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)

Howard King (referee)

Hi Active Banana,~

Would like to know why content and references were removed from this wiki, as it is appropriatelly referenced. I have edited the discussion board supporting the editing, but still you changed it. I think it is clearly referenced and the content supported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.177.182 (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

as I told you on your talk page "Please note that just because something hits the newspapers doesnt mean it is worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article. We must be especially careful when including content about living people. Your edit to Howard King (referee) has been reverted. King was only "cautioned" and so unless he does something like going on a talkshow spree to gab about it over and over, there is no reason to include this incident in his article. " Active Banana (^bananaphone 01:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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.

Talkback

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

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

Malizia Clinic pics

Hi Banana. I orig. left this article for user:tnxman, thinking that he deleted the images. But actually, commonsdelinker, a bot I presume, deleted it. tnXman did not yet respond, so I'm posting this to your talk page. Thank you.

You deleted two jpg files: Malizia-clinic-CT-imaging-suite.jpg and Malizia-clinic-exterior.jpg

These files were not copyright violations. They are pics from my personal collection which were not used on the Malizia Clinic site. I am a friend of the marketing dir. at the clinic and those pics are mine. Please check again. The pics are part of that same set, but they are unpublished. If you look carefully at malizia.org, you will see that the ones I uploaded were not the same as the ones on the site. Thank you. 1weezie23 (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC

Reason put by u was wrong

This is in response to ur message osted on 8th october. i had no time to reply.

by the way i have no obsession with the "nickname" and moreover superstar is not a nickname but a title conferred out of respect and admiration for his varied performances given by critics.

its u who had unnecessarily edited and written he is called a superstar cause of he had maddest fan following among female fans.

the entertainment one india article is actually talking about why he still remains the biggest superstar-- for that that was cited as the reason.Read the lines from the artcile ---"Why since four long decades 'Kakaji's' superstar status is still not passed on? Because he had the biggest and the maddest fan following, especially his female fans."---http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/interviews/2009/rajesh-khanna-interview-100609.html.

but why superstar he is called for that the reason is he was called as superstar by critics for his performances beginning with aradhana and giving consecutive 15 hits, then giving critically acclaimed box office hits continuously and consistently if not consecutively!!these reasons needent be mentioned as they are covered at various places.it need not be repeated so stop raising this issue. the artcile didnt need that wrong reson as put by u. infact i had no problems with the artcile untill 8th october ....as article looks pretty good.

Warnings

December 2010

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User:MissBarkley, Taylor Swift, Kanye West, and Beyonce Knowles, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MissBarkley (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

February 1, 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing as you did at Lost Highway (film). If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Editor Ignasi (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Editor Ignasi (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You have been referred to administration for blocking. --Editor Ignasi (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• And this administrator has reviewed your edits and determined them to be in good faith. Thank you also for opening talk page discussion on the issue. Carry on. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, just to note here that in addition to the spurious warnings above, Editor Ignasi (talk · contribs) posted to AIV; the post was removed as there is no case of any 'vandalism' from AB. diff.  Chzz  ►  18:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

good day

Russart 1999 has given you a LOLipop! This horrible pun and delicious candy promotes WikiLove and tells the world how low you will stoop for the sake of humor. Spread WikiLove by giving someone else a lollipop, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the unrelenting joy of lollipops by adding {{subst:Lollipop}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

how can i know if the sources that i put is not reliable?

Halo

i know u r group abuses other editors with group sock puppetry

i have not done any unconctructive edits u please check the article and stop abusing me please please please

filmfare is not equivalent to oscars - national awards are due to national scale filmfare south is also presented by times group

(Kaverijha23 (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)).

Boy, are you a saviour...

Thank you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Milken BLP page

Please explain to me why -- unlike any other BLP on Wikipedia - you feel it is necessary to include the Conviction, Penalty and Federal Prisoner number in the right-side box at the top of Michael Milken's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwimDude (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

confusion

hello there,

i'm cumminsr and i did a whole bunch of edits on the Sheridan College website. I use to be a student at sheridan and so of course had a sheridan email address. regardless, all my edits have been rolled back and I believe it was by you. Can I please get some clarification as to why? And how do I go about getting the edits put back?

Thank you for your time, Cumminsr (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's quite amusing and confusing

Thanks, I'm finding it quite amusing myself. Just hope that they really do end up being two distinct movies and that this isn't any hoax or false news! EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

your edit of David Walsh (art collector)

You took out a link citing WP:ELNEVER "do not link to sites illegally posting copyright material".

The link is to the museum's official web site - who are you to claim they publish this without a license? --QEDquid (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

modified article

Hi, i've modify the aticle you have revisioned with other citation (newspaper), it's correct? Are necessary many information about? Thanks and best regards Varta2011 (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of common misconceptions for deletion

The article List of common misconceptions is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

why you delete my contribution?

sorry mr, i've added a citation to article and you mark the contribution with "promotional fluff"? why? can you verify the citation before preventing deletion? THANKS W4e (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your previous reply

ok, can i undo your mod and correct the wrong word? (famous restaurant) THANKS W4e (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

modified version

thank you for your fast reply! i've mod the article without unuseful information, do you think it's ok? THANKS W4e (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Rita Shane

I see you are working on this article. Presumably you've seen the note I left on the talk page about her date of birth. I don't suppose you have any suggestions as to how we could confirm it? It isn't exactly a major issue, but it would be nice to get it right, and I suspect the (supposedly incorrect) 1940 date is liable to find its way back in at some point if we leave things as they are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Banglapedia

Hi Active Banana,

I fully understand the need to ensure BLP as well as V. However, Banglapedia is actually a reputable print encyclopedia published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. This is a neutral organization which does not reflect the views of the Govt. of Bangladesh. (Note that the Banglapedia was published in 2003, at a time when Nizami was a cabinet minister in the Govt. of Bangladesh.) --Ragib (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding.

Banglapedia's official website is actually www.banglapedia.org ... the banglapedia.search.com.bd is actually an illegal mirror of the site. However, even the official site is not well maintained ... like traditional publishers, the Asiatic society is more focused on the print and CD editions. So, this explains their bad-looking website. --Ragib (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Rajini

Active Banana please note that the picture makes a sense there and it is not just blindly added there. The purpose and reasons are quoted and within the usage of the article. Please you guys have a clear understanding and act acoordingly. Citing the importance only even though there was no free image available, it has been uploaded there. Why you take it other than these. Revise it by yourself.

Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

ActiveBanana. I understand that people like you are too busy and can commit small mistakes here and there like that you did now. Also I beleive guys like you should accept the right thing and neglect the bad, having a rollback rights. I respect you & all who make their sincere efforts to make wiki a reliable place. I go for true/legitimate inclusions and I support it. Small thing that I would wish to tell. Please understand that people like you are almost everytime I login are active and very very busy doing great works. That itself is a very appreciable thing. Because once I started of interest I stayed for hours, but these days bcoz of other works/compulsions I am unable to do so. Always deal each issue on its own merit and circumstances and dont, never inter-relate things. Thats it. Thanks.

Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mandaue City Central School

Hi There, if you want to look the sources of the MANDAUE CITY CENTRAL SCHOOL you may look this webpage http://smart.com.ph/smartschools/mandaueccs/. Thank youQatarCebu (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Mandaue City Central School

Hi There, if you want to look the sources of the MANDAUE CITY CENTRAL SCHOOL you may look this webpage http://smart.com.ph/smartschools/mandaueccs/. Thank youQatarCebu (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

regarding deletion of Syed Akbar

hi Mr Syed Akbar is an important journalist in the southern Indian State of Andhra Pradesh. He is senior editor with Deccan Chronicle, India's third largest read English daily. the deletion is unjustified and will deny wikipedia readers their right to know about people.Mehditanveer (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging

Is that really something to brag about? ;) You dropped a tag on Prem Rawat before driving away. I've started a thread about it at talk:Prem Rawat#"Extraordinary interest" - too vague?. Your input would be appreciated. If I don't hear from you I'll remove the tag.   Will Beback  talk  09:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mike Masnick

You have an edit reversal in for an item "sourced from a blog". The problem? Techdirt as a whole is a blog, and pretty much everything in the Bio is "sourced from a blog". The comments regarding "The Masnick Effect" are as valid as pretty much everything else in that bio, and it is a phrase and terminology that traces back at least a year or more. I am not sure why that particular edit is removed, yet other "blog sourced" material in the bio is permitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.66.173 (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I will respond here since you appear to be editing from a very dynamic set of IPs. The edit in question [3] is a selfpromoting, primary soureced claim from a blog for a non-notable phrase failing many Wikipedia content requirements.

• Mansicks own writings cannot be the source to claim he "invented" something
• The "something" that he is supposedly responsible for inventing is not important enough for its own article, and there is no indiction that it is a widely used phrase, so why would we mention that?. Pretty much every writer has come up with a unique turn of phrase and we dont include them in articles.

Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet, the article refers to his own "Streisand Effect", which is his own turn of a phrase. By your basis, that part of the article should also be removed. The only external reference is the subject himself discussing his own ideas on a radio program. Are we to suggest that the discussions on his blog are somehow not "media", but NPR is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.66.173 (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes they are two completely different situations. 1) The "phrase" under question is in fairly wide use and has been discussed by third parties so that it has its own article. 2) And the attribution of the phrase being on a third party source that has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, there is no fact checking on the NPR piece, it is only an interview with the man who coined the phrase. You have no significant third party usage, no usage really at all outside of the blog or the person in question in interview. I am unable to find third party usage of the phrase outside of techdirt.com except where Mike Masnick is either the topic of discussion or being interviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.66.173 (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

On what basis do you make a claim that there was no fact checking related to that interview? I doubt that you will convince me, but this discussion should be taking place on the article talk page and you may be able to generate a consensus to remove the claim. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And please, sign your posts. And even if you are not going to create an account, since you are editing from such dynamic IPs it would help if you used some type of "screen name" (LisaInAmerica or Not_A_Fan_Of_Self_Promotion) to link your discussion comments together. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Here, I created an account to make it easier on you (not that there is a difference). I brought up the points of the Masnick Effect on the talk page, but your edits (and the block by another editor) were not at all added on the discussion page there. While it is nice to point to the talk page for discussion, it is sort of useless if the main editors themselves are not doing likewise.

As for the NPR thing, it is only an interview of a subject, not some review of work. It's a chat. There is no indication that the NPR people did anything other than ask the questions based on a bio provided by Mr Masnick himself. It wasn't part of a news story or indepth coverage, it was an on air interview of a person. Masnickeffect (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)