction and his service on the impaired physicians committee were a source of pride for him, and should be mentioned in any biographical article about him. Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
QUESTION: Are you ok with my transferring the discussion of the O'Reilly factor's comments on Dr. Tiller to its own section? I don't think it belongs in the CAREER section; O'Reilly's opinions have nothing to do with Dr. Tiller's career! Also, I have added a paragraph detailing Dr. Tiller's board certification, professional membership, and staff position to the CAREER section. If you revert these entries, please leave a note on my TALK page explaining why. Thanks. Goblinshark17 (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Bad faith[edit]

Copied from another post: We have WP:Before as a guideline, ignored by you on dozens of such articles. It is not rocket science to google each of these names. Major American Newspapers, otherwise known as WP:RS are doing coverage of each contestant. There is also a ton of gossip chatter. To say there is nothing but Facebook is a misrepresentation of the facts. The worldwide pageant is nothing but a publicity event centered around these contestants. For that one week, they are celebrities. For a different period of time, each of them is a national celebrity in their homeland winning the national pageant. What completely irks me is I have to spend hours of my time rescuing each of these articles separately, getting deep into a subject I care little about, because you have spread this damage around in little pieces, instead of taking this subject as a whole and making one reasonable discussion that I probably would have missed. Now I have to search, copy, paste. This could have been avoided with a little effort on your part but apparently removing content (justified or not) from wikipedia is more important to you. That is bad faith. Wikipedia does not prosper with editors behaving like this. Trackinfo (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. Wikipedia is also wider than the USA. That you don't agree, okay, but stop assuming bad faith. Most of them have a very temporarily fame and are just notable for one event. The Banner talk 21:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I got a "notification" of mention thingie but don't see my name here. Anyhow, what Trackinfo is saying explains why he is pissed. It is not a surprise. Winning a nation's primary beauty pageant is simply a big deal in current world culture. Far more than being a footie player who appears in a few games in 1972 for Manchester United or won a bronze medal at the 1904 Olympics, i.e., the thousands and thousands of "one event" instances which are never thought to fall under that policy.--Milowenthasspoken 14:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Not in my opinion. It is just a preliminary round, not a separate event. The Banner talk 15:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014[edit]

Please comment on User talk:Bostonscribe/sandbox[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:Bostonscribe/sandbox. 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, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Subhash Ghai - Career Section Edit[edit]

Hi, First of all I am sorry for again editing the page without checking your message. I have informed this to TheRedPenOfDoom. Source Link : http://muktaarts.com/subhash-ghai/ . Please guide me if I am not following the correct way. Thanks, Seemantraj (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You are not there yet. You have to prove the information you want to add with independent reliable sources. The company website is clearly not independent. Social media (amongst others Facebook, Linkedin and YouTube) are also not considered reliable sources. The Banner talk 09:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:OpenOffice[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OpenOffice. 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, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014[edit]

ALR Piranha[edit]

Why did you nominate it for deletion? It was a real project, with cokpit mokeup, with windtunnel tests with HAS layout, with RC controlled modell. It was the last project of an swiss fighter aircraft after the FFA N-20 and FFA P-16. an important project for the swiss military.Only because it was never build? this is no reason. we have other aircraft projects here on wikipedia North American XF-108 Rapier, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, Antonov An-218. FFA P-16 (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It was just a plan, not eve close to realisation. And poorly sourced with just one article in a magazine. The Banner talk 07:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It was a project yes, but the build a cockpit 1:1 layout, the mad differen tests on windtunnel modells, they thested flightcharacteristics on raido controled scale models, the had plans for special HAS shelters for it.. so its not just a few drawings. It is a project like the ones Bell X-16Lockheed CL-1200 Rockwell X-30 North American XF-108 Rapier, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, Antonov An-218.

Literature is also a Reference

  • Janes all the world's aircraft supplement (18), in Flugrevue, Juni 1980, S. 55 f.
  • Jane's all the world's aircraft, Verlag McGraw-Hill, 1985, S. 205
  • Leichtkampfflugzeug Piranha. In: Schweizerische Bauzeitung: Wochenschrift für Architektur, Ingenieurwesen, Maschinentechnik, Band 96, 1978, S. 636
  • P-16 et autres jets suisses. Le Temps, 1. Dezember 2011

FFA P-16 (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Dübendorf AFB[edit]

Why do you delet out the part about the future of Dübendorf AFB. It is what will be happen to this AFB vom 2016 to araound 2022. Since short after WW2 dübendorf was 100% military airfild. had fighterjet do 2007. Helicopters and Prop aircraft today .it is a Miltary Air base, in the future is mil&civil aviatic and the inovationspark. the refrences [2] clearly say this.I have translatet some important parts with google, you can check it if you don't belive me.". Unter anderem die Geschäftsfliegerei und die Kleinaviatik sollen dort eine Basis erhalten" =Among other things, the business aviation and sportaircrat pilots are there get a base."Es soll künftig deshalb dreiteilig genutzt werden: Erstens als Flugfeld für den Bund, zweitens für die zivile Fliegerei und drittens für einen Innovationspark."=It should therefore continue to be used in three parts: First, as an airfield for the federal government, secondly for civil aviation and thirdly for Innovation Park."Konkret soll es im Norden des Flugplatzes einen Standort für Helikopter geben. Diesen Platz wird sich das VBS mit der Schweizerischen Rettungsflugwacht (Rega) und der Zürcher Kantonspolizei teilen, alle drei haben eigene Helikopter."=Specifically, it is intended to provide a location for helicopters in the north of the airfield. This location, the VBS will share with the Swiss Air Rescue (Rega) and the Zurich cantonal police, all three have their own helicopter."Daneben bleibt genügend Platz bleibt für den Innovationspark. Rund 70 Hektaren sind dafür reserviert, wie Bundesrätin Doris Leuthard (cvp.) an der Medienkonferenz ausführte"= In addition, there is sufficient space remains for the Innovation Park. About 70 hectares are reserved for how Federal Councillor Doris Leuthard (cvp.) Executed at the press conference. This future plans are a importannt thing for the AFB so it should be also here in wikipedia. FFA P-16 (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It is clerly said that the REGA and the Police Helicopters have to move to the NORD, next to the Military helicopter (REGA is at the moment on the opposide side of the AFB to the mil helicopters, Police Helicopter is at the moment on the top of the AFB at that place weher the Inovations Park will be built) in the ref its clerly said that the have to move to the nord:Konkret soll es im Norden des Flugplatzes einen Standort für Helikopter geben. Diesen Platz wird sich das VBS mit der Schweizerischen Rettungsflugwacht (Rega) und der Zürcher Kantonspolizei teilen, alle drei haben eigene Helikopter = Specifically, it is intended to provide a location for helicopters in the north of the airfield. This location, the VBS will share with the Swiss Air Rescue (Rega) and the Zurich cantonal police, all three have their own helicopter. Please ask me first if you don't understand what is written in german languaged references (sadly no english ref aboout this topic found), I will translate it for you as good as i can. I hope evertying is clear now. if you have questions please ask. FFA P-16 (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry i don't agree with you to delet this. Every point who you had sayd is no refernce about it, i had shown you and translatet. I offered you to anser any question you have about it. But you dident askedt a thing an but it for deletion. sorry but this is not nice. I have votet to keep it because it is an important place for the swiss aviatic history and it is still today an important place in the aviatic topic as it is also the home of the Swiss air force HQ and of the civil &military ATC Skyguide. FFA P-16 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I can read German quite good and there is nothing their about moving. You are making things up that are not in that source. And in my experience, that is not the first time. The Banner talk 03:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What should i have made up?. Everything you put into question is in that refrerence. I shoed you and translatet it also to english. It clearly say that the REGA and Police Helicopters have to move :Konkret soll es im Norden des Flugplatzes einen Standort für Helikopter geben. Diesen Platz wird sich das VBS mit der Schweizerischen Rettungsflugwacht (Rega) und der Zürcher Kantonspolizei teilen, alle drei haben eigene alle drei haben eigene Helikopter.So if they put all helicopters together in the nord, the REGA and Police have to move to the nord because they are at the moment on other locations on LSMD. FFA P-16 (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)