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! :)
- 1 History of the Catholic Church article
- 2 Talkback
- 3 Please explain
- 4 Mutual fund edit.
- 5 Doppelgänger
- 6 delete site article
- 7 Talkback
- 8 lost IRC client
- 9 Thank you
- 10 Archie Comics
- 11 Articles for deletion nomination of Battle of Bosworth Field/map
- 12 Risk Aversion in Forex
- 13 Template Stuff
- 14 Kia Avella
- 15 Michael Hayman - Dispute - Advice on resolution
- 16 Talkback
- 17 Orphaned non-free image File:Ermabombeck.jpg
History of the Catholic Church article
Banaticus-- I did as you suggested and tried to revise the offensive section (incidentally I got the name of my opponent wrong-- it is Edward Norman). I began by correcting a misstatement concerning the Cathars-- to my knowledge they allowed suicide only in cases of terminal illness, which hardly counts as suicide at all. Then I went on to correct Edward Norman's assertions using Malcolm Barber's book The Cathars: Dualist Heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages and the much more balanced Wikipedia article on the Inquisition. However, I fear that my corrections will seem crude, because I did not know how to show references and anyway, how could I fit them in when the pro-Inquisition references are already numbered? I could not see how to overcome that hurdle so I included them in the text. This will undoubtedly result in some oddities as my comments, which are critical of the Inquisition, are now followed by footnotes which support it! As I do more research, I will undoubtedly have more sources and indeed direct quotations as long as the pro-Inquisition ones, but I am unclear about how to include these. Do I have the right to edit out an entire reference, sometimes including a long quotation, inserted by someone else and put my own in its place? Though I am not Protestant or even Christian, I suspect that this is going to be the beginning of another Thirty Year's War!188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Cheri, Sierrabushi@yahoo.com 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Cheri, Sierrabush@yahoo.com
- Let me preface these by suggesting that you create a username for yourself. People are often more comfortable dealing with a named individual than a seemingly random IP address. This will help when you edit potentially contentious Wikipedia articles. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Username policy.)
- When you put a reference in <ref> and </ref> tags, it will automatically be added in the references section at the bottom (presuming that the references section is using a reference template that calls all those -- most established pages are, see Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information). Then, so that the reference is formatted the same as every other similar reference on other pages, it's put into some sort of citation template that will organize the information properly (see Wikipedia:Citation templates for more information). However, I didn't see any new references that you dumped into the article. You do have the right to edit out an entire reference, sometimes including a long quotation, inserting one of your own in its place, but the replacement should be better than the first one. Otherwise, both references should possibly be used so that multiple points of view can be represented in the article?
- In revising a contentious article, making as few edits as possible are generally recommended. In , you changed the article from "Historians note..." to "Some historians, for instance Edward Norman..." when the statement is followed by four references, showing that "historians [do] note..." The following statement references a specific statement by Edward Norman. There's no need to single out Edward Norman in the first statement, when the point is to show that multiple historians support the statement. The original version seems good to me.
- Having made an edit and had it reversed by established editors, it would likely be better to discuss future changes on the article's talk page, rather than participating in Edit warring. Banaticus (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- My mistake -- I reverted it as vandalism, not realize that it was a user talk page and ok for him to rant there. I undid my reversion. Banaticus (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Mutual fund edit.
Sorry I triggered a warning. I was just reverting what appeared to be vandalism by the previous edit. I did verify the 30 day redemption fee was 1% and not 10% and by that alone reverted the anonymous edit that had a couple of other changes which I didn't bother to check. (reference: http://quicktake.morningstar.com/FundNet/Fees.aspx?symbol=FDIVX&country=USA). I have no other interest in this page so I'll let you handle it. Keep up the good work. Dan Oetting (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really have any interest in the page -- I saw the 10% 30-day penalty was changed to 1%, so reverted the rest of the edits as well presuming that they were all in bad faith. Keep up the good work. :) Banaticus (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I reverted 220.127.116.11's first edits and a couple other people reverted the other edits. :) Banaticus (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
delete site article
Wikipedia As a senior editor of the somali news website hiraan.com and i wish your website delete the linkage of a hiraan piece "Xeer, back to somali rule". We currently performing a internal audit of the website sourcesing from outside webtraffic
please delete the site article from hiraan...... it is copyright infringment
Mohammed L. Yussuf
- Just noticed this patrolling recent edits, and I don't believe this is a copyvio considering it is only used as a reference and not copy-and-pasting the entire article, just my two cents. petiatil »user»speak 09:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. The Somali news website seems to be [hiiraan.com], not hiraan.com -- was that a typo, Mohammed Yussuf? I recently posted an edit test warning on your talk page; is this a response to that? It appears that the Xeer article links to hiissan.com as the reference for the words xeer guud and xeer tolnimo (amongst other Somali words). The Xeer article doesn't appear to directly copy information from your website -- it appears to edit and restate the pertinent information in a different manner, then properly links to the original source as a reference point. If you'd like I can further investigate this issue. I hope to speak with you soon. :) Banaticus (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
lost IRC client
Yes, that was me but I started out asking for a second opinion if my article was good enough to move out of my user space "even though it doesn't flow nicely" because I'm building the page as apposed to Writing it. But some how it got turned into a "licensing" discussion. I just want to someone better than me to take a look at my first article and see if it's ready to be moved to "Main area" As far as Licenses I have the complete cooperation of the owner/subject I'm writing about. and Proof
From: don branker To: Mark Pearcy
DON E. BRANKER
I hereby affirm that I, Don E. Branker am the creator and/or sole owner and/or appointed representative of the exclusive copyright of all pictures, articles and/or any portion of, promotional posters, images sent to Mark L. Pearcy or he has copied from my webpages at http://www.donbranker.com/ . I agree to publish that work under the free license Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 and CC-BY-SA version 3.0 I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Don E. Branker. Branker Productions, Executive Producer 2/2/2010
- I told you on IRC, showing that to me won't help. Contact these people with that information, following the directions on the page. ;)
Notability in a nutshell: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
- Most of the following will be about notability, getting enough secondary sources. If he's notable, then people will write about him. If Cal Jam is big enough, then newspaper articles will be written about it. As the promoter, he should make sure he's mentioned next time -- maybe he already was. Doing some newspaper searches couldn't hurt things. First, you need a few sentence blurb before any headers in the article (so that it goes above the table of contents) that sums up his life. Mention the Jam, the Star, two or three sentences that sum up why he's important.
- "Don grew up in Fresno" really? What's your source? Branker Brothers Cattle Co -- anything on them? One of the "larger ranching operations" -- really? "a self-described street punk"? Where's he said that in public (verifiable, not just to you).
Considered the "Woodstock of the West".
California Jam II, also known as Cal Jam II, was a music festival held in Ontario, California, at the Ontario Motor Speedway on March 18, 1978. Promoted and Produced by Don E. Branker. More than 300,000 people attended. The festival was a sequel to the original California Jam held in 1974.A television special featuring highlights of the festival was broadcast a few months later on the American Broadcasting Company network.
Has promoted/produced such famous acts as The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Rush, Donovan and Minnie Riperton.
- No sources for any of that. YouTube is not a valid source, you can't use it there. Evil Knievel? See Notability in a Nutshell above, more sources are needed.
- What's the skateboarding header for?
- The whole autobiography thing could just be left off. It hasn't come out yet so is unwholesome speculation in the affairs of a living person, which is against Wikipedia policy. You can't link to his own website for basically anything.
- http://www.hollywoodchamber.net/ and http://www.hwof.com/ and http://www.hollywoodusa.co.uk/ don't know of a Branker with a star. The lists that I'm seeing go Braedon, Brando, Breneman. Despite the picture, I'm not seeing a verifiable star for him. It was probably a minor thing, maybe he just has a "star" and doesn't have something in concrete, I don't know, but it doesn't seem notable.
- Now, most all of those problems you say can be solved by documents he's given you that verify that. If so, Great! But I'm not the person you should be showing them to -- you need to follow the directions give above regarding who to contact and how to contact them. Good luck, let me know if you're at an impasse and would like some more help. :) Banaticus (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry. It boils down to, if he's "notable" then other people will have talked about him enough that there will be some kind of record (newspaper articles, tv interviews, name dropping by other notable people in similar verifiable settings, books, etc.) I'm sure there are more sources out there somewhere. If he were to finish writing his autobiography and publish it such that it had an ISBN number for it, then it'd probably get a Wikipedia page on it and since Cal Jam already has a Wikipedia page, with both of those up as reputable verifiable pages, then you'd likely have more than enough notable sources (especially if independent sources were to review the book). The source for Branker on the Wikipedia Cal Jam page isn't really reputable, though, you can't use a person's own website for verification of what they've done. Banaticus (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for fixing Vladimir_Miklyukov and explaining why those three banners on the discussion page should stay. I was going crazy about this article, because it's my dad. Thanx again((-: --sobaka_kachalova 17:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)
Articles for deletion nomination of Battle of Bosworth Field/map
I have nominated Battle of Bosworth Field/map, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Bosworth Field/map. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
- Yeah, go ahead and delete it. I don't think wikimedia has the capability to do what I was trying to do. Normally, when looking at an image, you can click it and it'll take you to the image page where you can possibly see a higher resolution version. However, since the image in this case isn't a real image but rather a generated image created by a template, clicking on the image doesn't show a higher resolution of the battle field complete with marks, it simply shows a blank map of England. I wanted to create a higher resolution version of the "image" (as displayed in the article, the one created by the template) on the article page, but in such a way that a person could click it and be taken to this page, where clicking the image would then take them to the blank England map file. However, when I tried to transclude this page in a sized and floated div on the main article page, it simply overran the boundaries I'd set out for it. I don't think what I wanted to do is possible at this time, so just delete it. If people want to see a higher resolution version, they can do what I did and copy/paste the template text on some other page. ;) Banaticus (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
|The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar|
|Your help to me was an action of great kindness Thank you. Wikireporter365 (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)|
- Thanks :) Banaticus (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Will work on it... are you around in about 5 hours time? Will like to show you. KoalaLovesWiki (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- hope to see u soon :) KoalaLovesWiki (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- i gtg.. guess i will work on this during the weekend.. and make a nice page for myself.. will u be in weekend? hope u can guide me.. cya! KoalaLovesWiki (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, im installing mediawiki on my new site later on today
ill let you know when im starting on templates (like ambox etc)
Just one question before I install media wiki,
after installing, it says move a file to where its parent folder
which folder would that be, im guessing it would be public_html
Sghfdhdfghdfgfd (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Let's say that you have a folder called Animals. In the Animal is another folder called Cat. In the Cat folder is a file called Tabby. To move Tabby to its parent folder is to move Tabby to the folder which encloses the folder that it's already in. In short, move Tabby to the Animal folder. :) Banaticus (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- There you go. Info Warn Template. Even while logged in, uploads are prohibited, so I can't upload an image, but I believe that will give you what you're looking for. I called the template "info warn", since I didn't see any reason to go with the historical name of "ambox". Banaticus (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the Kia Avella page should be merged with the Ford page that you suggested. Both cars are based on the same platform. I completed agree with you on this issue.Sco1996 17:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sco1996 (talk • contribs)
Michael Hayman - Dispute - Advice on resolution
Could you please advise on the entry for Michael Hayman that you looked into last year. I have information that I would like to post but see that the article is in dispute. I cannot see why. Could you advise? Objective1972 (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's probably because the short article reports that he said something or discussed something, but doesn't go into much detail about what was said or why it's important that we know that it was said. It reads more like a resume than an encyclopedic article. Nobody reputable (and independent of him) has written about his life yet? All we know about him are his major business accomplishments? Banaticus (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Ermabombeck.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ermabombeck.jpg. I uploaded a new image to use in the Erma Bombeck article, replacing and orphaning your image. Because the image you uploaded is non-free and is not being used in any articles, it will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gobonobo T C 19:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I don't mind but you did notice that your image is also non-free and was uploaded under the same criteria that mine was? (Believed to be fair use, low resolution copy, only used to illustrate the article in question, etc.) Banaticus (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I realize that mine is also fair-use. Normally I wouldn't go ahead and replace an image like that, but I wasn't too keen on the bar code. If you prefer the other image, maybe we can find the original version and use that instead. I noticed a few cropped versions of that photo out there. Cheers Gobonobo T C 06:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's ok with me if you don't like the bar code -- I think the image you uploaded is a fine and dandy picture. My eyebrow went up when I saw, "Because the image you uploaded is non-free..." because I'd already followed the initial links and checked out the new picture and noted that it was also non-free, but I don't mind it being changed. ;) Banaticus (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)