User talk:The Banner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
I try to the best of my knowledge and belief to contribute to the small red block of the image

Sii Poland[edit]

Could you please give me a clue why it's still not NPOV? I've removed all the ads and left IMHO easily verifiable facts --Biskup2010 (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You are kidding? Are you in some way involved in the company? The Banner talk 11:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm not kidding. I don't know that's why I asked you, the more experienced Wikipedist, for help. Since you found this article NPOV you probably have exact reasons. So please share them with me and I'll fix the article. --Biskup2010 (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Biskup2010 (talkcontribs) 12:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
When you start using phrases like "prestigious award" and "and the unique member of the company.", all POV-alarm bells start ringing. The awards should not be in the lede, and the section about the awards should be sourced. The text should be neutral in style and tone while statements should be independently sourced (conform WP:RS). Are you in some way involved in the company? The Banner talk 12:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
You're right. Some words have connotations which I cannot see. I've removed all the words I found suspicious and added references where I know the independent sources.
Editing Wikipedia is not my job I'm paid for. Wikipedia is my hobby since 2010.--Biskup2010 (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
There is still more work to do... The Banner talk 14:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of your talk on the Burren[edit]

Apologies - error; I was reverting vandalism on my watch-list and must have hit your post by accident. Sarah777 (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I forgive you. Face-smile.svg The Banner talk 21:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, The Banner. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Voted. The Banner talk 03:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Images in Templates[edit]

Hi The Banner, regarding your edit here [1], could you point me to a Wikipedia rule that says images cannot be incorporated into a Template? 神风 (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Navigation template#Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative. The coin you added did not assist in the navigation but were merely decoration. The articles about the kings should have those pictures. Beside that, nearly all your wikilinks were malformed. The Banner talk 12:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi The Banner, thank you for your link, but I don't see anything specific about avoiding images in a template. And the usage of these coin images is not an "arbitrary decoration". Actually, displaying all the coins in this format is very useful because, as you might see, there is a huge evolution of coin shape (round to square) and material (gold to silver to brass) across the territories and the periods, and from Greek type to Indian type over a period of nearly 3 centuries. Also, and quite importantly, the quality of coinage illustration decreases down to the 1st century, which is quite clearly shown with this format. Coinage evolution is an important point of Indo-Greek history, and actually one of the most important since most of these kings are only known by their coins, and their chronology is mainly established by the evolution of the coin types. Moreover, I checked the history of the Indo-Greek Template [2]: almost 10 years, and apparently nobody ever complained about the way the coins are displayed. I do believe it is very informative, so I would like to ask for your understanding. Thank you! 神风 (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Why is the shape and quality of coins of any relevance to a navigation template about kings? It is a rather common practice to remove non-relevant images out of navigation-templates for two main reasons: 1) a navigation template is only mend for navigation, not to give new information; 2) a navigation template is supposed to be used on many articles. Images make the templates heavier, increasing download times and (especially for people with small internet bundles) cost more MBs.
I suggest that you develop a separate (stand alone) article about the coins and their history. The Banner talk 16:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
You may have noticed that the Template in question is not just about giving a list of kings. It is also (and mainly) about explaining the chronology and the territories of these kings, and coinage is very relevant to that (most of the time, coinage is actually the ONLY indication of chronology and territory in those parts). If it was just a list of kings, I would agree with you, but it is not, it is much more than that. Since this is visibly not breaching Wikipedia rules, and it has been apparently a satisfying approach for the last ten years or so (and I happen to think it is very valuable as well), can I ask not to delete the work that has been done? Thank you 神风 (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
For a navigation template it is absolutely not relevant. The info you want to add belongs in the articles, not in a navigation template. The Banner talk 17:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's just your opinion, and since no Wikipedia rule is breached, and since this template has seemingly been appreciated by many other users for many years, I don't see any reason why anybody should feel forced to follow your point of view. 神风 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts (and your template is a table). But before you start an edit war, let me call in a third opinion. The Banner talk 23:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Assistance is requested here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#Images in navigation templates. The Banner talk 23:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
神风, at the moment I'm in agreement with The Banner on this one. If this were a navbox about the coins and/or their significance, then I would be all for including them. However, this is a navbox for the kings themselves. To paraphrase the image use policy, the images don't increase the reader's understanding. If anything, it confuses the reader; when I first clicked the link The Banner posted at WikiProject Templates I thought this navbox was about the coinage itself (it's not). So, I suggest leaving the template as it currently stands, sans coinage. Primefac (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Joan Baez article main photo caption[edit]

Hello. I once again reverted your edits to my change to the main photo caption on the Joan Baez article. The photo title (Joan Baez 1963-original.jpg) is incorrect. The photo is a cropped version of the photo used on her second album cover, Joan Baez, Vol. 2 , which was released in September 1961, therefore the photo would have to be from 1961 (or even before). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.110.14 (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence? You will have to prove that the photo is identical and that was not handed out as a "1963 Press Photo Folk Singer Joan Baez" as stated in the description of the picture. And the constant re-adding of a load of links to disambiguation pages is also not useful. The Banner talk 21:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Siege of Tobruk[edit]

You recently reverted an edit I made on this page; I have opened a discussion there if you wish to comment. Moonraker12 (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

PS: You've reverted another change on this page since; there is a discussion on that, too (here). Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Why Kathleen Londsdale should have stayed on "Ireland" article.[edit]

Hello TheBanner, I believe your reason to revert my change made on "Ireland" article to be unnreasonable. I argue that Kathleen Lonsdale should have remained in the "science" section of said article. You reverted this as she was "already on the List of Irish peoples" article, but almost every other scientist on "Ireland" was ALSO on this page (including Robert Boyle, Johannes Scotus Eriugena, Sir Ernest Henry Shackleton, John Tyndall, Nicholas Callan, Ernest Walton, Lord Kelvin, George Johnstone Stoney, John Stewart Bell, John Lighton Synge).

You said the addition of information regarding Lonsdale was "superfluous", however her contribution to science is just as note worthy as previously mentioned names on "The List of Irish People". She would also be the only female in the science section, which I think improves the article as it would have a wider scope.

I believe the basis of the revert to be weak, but us both to have the same goal; to make wikipedia useful. I appreciate your contribution to the article, however I will be undoing your reversion. I hope my point of view convinces you, as to escape an edit war. Please write back as I would like to see your enlarged point of view. After all this is what wikipedia is about.

Darnburn98 (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on MediaWiki talk:Common.css[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on MediaWiki talk:Common.css. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

Talk:Worldwide energy supply[edit]

I wrote 21 Nov: The citations are adequately addressed in the discussion following the deletion nomination in October 2016: "adequately sourced", "Plenty of sources".

You commented 24 Nov: It is not and you know that.

Your comment implies that I'm lying. That is an unfounded and unacceptable accusation. I deleted your comment. Rwbest (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Do not censor an article talk page from unwanted comments. Solve the problems! The Banner talk 10:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
And no, I never said you are lying. That is entirely your conclusion. I maintain my stance that the sources are inadequate and that the article is at least partly WP:OR. The Banner talk 10:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Worldwide energy supply without proper attribution by Rwbest.

No, a mistaken believe is not lying. The Banner talk 12:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Right, but irrelevant. I don't believe, I ascertain that "The citations are adequately addressed ...". Your comment "It is not and you know that" is equivalent to "You lie". Lying is: saying something knowing that is not true. Your comment is unacceptable. Rwbest (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
So you have no other arguments than personal attacks and accusations? What a pity! The Banner talk 15:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

End of copied work from [[Talk:Worldwide energy supply without proper attribution by Rwbest.

Actually, this unattributed copy is just what is the problem in that article: not properly attributed information. Do-it-yourself stuff. The Banner talk 10:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Video game content rating system[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Video game content rating system. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1086-1300) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1086-1300) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1086-1300) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 10:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1-1085) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1-1085) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1-1085) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 10:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Adnan Ibrahim revisions[edit]

hi The Banner. You undid my revisions to the Adnan Ibrahim article because you considered the videos references as "self-published YouTube-clips". In fact the first two videos are from the official youtube channel of Adnana Ibrahim. Can I put my revision again? --وسام زقوت (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

No, you need independent, reliable third party sources. The clips on that channel are not reliable sources (as YouTube is user-generated). It are also not independent (as you said: the official youtube channel of Adnana Ibrahim). What this article needs are third party sources. So not Ibrahim writing/talking about Ibrahim, but a national newspaper writing about Ibrahim. The Banner talk 08:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I put the same paragraph with [citation needed] at the end but you didn't accept that, which sounds strange for me, considering that there are different unproven claims that needs a reference in the same article.
I also believe we need an independent third source when we want an opinion about something, but here we are not looking for that, instead we want to cite what Ibrahim said word by word from his own videos.
You also mentioned the need for a "national newspaper writing about" him. I don't believe this is a rule here in Wikipedia. We have here so many different kinds of references.
One last point, I think one of the resources that is used heavily in Wikipedia is MEMRITV, which is not reliable nor independent. It is very biased, agenda driven and in some cases its translations are full of intentional mistakes. --وسام زقوت (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Royal free city[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Royal free city. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk page comments[edit]

Hello, I don't know if you realized it but you placed your talk page comments between comments to me and my reply. This makes it look like I was replying to you. Otr500 (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Due to the indentation it must be clear that I did not reply to you. The Banner talk 10:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1086-1300)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1086-1300), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1-1085)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1-1085), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)