User talk:The Banner/Archives/2013/January

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

please stop messing with my page

i am keeping this short. please stop editing and removing my content. mark robertson is authorized to upload content and data as it has been provided by myself. i will start a dispute now with wikipedia to prevent further involvement. what interest or right do you have to remove my content and edit my page??? what interest or right do you have to upload incorrect dates or births, birth places etc. stay off my page. billie ray martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.231.226 (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please see User talk:Blinsenlinsen for more on this - thanks. DBaK (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
It is not your page. You don't own that page. The Banner talk 18:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Secondly, we work here from published sources, not from hearsay or personal information. If I stated things incorrect, come up with independent and reliable sources containing the right information. Promo, directly by you or by someone very close to you, is not desired. The Banner talk 18:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, I will keep it short: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VPanton The Banner talk 19:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Talk:Aan_de_Poel.
Message added 21:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BO | Talk 21:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

question...

hi banner

you wrote the following: "I am sceptical about the neutrality of research organisations receiving massive donations from companies growing rich by or through conventional agriculture." and i wrote a kind of sharp response... this statement kind of upset me and i am sorry for the sharpness... but i just don't get where you are coming from. You seem, in general, to be a more rigorous thinker than the kind of thinker that produces this kind of hand-wavy, vaguely conspiratorial, and very useful for brushing away research results you don't like, statement (how is that for some germanic syntax, btw?) In any case, where are you coming from? Do you really think that way? i do hope you explain. thx.Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ever seen the movies "Food inc." and "The World According to Monsanto"? Those movies are good enough to make the innocent believer to become a believer in the conspiracy theory that Monsonato and agrochemical friends "control" the United States.
As far as I can tell, those movies tell the truth and the agrochemical industry has a very unhealthy influence within the US Government. But I am also aware that those movies are biased and that I can't believe them for 100%.
Yep when I started this project last summer I watched them both....and they insulted my intelligence, over and over and over. I know they are important to the anti-GM community which is why I stuck with them and watched them all the way through. But I ~hate~ being lied to and manipulated and they are both over the top in that regard. And as I have written several places on the organic food talk page, my good faith (really!) efforts to verify most of what the anti-GMO crowd says have yielded clear trails of exaggeration and misconstrual of facts or standard business practices... which just made me sad. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
More or less as a compromise in my head, I turned sceptical. Sceptical insofar that I think that the near total lack of positive results towards organic farming, is to some extent "funded" by by the agrochemical industry. No directly by manipulating results but by preventing positive research to be finished or published. He who pays the piper, calls the tune. As long as is not completely disclosed how a certain research is financed and out of what sources, how the research institution is financed and how the scientific magazines are financed, I will stay sceptical about the neutrality of the researchers, research institutions and magazines.
Thank you for explaining that. I hear you. Can I respond to this? Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion MEDRS-sourcing origininally is truly set up to avoid dodgy sources coming up with spectacular health claims (like the diet invented by Cornelis Moerman, who claimed that cancer could be overcome with a special diet and food supplements). But I really think that Wolfie and Yobol misuse MEDRS to prevent information into the article out of other sources than strict medical sources. Their plain refusal to allow published, peer-reviewed research from specialised agricultural institutions, even when connected to a reliable university, is an example of that. Their stance seem to be that positive research about organical farming is automatically unreliable and that negative research automatically reliable. The Banner talk 18:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
They have surprised me too - but interestingly they have not challenged the structure of the article with respect to separately describing chemical differences. I found some good sources I want to introduce in those sections. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
And just look at the way Yobol is "raping" Organic milk. Negative, negative, negative. The Banner talk 18:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I haven't looked at that article.... should I?Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Please! Our interaction gave me enough faith in your neutrality and dedication. The Banner talk 19:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Funny attempt by a POV-pusher to chase me away

Your recent editing history at Organic milk shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yobol (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice try to chase me away, but unfortunately it won't work. I want truth, and not POV on Organic milk. The Banner talk 19:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is enough

This Your 2 Warning if You did it again You will be Blocked 5 Days Because you want to Delete List of tallest Buildings in Iloilo City user:Jeb2003 7:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess you disagree? But block me, if you can... The Banner talk 11:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Bishop of Limerick has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Wikipedia has a policy called "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", which discourages such edits. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reference to a reliable source. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

AFD at List of Star Wars characters

I've gone ahead and closed your AFD on this article, as it's clear that you want the redirect List of ancient Jedi deleted instead. For that, you should head over to Redirects for discussion and follow the instructions there. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ehm, ooooooops... I guess I was fooled by the redirect itself. I have now but up the redirect for deletion. The Banner talk 21:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Organic milk

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Organic milk. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Logic failure

ONE: moves should not be done without discussion and consensus. (A large number of GAA articles were moved without discussion or consensus.)

TWO: an article that has been moved controversially, without discussion or consensus, should be moved back and a move discussion opened. (I moved them back and opened a talk page topic for each move.)

These seem to me to be fairly basic rules. Yet, when I move articles back under rule two above, you not only move them back but try to get your move protected! Brocach (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat what someone else did nor use that as an excuse to ignore a running discussion. The Banner talk 14:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

WorldMap

Banner: Can you explain as far as you can tell why you/they are deleting the WorldMap article I created? Is it sources? content? writing? I am quite surprised I have to admit. Richmond9 (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Laurel Lodged

Laurel, who is currently blocked, has asked me to notify you about the discussion on their talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

James Porter

I haven't been the one reverting and removing sourced information.Swampyank (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Start counting, you have by now done 4 (four) reverts today: [1], [2], [3], [4] The Banner talk 19:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

nomination of deletion of Eric Everard

I note your nomination of deletion of the page Eric Everard - you may wish to comment on my nomination of related pages EasyFairs the company to which he was related, and fellow directors Jean-François Quentin, and Julian Kulkarni. ---- nonsense ferret 00:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I note your interest in deleting my article on Eric Everard. How is Belgium's Manager of the Year of less interest than an Irish restaurant that closed in 2003? You have some strange criteria for what constitutes "encyclopaedic"! User talk:EdWalker58 —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I would have expected a less pitiful reply from a professional writer/journalist. The Banner talk 12:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
And I would expect you to respond to the points I made, rather than resorting to personal insults. How many awards and honours must Eric Everard win before you remove your nomination for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdWalker58 (talkcontribs) 13:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
You are promoting your own boss. The Banner talk 13:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Armstrong's Barn

I am just curious, what precisely is the value of so many wikipedia articles (in English and Dutch) about long-defunct Irish restaurants? User: EdWalker58 —Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Far more then the promotion of your boss, mr. Marketing employee. The Banner talk 13:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it would be possible to have a sensible discussion rather than resorting to personal abuse and innuendo? I am not an employee, I am self-employed. I would like to understand your motives for wanting the Wikipedia page removed. --EdWalker58 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Reasons: promotion, advertising and puffery. Plus a conflict of interest of the author: (...) then you are very strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral. The Banner talk 14:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I have tried to be neutral and avoid conflict of interest issues. I will re-review to ensure that this is the case. Feel free to edit if you feel that anything specific on the Eric Everard entry is incorrect, misleading or lacks objectivity. Best regards --EdWalker58 (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Discount-licensing.com

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Discount-licensing.com. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Unicode characters and redirects

Please do not unlink symbols on unicode tables. Instead, if you find an issue with it, fix or flag the redirect instead. Thank you. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you just stop creating links to disambiguation pages? Just link them to the right pages, not to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 23:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Dispute resolution

I've left a comment in this discussion. It must surely be clear to you all by now that edit-warring, multiple moves/requested moves and shouting matches on WP:IE, WP:IMOS, WikiProject Gaelic games and AN/I is not solving anything. I urge the three of you – Brocach, The Banner and Laurel Lodged – to put your heads together and take your dispute to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, and in the meantime declare a cease-fire and stop hitting your heads off a brick wall. I am posting the identical message to each of you. Scolaire (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Useless exercise. The Banner talk 09:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Causing disruption all over the shop is useful, but even thinking about dispute resolution is useless? I give up! Scolaire (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not causing the disruption! And I have no confidence that Brocach is willing to compromise in any form, while Laurel Lodged is prepared to accept topic ban alongside Brocach if that is decided to be the best option for the encyclopdia. The Banner talk 13:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
But as a compromise, I willing to accept a topic ban for Laurel Lodged, Brocach, you and me. The Banner talk 14:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
If the topic is the GAA, then I would gladly accept that compromise. A topic without endless disruption from you lot is preferable to a messed-up topic with the odd uninspiring edit by me. Go ahead and propose it. Scolaire (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, but hadn't you better include Mabuska as well? His proposals on WT:IE are part of this problem as well. Scolaire (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
LOL, you make it loud and clear that you don't want mediation and a compromise but just want everybody out of the way that does not agree with you. The Banner talk 16:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, not necessarily. Isn't there someone else who agrees with Brocach? I can't remember his name off-hand. Stick him on the list as well and we'll topic-ban everybody. Works so much better than going through a dispute resolution process. Scolaire (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Rene Redzepi

Please check my comment on the talk page about Rene Redzepi page referencing to his father. I write you because i saw that u were the last one that has done something to the page.Daci92 (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance,

but what does "c/e" mean in relation to page edits? JD2 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it stands for CopyEdit. The Banner talk 22:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response! Feel free do delete this section/question if desired.JD2 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Panama population

I did; As a matter of fact, if you review the content present in the citations I provided, you'll see they were right. If anything, your content is outdated or wrong. Mainly because Las Cumbres is within San Miguelito, and Panama City has a population of 800,000+ citizens. Additionally, any population inside a district is not a city, but part of it (in Panamanian terms, there's no distinction between city and district).

In fact, I think some cities after the top four are also wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocoliras (talkcontribs) 06:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware that those edits are incorrect; Those statistics from the City Council's site are correct. If we didn't use them, then the largest city would wind up as the smallest. Las Cumbres is a part of the city. Look again please. The government is to be trusted as the ultimate information source. Any others are inferior and can be ignored or disregarded as not being correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocoliras (talkcontribs) 18:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sir, those numbers belong to provinces/region. Provinces are no cities. Regions are no cities. Please, look at the [http://www.citypopulation.de/Panama.html#Stadt_gross source I have provided. As you can read in your own source, the 800k is for Panama Region, not for Panama City. The Banner talk 19:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This link of the city government's page still disagrees. Read the description, or shall I provide a translation? Cocoliras (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The city's page itself says the population as per the government's site, hence why we believe it instead of a shady foreign website that may have or highly inacurate data. Cocoliras (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Bejaysus, we are talking here about the biggest cities of the state of Panama. The Banner talk 05:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright; We are talking about the largest cities in the entire country right? Are you aware that the country's largest city Panama City has nearly 800,000+ inhabitants?

That's Panama City; You are placing lots of areas that are NOT cities but PARTS of the city. There's nothing in that page saying province! And yes, Panama uses PROVINCES not states.

Cocoliras (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

When those part have their own City Council, they are not counted as part of Panama City. The Banner talk 10:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

They don't have their own city councils. The city council's page (which is the one in the address) is the one you're looking at; The corregimientos are part of the city. If you don't know it; with it's metro area, Panama City has 1,400,000+ inhabitants Cocoliras (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That was not clear in the sources you provided! Often enough suburbs have their own city or town council. The Banner talk 14:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:VergeGameStudio

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:VergeGameStudio. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Peace offer (from WP:ANI page)

":If Brocach and Finnegas will agree to a self-impossed ban on all GAA related articles for a period of 2 months, then I will too. If not, let the ANI case continue (on the arguments hopefully, not the personalities)." Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

I assume you are following the discussions at AN/I but in case you have lost it in the detail, I have asked all parties to desist, immediately, from any renaming or recategorising of articles linked to the GAA. This applies even to correcting an article that has been amended to the 'wrong' version. The AN/I thread has grown to astonishing length with very little interest from anyone except those already engaged in the dispute. Nevertheless I will block anyone who makes further changes to these categories before a true consensus is reached, ideally at WT:GAA but frankly any venue will do! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish you good luck with all the blocking. I have no faith any more that it can be solved by discussion. By now, everybody is sick of it, as you have seen in the discussion. The slightest edit in a way that is not to Brocach liking, and you have an edit war. ([5]) Even when it is according to policy. And the behaviour of Laurel Lodged is, to put it mildly, completely stupid.
Blocking and topic bans are the only way out. As you plain refuse to go the way of topic bans, blocks are left as only possibility. Good luck with that! The Banner talk 01:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC) The GAA is not my main goal on Wikipedia, just a side show. No problem to watch is from a distance while the others kill themselves off.
A topic ban can't be enacted by a solo admin. It's not that I'm refusing to implement one: I simply cannot. Only the community can do so and the community (at AN/I) has shown a spectacular disinterest in this issue. So blocks are what we are left with, I fear. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 01:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, fair. The Banner talk 01:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)