User talk:Renamed user ixgysjijel/Archive10

DYK

On December 8, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matthew Lukwiya, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hello again BanyanTree. Thanks for all your articles which give African representation at DYK. Happy editing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that article, BT. Impressive story. — mark ✎ 07:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. I'm glad you found it a good read. - Banyan Tree 12:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA count on main page

Hey there BT, Thanks for your support with the main-page FA counter idea, especially for creating the template. What do you think we should do now - just impliment it or place a poll advertised at the community bulletin board?? I've asked the same question at the original disussion on Talk:Main Page. Cheers! Witty lama 15:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is that the {{FA number}} template isn't worth much until Raul654, as the guy who makes the whole FA process turn, agrees to use it for his updates. I'm less worried about the folks at FARC. I'm waiting on a response from him on his talk, but there is an off chance that he wants someone to go ahead so he isn't seen as giving it some sort of "FA Director decree"-status or that he hates the idea and just refuses to discuss it. I think there is a strong consensus already, but I'm trying not to be a pain in Raul654's behind or give the appearance of going around his back. - Banyan Tree 16:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I originally asked him on his talk page if he would like to comment on the idea. He responded on Talk:Main Page (as you have already probably seen). But in case you didn't, he wrote this:

I support this idea, as long as I'm not the one who has to do it, and it doesn't interfere with the way WP:FA works (e.g, with the actual numbering scheme). Raul654 04:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what he means by "interfere with...the actual numbering scheme" but I would assume your template does not. Otherwise he seems to be quietly supportive of the concept. In the light of user:Monotonehell's remider that WP:NOT a democracy, as soon as you get word from him I believe we should just impliment it. However, I am not confindent enough in media-wiki, and especially with how the main page is set up, to do this myself - at least in a "neat" way. Would you? Witty lama 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I would have done it a day ago if I wasn't taking a softly-softly approach. There has been another exchange at User talk:Raul654#Would you support putting the number of FA's on the front page?, involving Raul, Titoxd and I. I'll give it another few hours and, if someone hasn't beaten me to it, go ahead and risk the wrath. It seems to involve a permanent full protection of {{FA number}}, transclusion into {{TFAfooter}}, and a replacement of the two occurrences at WP:FA. - Banyan Tree 18:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Far out, I hadn't been watching Raul's page, I didn't know how much technical discussion had already taken place. Can I just say Thanks! for working through all the niggly-bits. Witty lama 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FA template

If the template is permanently protected, how do the editors who maintain WP:FAR update the number when articles are removed daily? Also, who will be able to run this bot once it's approved? I wish the folks proposing this would consider WP:FAR in addition to Raul - he's not the only person who updates that number. Raul has to edit the FA number roughly twice a week: FAR editors have to access it sometimes daily. I am not an admin, and when the regular FAR admins are absent, I may have to fiddle with the number. I'm sorry to see you're less worried about the folks at FAR, since we do have to access the template more often than Raul, and it will possibly be our lack of access that will mess up the number. Sandy (Talk) 15:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, While I had considered that there might be theoretical FA regulars who weren't admins, I thought you were an admin so the more decentralized nature of FAR would work to the advantage of the template. That is an issue. The requested bot would appear to be an even better solution. In the period while we're waiting for it to be created and approved (crossed fingers), an interim solution is needed. The options I see are either having people in your position make requests to Template talk:FA number or reimplementing a hand-updated number on Wikipedia:Featured articles. The former reduces the possibility of the numbers being thrown off, while the second increases the level of makework for the admin who copies that number to the template (I would of course volunteer). You can make that determination as you know how often you and other non-admins change the number; I would support whichever you choose in the interests of making the transition as painless as possible. Also please weigh in at the bot request.

On a slight tangent, I was about to ask if you wanted me to nominate you at RFA, but I see that you've recently turned down an offer. The impulse was of course prompted by this conversation, but you look thoroughly qualified. Best, Banyan Tree 15:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Banyan - no, I really don't want to be an admin. There are other admins I can ask, who are FAR regulars, to update the number when needed, but we're just adding so many steps to the process, when there are already so few to do the work. During the times, for example, when the FAR regular admins can't do the work (now, for example, as they are busy with real life issues), is it possible for non-admins to be authorized to use the bot, if/when it's approved ? I don't really know how bots work, or what the protocol is, but because I follow both FAC and FAR, I try to keep tabs on all the numbers, and make sure that articles are listed and de-listed from all the different places where we track them (and that's more places than some imagine :-) and that talk pages are updated accordingly. Sandy (Talk) 15:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The neat thing about the bot is that it would simply count the number of articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured articles and then stick that number in the template. So anyone who could edit WP:FA would change the number on the template. I am concerned about possible vandalism, e.g. blanking the page to watch the number fall, for which I've offered a possible solution on the request page. The main issue is that the last time a bot with an admin flag was proposed it turned into a massive discussion, so I'm hoping that someone will volunteer to code the bot and then there is enough support to it get approved at WP:BRFA. Raul's support as a 'crat should help. - Banyan Tree 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joel just closed a FAR, so I counted the pages to be edited in the process - 1) close the review, 2) add the review to the archive, 3) remove the article from FA, 4) update the count, 5) remove star from article, 6) replace FA template on talk page, 7) add it to former featured articles, and 8) remove it from list of articles with citation problems. From Joelr31 (talk · contribs):

Wikipedia:Former featured articles (+1 Revised Standard Version) (top)
Talk:Revised Standard Version (no longer FA) (top)
Revised Standard Version (no longer FA) (top)
Template:FA number (-1 Revised Standard Version, and this template is very bad)
Wikipedia:Featured articles (-1 Revised Standard Version)
Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive (→Removed status - +Revised Standard Version) (top)
Wikipedia:Featured article review (closing Revised Standard Version, no longer FA)

and then I remove it from:

Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems (Removed status Revised Standard Version) (top)

So, if we have to keep track of yet another piece, we should start doing what Raul does when he closes FACs - not update the article talk page, and let someone else worry about keeping all the pieces together as far as removing stars and updating counts. It's just bad practice to have a number separate from the articles, and will be too easy to forget that step. Yes, I'm still kicking and screaming :-)) This is goofy. Sandy (Talk) 00:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Template:FA number. Thanks, Banyan Tree 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I know someone has offered to work on the bot - and that it will run automatically - I'll relax :-) Sandy (Talk) 02:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You unprotected Sahib Biwi Aur Ghulam‎

Hello, Banyan, you unprotected Sahib Biwi Aur Ghulam - the moment it was unprotected, it was changed again. This time, the vandal has taken a user name, User:Sc4704, but does not reply to any notes one may write on his discussion page. Could you, maybe, semi-protect the page again, or have a word with the user? Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have left notes on the article and user talks, as well as putting the citation into ref format just for the heck of it. I am watching the page and will handle continued unsourced assertions. I think extended protection is pretty lame and am willing to wait and see if a non-protection solution is possible, though I will of course protect if that seems to be only option. Thanks for your help, Banyan Tree 22:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift reply and *your* help. Will have an eye on the user myself. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 02:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Legion

Hi BT, would you give a look at a new article I wrote, Islamic Legion (a panafrican Libyan force that seems to have played a roled in Janjaweed evolution). Since you've got Prunier's work, I wanted to know if you could signal me some error and the year when the force was created. Sorry for disturbing you, but since the Legion's involvement with Darfur, I thought you could find it wort a look. Ciao, --Aldux 01:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aldux, Great job! I slightly expanded the article. Both my Prunier and Flint & de Waal books are tremendously confused about distinguishing between Libyan regular forces, Legion forces and Libyan-supported Darfuri militias in this period, but hopefully it made sense. I've also listed the article at WP:NAFR and nominated it at T:TDYK. Cheers, Banyan Tree 15:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie Mille!!! I really didn't pretend such work, I'm humbly grateful, the de Waal and Prunier input is highly appreciated. As for the confusion, don't worry: this is a typical result of Qaddafi's strategy, who masked even regular troops as legionnaires so to claim that no Libyans were in the bordering countries. So all works have to deal with this ambiguity. If I can help you in some way, please tell me; I'll be happy to reciprocate. Thanks again, ciao.--Aldux 16:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On December 12, 2006, a fact from the article Islamic Legion, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Speaking of which....many thanks again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I am very grateful for the honor, and the award. I hope I can live up to it. Thak you very much. Themalau 20:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FA Counter Bot

I have fulfilled your request --Jmax- 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your work Jmax-! I have started a new subheader at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Template:FA number directing people involved in that conversation to the bot request page. I am also gathering names for the whitelist, as you requested. Cheers, Banyan Tree 03:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a job well done to both of you - one less thing for us to have to do :-) Sandy (Talk) 15:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy. I'm glad we figured out a way to make it happen. - Banyan Tree 15:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FFA tally not yet updated on Wikipedia:Former featured articles for removal of last two (autism, James II) - Left a note here. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 18:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the block

Thank you for the block on User:Sc4704. I suspect that he may be a persistent vandal who inserted contradictory information in an article about a movie with no reference. I am sure that he will re-engage in his vandalism after the block runs out but I will keep an eye out for any problems. Thank you again. ekantiK ^talk 15:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this after a post above. Let me know if this user remains unresponsive to attempts at discussion, and thanks for keeping watch. - Banyan Tree 16:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just few words about Jorbis player

I was your msg on Gmaxwell talk page and I saw too that you have a PPC running with OS X 10.3.5. Why you don't upgrade to 10.3.9 ? It's free and bug clean. More of that, it is now possible to listen .ogg file with the new Quicktime version (actualy version 7.1.3) directly with a navigator. But the JOrbis Player is obviously very useful and I hope Gmaxwell able to repair it. Have a good day.--Sonusfaber 08:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I have done that. Not quite sure why I hadn't before... - Banyan Tree 12:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not

I don't really think you are the telephone company. Simply south 12:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know. What are we talking about? - Banyan Tree 12:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your username shortened to BT on the userpage. Over here it stands for British Telecom, a major telecommunications company whch is often shortened to its initials. .......... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simply south (talk • contribs) 13:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

BanyanTree a telephone company? As an admin, he makes good calls all the time so ... (On a related note: some time ago I made a redirect to here from User:BT, but I deleted it when I noticed that account was registered.) — mark ✎ 13:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the explanation, Simply south. I hadn't heard that one. Mark, <chuckle> and thanks for thinking through my long-term use of a nickname. Cheers, Banyan Tree 13:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicon

Can you do this reversion? Template_talk:Flagicon#Unsupported_use_restriction
Thanks. --*Spark* 19:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate for me to become a proxy in a possible edit war on a protected template. I have created a documentation subpage at Template:Flagicon/doc, which is well supported by current practice on protected templates. Regards, Banyan Tree 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does allow working around the protection problem. Thank you. (SEWilco 04:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Help needed with UHSA talkpage

Hi there, I'd like to modify some of my comments in UHSA's talkpage (some of my comments are inaccurate). How do I do that? The page is being closely monitored for vandalism. Thanks. DrGladwin 23:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In normal Wikipedia practice, a talk page post might be corrected for typos, grammar and links, but changing content is strongly frowned upon, especially if other users have already responded to the post. Given the delicacy of the situation at University of Health Sciences Antigua, it would be reverted on sight. It would probably be best if you didn't modify the comments. What might be acceptable is to, for your comments only, strikethrough your comments and add an indented comment that either explains that you are retracting the original comment or offering a reworded version so it is clear to everyone what was originally posted, as well as offering you the opportunity to correct misunderstandings. For example, if I wrote in this situation:

I like apples. BanyanTree 10 December 2006

To correct, I might write:

NOTE: I wish to modify several of my earlier comments. Since this is a sensitive topic, I have struck through the text I wish to retract or reword and posted reworded comments. I have not modified any existing content. This was the course of action suggested to me at User talk:BanyanTree#Help needed with UHSA talkpage. BanyanTree 13 December 2006

~~I like apples. BanyanTree 10 December 2006~~
Correction: I meant to say "I like to harvest apples." BanyanTree 13 December 2006

This is obviously a little silly, but any attempt to change the substance of comments on that page would undoubtedly be reverted. If you do this, be sure to use the above link to this discussion in the edit summary and sign every post with a timestamp. I'm unsure that it would be accepted by other users, i.e. it might just be reverted as an attempt to "cheat" in the conversation.

I'm not sure what you have in mind, but it would be much simpler to simply add a post to the end of the page offering clarification on your earlier comments. This would also be much less strange to other readers. I hope that helps. - Banyan Tree 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you an hour to restore the line that you deleted and add timestamped commentary explaining what you are doing before I revert that last edit. - Banyan Tree 00:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've used the strike feature and I'll also add a post clarifying my previous comments. I only meant to use the strike feature, not delete lines. If I did delete anything, its probably in error. Thanks again. DrGladwin 00:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor becomes anonymous

Hello BT, I'm unsure how to resolve this particular problem. For some days, Shafiq.ad has been inserting a spam/promotional link to a blog that is an unreliable source for obvious reasons, into several pages that do not require that link (See his contributions). Naturally I have reverted these edits and explained to him on his talk page (with two warnings) that his inclusion of that link is not permitted on Wikipedia.

Just now I noticed an anonymous editor engaging in the same behaviour with Amitabh Bachchan and appears to have done the same with other pages too (See contributions). This clearly suggests that the same individual is at work and is most probably trying to avoid further warnings (and possible block notices) being placed on his (Shafiq.ad's) talk page. Please advise. ekantiK ^talk 14:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ekantik, I tagged 59.176.115.207 (talk · contribs) with {{spam3}}. If it is blatantly obvious that sockpuppets are being used, treat them as the same user and skip to {{spam3}}. If the user has a stable IP then a block could be used to affect all accounts. If not, I'm afraid that you'll have to report each new account individually. I'm willing to block if a final warning is given, though make sure that you write that it is a Shafiq.ad sockpuppet either in edit summaries and talk pages, so another user can recreate the story without asking you what is going on. Cheers, Banyan Tree 14:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger edit

You said to me "If tigers are the largest species, then they would be bigger than blue whales, assuming that you don't go beyond the animal kingdom. "largest cat species" is clearly correct. Please don't change it. - BanyanTree 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)"

I think you got confused when you looked at "current" and "last". I added the word "cat", as oppose to taking it away. By reverting, you removed the word "cat". I'll revert it back to my edit, which of course agrees with your sentiment. Atarr 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are totally correct. I apologize for the mistake. - Banyan Tree 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no problem at all.Atarr 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

This is a schoolwide IP address. It doesn't seem very fair to make everyone suffer, neh? 206.170.112.2 22:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks, unless specified otherwise by the blocking admin, will not affect users who are logged into their accounts. However, account creation is normally blocked as well. If you are sick of getting messages that have nothing to do with you and don't want to worry about being blocked, create an account now. - Banyan Tree 22:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement

Announcement

The "Help name my baby" Poll has closed :). Greta Annette was born 12/12/06. She weighs 6lbs 14oz and is 19inches long. Mother and baby are both doing fine. Thanks for all the suggestions!

To keep this slightly Wikipedia related I have started Adopt a State, so adopt your state article today!

Congratulations and best wishes to your 50% larger family. :) - Banyan Tree 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK (1)

On December 17, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SPLA-Nasir, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Many thanks again BanyanTree for the Africa coverage....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA problems

Hi BT, sorry to bother you again. I've run into a little more complicated problem which relates to a user's conduct. To give a bit of background I'm involved with the editing on Sathya Sai Baba which has been thtough ArbCom. I may also be considered a critic of SSB which "officially" registers a conflict of interest, but I don't think this is a serious problem because I believe that I have edited the SSB article with the same standards that I edit other articles (mainly involving cleanup of redundant texts, removal of POV, etc). The problem here concerns the conduct of SSS108 who has been deeply involved with editing the SSB article and who also has a deep conflict of interest (his being the most vocal defender of SSB and defamer of SSB's critics) and is a single-purpose account. It would take too long to give you examples of all of these things but please feel free to ask clarification if you need it. In the meantime you may like to consider speed-reading from here on to get an overview of the long-running argument. As you will see, SSS108 refuses to behave in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines (AGF, NPA, the whole lot) under cover of the fact that he keeps alleging that I am a biased critic of SSB and that my edits are POV-pushing. I beg to submit once again that any edits I have made are of the same standard that I have carried out on other articles.

The specific problem with SSS108 (and which I would like your advice on, and anything else besides) relates to a violation of WP:NPA; he created a section on his talk page that I feel is defamatory against me because it fits the description of "Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly-accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion. Suggesting a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit a certain link, that contains the substance of an attack." (Last example of NPA). Under cover of providing a Google link, that link actually directs the reader to defamatory blogs and websites authored by SSS108 which he has done many times: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7, and diff8. So I think that this is a violation of WP:NPA and would appreciate your advice, especially since the editor in question persists in editwarring (1, 2, 3) that is obstructing the development of the article.

I'd also like to clarify that I am not locked in a dispute as such. Whatever claims are made, I am confident that my edits are made to improve the article and the Wikipedia project. I believe that this is true of every article that I am involved with and I show no special preference to any particular article. For the record I also asked Zscout's opinion and he advised me to file an RFA. I'd really rather prefer asking your opinion and advice and if you could do something before I involve myself with a complicated RFA. Thanks in advance for your advice and any help you can give. Ekantik ^talk 04:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, just a quick update. After serving SSS108 with two NPA warnings, he stated that he is not going to stop. I have just served him with a final warning. Ekantik ^talk 05:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For additional information, please see this section on my talk page. "Ekantik/Gaurasundara" is a vicious defamer of Sathya Sai Baba on the internet and created a blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Wikipedia. He also has made numerous derogatory comments on groups and forums about my involvement and edits on Wikipedia. He engaged me in debate incognito and I discovered he used the sockpuppet "Gaurasundara" (a name that directly ties him in with the Sai Controversy). He has since admitted that he is "Gaurasundara" [1]. Despite these facts, "Ekantik/Gaurasundara" is going around saying that he does not have a POV to push and his extra-Wikipedia defamation campaigns are irrelevant to his presence on the Sathya Sai Baba Wikipedia article. All of Ekantik's edits and comments (in relation to Sathya Sai Baba) deal exclusively with the Sai Controversy (except spelling corrections and grammar). Tell me something is not wrong with this picture? SSS108 ^talk-email 06:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108, please stop stalking me by following me around by looking at my edit history, and please do not continue with your personal attacks on somebody else's talk page especially as you have just been served with a final warning. If you bothered to read properly, you'll see that I've already informed BT about that defamatory section on your talk page (and much more). Now that it looks like several editors (including me) have a problem with your revert-wars (violating Revert Vandalism) that were carried out on superficial grounds, you might do well to remember that keeping a cool head is a good habit to keep in disputes. You might also like to read about how Wikipedia is not a battleground, and your constant references to off-wiki attacks that are beyond the purview of Wikipedia policies do not affect the quality of my edits on that article. Please stop making superficial arguments, revert-wars, and violating your WP:NPA warnings, I have asked you more than several times with utmost courtesy. Ekantik ^talk 06:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. Hopefully, someone who watched the ArbCom case can make a decision in what judgments need to be enforced. I'm off to bed. - Banyan Tree 07:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help in this matter, BanyanTree. I'm sorry your talk-page has been used the way it has. Sincerely, SSS108 ^talk-email 16:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much BT. Hopefully this will lead to some important decisions that will remove the obstructions so as to make the article better. Ekantik ^talk 00:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atiku Abubakar and Muhammadu Buhari (?) articles

Greetings once again BT! I must again ask for action or at least advice on Nigeria-related pages; particularly I am concerned about the Atiku Abubakar article. Abubakar has defected from the ruling party and that has likely generated this nuisance. Basically, the NPOV and weasel words tags were applied some time ago but i went through the article and cleaned up anything i saw that presented a problem (obviously you're encouraged to verify) and removed both those tags. however, non-registered IPs continue to reestablish the neutrality and weasel word tabs, always from differing IPs (this has occured on a day-to-day basis for more than a week); i realize this is not content issue but it's still an annoyance i would like to eliminate. A similar pattern is emerging with Buhari (opp. candidate in 2007 presidential election), and this IP has added POV content to the article, though only on two occasions thus far. Let us crush the Nigerian internet cafe vandal; my guess is this is what 419 scammers do with leisure time! ;) thanks as always for your attention. --gozar 22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi gozar, It looks like it's still at the advice stage. I don't see either a discussion at the anon's talk, nor at the article talk. Avoid having a conversation through the edit summary of reversions. In order to establish that the IP is actually disrupting Wikipedia to the extent that it equates to vandalism, there has to be much more. My advice is to post to the article talk that you have reverted with the reason, and and invite the anon to the discussion on his/her talk. If there's no response, then the other guy shows that he isn't interested in making a better article and you have a fair argument that he is a fanatic who is making harmful edits. If he does show up, you can figure out if a compromise is possible. In my experience, "NPOV" tends to be code for "I think you are an idiot", so try another policy that doesn't require multiple other users weighing in on what they think is neutral. I like verifiability as it is concrete and, if both sides come up with sources, you can have a conversation about reliability and source neutrality that isn't actually a personal criticism of the other editor. (Do not look at the post directly above this one and call me a liar! ;)) I normally do not even think of semiprotection until the last 50 edits in an article are in the past 2 or 3 days. Speaking of that, I'll be removing the semi pro from Nigeria shortly, so if you have any major structural edits you want to get in... Cheers, Banyan Tree 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sisterlinks

How I love all these padlocks and boxes :-). Now we have even two of them there [2] (scroll down). Must be totally secure now... :-) (just kidding). (No need to respond, just something to laugh.) --Ligulem 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<chuckle> It is kind of ridiculous, isn't it? More seriously, I'm a little confused about why one would put that on the subpage. For example, if a page was fully protected, why would we want to allow an anon to remove the template saying so? In any case, I'll go check to see if I missed similar links in subpages in that last batch of protections. - Banyan Tree 17:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I just don't care that much adding these funny boxes. If I think of it, a (small) bonus of *not* adding it on the template page is, that on a high use template you purge the cache of all articles transcluding the template. So if you change the protection status *and* want to have a matching box on top you'll have to edit the template. If you edit the /doc subpage, the caches are not purged [3]. On another note, users can see on the tabs on top of the page if a page is protected. That's what makes me wondering about all these funny boxes. But alas, this is box-o-pedia :-). --Ligulem 17:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true - on both points. ;) I had sort of assumed that, since protection changes show up in the history, they purged the cache, but there's no reason they should and having protections show up in histories is a new feature anyways. I really wish I new how to make the picture on my user page appear with less defined borders, but it appears that I'm stuck with a tree in a box, which is a melancholy sight.

In any case, I've seen you around since I joined the wiki and this may be the first time we've interacted. Thanks for dropping me a line and you're welcome anytime. - Banyan Tree 17:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Hi! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time. - Darwinek 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Darwinek! I wish the best to you and your family during the holidays as well. - Banyan Tree 22:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip J. Kaplan semi protection

I was about to lift the semi-protection on Philip J. Kaplan since it's been almost a month when I noticed the history of protections on it. I figured I'd consult with you first before unprotecting the article. Any thoughts? Metros 21:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I unprotected after over a month, the spree started an hour and half later. Exact same vandalism with the exact same edit summary, over and over, like before the previous protections. My honest opinion? It's better off indefinitely protected under the Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy clause of "minor [biographies] of slightly well known but controversial individuals... which are not widely watchlisted". Oh, and happy holidays! Banyan Tree 21:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I was so reluctant to unprotect. The thing that gets me though...why does the vandal wait for us to lift protection? It's semi-ed right now, so obviously sleeper accounts can be used after awhile. Odd if you ask me. I've watchlisted it just in case. Thanks for the response and happy holidays to you as well. Metros 21:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asterion^talk 16:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA/FFA bots

Hi, BanyanTree! I left a note for Jmax yesterday, but thought I'd ask you, since I haven't heard back from him - both bots are stuck - haven't run for a couple of days. Is leaving a message for Jmax the best way to go, or is it something anyone can fix? Sandy (Talk) 15:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, gosh, never mind - he got them going again ! Sandy (Talk) 15:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah, ha - the source of my confusion - there is a user Jmax and a user Jmax- (hyphen). Sheesh. Sandy (Talk) 15:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they ever stopped, according to the contribs. It's possible that you have the "ignore bot edits" ticked in your preferences, which would mean that you aren't seeing the page being updated. It just received the bot flag on the 25th, which may be when you started noticing that edits weren't popping up in your watchlist. - Banyan Tree 15:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My watchlist is OK for bots - they stopped running between 11:16 27 December and 4:14 28 December -

04:14, 28 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Jmax-bot/FFACounter (Added current Former FA count DEBUG)
11:16, 27 December 2006

If it happens again, I guess I have the right talk page now for leaving a message. Sandy (Talk) 15:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowbot

Hello, BanyanTree, just a heads-up that Shadow1 has changed his bot to email users with an alert whenever a template is unprotected on the Main Page. The page is here, if you wish to add yourself. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added myself. - Banyan Tree 17:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Unite

If you think that the problem is on [my]] side, I would advice you to write the German article first. Camptown 18:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, if started with

Virgin Unite ist der karitative Arm der britischen Virgin Group. Virgin ist seit 1987 tätig, vor der Gründung der Unite 2004 auch unter den Namen The Virgin Healthcare Foundation und The Healthcare Foundation. Die laufenden Kosten tragen die Virgin Group und deren Gründer Richard Branson, alle Spenden an die Organisation gehen in wohltätige Arbeit[1].

Unter anderem engagiert sich die Unite gegen die Blasen-Scheidenverletzung Fistula[2] und für die AIDS-Aufklärung[3].

Of course, I don't speak any German at all so I had to copy that from the German article. Like I said, there's something wrong on your end. - Banyan Tree 18:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Banyan Tree, Of cource you were right. I'm really appologize for that. The strange thing though, is that when I reload the German page, it sometimes goes back into the "page doesn't exist" mode. best regards, Camptown 18:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm glad that it's mostly sorted out. - Banyan Tree 18:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Uganda Coat of Arms large.jpg, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 19:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Orphanbot. What would we do without you? - Banyan Tree 19:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dungu redirect help

Banyan,

Would you mind checking my question Thank you! --DBlomgren 06:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banyan, You're the ~~man~~ ~~woman~~ tree! :) --DBlomgren 02:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong section header apology

Hi, thanks for making the mainpage change. Sorry it was under the wrong section header, I'm on a strange computer tonight and it's doing some weird things. Happy New Year. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was just confused for a minute. Happy New Year to you as well. - Banyan Tree 01:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the capital F and the fact that is one word indicate that is a proper noun and not "fair trade"

I know that, but you're missing the point. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should resist accepting language created by pressure groups. "Fairtrade" is hardly a neutral word. It's a brand; it shouldn't be used so readily. It's almost akin to using the word "Googling" without quotation marks in a similar context. Exeunt 09:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That stance would requires atrocities such as I like to wear "Lucky" Jeans and snack on "Golden Delicious" while shopping at "Thrifty PayLess" in the "Democratic People's Republic" of Korea, to be a bit silly about it. If a term is accepted at large, regardless of how self-laudatory it is, then pointing out one such term to mark with skepticism/scare quotes is rather... point-y. - Banyan Tree 15:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm arguing for; it's about context, too. I don't think that the coffee's designation as a Fairtrade product is important enough to its identity to be one of the first things mentioned. The use of quotation marks was to disclaim Wikipedia's endorsement of the brand. I'd rather have the reference to Fairtrade removed. Exeunt 16:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairtrade certification is clearly key in their breaking into the specialty market. And Fairtrade is something that has to be earned by the business. Another metaphor: in the first line of Robert De Niro, is Academy Award given undue prominence? In terms of looking for key descriptors that impact the subject of the article, I don't really see a reasonable challenge. Endorsement doesn't even come into the equation - it is important to the article and itself has a well-developed article. I find the heated arguments about how we can't describe either Maraba's qualities or products without somehow compromising the wiki strange, as the Microsoft blurb was basically a laundry list of products and I don't recall any such controversy at all.

In any case, this discussion may be better placed on Talk:Maraba Coffee. The main writer, SteveRwanda, is holidaying in Australia currently but stated that he would be going through all the tweaks and such when he returns. (Poor guy entirely missed his article appearing on the Main Page.) - Banyan Tree 16:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a huge problem with actors being described as "Academy Award-winning" in the first sentence. In fact, I removed "Grammy Award winning" from the Ludacris article just 16 minutes before you wrote that comment. It definitely gives the award undue prominence that detracts from the impact of that crucial first sentence. Exeunt 16:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that we're going to have to agree to disagree. Awards and honors, when notable, establish both notability for a subject and pull readers whose interest is piqued into the article, which is good writing style. - Banyan Tree 16:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"rm gag"

Your edit summary when removing an error report from WP:ERRORS was not very nice, considering this version (or something similar) remained on DYK for eight hours, before I removed the item and later updated DYK. Next time, please assume good faith and check to see what the associated section looked like at the time of a posting of an error report. -- tariqabjotu 18:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK actually stated that Governor Erlich was involved in a snack food called Pirate's Booty? I'm sorry about the message to the anon, and I'm biased in actually knowing a bit about Maryland politics, but it never even crossed my mind that something so obviously nonsensical would be put on the Main Page. Per your advice, I will try to be more credulous. Thanks for letting me know, Banyan Tree 18:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok Bombings

Sorry to bother you again, but do you have a source for there being eleven bombings involved in the Bangkok bombings? The Wikipedia article itself is still showing eight. Perhaps you counted some of the unexploded bombs, but I would not really consider an unexploded bomb a bombing. -- tariqabjotu 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really just need to stop editing for a bit, or at least stay away from the Main Page. My track record for the past several hours has been horrific. I misread the "4 bombings and then 7 bombings" sentences in the lead and completely ignored the "=8" sentence when I checked to see if the article death count had been updated per the BBC reports. Thanks for keeping an eye out. If you don't mind me saying so, you look to be an exemplary admin and its a shame you had to wait so long. - Banyan Tree 22:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chadian-Libyan conflict

Hi BT. I'm writing a quite a long article on the Chadian-Libyan conflict and more generally Libyan involvement in Chadian civil war, and I'm a bit worried, because I've already reached 39K and have still a lot to write (I will probably pass 60K). This is the first time I've ever written such a long article, and I'm reluctant to cut or educe what I've alread made, for the efforts I made in finding sources and organizing them in a (I hope) coherent narrative. What do you think?--Aldux 18:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aldux, I'm a big fan of concise articles. See number six of Worldtraveller's points for one reason, and Blaise Pascal's "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time" for the even more pithy reason. I consider anything beyond 32kb to be an indication that nobody is editing (in the traditional sense, of deciding what is important and what is not) the page while anything beyond 40kb just ignores the fact that the hypothetical reader doesn't have an hour to devote to your article. I'm still not sure what would be needed to cut World War II down to 40kb or below, but clearly nobody has been able to make that tough call of deciding that some events and campaigns simply need to be shuffled off to a subpage, regardless of how proud some people are about them. In summary, shorter articles are more likely to be read and the size limitation forces editors to make choices about what is truly vital to the article and refine wording, making better articles.

Getting back to your article, I suggest you write the entire thing in one article and then decide what to cut. For example, I suggest that everything before the start of the conflict in 1980 should be in one or more separate articles - either existing articles such as Foreign relations of Libya and Foreign relations of Chad, or a separate article such as Chadian-Libyan relations. The latter would, of course, have a summary section for Chadian-Libyan conflict. My ideal length for Wikipedia:Summary style sections is three paragraphs, but I often fail at this. (See the Background section of Darfur conflict for what I consider to be a failure, and the History section of Darfur for a successful summary, when I recently broke out History of Darfur.) You may need other subpages depending on how long the article gets and how it is structured. Are you thinking of pushing the article into FA status? It's looking impressive. - Banyan Tree 21:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article will absolutely have to be cut to around 40K; my problem is the incredible complessity of Chadian factionalism, and I'm forced to at least partly enter in these to explain the actions, the behaviour and the final defeat of Gaddafi. To put it clearly, I'm afraid that by cutting it too much everything may become too confusing. A solution would be write a decent article on the Chadian civil war (1965–1993), that is at the moment missing. As for moving all the start to Foreign relations of Libya, I can't do this without altering the equilibrium in the article; but I can try creating several new articles, and, as you suggested, creating Chadian-Libyan relations, even if it's hard to say what is relations and what conflict, as Gaddafi had, except at the very end, always the support of a strong number of Chadian forces against his Chadian enemy (since 1980, Habré).

As for my general goals with the article, I may try to make it a GA, but I don't have enough images for a FA, nor really the will to follow all the FA process. Thanks for your advice, and ciao.--Aldux 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kangura on DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 4 January, 2007, a fact from the article Kangura, which you recently expanded and nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

— ERcheck (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OWN and Signpost

Yeah, I don't think it's an issue either. That's not my problem. My problem is the feeling of a double standard in regards to that rule -- It seems entirely arbitrary, and if the rules are arbitrary, eventually people won't follow them and we'll have chaos. Just H 17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The writing of a Signpost article is finite and periodic, meaning that authorship can actually be attributed in a byline. Everything else on Wikipedia that I can think of, including the policies and help pages, is constantly being rephrased or refined over the course of years, with no "On 1 January 2010, WP:SEMI will be complete" sense at all, for example. The dividing line is not authorship, it is expectation of completion. - Banyan Tree 19:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Rukh Khan vandalism

Hi BT, after giving User:74.111.224.67 a final warning for his (um, vandalising) edits to Shah Rukh Khan, he/she has proceeded to do the same again: diff. A cursory look at their talk page reveals warnings for many other pages too. Perhaps you can step in and do the necessary please? Ekantik ^talk 03:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, please ignore. he has just been blocked for 48 hours. Ekantik ^talk 03:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, we knew he'd be back. See Special:Contributions/Shafiq.ad, a final warning has just been placed on his talk page although he has done the same to other pages (3 in all). Just to let you know. Kind regards, Ekantik ^talk 01:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me, proving that you did not need to have any qualms about my capabilities. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me.--Nilf anion (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an aversion to colorful notices from RFA candidates, but the image from this one is so amusing that I have to keep it around. :) - Banyan Tree 00:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darfur cease-fire

I know I dont even have to ask you to look at your watchlist but check out the Darfur conflict article! (I can only hope this news is as great as the SDC purports)--gozar 00:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comoros

Hi Banyan. I've been recently expanding the sadly neglected article on the Comoros. (It used to be much smaller.) Now I'm having trouble with further expansion because of the scarcity of accessible English-language sources. In particular, I'm finding it difficult to expand the culture section beyond the Background Notes copy-and-paste. As an editor more experienced in African topics, I wonder if you can lend any help in this section, or the article as a whole. Any assistance is welcome. Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dmcdevit, Good to talk to you again! I'll take a closer look when I get a chunk of free time, but thanks for the great expansion. I've also asked Warofdreams, who may be the wiki's only regular Madagascan-topic editor, if he has any resources at hand for the island neighbors. Cheers, Banyan Tree 19:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up; I've tended to write about sub-Saharan Africa in general (and recently Madagascar in particular, as it was looking rather neglected), but unfortunately, Comoros is one of two or three countries which I've really struggled to find good information on. The others, incidentally, are Angola and to some extent Somalia - although the current war there is quite well covered. Warofdreams talk 23:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the New York Public Library and Library of Congress catalogs, but it appears that as anticipated, many of the most promising sources are in French. Is there a French speaker on en who contributes to the Africa articles, or alternatively, has anyone looked at the fr-wiki articles on Comoros for material that could be imported and translated?

One issue I'd like to see discussed is why there was a strong independence movement in the Comoros but appears to be little or no pro-independence sentiment in nearby Reunion, which is the one country/territory/department that seems to have been bypassed by the whole African independence movement. Newyorkbrad 01:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you three. I'll have to return to the research in a few days after I've finished moving. I've already been using mostly journal sources and no books because of the lack of published material, so I guess it is to be expected. I think the article needs some more images, too, if anyone is interested in looking for some free ones. I'll go ping Ezeu about this too, since I think (?) he might be a French speaker as well. Dmcdevit·t 10:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably wouldn't hurt to drop a note in the announcements section at WP:AFR as well. - Banyan Tree 16:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JMAX FA bot

There are some concerns with this bot, noted on the talk page. JMAX hasn't edited in a week. Are you able to look into it? Marskell 19:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there. - Banyan Tree 23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ

Hey. Thank you for your message, and thank you for your work on Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ. I did indeed add the page to my watchlist, as it seemed like you were alone taking care of it. It seems to attract quite a bit of test edits. Prolog 20:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehu Eyre

Hi. I'm a relatively new contributer to Wikipedia, and recently stumbled across an article that interested me about the Revolutionary War. I looked up more sources on the subject and posted them, along with the facts stated in those sources. The article is now tagged as a possible hoax, and I am searching for objective analysis of it from multiple users. If you could please take a look, and urge others to take a look as well, I'd be very grateful.

SwedishConqueror 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror[reply]

I have responded there. In the future, please post to the most relevant page you can find, rather than spamming user talks. If you don't know what the relevant page is, you can always ask at WP:VPA or ask an experienced user. - Banyan Tree 21:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: MartinBotII

Hi - the template there should work fine, and any listed peer reviews should be transferred automatically (when I activate the bot). As for the one being missing, could you direct me to it? It's possible that my internet connection broke before the listing could be made, or that another editor removed it. Thanks, Mart inp23 21:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm OK - we're probably equally confused :). It should all be fine. The bot is now running, so it should archive at around 2300GMT, if my internet doesn't drop. What you're desribing seems to be fine, so it's probably just best to see how it pans out. Thanks! Mart inp23 22:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]