User talk:Banaticus/archive2013b

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! :)

Girl Scouts

I see you changed the "Girl Scouts" article from a disambiguation page to a redirect to "Girl Guides". I wrestled with this problem before. You said my edit was "a bit of non-verified promotional material". And then Gadget850 worked on the problem even earlier. You might want to rethink what you've done. I think that 98% of the people who add [[Girl Scouts]] to an article really mean to add [[Girl Scouts of the USA|Girl Scouts]]. GroveGuy (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we're talking about 1) the bit about the GSUSA on a Girl Scout disambiguation page, 2) where Girl Scouts currently points, 3) where most users would want Girl Scouts to point. For #1, GSUSA is not the only organization that sells cookies and does good deeds. There was no reference for the assertion (non-verified) and you don't think it sounded a little promotional to you? #2, please see the discussion at Talk:Girl_Guiding_and_Girl_Scouting#Merger. Consensus seems to generally be that the articles should be merged, that "Girl Scouts" and "Girl Guides" and "Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting" should all point to the same article and that individual organizations should then have their own more specific page (such as Girl Scouts of the USA). #3, I think generic terms should point to either the article that has the highest amount of traffic over some period of time or to a disambiguation page. I think a summarizing article is more useful than a disambiguation page. Either way, thought, it'd probably be better to work on and finish the article merges before addressing the likely contentious point of "Who gets to be pointed to by the primary short term". I don't really care where Girl Scouts points, though it didn't point to Girl Scouts of the USA before I did anything to it, so I'm not really sure why you're bringing up which article likely has the most traffic. :) Banaticus (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited for discussion

Hello,

As one of the participants in the original discussion, you are invited to participate in the follow-up discussion to a Mass removal of indefinite rangeblocks under controlled conditions. Your views will be appreciated.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users

Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to try out Snuggle and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in #wikimedia-office ^connect on Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC. See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)}, Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hayman Page

Hello, I work with Michael Hayman and we are keen to update the information on his page. I understand you've considered the notability of sources previously, so we are keen to work together.

Rosemontjd (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but this message was posted on my user page instead of my user talk page, and so I never noticed it. You're probably no longer interested, but if you then please leave a message on [User talk:Banaticus|my talk page] as I don't watch this archive page either. Thanks! Banaticus (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template editor userright

Apparently the template editor userright came into existence while I was unaware, and I just wanted to let you know of it in case you hadn't heard of it already. And of course, the real reason I asked is, are you interested in getting access? Currently there seems to be no involved process for it other than just being a trusted user, and even if a process does develop I imagine it'll be fairly low-key compared to an RfA. —Soap— 04:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor which bvasically resembles the other RFP pages. It seems that this is a new level of protection, below autoconfirmed and above rollbacker, so now we have 4 levels of protection instead of 3. Probably some templates will stay full-protected forever, which means the name "template editor" isn't specifically correct. I wouldntb e surprised if "template editor" protection starts being used on non-template pages, though it appears that use is highly discouraged right now. —Soap— 04:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. If I return to Wikipedia, I'll keep that in mind. Banaticus (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Freemasonry2 template

Consensus was to use the Freemasonry2 template, but the {{Freemasonry}} template redirected to the Freemasonry2 template, and the general Wikipedia practice is to use "base names" where possible. (If everyone is using the #2 template, then merge it into the #1 template and start using the #1 template.) So, on 10 Nov 2012, User:Plastikspork basically deleted the Freemasonry template then renamed the Freemasonry2 template to be the new Freemasonry template (actually, it was an administrator move). So I went around and cleaned up the pages, pointing them to the "new" Freemasonry template (actually the old Freemasonry2 template) instead of the now obsolete template which has the old name "Freemasonry2". :) Banaticus (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse respose

Just a note to let you know that there is a backlog in Open Cases at Wikipedia:Abuse response, where you are a volunteer, that goes back several years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've removed myself from the volunteer list -- I haven't been actively involved there for some time. Thanks again for the reminder. :) Banaticus (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, Banaticus. After posting to each of the Abuse response volunteer's talk pages, I thought to post about this at WP:AN and the decision was made to change the project to inactive status. Thanks for your previous efforts! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle 3

Hey Banaticus! I am Petrb, one of core developers of Huggle, the antivandalism tool, which you are beta testing (according to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members#Beta_testers). I am happy to announce that Huggle 3 is ready for some testing. You can read more about it at WP:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta. Please keep in mind that this is a development version and it is not ready for regular use. That means you must:

Watch your contribs - when anything happens you didn't want, fix it and report a bug
Frequently checkout source code and build latest version, we change it a lot

If you find any problem with a feature that is supposed to work perfectly, please let us know. Some features are not ready yet, it is listed in known problems on Huggle3 beta page, you don't need to report these - we know it! So, that's it. Have fun testing and please let us know about any problems, either using bugzilla @ http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ or #huggle ^connect. Please respond to my talk page, I am not going to watch your talk page. Thank you Petrb (talk) 10:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle 3 beta is out - and we need more feedback!

Hey Banaticus, how are you? I am Petrb, one of huggle developers, and you are currently subscribed as a beta tester of huggle on meta (meta:Huggle/Members. You may not have noticed, but this week I released first beta precompiled installers for ubuntu and microsoft windows! Wikipedia:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta has all the links you need. So if you can, please download it, test it and report all bugs that is really what we need now. Don't forgot that as it's just a beta it's unstable and there are some known issues. Be carefull! Thank you for helping us with huggle Petrb (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edits

hi. Just to let you know that the editor that you reverted a couple of times days ago, is still basically at it. He can't understand that actual Arians and Arius never believed or taught that Christ began His existence from Mary's womb, but that Arius CLEARLY taught that Christ PRE-EXISTED Mary. And that the "source" that he put was a BOGUS source, and very unreliable. That source calls itself "Arian", though it really isn't. They go against MANY of the things Arius taught and believed. That group is actually SOCINIAN...not Arian. So then, to put the stuff that the other editor has been putting on that article, giving the false impression that somehow Arius believed that Christ started His existence only from manhood, is misleading, wrong, and confusing. And has NO solid sources for it.

There are plenty of real reliable and solid sources that state clearly that Arius and real "Arians" explicitly taught Christ's pre-existence. And I went into a WHOLE THING on the article Talk page, that the other editor doesn't seem to understand or respect. Anyway, the other editor is edit-warring now, and I don't have much time or patience for this. So if you can weigh in, I'd appreciate it. Check out what's been going on by clicking here. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded at Talk:Nontrinitarianism#Current state of the article. As a side note, in general, I think capital letters as a method of emphasis is sort of discouraged, since it's usually interpreted as yelling. I think italic or bold would generally be a better emphasis choice. :) Banaticus (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Banaticus. Thank you so much for responding, and your work and consideration to this matter. You seem to be honest and objective, and careful. Other editors may not always necessarily be. And things like this happen sometimes. We need to be careful not to put inaccurate as well as un-sourced and confusing things on any article on Wikipedia. By the way, as far as the occasional caps, that was mentioned, that is not meant as "yelling" per se, when I do it that way, but only as strong emphasis (maybe a tad stronger than simple "italics", which I do sometimes too.) Usually out-and-out "yelling" is when the all-caps are done for entire sentences, not just a word or two, or an isolated phrase. But no, I did not mean any yelling here...lol. Sorry about that. But also, another reason I do that sometimes is because on edit comments (in the history thing etc) "italics" are NOT doable. Not on edit comments fields. On here, on Talk pages, yes, but not on edit comments themselves. And there's no other way to show "emphasis" on edit comment fields other than all-caps. Plus also it's easier to do all-caps (on Talk pages) than to put those italics tags. But again, when it's done only for a word or two, usually it's not always interpreted as "yelling" per se, but as a strong emphasis. I never ever do all-caps for entire sentences, or whole paragraphs. Because that, no question, would be yelling, clearly. So I do try to be careful...and contextual. In general. Anyway, thanks again...for your time on this. That article there, from time to time, needs to be carefully looked after. Given the measure of controversy that is sometimes involved in it. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Nice job with your note at User talk:168.187.133.242. It was well said and after the note, the user started cleaning up the article as you recommended. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 07:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bar listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Bar. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Bar redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I responded at the redirect discussion. :) Banaticus (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]