User talk:Active Banana

Welcome!

Hello, Active Banana, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Laurinavicius (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Cookies

Gromoror has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hi to you too!

Hello, Active Banana. You have new messages at Laurinavicius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For future reference

[1]

[2]

martin bormann

hullo why did you remove my martin bormann in popular culture ref

Sankurathri Foundation in need of monitoring and clean up

To do

Policy Regarding Unsourced Material

"If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the tag, which will add "citation needed," but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time." Please add the fact tag in the future, instead of simply undoing the changes that have been made.

You can choose to do otherwise, but the policy does suggest that you add fact tags for information that is not harmful. You're free to believe what you want, but it's hard for me to believe that being listed as an associated act is harmful to the article when the article already references that association.

Top hat construction

In regards to the source, I have found one which can be seen here:

• http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=5016882&l=4d1027a455&id=688147062
• http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=5016883&l=12e5c4a124&id=688147062

I got these from a page I got off eBay. Unfortunately, no bibliographical info was given and I am trying to chase it up. If I can't get the info, how should I proceed with this in terms of citation? --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 09:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I found out the source of the page and have amended the article already. Thanks anyways. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 17:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Avargas2001

You may be interested to know that I have brought this user to WP:ANI here. Pfainuk talk 18:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on Angela Tilby

Thank you for all the work on the article I recently started on Angela Tilby - this certainly taught me new information! I am grateful for you for doing this - it could well help the article to be saved from deletion now. It is always good when people collaborate with others on Wikipedia in this collaborative way - so a big round of thanks to your there. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are being discussed by administrators

See WP:AN3#User:Warrenpd reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: ). At first glance it looks like the other guy made seven reverts and you made five. Both of these exceed WP:3RR. To avoid sanctions, you should comment in the thread at AN3 and promise to stop warring on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned your conduct at the ArbCom CC case workshop page

here [3]. It involved me alleging you committed some misconduct, but I said I didn't see enough of it to make your behavior worth an ArbCom sanction. Others (including ArbCom) may disagree, and you should know it's there in any event. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Were you unaware of the Climate Change case? If you mean "What is this case all about", look at the top of the Workshop page I linked to. It has links to the Main Case Page [4] where various editors commented on whether or not the Arbitration Committee should take this up. That's not really a "Reader's Digest" version, but there really is no RD version and that is what comes closest. I thought you knew. Sorry you had to hear about it this way. The evidence stage is over, so it's unlikely you'd be sanctioned. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just Started

I just started using wikipedia yesterday. I am an intern for Rasmussen College and they wanted me to update their wiki page. I guess I didnt really know what I was doing because the page is locked now. I read all of my messages and I have all of the sources for my edits. I really need to get this done before the end of the day. Is there any way I can get it unlocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenpd (talk • contribs) 14:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks a lot

The seldom coveted THUMBS UP AWARD

for pitching in at Russ Savakus. Luck you, here is your prize. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

HEY!

I changed Cast members of As the World Turns to July because today is the last day of June and they haven't come on the show. So leave them alone. They appear in July. THANKS!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.139.100 (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

help me in sourcing :)

Can this link be a good source for Nina Girado#Voice??? - http://www.casttv.com/video/rxgk561/how-other-artists-describe-the-asia-s-soul-siren-nina-asap-sessionistas-at-the-araneta-video Kristelzorina (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for improving the article Nanjing University. And if any content described in a way like ads, also please help to revise. Thanks! Furthermore, I think query, debating and communication will help to ensure validity and proper way of description of contents. Peducte (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I see that User:Gun Powder Ma said you added advert template to the article Nanjing University. I also read Wikipedia:NOT#SOAPBOX, and the explanation about advertising. I don’t agree on the tag. The contents of article Nanjing University are serious, although there may be problems in translation. If you do think some contents are ads, please clearly point out the specific contents and let's have discussions one by one. If not, then I'll delete the tag. Again thank you for improving the grammar of article. - Peducte (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page. Please see my words and give your opinions. - Peducte (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your precious opinions. In some degree I agree with you. Since You added the Advert tag, would you please help to revise those words of overabundance? And those you think lack sources please add sign of citation request, and I'll see whether I can help to provide sources or not. (from my talk page) - Peducte (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

According to what said, the problems can be divided into two parts. So, the tag Advert is not proper. It should be replaced by requests of citation and the issue on problems of Peacock. - Peducte (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advising. - Peducte (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Nanjing University. (more reply) - Peducte (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Nanjing University. - Peducte (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thanks!

Re your message: No problem. =) I'm going to file a quick CU request about the accounts in a moment. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is everyone reverting constructive edits to Kal Ho Naa Ho?

Can you please tell me what's so bad about the edit I made to Kal Ho Naa Ho that it needed to be reverted (three times so far)? I am only here to help. BollyJeff || talk 01:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the point was to show that User:Shshshsh performs excessive reverts, then I would tend to agree with them on that. BollyJeff || talk 02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for your speedy reply and correction. BollyJeff || talk 02:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh...

Bana shsh kibhenko (talk · contribs) is there too... Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Panos Markovic

Hi! I've just seen you removed all external links I added. I can understand you removed self-published sources, even though RSSSF is considered a reliable source by WP:FOOTY, but why did you remove the link to Doxa Drama official website (this one), considering the fact that this article is poorly sourced. Tell me. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I don't understand why you have not answered yet to my query. You have been active over the last days...--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It does not appear to meet WP:EL. And the lack of solid sources within the article is NOT reason to include random other sites in the external link section. Active Banana (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. I added inlines sources, not external links.[5]--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Paulius Galaunė

I think ive written about most of the important things about this artist. what do you think I could do to make the article better, so it could be featured or something ? thanks. Nefesf9 (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Discussion at WP:NOT

I am interested in posting a request for comment on the issue of channel listings. Is it okay if I start that in a new section at WT:NOT? Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Just took a look at Dcoetzee's proposal. I agree that we should let it play out. If nothing comes out of that discussion, then we can consider an RFC. -- Wikipedical (talk)

Reliable sources

What exactley do you mean by reliable sources here? There are already sources about his past teams, his current age/data, and his recent transfer. What exactly isn't good there? Thanks. Catabv23 (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Any sources for information about a particular article, particularly claims related to a living person, must be substantiated by inline citations on that particular article page, not by a claim that "one of the references on another page can verify that statement". Active Banana (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. Go back to citations. The policy states: "When to cite sources: The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. It does not require inline citations for all claims related to living persons, only for claims that are challenged or likely to be challenged. --Crunch (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And the statements had been challenged by me. Active Banana (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Paulius Galaune

Hi. looking at John Boydell, which is an arts good article, it looks like i have quite a lot more work to do before it is good enough. I'll see if i can find some pictures of his paintings/stamps. thanks for your help Nefesf9 (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• thanks - do the articles have to be that long and detailed to become good articles, if biographies ? im trying to keep Galaune's article summarised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefesf9 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to Username Concerns

Thanks for the note. I understand your concerns. I do work with Chuck Grassley, and my goal is simply to make sure that information about him on Wikipedia is current, accurate and verified. I did not realize that using this name might not be the best username. I simply chose it to provide disclosure, as I wish to work through the community, and let other editors know where I am coming from. I’m familiar with Wikipedia’s conflict of interest rules, and I will take them seriously. If I must change my user name I can, but if this explanation works, then I hope you can help me. Grassleyworks (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Paulius Galaunė

Someone who doesnt have an account has been putting lies into the article about Galaunė's military service. Can you stop them please ? thanks. Nefesf9 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• also, any other ways I can help out on wikipedia apart from writing articles. Nefesf9 (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern

Thanx for uprizing me on the subject.Wisdom24 (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion

What is your opinion on this issue? I think the article title should be without the "Munipical" word in it. Thanks. Catabv23 (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

MTM Enterprises

I thought you had a problem with the writing style and not the citation. My mistake. The citation is actually the same as the one for the next paragraph listing all the writers. I thought that citing it at the end of the two paragraphs was sufficient for all of it. Would you prefer the cite to be inserted in all the locations you indicated? Thanks for the input.Dohhh22 (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Greatful for your guidence

Thanks..I will keep this in my mind.Wisdom24 (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced

Information that has citation needed beside it in the Lee Jun Ki page needs to be removed. It has been there without any sourcers for years now. Can you please remove them? Thanks. 202.72.221.126 (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Taryn

Hello, about the edit on the Wrong Hole videoclip: I'm Italian and I can tell you that a lot of non-english speakers knows Taryn thanks to that video. The source are the views and comments on YouTube, a lot of which are from international users, and the thousands of views on the italian/spanish/etc. subbed versions of the video. --WikiKiwi (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I guess you're more experienced than me about sources :) but what did you mean with the copyviol link? I haven't linked to anything in my revision, refs were already there. --WikiKiwi (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see... well be aware that those in Taryn Southern article are still linked since you undid my revision but the refs were from older edits. --WikiKiwi (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

AIV

I've blocked those two IPs. If they pop up again, let me know, as there may be a feasible rangeblock. TNXMan 16:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Need your help

Playback singer wikipedia is for authenticated singers of south asia. I have notice that whenever some authenticated names of famous Pakistani playback singers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_Pakistan) have been entered in the playback singer wikipedia, the editor showed a biased stance and removed those names. Recently, for the first time, I included some names with the source, even then the editor not only reverted that edit but also reverted my another contribution in Naheed Akhtar's wikipedia which clearly reflects his biased nature. He also declared me a sock puppet. I, here by, request you to look into the things yourself and help me in this regard if possible or atleast give a full stop to this biased attitude as Pakistani playback singers have equal rights. I will be highly greatfull. Wisdom24 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi..I am Wisdom24. I have been blocked and declared sock puppet of Dr.Mukesh by the biased administrator Shahid which I am not. I need you help again in this regard against this conspiracy. Yellow monkey has done it on his request. This is very unfortunate that such people are occupying dominant place which is frustrating. If you can unblock me..I will be greatful or if any thing you can do....Wisdom.Wisdom (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)(Wisdom24)

I knew it

I knew you would think it's actually not the same guy. I am very well experienced with him. I never accuse unless there is a reason to do it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite astonished...

Hi there BANANA, VASCO here,

I think you have been getting on my case ever since my personal attack on A VANDAL (still not justified, i admit it) on Francisco Yeste. After i worked my tail off in order to get references, you kept on inserting the tags. After a couple more, i asked you "do you think it's good now, can i remove tags?", getting total silence for an answer. By the way, the tags have been removed.

Now, at Alan Osório da Costa Silva (yes it was i who edited anon a few days ago, sometimes i have an idea and don't want to waste time logging in, lest i forget it, and i have nothing to hide, my IP is standard, so...): you removed every sentence that smells a bit like POV, backed up or not by external links (in this case BACKED UP): a guy who plays ALL the league matches IS an undisputed starter, truth of truths, that is not POV, period. I mentioned Ricardo Quaresma because this player was at his prime - at club and national team level - when Alan (not Osório as you wrongly "renamed" him, player is known as Alan!) arrived at F.C. Porto. The only thing in which you were 100% right was the INTRO that reeked of POV ("pacy and scoring winger"), i should not have inserted that in an encyclopedia.

Some more surprises: in late storyline, you removed that Alan scored against Porto "the only goal in a home triumph", meaning the game ended 1-0. What, so me saying one game ended 1-0 is POV too?! Also, i believe that the unref'd tag should remain if some info in storyline looks "suspicious", not remove that "suspicious" info and keep tag altogether.

I have brought up a discussion at WP:FOOTY. Also, i have "tipped" an admin about this stuff. When he reads this message, if/when he says "Vasco, ActiveBanana is correct, you must desist in your approach", you can do whatever you choose, i don't care, if people want their WP articles in poorer quality... Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC) (e/c)

1) unless he is ONLY known in reliable sources as "Alan" (in the same manner Madonna is generally only referred to in reliable sources as "Madonna" and not "Madonna Ciccone" or how in reliable sources Pelé is only known as Pelé and a majority of reliable sources do not include any other name identification) we use the real name and not the stage/nickname.

2) for the remainder of your point of view, I suggest you read WP:ASF. We simply state the facts as reported in reliable sources and allow the reader to determine if they consider it a "triumph" or merely a "win". Active Banana (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply: About 1) Check links #1 and #2 to see how he is known please, 100% reliable sources both - a player playing in Portugal for several years now, 2 Portuguese sites. About 2) Totally honest man, not being sarcastic, i write "triumph" in the same manner as "win", just did not want to engage in word repetition (in the opposite pole, like "loss" or "defeat"), i NEVER wanted to engage in POV there (if it's more satisfactory to the site, i'll gladly change the word "triumph"). Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• The admin has replied, he also feels some of my inputs (but not 99%, as you) are POV, i duly rephrased it more (the "fine individual effort" bit is now without the "fine", but it was ref'd, has been for months; also replaced the bit "instant first-choice" with a more suitable sentence, especially after i found out it was false, my bad :)). I have not still yet removed the tag, why should i? So you insert it again, like in Yeste, after it had nearly 10 refs? I respect your work (POV/WEASEL is sometimes not far away from vandalism), thought you could do the same with mine. Signing off - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is still lacking any third party reliable sources UEFA.com is "the official Website for European football" and so is NOT a third party for content regarding a European football player. Without third party sources, the references still need to be improved. Active Banana (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

Why, thank you! It's much appreciated. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Overzealous

You are being overzealous with Mecislovas Gedvilas and looking after user:Nefesf9. The effort is appreciated, but please do not be so strict will all the rules. Relax & cut people some slack before mass tagging everything with clean up tags and citing ten different policies. This is a voluntary project & we are human. We make mistakes, but there is no need to scrutinize every single edit looking for stuff we messed up and then tagging it without any effort to fix/address/discuss the issue. It's very disheartening and does not create a welcoming atmosphere for any editor (a newbie, established editor, or an admin). Take care, Renata (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

All I am saying is that you should show a bit of good faith.

Regardless, you seem tense. I sincerely suggest you take a wikibreak... Sometimes when you spend too much time in this place, it gets better of you and wikidrama just creates itself for no sane reason (been there, done that). Renata (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

He never learns, does he? Thank you for the support. Actually, don't forget he did the same to you... Don't let him mislead you again when another account is created. :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

SHINee

Hi! This is Farjad. You have helped before in maintaining the good article status of SHINee. I have a request; there is an unregistered IP address who has been changing whole general layout of SHINee article without prior discussion required before making huge edits. This endangers its good article credibility. I reverted his/her edits and mentioned to 'discuss' it first. But he/she continues to edit. There is a general layout for music artist biographies for all wikipedia entertainment articles and it can't be changed. I don't want to start an edit war because that also endangers good article credibility. Do you know how to deal with this or know anyone who can? Thanks! Please reply, I watchlisted your user page and talk page. Farjad0322 (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-thinking

Do you honestly agree with Oncamera? The headers are the same just made Main Headers how is there a difference in that? Jenaveev18 (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

List of South Korean teen idol musical bands

Hi ! I noticed you wrote something in the talk page of this page, only yesterday. Now I just nominated it for deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British pop musicians of the 1930s, because I think it doesn't meet our criteria. Feel free to join the discussion and maybe even vote. Cheers, Maashatra11 (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-Welcome

Thanx Banana.Falcon in air (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your wellcome message. I think that I will be active user of wikipedia. I have made some changes in the article - Elchin Khalilov, before my changes there was deletet big part of an article from another users. Is it normal that someone deletes a part of an article without making any changes to improve the article and not to allow others to do this. Probably there are some rules to counter this. I also ask for help from you to finalize this and many other articles that I'll take to edit in the future.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elm478 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-Wikiproject - Indian cinema

Thank you very much Active Banana for sending me an invitation. I will definitely consider it. Falcon in air (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nadia (band) AfD

Hi agian! Would you please vote on AfD of Nadia (band). The band is under the same company as BoA, Kangta, TVXQ, The Grace, Super Junior, Girls' Generation, TRAX, SHINee, f(x). Thanks! Farjad0322 (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Breakfast at Tiffany's (song)

I removed the tags for notability and merger. This was a top 5 hit in the US and the number one on UK charts. This song is thus is per se notable, and attempts to merge are against long-standing consensus. There are literally hundreds of thousands of Ghits about this song, which was written before Google broke out of ARPANET. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, to answer your other question: I protected this article because that infamous SNL episode prompted the vandalism, and is likely to be re-aired soon. Bearian (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A Barnstar just for you!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for alerting an administrator to repeated vandalism to Dane Cook and Carson Daly by anonymous IP users and single-purpose-account vandals. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Walled garden

OK, I'm intrigued - what, with regard to Wikipedia, is a "walled garden" please?? (I think I know what one is in real life.) Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I see, and thanks. It's one like of those little private projects that are here, but in a way aren't really part of it. I've seen one or two before. What an excellent expression! Thanks very much and best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Toni Gonzaga

I remove the category filipino of Spanish descent because it does not have a source. and Some of the stuff i edited that have a source they remove it without even reading the stuff i added that clearly mentions what i added into the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.218.41 (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Active Banana. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 July 22.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, sir...

There was little reason for you to come down on me for what you determined to be an unsourced edit. I'm reverting my previous edit and will ask you to watch the video in question before you respond to what I say. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, it doesn't. You are being a little too aggressive in your patrolling of the page, and I would suggest you tone it down because that kind of attitude is not conducive to good faith editing. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not threaten me. Another portion of good faith is considering extenuating circumstances, like the ones that exist here. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You just threatened me again. I will revert, but will also consider filing an AN/I report against you for your threats and failure to assume good faith. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the Wiki's policies. I'm also cognizant to the fact that in a fair amount of cases, especially where episode lists for programming are concerned, there may never be enough actual research (by Wiki guidelines) to fully satisfy ever single guideline. That said, however, it doesn't mean that in every single instance that the edits should be automatically disqualified. The Annoying Orange episode list is one of those cases. You may never find an effective third-party source for these episodes. That doesn't mean you have to dismiss every single edit as fancruft, which you have done here. A lot of edits on the episode page are indeed cruft, I will concede. But when you revert edits that you can't define as cruft (i.e., making the descriptions clearer), that isn't assuming the best faith possible. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You just don't want to admit your fault in this, do you? If that's the case, then why does the Annoying Orange have a page? Come to think of it, why does any television series have an episode list? I presented you with legitimate reasons why there needs to be other consideration. If you're not going to accept them or apologize for threatening me I don't know what else I can do for you. Your overaggressive editing and coinciding failure to assume good faith, quite frankly, is bothersome and it seems like you have a battle mentality going on here. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I don't appreciate your condescending attitude. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouko block

I blocked Shouko for a period of one day (it's not quite blatant vandalism, but it is disruptive editing) However, I have little experience in this kind of blocking, so you may want to bring it to ANI. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Draft for ANI

Disruptive content editing by Shouko0624

Shouko0624 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing content disruptively (removing some info (including birth name in edits such as this) and adding other info) without explanation, without references, and without communicating on any talk page. In some of this behavior, the user could be described as a Genre Warrior. Diffs include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Active Banana (talk · contribs) wrote in this edit that the user "keeps editwarring across multiple pages to do things like claim that a persons father is trivia The user has received a pageful of warnings and made no attempt to communicate back." NativeForeigner (talk · contribs) wrote in this edit 'I blocked shouko for one day, but I"m inexperienced in dealing with disruptive content editors, so please bring it to ANI where people more well versed in this can figure it out.' The user has requested an unblock using the incorrect template, which was procedurally declined.   — Jeff G.  ツ 06:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds about right. It's their failure to communicate, and their persistence which is the most bothersome. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also point out one of the edits where they are removing all references to the birth name of the person so that the article solely refers to the stagename. That was in a couple of articles, but I forget which right now, and I will be signing off after this. Active Banana (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Active Banana,

Thank You very much for Your help. Sorry for that I have not thought of this. There is no need to respond quickly, I think, its early dawn now in America, and I am not in an urge in any aspect.

Of course I do not put my text back, it is prone to ambiguity at each word. I do not even try to reword it, I am not an expert and I lack even English language knowledge.

As far as I know. the words "neurotized" and "posttraumatic" do not affect the person, they affect the pure situation, independent of the "embracing" personality. I wanted to say that on the Hungarian counterpart of that website (daylishyt, a professional cyberbullying site), entirely normal and everyday teens are regularly observed neurotized and posttraumatic, right after the attack. This seems to be the standard and healthy reaction for humans to crime in personal context.

In short, this term has sort of paradoxical nature: posttraumatic behavior is the normal and natural response of human to unnormal situations.

All what surprises me in the whole case that it is presented as extraordinary in the media. In my experiences this behavior counts as entirely normal, healthy and natural, probably species-inherited in our race. I see neither mental nor moral issues. Only the criminal part is what counts as extraordinary (although observed daily in Hungary in great public, due to holes in the legal system). An article could be even beneficial for the victim if it could cut off the tangential or misleading threads (anything prone to moralizing, e.g. uncritical claim of "obscenity", for which no real proof exits), highlighting instead the essence into focus. But I am not sure, let alone authentical, that's why all this would require expert help.

You are right that all my wordings are prone to misinterpretations, not only because I do not speak English, but also because I myself lack true expertise and have only vague concepts. You are right also because both the words "neurotized" and "posttraumatic" are meant vulgarly as mental disorders, although I always use them to pure situations, strictly apart from personality. Following a typical, everyday Hungarian daylishyt-site bullying case, even Buddha and Jesus would act as neurotic, moreover, exactly the opposite would be unusual. IMHO the whole behavior of the victims is inherently normal and natural, moreover, even free of moral issues, only the criminal part and the anonymous organization of the criminals is what makes it important, that's what establisehs notability, e.g.

• how the legal system will tack extremely distributed responsibility in such anon crimes (some amounting to "distributed murders" like the Hope Witsell case),
• what objective responsibility can be attributed to the various service providers and enterprises in the future, if any at all,
• how the legal system will readapt.
• whether cyberbullying will be the leading crime of the next decades.

of course most of these are highly unsourced, unfit yet for Wikipedia, I mentioned them just as possible future examples.

Thank You for removing all my ambiguous words, I have not thought of that these words are usually meant for persons themselves (I never use them so). Of course I do not put my text back, it is prone to ambiguity at each word. I do not even try to reword it, I am not an expert and I lack even English language knowledge.

The essence is only that it would be good to recruit an expert from a portal's task force (it could be done privately through Wikipedia's message sending capability, without any public trace), then most of the debates could be checked and resolved quickly, both the ethical and the factual issues (maybe subject consent would be still needed, I do not know, but in any case, it could be investigated much easier with expert guidance).

I am not mentioning the name now, not even the keywords, but if it can be still inferred through the context of links, pelase feel free to delete also this my message too.

Thank You for Your attention. Of course You do not need to respond, my proposal may turn out to be unusable (I do not know the internals of Wikipedia).

Best wishes and many thanks

Anticyberbullying (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there could be two conditions, which could solve some debates:

1. The right of the subject to delete the article at any time (this would resolve the underage problem, because it would allow reconsideration at any time)
2. A supervision with an appropriate expert whom the subjects accepts (this could deter further victimization)

A pro for the article could be that it could "overshadow" the media articles and deter victimization, if written with both external expertise and continuous (quit-any-time) approval of the subject. Wikipedia has the best googlejuice, this can be both a rescue (relief) and a nuisance here for the subject. In case of extreme expert control and subject feedback, it can be harnessed as a rescue.

I do not know whether it is usual (or possible at all) on Wikipedia to link an articles's "licence" to preset continuous "conditions". If not, then of course the above two proposals are invalid.

Anticyberbullying (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring per request (what request?)

Hi, thanks for the note: per your request, I am ignoring it so vigorously that I have already forgotten whatever it is that I'm writing to you about. :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply

and also for the much help, I am glad that the article case has been resolved in a humane manner. Thank You for Your continuous attention and work. We have the same problems in Hungary (moreover, a similar debate has just run on Hungarian Wikipedia), although the equivalent website's activity has been formally declared as illegal by court. Anticyberbullying (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollbacker

Hi Banana, I've been looking over your contributions and you certainly seem to do good work here. I've gone ahead and issued you rollback rights. Please be careful with the privilege - it can be easily lost. I recommend you carefully read up on the what you should do and should not do with rollback, then practice here before using it. I'm confident you'll use it wisely. If for some reason you don't want it, let me know and I'll revert.

You may wish to display {{User rollback}} on your user page. Happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! Farjad0322 (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My name

Please don't worry about getting my name wrong. I've been called much, much worse! Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Active Banana. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 03:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for watching Naidu page

I've observed that you have been keeping an eye on Naidu page today.Thanks for that.Try to ensure its not vandalised by some casteists who are hell bent to make it the name of a caste.

Raghavan 07:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghavan2010 (talk • contribs)

RE: NPOV

"Prominent" is a subjective term. My decision to use it was not an attempt to use "empty praise words," but an honest opinion that you happened to disagree with. I see your point and am not planning on challenging the word change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aifanp (talk • contribs) 07:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-reliable sources

Content added to articles, particularly information about living people, must be attributed to reliable sources. There is no reliable source is given in actress Zeba's wikipedia about her marriage with Mohammad Ali. So I have reverted your edit. Gray hours (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversial BLP

I'm a glutton for punishment. So what is it? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As am i, lets see it mark nutley (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh, seems to have been nuked. Not much I can do under the circumstances. Never mind, maybe next time... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark Anstice

Hi Active Banana, I took them out because I was pissed off that you swooped and added them so quickly, even before I had the chance to finish the article. But I've put then back, until it's finished (ish). I can understand why your peeved, as I saw somebody do the same to you. Also I don't know where you get the idea that i'm some new wikipedian. I've been editing wikipedia for 3-4 years. scope_creep 20:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Lee Jun Ki, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not take credit for what others have done like you did on this article. Jenaveev18 (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mobbing. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Penbat (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not started an Edit war. You have. You have completely wasted my time and you did not check your facts. Also all my edits were supported by comments on the talk page.--Penbat (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Username

Please explain, in detail and citing reasons, your objections to my username. PozMyNegHole (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User blocked for the name and edit-warring. Acroterion _(talk) 21:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Little..? My monster is one large wikipedian! [With threadbare dignity: ] Anyway, the monsters just make me a sockmaster. Not a sock! Bishonen | talk 20:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC).

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 18:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism in Madurai Nayak and Thanjavur Nayak articles

The Madurai and Thanjavur Nayak articles have been reduced to nonsense by a bunch of unqualified casteist editors who have crossed all limits in talking about the caste of these kings including posting unreliable sources.I intend to repair the articles and need your help to keep these fools at bay.Kindly do oblige.:)

Raghavan(Talk) 03:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

PRODding

Hi, remember that "Notification of the article's author(s) is strongly recommended. " - I see you didn't notify the creator of Zafar Nozim. PamD (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you would have found sources if you'd looked harder (e.g. searching using his name in Tajik), but the BLP PROD is moot now as he died a couple of days after you prodded it. Is BLP PROD a form of voodoo? Fences&Windows 17:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

POV issues rising in the Periyar E. V. Ramasamy page

Some IP editor is fighting with established editors asking for script in ethnic origin and accusing them of POV pushing.One of the senior editors wants semi-protection since this is a GA.Could you kindly let me know if there is a possibility for this?

Raghavan(Talk) 14:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to circumvent AfD at Chernobyl disaster in popular culture

Since you have made it clear that you intend to persist in your inappropriate behaviour, I have reported you. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul Schiff

I've added quite a bit more to Paul Schiff. Why don't you take a look. Forteana (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fried chicken flu

Whatever about the sources, my problem with what you did with that page is that you also erased the whole page NOT JUST THE SOURCES THAT YOU COMPLAINED ABOUT. So if you are going to use the rollback feature USE IT IN THE RIGHT TIME AND PLACE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inka 888 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:N When there is no third party sourced content, we do not have a stand alone article about the topic. And I did not use any roll back feature. Active Banana (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

The Periyar E. V. Ramasamy article was modified by someone without justification from its original content that was there for long time based on facts. I tried to revive it back but faced the coordinated back-back reverting efforts to retain their POV by 2 or more other editors. I will restrain from reverting and try to follow other methods as you suggested. Meanwhile please protect the article in its current original status till the matter is discussed in detail. Thanks for your help. 76.212.15.82 (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Raghavan has again vandalized the article by removing original RS based Kannada script. He has ignored the reminder. Please take appropriate action to stop him or others vandalizing the article. 76.212.15.82 (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop jumping the gun.

All I'm gonna say, and you know why. --173.54.204.54 (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out some irony

Hi, can I point out hilarious it is that a recent set of reversions on Annoying Orange was done by a user named Active Banana? Thanks for your anti-vandalism work AND for making me laugh. elektrikSHOOS 05:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please Stop The Happy

Following me around and reverting my fully sourced edits will not get you very far. For further information ask NYBrad or anyone else who had difficulty getting the gist. BassandAle (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Eli Soriano

You said "Content presented in articles, particularly content about living people MUST be presented in WP:NPOV format NOT tabloid gossip interpretations.. Active Banana (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)"''. Well then if that's the case why not reformat the sourced content instead of outright deleting it and getting into an edit war? Conrad940 (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You said Any content that beings with "apparently" is completely inappropriate WP:OR. Active Banana (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC) If you're only opposed to the word apparently, then taking it out would remove your objection to the content, correct? Conrad940 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You said The fact that YOU used the word "apparently" signals to me that the sources do not explictly support the claims. Pre judging my intent because I used of certain words? Did you read the source? If you did, how would you form your content that would convey the same message as the content I contributed? Conrad940 (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You said Because the source you used is not in a language that I read and so I cannot place appropriate content into the article. But I CAN tell that what you inserted is NOT appropriate. Active Banana (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Well then based on the source cited, how would you form the content that WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO YOU? Conrad940 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You said Based on the article, yes I am prejudging that anything that vaguely appears POV push, is very likely a POV push and needs to be stopped immediately. Active Banana (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC). Good. So then, something short of plagiarizing a source is not POV, correct? Conrad940 (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Request

Could you comment on whether i've quoted you correctly, and captured the context of your comment, at the bottom of this thread? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

just a note

I think you showed a lot of class here. I agree that it was humane under the circumstances to let the "moron" remark pass. It also raises the question of what we're willing to do as a "community" when other editors lapse into unhelpful language for emotional or psychological reasons we aren't in a position to assess. It's a problem of WP:IRL — the product is real, the editors are real, but the "community" is virtual and lacks many of the flesh-and-blood cues we need in order to know how to treat each other. Therefore, I appreciated your quick willingness to respect another editor's humanity. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Show just cause

Please show me the areas of the article that require additional sources. And I'm not talking about random points. I need to see points that could potentially undermine the article. And could "citation needed" templates be added to the individual sentence instead. The article has about 5 paragraphs. How many more sources does it need? It's so easy to slap unnecessary and unattractive templates on the pages, instead of taking 5 minutes out of your time and updating the page yourself. Orane (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Initial response: WP:V applies to ALL content not just what "could potentially undermine the article".

And if you want to dictate to me how I spend my Wikipedia time, then you can hire me, until that time, you're not the boss of me. "Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users."Active Banana (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

First off, I'd never want to hire you. Secondly, follow your own advice and improve articles (tagging them is not improving them). And thirdly, your work here has nothing to do with me, except when you blindly revert my edits, and can't even back it up with a proper explanation. Have a nice day. Orane (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Tagging certainly is a step towards improving the project. It lets those who have access to sources know where they can go to make improvements and more importantly it makes readers aware that 1) they should be aware that the content in an article is only as good as the sources and 2) that we are aware of the limitations of the tagged articles and are not trying to foist off second rate goods as prime content. Active Banana (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, and this may sound cynical, no one thinks of Wikipedia articles as "prime content". But I digress. WP:Verifiability states "in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged." I've gone through the article a number of times and nothing is likely to be challenged, and nothing could potentially undermine the article or violate BLP. Yes, tags are important, but definitely not when they are overused and unnecessary, like it was, in this particular article. And it's like I have to fight to keep unnecessary tags out. One user thinks that a point needs sourcing, and suddenly, the entire article is tagged. The articles look so extremely shabby and tasteless. Orane (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"To be honest, and this may sound cynical, no one thinks of Wikipedia articles as "prime content"." I think you are very much wrong, otherwise Wikipedia would not be one of the first 5 hits for any topic that you search for. Active Banana (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No matter how annoying it may be, when someone puts a tag on a particular sentence or section, then the content per definition has been challenged. Now you may argue that some of that content is evident in references used elsewhere in the article, and thus remove the tag as been superfluous... But if the tagger persists, then you have to put a reference to the text - and all that would take, in such a case, is to make a named reference and reuse a reference already in the article. I do agree that articles can end up being overtagged or over-referenced - but this is the way that WP works. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm very much right for the simple fact that high schools and universities all warn against using Wikipedia for a myriad of reasons, ranging from the fact that articles aren't written by professionals, to the fact that they are unstable and may be changed by anyone at anytime. Wikipedia is popular because it's popular (circular, but true), not because it's "good". Orane (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course they warn against using WP. I'd warn against it as well - but not because WP is bad, or wrong.... WP should always be seen as a beginning step in any sort of fact-gathering/research, which is also the reason why references are so damned important. You should always be critical of sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Adalberto Román

Hi Active Banana (one of the best names I've come across in Wikipedia, by the way). Olé is a horrible source, its a tabloid sports newspaper with a reputation of incompetence when it comes to fact checking and accuracy. But it is useful for verifying basic information (Adalberto Román moved from Libertad to River Plate). In the same reference it says that the transfer was made for a 3 million US dollars fee, while the other reference provided (Diario ABC Color) says it was closed for 3,6 million. Those cases are when Olé can't be trusted and a different source is required.

Regarding notability, I understand that the subject passess the Athlete guidelines, having played more than 80 games on a fully professional league. Therefore, I'll remove the tag if you concur (is that a word?) with my opinion. Regards. Fache (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Cassandra Clare

Hello, there is currently a content dispute at this article and I'd like to see if an agreement can be reached. Since you are a recent contributor to the article, I'd like to ask if you wish to give your opinion on the matter. I'm not involved in the article myself, I'm only interested in trying to bring everyone to a discussion. If you're interested, please comment at this thread, thank you. -- Atama頭 06:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Inception_(film) & reliable sources

Sorry about that, it looked like page blanking to me originally but I see it clearly wasn't. I revently started helping with vandalism, I'll take more care in the future. I've reverted my edit. BioStu (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Dock jumping - thanks

Thanks for your input at Dock jumping. I'm slowly trying to improve what was originally a very poor article. You were 100% correct to tag the article and remove the external links. I'm going to work to find third party sources which are not directly from one of the organisations that run dock jumping competitions. Any further contributions would be very welcome. --Simple Bob (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added a few references which are an improvement on the previous ones which were nearly all from the jumping organisations such as Dock Dogs, Ultimate Air Dogs, etc. I do consider the United Kennel Club to be a reliable source though, what do you think about that particular one? Otherwise most of the references that I have added are from news sources - using only recognised organisations and staying away from blogs etc. I'm going to leave your tag on the article though, I'll leave it to you or someone else to determine whether or not it is appropriately referenced. --Simple Bob (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

b.t.w. if you are US-based you might want to watch the Letterman show tonight as it has a big feature on dock jumping. --Simple Bob (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Christian Marrero

I don't know if you already knew this; if you did, please ignore me. However, when you BLPPROD an article and someone else removes it without providing at least one source, as happened here, you can reinsert the tag, if you wish. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Jaume Sisa

I see you are developing quite a catalog of controversial edits. I removed your speedy delete tag from this page which was already tagged for PROD. I also reverted your removal of the external links which appear to be good sources to me. And a long discography is a pretty clear claim of notability. Rmhermen (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mohammed Rafi

Dear Mr. Banana, You deleted the section I had edited under Mohammed Rafi called Legacy citing reason as Source. I had provided links to all those singers who were inspired by him. If you check the specific pages of those singers, it is mentioned in them that they were inspired by Mohammed Rafi. My Edit was (Many successfull Indian playback singers were inspired by Mohammed Rafi and adopted his style of singing. While Mahendra Kapoor was his contemporary and yet swore allegiance to his voice, Anwar, Shabbir Kumar, Mohammed Aziz and Sonu Nigam continued the legacy after his death.) Kindly check the links and you will find the Source in the relevent pages of the other singers that I have mentioned. Thanks Much!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.48.2 (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Siobhan Magnus

May I ask what about the previous edit was irrelevant? You removed the names of her parents as well as a paragraph on her high school drama club experience. Even Lady Gaga's article has information on high school musical performances and roles. Please clarify this, as there are quite some people wondering why you reverted the edit.

Bulletinspace (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

- So you're saying it's relevant Lady Gaga was in her high school's drama club and it's not relevant that Siobhan Magnus was. Okay, the meaning of the name is irrelevant, granted. And what better sources for her parents' and siblings' names do you suggest, if not a local newspaper (Cape Cod Times) that has interviewed both her parents? Don't get me wrong, I just want to know what we need to do in order to expand this article and make it better, when there are barely any other sources than local/regional newspapers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulletinspace (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

- Personally, I think a musician's background (including vocal and instrumental training) is important, but maybe that's just me. What about her parents' and siblings' names? Also irrelevant? Bulletinspace (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

-- And the Cape Cod Times isn't reliable enough? I would think they know the names of the people they interviewed. Might seem rude if they'd been calling them the wrong names all along. Bulletinspace (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Furey x/National Airsoft Organisations

Hi Active Banana, just letting you know that proposed deletions are only valid for articles and disambiguation pages, user pages and sub pages aren't eligible. They can be deleted through speedy deletion if they meet one of the criteria listed there, otherwise they should be brought to Miscellany for Deletion. Thanks! -- Atama頭 19:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I had PROD before the creator moved it back to user space. Active Banana (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense. Never mind then. The creator should have removed the tag themselves in that case. -- Atama頭 17:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Troy Davis case

It's not my personal point of view; it's the POV of the jury that convicted him and sentenced him to death.24.78.6.42 (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

RE:Kwon Yuri

I agree, the "Girls' Generation" section should contain something but the sentence "Kwon was a member of the group Girl's Generation." is totally redundant, since this is already said in the second sentence of the article. And it's partly wrong since Yuri still is Girls' Generation member... Somebody should add something more detailed... --Dr. Crisp (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Andrew Breitbart

Greetings Active Banana. It appears that you have undone an addition I submitted to the "Controversies" section of the Andrew Breitbart page. Could you please provide your reasoning? The data I entered is all sourced and referenced from other Wiki pages, is verifiably accurate, and in no way is biased or vandalous. I think the information I provided is salient and useful, and if there is some administrative issue with my submission I would like to address it so the content is available. Please advise. thanks. Trappem (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)trappem "Wikipedia pages are not reliable sources". An interesting notion. It is common for one Wiki page to link to others as I have done. I was in the process of adding external sources when I found my text had vanished. Would the submission be acceptable with additional external references? I'm happy to do this but the page needs to remain intact for more than 90 seconds. thanks, Trappem (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)trappem Hi Banana, I've re-submitted with external cites. If there are still shortcomings could you please let me know (before zapping the entire thing) and I will address them asap. thanks, Trappem (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)trappem