User talk:The Banner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
I try to the best of my knowledge and belief to contribute to the small red block of the image

Blind revert[edit]

What are you doing reverting decent copyedits and addition of categories for it? It is clearly an improvement, you're not even a native English speaker. What sort of English is " de period 2005-2013" and "in the time" ? And why does anything need seven citations? Genuinely I was helping you out and even thanked you for the article but your blind revert completely rejects what I did in good faith.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it was not okay what you did. You introduced errors. The mentioned linked head chefs were all the head chefs awarded with a Michelin star. Not some of them. By no means it was a blind revert, otherwise I would not have edited a few edits of you in again. And could you stop you PAs about my language, you are not as perfect as you think. The Banner talk 15:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

This is official notification that you are at WP:3RR. If you revert again you will be reported in the appropriate forum. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This is an official warning that you are introducing factual errors in an article. Stop playing the henchman. The Banner talk 16:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Kilkee[edit]

Thanks for that, I did make an unwarranted assumption re: direction of travel. I shall revert the other changes though, the phrasing as it stood in places before I edited was ludicrously bad, and there may be still more that needs doing. Harfarhs (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops, and with the revert I did not solve the problem.
But the case was that the locomotive had trouble due to weeds in the water tank. The steep hill shortly before Milltown Malbay (Black Hill) was nearly to much. On a prayer they managed to reach Milltown Malbay (MM). But the replacement locomotive had to come from far. I don't recall if it was Moyasta, Kilrush or Kilkee. It took rather long for the train to arrive in MM and even longer to finally arrive in Kilkee. By that time, the audience that was waiting on Percy French, had left. No money, so he sued the South Clare Railway (effectively part of the West Clare Railway) for 10 Irish pounds compensation. The company decided to fight the claim and waiting for the court case, French composed the song. Face-smile.svg
I have that info from the book "In the Tracks of the West Clare Railway" from Eddie Lenihan. Unfortunately, I borrowed the book from the library already a few months ago. The Banner talk 21:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

VxWorks[edit]

Based on your feedback I have updated the pre-amble and the history. I'd appreciate your feedback if you have some time. Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Grand Restaurant Karel V[edit]

I will unprotect the page. If there is any more edit warring then the editors involved will be blocked. Also you need to stop with the aspersions. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 13:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
To clarify a bit. What I meant was edit warring from the unprotection, taking the unprotection to be a clean start. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 13:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I hope the others concur with the present article. The Banner talk 13:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to continue to complain about the four sources but I do think you can cover it with one source. Never mind. I've created List of Dutch chefs. The red links mostly have article on Dutch wikipedia and probably should be started on here. Feel free to add lots of chefs from your Michelin articles or revamp the star system to reflect number of stars they held at peak or currently and grill it :-). I'll try to help blue some links sometime although might need assistance from you or @Drmies:.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, don't expect too much help from me. My focus is on the restaurants. First to write the remaining 70 or so, then update the existing ones (one website disappeared, the other went behind a paywall). Only when that is done, the focus will shift to the head chefs. But I do not guarantee that I will not write articles about chefs before that shift in focus. You never know what is going to happen. The Banner talk 19:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Also started Cees Helder which you might add to...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Between the two of you, you have done a lot already for the project, and you can do so much more. Who else is going to write all this stuff up? Drmies (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

Deletion nomination for File:EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg[edit]

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 June 22#File:EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Andy Hayler Reviews[edit]

I just spotted that you've removed a bunch of Andy Hayler reviews from several restaurant articles - you know that he's a well known critic, right? He's been on television quite a bit (although it's been a while since I last saw him) as a critic on Masterchef in the UK. Sorry - I didn't want to run around and reverse your edits. Miyagawa (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If you are talking about Master chef Professional: three times in all seasons. By far not enough to make him an important critic. The Banner talk 19:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I trimmed that article some more. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggest deletion of sub committee pages for ISO TC 37[edit]

You have suggested that the following pages should be deleted:

Your suggestion seems to be that the subject is not important. These pages are about the committees who develop important standards within the ISO organization. The standards deal with terminology, language resources, translating and interpreting. If there is something which should be added please suggest this. I am new to Wikipedia and am happy to take advice on improving these pages. However, they are important. [User:Peterrey|Peterrey]] (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)peterrey Peter Reynolds.

Start with independent, reliable sources to prove these sub committees are notable. The Banner talk 07:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverted Article Art Below[edit]

I don't understand why you deleted all of my changes from the article. I just started editing articles for Wikipedia, so I'd really like to know and learn from this. Besides I'm absolutely sure that everything I wrote is true and based on solid facts. Regards Sarahannati (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2014

My own head is also well stocked with facts that I'm absolutely sure are true. And, I venture to guess, The Banner's head is similarly full of facts that he/she is absolutely certain are true. Ditto for most people. What we are individually sure is true is what Wikipedia euphemistically terms "original research", and it's not good enough. Instead, we need independent, reliable sources for material that we add to articles. -- Hoary (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to join a discussion about the article Art Below, at Talk:Art Below. -- Hoary (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

VxWorks screenshot[edit]

Why did you remove the screenshot for vxWorks?Robpater (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Because it is a low quality picture with a huge size that conveys no real meaning of the software. The infobox is for important information. The Banner talk 16:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel that it is useful and it is a valid line item in the OS infobox. I agree that it is too big (another editor made a change which made it that size. I feel that it is useful to show readers the screenshot like other OS articles do and therefore would like to keep it in but make it smaller. Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Also unlike other windows-based screenshots, VxWork's emplys a text-based one with additional information such as CPU count and memory size. Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've made it smaller, and I think it looks much better. I could make it smaller still, but it might be more difficult to read the info on the screen. Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No matter what, in this state it does not belong in the infobox as it tells nothing important about the subject. I have by now also commented out all unsourced and not-independently sourced uses. (= hidden). This because the article starts to look like an advertisement. So, please: start sourcing and do that with reliable independent sources (= not the company webside of VxWorks or Wind River) The Banner talk 18:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I have done my best to find as much third party sources as I could. I also found some and used their material, then checked with the Wind River webpage only to find that the 3rd party was in error. I only sourced from WR when it was factual info, not on whether it was good or bad. Also most of the notable uses were there before I upgraded the pageRobpater (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Note, the initial notable uses were mostly un-referenced. I did start to look for references for them, and can continue. I propose, as was the approach before, to include the list and ask for people to get references. That way we can employ more people to do the work. That message was there back in 2012.Robpater (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my friend. I could have deleted the stuff straight away because it is unsourced since 2012. This article seriously needs independent sources, but you better start looking for sources for the non-hidden parts.. The Banner talk 18:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What non-hidden parts. How do I find them to start working on them?Robpater (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The text that you can read straight away. Like the sections features, hardware support, development environment, platform overview and history. The Banner talk 19:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry still not clear what you mean by "The text that you can read straight away". Di you mark what content needs to be cited? Do you mean where I had a Wind River reference I need to use a 3rd party? Does this include old content done by others from years ago?RobRobpater (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. What need to be cited, is almost the whole article
  2. Yes, when possible replace Wind River-sources by independent third party sources.
  3. Yes, in fact is does. But I suggest to start with your own work. While working on that, you might find useful sources for other parts. But remember: it is not necessary to reference every sentence. Just reference the most important facts.
  4. And in fact you are an innocent victim here, bearing the brunt of sloppy work of others. The Banner talk 19:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I was using the existing page as an example of the style and content. This could take some time. Shall I start with finding more 3rd party references to replace the Wind River documents? One problem is since this is an OS, it is not often mentioned. I did get some references for the medical and put them in. Is it OK to use Wind River press releases? How shall I proceed? Is there some time pressure? I would like to get the page up to scratch but I am not sure if I am up for a complete re-write including all old contributors. Your advice would be appreciated. RobRobpater (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no time pressure but it should be done in a reasonable time frame (and a year or more is too long). You better read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for some background about sources. Press releases are not suitable sources. The Banner talk 20:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Good I was thinking weeks but I feared days. The weather is getting v nice and one cannot waste Canadian summers. Shall I regularly check-in? Certainly for my first edits, I would like your feedback. Is it OK to cite wind river sources too? I'll read the wiki info you suggested. Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL, Canadian. Your name sounds rather Dutch. Face-smile.svg As Dutchman abroad I enjoy a real Irish summer. Company sources are not really favoured, so when you can find an alternative... The Banner talk 20:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

My daughter married a Dutchman and they are about to have their first child, so it sort of makes me Dutch? And I have spent some time in Holland years ago reaping the benefits of our part in WWII. I am part Scot & Irish though never been to Ireland just Scotland. One further question before I head out to enjoy what is left of the day. Can I use a WR document available publically, such as a Product Note, which lists features? Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Your countrymen liberated the city were I used to live, so I am well aware of the Canadian war effort. It was a fierce fight before they had liberated Groningen.
You can use it when there are no alternatives. The Banner talk 22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going through the WR customer page where the company lists each product that uses VxWorks. Besides a description of the product, there is either one or all of the following for each product: 1) WR press release. 2) link to customer testimonial or article about using VxWorks (minority). 3) Link to company webpage. I expect that 2) is ok as a reference, but 1) and 3) are not sufficient. Would there be a better chance of getting the list referenced by making it visible and asking for referencing help, giving it a couple of months? In the meantime, I'll start working on it.

By the way, what town are you from in Holland? Regards Rob Robpater (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification SVP: Under "Biased or Opinionated Sources" of Identifying Reliable Sources", it seems to state that a biased source could be used if it is reliable and depending on the context. Would that not be the case for listing features or product lists that use VxWorks as Wind River is THE reliable source and does fact checking? I agree it would not be suitable when stating opinions on how well the features function or how happy the customers were but it is the reliable source for these primary facts. I am trying to find information about using press releases in "Identifying Reliable Sources". It talks about reliable news services and opinion pieces which I don't think falls into the category of Wind River press release as in those they are not stating opinions just reporting a fact. Your guidance is appreciated. Thanks Rob Robpater (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Groningen
My son-in-law's family is from BennekomRobpater (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Press releases are by their nature not neutral but to promote the subject of the press release. The Banner talk 12:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Does the context make a difference: factual information vs opinion?Robpater (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have been successful finding new references for the body of the article and will keep looking. But the notable uses search is a daunting task to complete on my own. I gather you feel that it would not be warranted to make the un-referenced ones visible, with an appropriate message for a few months, to encourage readers to add references? Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that will help? The request for sources was from 2012... The Banner talk 17:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like the most effective strategy. The last notice didn't exactly cause a rush to cite, and I can't think of a re-wording that would get VxWorks' customers to create a valid reference besides "Limited notable use spaces available, act now before they are all gone!" RobRobpater (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am making referencing progress for the body of the report as well as the notable uses. I will be taling some vacation and will be away from Internet access off and on for the next 2 months. I wouldn't mind trying re-listing the call for referencing notable uses for a period of time to see what happens. What do you think? RobRobpater (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Also it would be more efficient for me to update the references if they were visible. Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

... and I am confident that there are 3rd party references for most of the items. It will just take time. RobRobpater (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

BrandZ[edit]

Could you please explain why you removed the historical BrandZ Top 100 lists? I know you stated 'it looks that they are not copyright free' but they are in the public domain, surely?

Benjaminmarshall (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you prove that? The Banner talk 17:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

They are readily available online from a variety of secondary & tertiary sources; for example here on the Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d8ea4e6e-da79-11e3-a448-00144feabdc0.html#axzz36OgN2G6t Benjaminmarshall (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The point is that you have to prove that they are copyright free and fit for reuse. Unless that is specifically stated, you must assume that it is covered by copyright. The Banner talk 10:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, okay, could you point me in the direction of the wikipedia policies about this, so I know what I need in order to prove they can be reused and reposted here? Many Thanks Benjaminmarshall (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Excessive details[edit]

In the article Baba Hari Dass I reorganized and simplify excessive detail sections and will keep working on this aspect further. Who can remove "overly detailed" template from that page? Thanks. Pradeepwb 17:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You make good progress but more work needed. So I leave the tag. The Banner talk 17:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Pressure[edit]

Banner, seriously, time to take it off your watchlist. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Refused, unless when you can prove that advertising is now allowed on Wikipedia. The Banner talk 09:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not the correct answer. It is not advertising, unless you can prove that Blofeld is on the take. Also, Blofeld is not a boy. Also, Ernst, "sociopathy" is not an acceptable term to throw around. Sheesh you two. Banner, I would have thought you would choose the better path. Drmies (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
At least I tried something to get out of this misery. The Banner talk 13:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello "The Banner". I am asking you to heed Drmies' recommendation above. Are you willing to do so? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
See my prior answer. The Banner talk 20:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

What the hell are you playing at? voting delete on a closed/withdrawn nomination?? You're lucky HJ isn't active because you should have been blocked again for your behaviour over the past few weeks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Blofeld-boy, stop kidding. You were responding there too after closing. I hope you don't mind that after your selective removing, I took the liberty to remove your comments too. Including this clear bad faith comment. The Banner talk 11:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, I've addressed him on his talk page. Are there no limits to your sociopathy?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You are describing yourself? The Banner talk 11:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Peace initiative[edit]

I don't like the way things are going, way to stressy. I suggest to introduce a voluntary interaction ban between the five of us. That means: User:Cassianto, User:SchroCat, User:Aymatth2 and User:Dr. Blofeld on one side and me on the other side. In this case, and I do not know if this is a common approach, it would mean not editing an article that is edited less than two week (or a month?) ago by one of the parties involved or on the talkpage of one of the parties. (Exception: AfD's of articles written by one of the parties.) Can everybody agree to that? The Banner talk 11:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

If you were a perfectly decent human being capable of interacting with other editors and accepting of discussion and consensus an interaction ban would not be necessary. In your case I agree it would be best INCLUDING AFDs as you seem to take everything as a tit for tat and make everything personal. If you'd simply accepted my good faith editing in the first place this wouldn't have blown up again. There was absolutely no need for you to vote delete on a closed nomination. It was immensely disrespectful and downright malicious, fuelled by little but the fact that you think you've been bullied into having an article merged even though I went to some lengths to encourage expansion of it. I really think a full 100% don't touch my article I won't touch yours thing would be a decent solution, not just a few weeks but permanently for articles primarily written by either of us as you're quite incapable of amicable discussion and operation around us. If your restaurant stubs need copyediting and improvement then so be it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a positive approach available? The Banner talk 11:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You've made it perfectly clear that you're unable to interact in a positive fashion. I've made many efforts to try to get on the level with you and each time you reject them. Well not again, I and the others have had it up to here with your petty behaviour.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The plain fact that you need so many personal attacks shows that the communication problem is not mine but yours. The Banner talk 12:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
If I was going to resort to personal attacks I'd have honestly called you something which I'm sure Drmies has witnessed on other pages on wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, I call this already a personal attack. Start behaving polite and we have made a giant step forward. The Banner talk 12:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Start behaving like a decent human being and it would be reciprocated. How you are treated on wikipedia is a mirror image of how you treat others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You are unable to act polite? The Banner talk 12:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Start behaving like a decent human being and it would be reciprocated. How you are treated on wikipedia is a mirror image of how you treat others. What other reasoning would you have for gate crashing a closed AFD on one of the most high profile night clubs in London, the sort of article you don't work on, and voting delete other than malicious intent and "revenge" for some perceived injustice you think you've faced. Am I to really believe you did it in good faith, in wikipedia's best interests? Pull the other one. Am I to be polite to you for doing that? Take a long hard look at yourself Banner. As I say it all came down to your initial response, and that was a very negative one overall. Enough said, please keep away from my articles and affairs and vice versa. You're a time sink on here, it feels like I'm in a barren no man's land here which I really don't want to be a part of. This is my last post here. Sometime in the future I forsee that you'll be blocked again as you're incompatible with working in a community environment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You know exactly how it should be done, but you don't act like it yourself.
But I stay away from your articles the same way you stay away from my articles. I hope you can persuade the other three to do the same. The Banner talk 12:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
They are not your articles. I shall edit where I pissing well like! Cassiantotalk 18:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
What I suggest is this: In this case, and I do not know if this is a common approach, it would mean not editing an article that is edited less than two week (or a month?) ago by one of the parties involved or on the talkpage of one of the parties. (Exception: AfD's of articles written by one of the parties.) Indeed, I do not own the articles I write, the same as you don't own any articles you have written, Cassianto. The Banner talk 18:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
When have I ever claimed ownership over any of "my" articles? Thank fuck I have the likes of you to tell me otherwise! Cassiantotalk 18:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You suggested that I claim ownership of articles with your remark "They are not your articles". But this is a peace initiative, so I hope you agree with this. The Banner talk 18:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Did you not say "but I stay away from your articles the same way you stay away from my articles"? Cassiantotalk 19:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
As Dr. Blofeld stated earlier: I really think a full 100% don't touch my article I won't touch yours thing would be a decent solution, not just a few weeks but permanently for articles primarily written by either of us (...) The Banner talk 19:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm bored of you, go away Cassiantotalk 19:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

For your info: you are on my talk page. But you make it load and clear that you are not interested in a peace initiative. Sorry to hear that. The Banner talk 19:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Multi sensory cooking[edit]

Fair enough if others are doing it, just seemed a bit much to call him a "pioneer of an approach to cuisine" when the vaguely-specified source seems to be him talking about his own work in one of his cookbooks. I'll redirect multi sensory cooking to molecular gastronomy if it's not just Blumenthal doing it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I am not sure if that is the same. The Banner talk 11:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, the gastronomy page says "Some chefs associated with the term choose to reject its use, preferring other terms such as multi sensory cooking, modernist cuisine, culinary physics, and experimental cuisine." and other senses are mentioned in the article body - perhaps that's worth expanding on? --McGeddon (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Possible, but this makes me doubt. I assume multi sensory cooking is wider than just molecular gastronomy. The Banner talk 12:03, 3 July 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) 00:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Tim Krul[edit]

An absolute super guy: Tim Krul. Personally killed of Costa Rica! Face-smile.svg The Banner talk 23:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Mschamberlain's talk page.
Message added 11:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of places in Norfolk 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:
  • Ryburgh]], [[Great Snoring]], [[Walsingham|Great Walsingham]], [[Great Yarmouth]], [[Greensgate]], [[Gressenhall|Gressenhall green], [[Grimston, Norfolk|Grimston]], [[Griston]], [[Guist]], [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VirusTotal[edit]

Not nice, if I update the engines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VirusTotal and after that you remove everything! -Tobias B. Besemer (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please compare with this older version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VirusTotal&diff=616079990&oldid=615454043
Sorry, I have undo your delete.
-Tobias B. Besemer (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Now listed on AfD as advertising. The Banner talk 13:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I make no advertisements, I have no connection to Google and I don't get paid for working on Wikipedia, but I don't like, if I spend time to update content and somebody else delete it after that again. Sorry! -Tobias B. Besemer (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Broadway Video[edit]

Mr. Banner, Thanks for your attention to the Broadway Video article. I see that you "restored maintenance templates as problems are not solved." I was planning to take a stab at the disambiguation problem and would welcome any suggestions on how to solve that. As for the advert-tag, I see that another editor, Stockholm6, removed it, explaining "there's nothing here that looks like ad-speak, and it's very thoroughly cited. I think the ad tag is a holdover from a much older version of the page that doesn't resemble the current iteration." In fact, I sought to improve the article because of an advert-tag attached in 2013 to a version that was patently promotional. I attempted to re-write in a neutral tone. What problems do you regard as unresolved? I see that you removed a reference to the company's work for Jeep, to which I attached a link to the commercial. Would you be more comfortable with a citation linked to an Autoweek article about the Jeep commercial? I.e.: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20140331/CARNEWS01/140339965 Scrivener98 (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

To my opinion, the excessive use of external links in plain text and the excessive list of programs they were involved in makes the list promotional. There is no need to mention each and every thing that is distributed. And secondly, most social media, including Facebook, Linkedin and YouTube, are not considered reliable sources. So yes, better sources are needed. The Banner talk 16:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Excelsior Recordings[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history 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. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Chubbles (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You have a good sense of humour. Needed a good laugh. The Banner talk 18:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Shock Doctrine[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Shock Doctrine. 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, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

United States Association of Former Members of Congress Nomination for Deletion[edit]

Would you consider closing the discussion on the consideration for the deletion of the page United States Association of Former Members of Congress? I have made many revisions and invite you to examine the page again to see how it has changed. Most of the issues noted have been fixed, and the discussion on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Association of Former Members of Congress are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the page. If you still have problems with how the article is written, please let me know and I will try to fix them. Thank you for nominating it, however, as it allowed for the page to be improved greatly. FMCIntern (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not convinced. And yes, I know that there is a massive bias towards USA-subjects. The Banner talk 16:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Your original critique and reason for consideration for deletion was based on a quote by myself taken out of context, as I explained. I was referring to information such as the leadership that is not fully available anywhere except for the subject's website. Any content about the organization's activity has been removed, eliminating the need for secondary sources to support those activities. The article is now purely informative about the organization's basic information, which is evenly sourced from the website and secondary sources, as you can see if you visit the article. FMCIntern (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, simply saying that "there is a massive bias toward USA-Subjects" is ignoring the evidence that the supporters left on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Association of Former Members of Congress; this subject is similar and modeled after organizations related to it such as Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians, which is similarly notable. FMCIntern (talk)
Come on, my friend, I can understand that you are up set. It is not nice for a marketing trainee/intern to get hammered on his/her first assignment. Find yourself some reliable, third-party sources about the organisation itself. Not about activities. The Banner talk 18:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
What sources are you referring to that are not reliable, or that are not about the organization itself? Are we reading the same article? I will outline it for you: the History section is purely about the organization itself, not the activities; the History section is purely about the organization itself, not the activities; the Objectives and Activities section is about the organization's mission, and includes one piece of information about a single activity, for which there is a reliable source; the Congressional Study Groups Section is about a department within the organization; the Funding section talks about how the organization pays for its programming; and the Leadership section lists the leadership of the organization (obviously). Where in these sections is there an issue with having too much information about the activities, and not about the organization itself? Any mention of activities (I can find two) are only included because they are integral to the mission of the organization, as it is a programming organization. Please look at the article in context and see that there is no issue here. FMCIntern (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Source number 1, 2, 4, 9, 11 and 12 are all links to the website of the organisation itself. As a start... The Banner talk 18:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I realize this. I have explained numerous times that the information cited cannot be found anywhere else, and I included the link to Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians as an example of a similar organization that does this as well and is not at threat of being deleted. Anyways, this was not the issue you cited; you suggested that the article was not notable enough to be a stand-alone article. Also, your last complaint was that the sources support the organization's activities as opposed to the organization itself. With your last response it is clear that you cannot support either point, so please remove the tag for deletion. FMCIntern (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, as you have demonstrated by your inability to prove that the subject is not notable (please see the deletion page where other users came to the page's defense), I recommend that since your new problem with the article is that the sources are inadequate, you replace the deletion tag with a tag, as it is actually relevant to the corrections you see as needed. FMCIntern (talk)
aha, you get personal. Try to get some neutral sources instead. The Banner talk 19:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not getting personal? I was just pointing out that your tag is not relevant, and is unproductive. You have thus far been unable to support your original claim, so it makes more sense for you to change the deletion tag to a source tag. And it would be helpful if you could be at least a bit less completely vague with your recommendations. FMCIntern (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
These tag are not mine. So somebody else think that your conflict of interest and your related sources are problematic. And I am not vague: just supply reliable, independent sources to prove the organisation is notable. And read Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. The Banner talk 19:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to your nomination for deletion of the page, not the tags on the article (i.e. COI or associated sources). This is not about those tags, it's about ending the discussion on deletion. Also, some consistency would be nice. Please explain to me why the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians I have cited is not at threat for deletion, when this article is, even though they both pull basic information from the associated website? (This is not an invitation to consider deleting that page as well) Additionally, being a neutral party yourself, I would like to see you find a "neutral source" for such information as a complete list of the organization's leadership, or for the organization's OFFICIAL mission statement. FMCIntern (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
For starters, because every article is judged on its own merits. There is no need and no effect when you compare it with other articles (except that those articles often also get AfD'ed). The Banner talk 19:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
That does not change the fact that you have no grounds for labeling it as considered for deletion. And because the organizations are so similar, you are wrong in saying that they are not comparable. I am simply asking that you redefine your criticism as a tag rather than a nomination for deletion. FMCIntern (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOPR. The Banner talk 19:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
How is this relevant? My intentions are none of those, and I am not paid for this... Nor is it promotional. It is purely informational, as you would be able to tell if you read the article. FMCIntern (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that you are arguing a position out of the scope of criteria for deletion, so that discussion should be closed. I invite you to tag the article as relying too heavily on primary sources. It is irritating that you continue to evade any discussion of this point, and move on to something irrelevant. After reading your talk page, it is clear that you have a history of bullying articles well beyond necessity, and I ask you to please stop in this case, considering that you appear not to have the support or the evidence for such action. FMCIntern (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You are clearly a staff member. And the article is promoting the organisation by using its own sources and not being based on reliable, third-party sources. You are not impartial, my friend. You look at it from the viewpoint of the organisation and you reflect their views. Sorry.
And there is absolutely no reason to get personal. The Banner talk 20:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not a staff member. The article conveys basic information about the organization, what views could possibly be reflected? FMCIntern (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
And even if it was written with bias, that is still not grounds for deletion. You can critique the article all you want, but you have no grounds for deletion. Therefore, close that discussion. You are being unreasonable. FMCIntern (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
My friend, it is your own name that makes it load and clear that you are a staff member. And you call it bullying but I am just straight. And in my opinion you are too involved to be neutral. The Banner talk 20:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It is very interesting that, instead of arguing the reason for deletion on that page, you labeled our discussion here as me "bullying" you. I have not done this, I have tried to show you that your claim is not valid and that you should redirect your criticisms to a different process, such as a primary source tag. How is this "bullying"? As I stated, it is frustrating when I am trying to discuss this with you and all you respond with is a completely separate topic. FMCIntern (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You were already accusing my of bullying, doubting my abilities, and hammering that I would retract the AfD and replace it by a tag. That is, in my opinion, bullying. The Banner talk 21:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I am forced to "hammer" when you refuse to discuss the deletion at all, I am correct in recommending that you change the nomination to a tag, and I referred to you previously bullying because of the above posts where they suggest a strange degree of harassment on a certain article. FMCIntern (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

So, because you have no arguments, you just start hammering and bullying. Absolutely great argument... NOT. The Banner talk 21:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

How do I have "no arguments"? You are taking everything I say out of context. I said I have to "hammer" because you refuse to discuss the nomination because YOU have no arguments, which is evident by this whole discussion. FMCIntern (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC) You are arguing points that do not correspond to any of the criteria of deletion:

Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate) Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes) Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons Redundant or otherwise useless templates Categories representing overcategorization Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

If you intend to argue notability, please do so; but as of yet you have only argued sources and COI, which are not grounds for deletion. FMCIntern (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope, of course you will not see any reason for deletion, mr. CompanyIntern. Becasue that will become a bad mark on your status sheet. The Banner talk 23:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you're not making any sense now, and you're just being rude. If you're just going to hold this nomination over my head because you can, without any evidence, then I am going to report you. Fair warning. FMCIntern (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User:FMCIntern, you are the one being rude. Banner was wholly within their authority as an editor to nominate and make arguments for deletion. Your job was NOT to harass them about their choice to do so, and to CLEARLY make your single, policy-based argument on the AFD discussion, and nowhere else. However, understand full well that even the Founder of Wikipedia has stated "those with COI should never directly edit their article, but ONLY propose properly-sourced changes on the talkpage to try and obtain consensus". Sources, by the way, quite obviously ARE a reason for deletion: unsourced, or articles that have primary sources are unacceptable. Now, your username violates our username policy, you're violating COI, and now you're harassing someone for do what they're supposed to do ... doesn't the Organization you work for have any ethics? the panda ₯’ 00:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
They were within their authority to nominate it, but during this discussion they chose to argue points irrelevant to the nomination. And on the nomination page the evidence has built up that the claim of the subject not being notable. As far as primary sources being grounds for deletion, where are you getting your information? Nowhere in the 14 points of the reasons for deletion in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy does it say that primary sources are grounds for deletion. I did not know about that part of the username policy, and I do not plan on contributing to the article in the future because of that, only submitting recommendations on the talk page as suggested in the guidelines; thank you for directing my attention to that. Specifically, the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest states that it is "strongly discouraged" to work on an article that you may be affiliated with, and I intend to respect that in the future. However currently The Banner's nomination for deletion is disrupting the project, as there are many users who have supported the page, and only The Banner and one other user who have decided that the subject is not notable enough, which to me seems unreasonable. Lastly, although it looks like "harassment" to you, I have been persistent in this discussion because The Banner refuses to answer any of my questions directly or be productive in their recommendations; this is frustrating, and I admit that my tone became heated, but it was only because they refused to cooperate. I consider snide comments that are counterproductive as rude. FMCIntern (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You're right, your snide comments that are counterproductive are as you say "extremely rude" and uncooperative. If I had personally been badgered by you like this, I would have closed the thread long before and take you to WP:ANI (because blocking you myself might have been considered "rude"). To call their nomination "disruptive to the project" shows you have very little understanding about the project .. and WP:RS is very clear about the use of reliable sources (which primary sources are not). Let the discussion fulfill its 7 day mandate...I haven't decided whether to !vote, or wait and close it myself (I haven't read either the article or the AFD enough to have decided yet, so I'm not really WP:INVOLVED) the panda ₯’ 00:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I apologize for my behavior here. I misunderstood Wiki policies, or did not understand them enough, and therefore was in the wrong. I will no longer edit the AfD page, nor contact you. I respect that you saw an article which was violating Wiki policies and did what you were supposed to do. Please forgive my rash behavior. FMCIntern (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deaf culture[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deaf culture. 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, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

What links here[edit]

I'm sorry, I genuinely am trying to catch the templates in "what links here". It is not always easy as "What links here" takes time to update". yes I missed example this and this, and this. It evidently isn't deliberate but not seeing all of them. I will try and do better. Is there a tool I can download that shows which templates are misdirecting to dabs? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

With a page move you always get the option to check what links there. So it is just a case of hitting "what links here". The Banner talk 00:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
There's no tool, okay, understood, thank you. Then why does it take so long to update? Obviously the smart thing to do is catch the templates first, sorry to miss those, but then after catching them the list is still showing the templates as linking after the correction. I reload the what links here and the ones I've fixed are still there. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the one you should look for: Check what links here to see whether the move has created any double redirects, and fix the most serious ones. A bot will fix the rest later on. You can use the following text to replace older redirects. In fact, it also shows the links to templates. But true, a specific tool is not there. It is plain handy work but it has to be done. The Banner talk 00:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I agree/know it has to be done, I don't intend you or anyone else to do it. If you see me missing stuff again buzz me please. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

Speedy deletion contested: The New Brunswick Innovation Foundation[edit]

Hello The Banner. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of The New Brunswick Innovation Foundation, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. I will try to improve the article. . Thank you. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 05:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I wish you luck but I am highly critical about the article. The Banner talk 10:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)