User talk:Banaticus/archive2009a

This is an archive page of my user talk page. If you wish to reopen an archived discussion or otherwise respond to me, please do so on my user talk page. Thanks! :)

Baijnath, Himachal Pradesh article

Hi there,

Just thought I'd ask about an edit of mine you reverted back in August (I've only just been back on the page). The article lists the temple in that town as being a jyotirlinga, a claim that I can find no evidence to support. The wiki page for jyotirlingas does not list this town nor do any of the websites listing these places (that I have found). I put a message about this on the talk page for the article. My edit simply removed this claim which seems to have no source to support it and a number to go against it. It's not a major issue but I thought I'd let you know. I'll leave any further editing of the page in your hands for now. Thanks -- 144.82.205.104 (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's one of the twelve jyotirlingas or not. But, from my point of view, some anonymous person who didn't create a user account just deleted what was apparently factual evidence and didn't leave a note anywhere as to why they deleted it. If you want to post on the talk page why you think it's not a jyotirlinga or put a brief note in the "Edit Summary" box (underneat the box where you edit things) that tells why you think it's not a jyotirlinga, then go for it. That's how we edit here, if you want to make a change to an article, whether adding in more facts or removing untrue things, you should provide an edit summary and a reason for why you're making the change, preferably with a footnote or reference if you're adding things. ;) Thanks for the message, have fun editing the article. Banaticus (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- MifterBot I ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 20:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Minnesota Medical Association

A tag has been placed on Minnesota Medical Association, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Dravecky (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

When you have your content back, please feel free to re-create the article. In the meantime it'll be deleted - we don't keep empty place-holder articles on the wiki. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it took more resources to delete and recreate a few hours later? Banaticus (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Apirl 2009

What was unconstructive about the edit I made to Trinidad_and_Tobago, The article need citations that is why I placed the tag. TruHeir (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing was wrong with your edit. Thanks for bringing it to my attention -- my apologies. I've rolled back my reversion of your edit. Again, my apologies. Banaticus (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Take care TruHeir (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

IRC cloak request: I confirm that my freenode nick is Banaticus

IRC cloak request: I confirm that my freenode nick is Banaticus

Hi there, can you help me with trouble I am having with cluebot? No not all content, just one section.

Deletion of this section has been much discussed. Don't worry the valuable content will be moved some place else. Hi my recent edit did not remove all content from an article that is currently more than 80k long, even after removing this section the article is 63k long. Everything is OK, and the other editors have discussed this. Are you a real person, or some automated system?Robotics lab (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a real person. My initial assumption when I looked at the revision was that you were vandalizing the page, since so much was deleted at one time and apparently not replaced with anything. It's taken me a moment to respond as we had some edit conflicts when you changed what you posted here. ;) I'm somewhat concerned that what you'd like to delete may be lost. The opening paragraph says, "...comparison with other notations systems is a topic for other articles." What are those other articles? Would it be better to move what you want to delete to one of those articles instead of deleting it? I agree that the article, as it currently is written, is too long and should be trimmed (and the tense and point of view needs to be changed, etc., it needs a number of changes). I'm not sure the just deleting those sections is the best answer, though. Let's continue this discussion on how the article can be changed on the article talk page, though, in case other people want to also have a part in the discussion. Banaticus (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

How to correctly report a false positive to ClueBot It's right up at the top of ClueBot's talk page where you posted. Just look at the article's history and find the number that ClueBot reported when it reverted the change. In this case, the number that you were looking for is 671157 -- on the history page[1], you can see where it says, "12:24, 15 April 2009 ClueBot (talk | contribs) m (79,058 bytes) (Reverting possible vandalism by Robotics lab to version by Quaternionist. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot. (671157) (Bot)) (undo)" The number in parentheses, 671157 in this case, is what you're looking for. Banaticus (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Teresa Coffman

Thank you for your help. I think I have fixed the problem by redirecting my page. talk —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

Hello Banaticus,

Thank you for your message and your assistance. Yes, the topic, Leadership in Educational Technology, is a bit nebulous. I will try to make it more concrete. I do appreciate any and all suggestions that you can give me and my students. This is a project that will begin shortly. I am trying to figure this out as I go along. I will need a lot of chiding! Thank you for the great resources. I will make sure my students know about ...no original research. Good point. I will also put my minor edits on my page. Another good point. --Teresacoffman (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. When I'm available, I don't at all mind helping out. :) Banaticus (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

re: Eye colour

Okay, thanks for letting me know what you've done, (s)he did give me pause for thought but like you said, it's easy to judge an editor by their previous edits (unfortunately). Anyhows, thanks for the complement :). Keep up the good work yourself :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Stubs for the sake of stubs

Concerning the issue of fungi stubs...i have to say that i'm with you. Whatever is the point of creating numerous fungi stubs, and then just leaving them....very annoying to someone that needs to be informed. Finish them as you go...eh? ....stay chilled Luridiformis (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

journals

All primary peer-research journals published by the BMJ are highly likely to be notable. It's just a matter of putting in the information. If you do not want to do it yourself, put in an "expand" tag and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals will soon get to them. DGG (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this part of the "stubs for the sake of stubs" discussion? I'm not sure what journals you're talking about. I don't believe I've discussed any journals recently, whether by these BMJ or by some other group -- was this a mistell? Banaticus (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm referrring to your speedy tags at [[Injury Prevention|] , Tobacco control,Occupational and Environmental Medicine, andJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health DGG (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just make sure, next time, to state their notability, why the articles are there. That's all the speedy delete tag asks for, that when you next come around you fix up the articles and fill them out. :) Banaticus (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Woops!

Hi Sorry about that. I must have made an error. I noticed that you gave me a warning for the edit to forestry. I was using huggle and must have reverted the page to the bad version, It looks as if I wrote the word "fags" in it but it was added due to an attempted rollback. Sorry about that :D --Jamesooders (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We both made a mistake there. I noticed who was editing the page and reverted my edit, only to see that I'd then added that back to the page and rereverted my rollback. It was a hilarious comedy of errors in the best Shakespearean tradition. :) Banaticus (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Award for being just darn swell

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I salute you for doing the best you can :) LeHappy (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Keep up the good work and keep smiling LeHappy (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

vcandal warning

Dude, You just templated an admin. Dlohcierekim 22:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it sure looks like it. I responded the same way that I would if anyone apparently vandalized one of my user pages -- I revert it and warn them not to do it again. Banaticus (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout the Barnstar, but apparently it's some sort of vandalism.banned user thing. Dlohcierekim 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I presume there's some sort of notice policy so that when a user is banned, they're not scratching their head wondering what happened and how they might go about fixing it or apologizing or whatever. I checked out LeHappy's talk page several times and there's no mention of him having been banned. I've also checked out LeHappy's few edits and they don't really seem like bannable offenses, unless we've started banning for giving out barnstars. It also wasn't a blanket rollback of all similar LeHappy edits made today, as AGAGALADY's page still hasn't been changed. Consequently, I've been left scratching my head wondering what happened. So, I reverted the edit made on my page and warned Kanonkas that he should at least put an edit summary or something in when he's removing content like that, just like I would if it had been anyone else who apparently vandalized one of my pages, you know? ;) Banaticus (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know either, but one of the socks gave me a Barnstar too. Oh, well.00:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 17:42, 5 May 2009

Sorry

Sorry for the edit98.239.133.40 (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that you took the time to come say that. Happy Editing! :) Banaticus (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nightmare

please point out my alleged test edits, I never test things out on pages, I know about the sandbox and that I can use my user page I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC) I created a disambig page for the "Nightmare" series, but then was told it was made in-correct, then I added a disambig back to the original movie because there is a page involving the title, because there is an upcoming movie with the same title I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I saw 1 and 2 and because of your edit conflicts that you'd been having with other users, I presumed that you were acting out a bit of spite. Would you like help creating a new page for the movie? :) Banaticus (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have redirected that page to A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)#Future for two reasons. First, I Seek to Help created a page that was not appropriately titled, namely the capitalized "Film" in the article name. Second, per WP:NFF, all future films must be in production to have articles, and the production itself must be notable. As of right now, it isn't. The only news we have is casting news, and some blips about where they plan to film. That's all. We have nothing on production, because they haven't released anything about the production of the film. A single paragraph of development information doesn't warrant a page, and that is why the correct title (as well as I Seek To Help's title) is redirected to the franchise article. Apparently, I Seek To Help does not want to follow the future films guideline, and has moved his/her incorrecet title overtop of the correct one and reinstated the page. At this time, there is not a need for a page, and it violates NFF regardless.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Bignole, I hadn't seen WP:NFF before. :)

Maybe I could get you to reason with them, because they keep reverting me (I'm not doing it again today, because I'm sure I'm at my limit and they refuse to acknowledge the guideline).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought that moving the article into his userspace would be the best route, so that's basically what I did. In retrospect, I should have "actually" moved it. Anyway, I left messages on your pages and I Seek's said that he's throwing up the white flag. Let me know if there's anything else I can do help. :)

cheese

i like cheese do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.98.202 (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hong Wing

Hong Wing is not patent nonsense; it's an attack page. Tagging this article as an attack-page will expedite its speedy deletion, as well as blank the article's attack content. Here is the version of this article that you tagged as patent nonsense. See User:I'm Spartacus' essay for more information. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"he banned cigarettes for people named Dave and also gave every person in China a 'LoafHead'haircut." The rest may or may not be true, but judging by that quote, the single user who'd created and edited the whole article was writing patent nonsense, which is why I tagged it as such. ;) Banaticus (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

{{db-nonsense}} does not apply to this article. Patent nonsense is this: ja389aja38rah8293ra23ra23r8a920. Nothing else qualifies as patent nonsense. For articles such as the above, {{db-attack}} is the better choice. I'm being picky about this because if you ever run for adminship, you may be opposed for making mistakes on these types of articles. See here for a recent oppose. Cunard (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

I was not involved in any edit war - or rather, I was not trying to initiate one. I was putting in my edit with a source. The earlier editor (AbsolutDan) has reverted my edit again despite me asking him for time to find a reference. I am very surprised that he was not warned as well. I've tried speaking to him, but he does not appear to be listening. DORC (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Under the three revert rule, if you revert that page again today, you'll be banned from editing Wikipedia for a time. Even when the other person is patently wrong, you still have to sit back for a day or ask other people to get involved -- this helps prevent edit wars. You'd reverted twice, so I warned you that you shouldn't revert again. I read AbsolutDan's talk page and he's right, you do need to have references for the articles that you write. I saw that you've added a reference at the top of the article, which is great. But, although it's nice to be able to point to articles that you created, it doesn't really seem like Marine Parade Community Library lost anything by becoming part of the Marine Parade Community Building article -- it's not really a long article. Perhaps if you could find more written about the library? The library probably has some pamphlets that would give you more information about it and that'd also give you references. I'll see if I can find anything on it that would help you create a seperate article. :) Banaticus (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The main thing I have against AbsolutDan is incivility. He reverted without good faith, by calling me a vandal, when all I wanted is to make sure all the Template:Singapore NLB libraries are properly filled up. I think it a common courtesy for an editor to speak to another in the talk page rather than involved in edit wars. To be reverted after I did what he asked is baffling. Even more baffling is him coming to my talk page and asking me why I did not source my edits for Marine Parade Community Building when I told him quite explicitly they do not require any. DORC (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an admirable goal -- one of my uncles used to work for 3M over in Singapore, so perhaps over the next few weeks we'll be able to get some good solid referenced information and really expand those sections. :) Banaticus (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Update I'm going to email you to see if I can get a mailing address for you -- if I can get some good reference material mailed out, then that'd really help flesh out those articles. Banaticus (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Learning theory

An anonymous user deleted a red link and link to a list article on the Learning theory disambiguation page. You reverted it back. Can you tell me why you feel that red link and list link add value to that page? I'm struggling a bit to understand why they would be included, now that I look at where they actually go. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Logo sizing

You may have noticed the discussion I started just an hour or so ago regarding standardizing logo sizing in infoboxes. I noticed you just modified the Saturn logo, one of the three I cited in that discussion. I had hoped to have a discussion on the matter, and as your modifications do not appear to have improved the logo in any way other than to remove the margin (which is a matter of style, not policy), I'm hoping you'll consider restoring the article and the file to their former state at least until you and others can discuss my recommendation. Thanks. Take care,   user:j    (aka justen)   06:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Well, I just noticed you're actually reverting each of the logos. I would really appreciate the opportunity to have others discuss this, and I hope you can appreciate that, as well.   user:j    (aka justen)   06:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I actually haven't reverted anything. I downloaded the Saturn logo, cropped out the whitespace in PhotoShop, then reuploaded it. If you look at the image size and filesize, it's different from any previous incarnation of that image. As for the whitespace, I'm responding in the discussion you started, but by building in whitespace in the Saturn logo, you then had to make the image smaller so that it didn't push out the infobox too much. By removing the whitespace, I was able to display it without the need to be cropped smaller, which should reduce/remove any artifacts that were created by Wikipedia's automated image resizing. Thus, not only is the image smaller (its footprint on the page is reduced) and more easily loaded by all users, it should display in a nicer way. If we really want more whitespace around an image, some simple CSS is, in my opinion, a much more cost effective way to do that, especially since we could simply edit the Company Infobox template, rather than go through and edit every company logo. Banaticus (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The previous logo was very poor quality; I didn't resize anything in order to build in margin, I simply copied a vector image that was similar in ultimate size to the previous logo that was used. I disagree with your assertion on the lack of white space being more "cost effective" or "being more easily loaded by all users." The advantage of a higher raster image (which is the case here, and is always the case with our vector images) is that, in the future, we have more to work from as screen resolutions continue to increase, and the artifacts introduced by automated resizing are minimal, no? That said, I'm not proposing going through and editing every company logo. As you'll notice, I've uploaded logos in these three cases that were of better quality, I've not simply gone through resizing logos. In any event, I hope you'll agree your opinion would be very helpful over at WikiProject Infoboxes, and I hope you'll consider allowing the three logos to remain so others who may wish to discuss can see the idea in practice. Afterall, no deadline, yes?   user:j    (aka justen)   06:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not resizing anything to build in margin, but Wikipedia is. You made the image so big that the infobox on the article needed a 250px limiter on the width of the picture to keep the infobox from becoming too wide, which causes Wikipedia to dynamically resize the picture whenever someone views the page. Again, I didn't actually change anything in the image except to crop out the white space, I hadn't otherwise changed the image you created. I believe I told you a couple times in the Wikipedia IRC channel that I was writing my response, which I just finished. ;) Anyway, I'll continue to respond on that discussion -- it would probably be better to only have one discussion on this subject and to continue that over there. :)

Concur re: responding there, and I think we've covered these points there, although I will add here (as it is not core to the discussion there, only here) that I included the 250px maximum width intentionally so that a slightly larger raster could be available. This is often the case with other raster logos. In any event, thanks for taking an interest in this issue and for the engaging discussion thus far.  :) Take care,   user:j    (aka justen)   07:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I always appreciate a good discussion. :) Banaticus (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT WEBSITE OF THE PHILIPPINES

That's my source, are you claiming that's unreliable? How is that the same article also references the CIA as a reliable source? The Official Government Website of the Philippines is still a Official Government Website and to me that is just as reliable as any other website. http://www.gov.ph/index.php (PinoyFilAmPride) 09:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, perhaps I'm tired, but where on those sites does it reference that? I'm seeing percentages of which ethnic groups are present in the Philippines, but not the specific ethnic group that either one of you is asserting. Banaticus (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, my friend. If you use the above link, you can directly view the information through the General Information. If that doesn't work for you, please also use this link to check the percentages I'm referencing (http://www.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=200020&Itemid=26 ) It can be found under the PEOPLE section and clearly states what I posted in the article, word for word. If you don't see it, I will provide it for you here:

THE PEOPLE

The Filipino is basically of Malay stock with a sprinkling of Chinese, American, Spanish and Arab blood. The Philippines has a population of 76.5 million as of May 2000 (with a projected population of 88.7 million for 2007), and it is hard to distinguish accurately the lines between stocks. From a long history of Western colonial rule, interspersed with the visits of merchants and traders, evolved a people of a unique blend of east and west, both in appearance and culture.

The Filipino character is actually a little bit of all the cultures put together. The bayanihan or spirit of kinship and camaraderie that Filipinos are famous for, is said to be taken from Malay forefathers. The close family relations are said to have been inherited from the Chinese. The piousness comes from the Spaniards who introduced Christianity in the 16th century. Hospitality is a common denominator in the Filipino character and this is what distinguishes the Filipino. Filipinos are probably one of the few, if not the only, English-proficient Oriental people today. Filipino is the official national language, with English considered as the country's unofficial one.

The Filipinos are divided geographically and culturally into regions, and each regional group is recognizable by distinct traits and dialects - the sturdy and frugal Ilocanos of the north, the industrious Tagalogs of the central plains, the carefree Visayans from the central islands and the colorful tribesmen and religious Moslems of Mindanao. Tribal communities can be found scattered across the archipelago. The Philippines has more than 111 dialects spoken, owing to the subdivisions of these basic regional and cultural groups.

Some 80 percent of the population is Catholic, Spain's lasting legacy. About 15 percent is Moslem and these people can be found basically in Mindanao. The rest of the population is made up mostly of smaller Christian denominations and Buddhist.

The country is marked by a true blend of cultures; truly in the Philippines, East meets West. The background of the people is Indonesian and Malay. There are Chinese and Spanish elements as well. The history of American rule and contact with merchants and traders culminated in a unique blend of East and West, both in the appearance and culture of the people of the Filipinos, or people of the Philippines.

Hospitality, a trait displayed by every Filipino, makes these people legendary in Southeast Asia. Seldom can you find such hospitable people who enjoy the company of their Western visitors. Perhaps due to their long association with Spain, Filipinos are emotional and passionate about life, in a way that seems more Latin than Asian.

Ethnic Groups: 91.5% Christian Malay, 4% Muslim Malay ,1.5% Chinese and 3% other.

So again, I think it's unfair that you called me out for not referencing any website when the website clearly states the provided information I posted. Everyone else who is undoing my information is not providing any reference. I personally just think they are offended, just like how some are offended when Filipinos are grouped in the "ASIAN" category and not the "Pacific Islanders" category. PinoyFilAmPride 10:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Simply saying the name of a website in the edit summary, especially when there might be a lot of information on the website, isn't quite the same as citing your sources in the article. I think IQfur01 just provided a pretty good reference in the article. Perhaps some sort of compromise could be reached -- let's talk more on the article talk page. :) Banaticus (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, perhaps you can fix it for me to provide a exact link to the information I'm trying to provide? But the information is still provided on that website and it is clearly mentioned several times throughout the website. I think IQfur01 is offended when Filipinos are referred to with the Malay background, but that's his opinion while I'm using the Official Government Website. If he disagrees, I think he should go and complain to their website and not to me. Just like how the CIA World Factbook is referenced as the 1st link, and is ironically locked. PinoyFilamPride 10:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

On the article's talk page, I point out that you two are basically saying the same thing. Additionally, the official government website of the Philippines is a credible source, but so is that Standford study. Luckily, again, they're both pretty much saying the same thing, since the same group of people have had different names applied to them over the years. :) Banaticus (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and it seems to me you're the only one who wants to come to a compromise. I've decided to just leave the Background section out of the article because I've realized that many Filipinos are still unsure of our background and I think it will be a neverending dispute to whom is correct.

Again, you and I also seem to be the only ones who continue to try to make a compromise...we have at least left comments on each other's Talk pages as well as the discussion part of the main article. I also find that some of his accusations are very contradicting and quite hypocritical so I think the best thing to do is just not even provide that information.

I also don't know why Filipinos suffer with this problem, could it be a identity crisis or colonial mentality? The Malay reference seems to have angered him, yet the Chinese or Spanish didn't. See my point? It's like when certain people who become infuriated when Filipinos are referenced as Asian, and would like to be known as "Pacific Islanders".

This whole continued argument reminds me of the Speak OUT episodes: Filipino Identity or Filipino-Americans. Nobody wanted to come a compromise and everyone wanted to just believe what they thought. Oh well, I guess that is truly who Filipino people are. PinoyFilAmPride 10:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I also just want to let you know this website from the U.S. Government also references the Malay background. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2794.htm

People Nationality: Noun--Filipino(s). Adjective--Philippine. Population (2009 estimate): 92.2 million. Annual growth rate (2007 estimate): 2.04%. Ethnic groups: Malay, Chinese.

PEOPLE The majority of Philippine people are descendants of Indonesians and Malays who migrated to the islands in successive waves over many centuries and largely displaced the aboriginal inhabitants. The largest ethnic minority now is the mainland Asians (called Chinese), who have played an important role in commerce for many centuries since they first came to the islands to trade. Arabs and Indians also traveled and traded in the Philippines in the first and early second millennium. As a result of intermarriage, many Filipinos have some Asian mainland, Spanish, American, Arab, or Indian ancestry. After the mainland Asians, Americans and Spaniards constitute the next largest minorities in the country.

So both the Philippines and U.S. Government acknowledge it =).

PinoyFilAmPride 10:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to you!

Hello Banaticus and welcome to the Guild of Wikipedia Editors who Template Regulars. Please take the time needed to review your recent message on my talk page and the revision history of the Rocket propellant article. Then please tell me on my talk page whether you still feel your templating was appropriate. Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 01:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was following the Do template the regulars protocol, but I am a knucklehead and templated the wrong person. I meant to template User:70.88.202.225 and accidentally hit the wrong person, in this case, you, the person who edited immediately before 70.88.202.225. I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that Banaticus (me) is an idiot. Thank you. Banaticus (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

user account creation assistance

Hi there, this is really me, Banaticus, the guy who just emailed you. :)

Roger, an actor, question on last name

his last name 郭 is the same as Sonija Kwok and Roger Kwok, Kwok is the correct way of spelling, not Kok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiddenemotions (talk • contribs) 22:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks -- when I saw you changing all the instances of his name from "Roger Kok" to "Roger Kwok" and all of my Google searches seemed to be indicate that Kok was the preferred spelling, I wasn't sure whether I was seeing vandalism or not. I'll trust your familiarity with the Chinese language. :) Banaticus (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Jewish by nationality

When one is born to a Jewish mother, they are automatically considered Jewish by nationality. You are more than welcome to conduct a research. Drone2Gather (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

When someone is born to a Jewish mother, the nation of Israel and some groups of people consider the person's nationality to be Jewish, but that doesn't always mean that the person in question necessarily agrees with that or wants to disown an American nationality. We should be careful making new unreferenced assertions of nationality on a living person's biography, because of WP:BLP. I just said that I didn't want to have this discussion in more than one place at a time and I gave you the choice of where you wanted to continue the discussion. You choose Talk:Jerry_Seinfeld#.22Jewish_American.22, so I'm not going to continue writing anything more on this here, if I'm also going to be writing replies there, but suffice it to say that Jerry Seinfeld's article already says that his nationality is "Jewish American" -- there's no need to apparently strip him of American nationality and say that his nationality is solely "Jewish" unless he agrees with that. No references to that end have yet been given. Banaticus (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with continuing the discussion there. Still, I'd like you to clarify on my talk page that I did not vandalize the Seinfeld page, as you have certainly realized the mistake by now. I just don't want the "stain" there, that's all ;-) Drone2Gather (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've responded. I said: At User_talk:Banaticus#Jewish_by_nationality, I was asked to respond to an earlier "warning: don't continue to vandalise or you'll be blocked" template that had been applied to this page and say that it wasn't vandalism. My short response:

I apologize for that -- it was not vandalism.

A more lengthy response, including the context around which I gave that warning.

I saw your post on the talk page of the article while monitoring recent edits to Wikipedia with Huggle. I added my voice to the discussion, agreeing with the other user you had been talking with. I then switched back to monitoring recent edits and saw that you moved a somewhat POV link to a new place in the article and interpreted it in a new manner, contrary to how the discussion had seemed to be shaping out. This caused a new tone to be set for the article, in apparent disregard of the discussion which was already taking place -- "Jewish American" was changed to "Jewish" in multiple places in the article. I accordingly tagged it as vandalism in Huggle and, because multiple other users had already warned your account of apparent vandalism in other matters (what the other matters were is between you and them), Huggle automatically assigned the next warning level to you, which happened to be level four, or the level to be warned of a block if you continued to vandalize. I am not saying that this was Huggle's fault as I claim full responsibility for the results of my own actions. Wikipedia policy states:

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW).

Although, in hindsight, Drone2Gather did add a somewhat "controversial personal opinion" to an article despite a previous warning, it was because of a content dispute and thus should not have been tagged as vandalism. I apologize for tagging it as such and, if (in that light) I had still undone the edit, I should have manually issued a lower warning level. I apologize for that as well.

Banaticus (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to your response by writing: No problem at all, apology accepted :-) It is somewhat understandable why you'd think that, also considering my being a new editor and all. Thank you very much for the clarification, no hard feelings.

By the way, the link can hardly be interpreted as POV since Haaretz is the oldest newspaper in Israel and also considered the most neutral (while the other two function as our local "CNN vs. FOX" if you will). We'll continue the discussion on the talk page, as agreed. Drone2Gather (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just a head's up, someone vandalised your userpage and I've reverted it. Most people like to know. arienh4^(Talk) 20:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Banaticus (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Same guy seems to have done it to me. Reported too. arienh4^(Talk) 20:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it happens. The user edited the title of a book that a boxer wrote and I looked it up on Amazon.com to see what the real title was. When I saw that the new title was referring to some sort of big fight that the boxer had, I reverted it as a factual innacuracy then posted a link to the Amazon.com page. I guess the user wanted to get a little revenge. ;) I hope the person will begin contributing positively now. Thanks again. :) Banaticus (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Diane Abbott

Thanks for taking a look at this. I'm afraid you haven't been successful yet though and your edit has been undone too.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'm not sure why the user is removing what're apparently referenced portions of the article. There was no discussion pertaining to such content removal on the article talk page or on the user's talk page. I warned the user to stop removing good content -- if it continues in the future, please report the user to Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism (follow the instructions on the page). Thanks. :)