User talk:The Banner/Archives/2013/July

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

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Zenith etc

My input was not meant to be a promo, it is factual and no more a promo than the paras above it. It IS in media / broadcasting, as is other radio station information.

Sorry, it was a plain advertisement including detailed info about the company running it. The Banner talk 11:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes it's best not to have the last word. Life's too short. RashersTierney (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
You are right. He is so disappointed that he can't promote his own business that the only thing left to him is issuing personal attacks. With his last reply I realised that he is unwilling to engage in useful discussion so I ignored it (barely). Or he leaves when ignored, or we will see him soon at WP:SPI. The Banner talk 11:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

You're misunderstanding policies

Enough of the drama. POV-pusher has proven he lost the game.

The policies you have given do not state that discussing something no.matter how long the discussion goes is disruptive editing. Discussion can.never be disruptive. If I would have engaged in an edit war it wouldn't have been disruptive. As I said earlier that you misunderstand policies. I have not made any personal attacks and have been respectful to everyone and Eben when I called Lukeno94 bully because it appears that he was trying to impose his views. I request you to read the next line carefully please. Providing reliable information is the main goal of Wikipedia. Additionally I think it will be better if we take the topic to ANI even though all requirements to include the name of the victim in the article have already been met. Let me assure you. If the family would have said not to reveal her name then I wouldn't even have touched the article or talk page. However the family has actually granted permission. Lukeno94 was on the other hand saying that they're family hasn't granted permission but his statement turned out to be untrue. It is clear he made up the statement on his own. I am only working according to Wikipedia policies. And reliable info is Wikipedia's main policy. In case info is not reliable or significant then a consensus should be held. As I've said I respect everyone's views but I respect Wikipedia policies too. I hope you understand. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hammering on your POV against consensus is disruptive. It is you who refuses to adhere and to understand the policies. The Banner talk 15:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I perfectly understand the policies. I'm sorry to say but I think your misunderstanding the policies. Haven't I stated the truth in all my comments. The name is verifable and the family has granted permission. I also do not like saying the same thing again and again. Even I sometimes wish to quit the discussion. But quitting will against both Wikipedia policies since the info is correct and it should be added. Please take this subject of including victim's name to ANI. If you want then I can take it there. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) What would taking it to ANI do? We don't deal with content disputes there. Yes, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is disruptive, and can lead to a block. Someone - if necessary an admin - may need to close the discussion based on the policy-based WP:CONSENSUS, but the person who continually draws out an argument ad nauseum is usually going to be the least listened too (by the way, I don't even know what article is being discussed - I'm focussed on Trans' misbelief on behavioural norms) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape case The Banner talk 15:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
No, sir, you don't understand the policies. First of all: Wikipedia:Consensus has preference over Wikipedia:Verifiability. When the community decides not to mention a fact, even when there are ample sources available, the fact will not be mentioned. The consensus was and is not to mention her name, so stop pushing. The Banner talk 15:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

An admin has himself advised taking this to ANI. Apart from that 2 users me and Gandydancer say the name should be included. You and Lukeon94 say it should not. Khazar2 has a mixed position and can't decide. Your statement that consensus favors not including her name is completely incorrect. Apart from that I'm still searching whether that consensus over verification importance is even there. A consensus has still not been reached. Both options of including and not including the name have equal votes. I hope you take notice of this. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, you don't understand the concept of consensus. Read that policy, mr. TransVannian, and you will see that it is not a vote. The Banner talk 16:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Also as I have already said I'm.not pushing my POV. It is you who is pushing your POV. TransVannian (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yippie, the classic turnaround pointing move from the guy who is out of arguments. You loose, my friend. The Banner talk 16:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Wait just a minute I didn't ever say I was wrong. I have said that I am looking into the claims you made. I'm looking into the claims you made because I already know your wrong and by proving it with evidence I can complaint about you. Thank you so much for proving yourself that you are the POV pusher hete . Your last comment has itself states that you have never discussed the matter in a civil manner and also to counter your false claim that consensus is against including the name of victim I proved that only one editor is with you. You are a POV-pusher and you've proved it yourself. Also the words you used like POV pusher has lost the game prove your disruptive behavior. TransVannian (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Closed discussion at Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape case


When i closed the discussion, I was kindof hoping that nobody would reply now. Obviously the editor needs to know a lot more about Wikipedia policies, and if I had closed before they got a chance to make the latest replies, I suppose we would have to deal with another bout of dramah. Can I request you to remove your reply to him and move it to his talk page? That way, the article talk page won't need to be spammed with irrelevant discussion and pointing of fingers.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You can, but I refuse. He is already crying on my talkpage that I see it entirely wrong and that I don't understand the policies. That guy is hopeless and doomed. The Banner talk 15:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
stop your harassing
Just take a look at your language. I've seen your earlier comments with other users and they prove you are a POV pusher. Does this discussion seem.a game to you? It is you who has no respect for the victim. Disruptive editors like you should be blocked. TransVannian (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop posting threats

You at least know that when a user doesn't want you to post any more comments in his talk page you shouldn't right. You'll be proving yourself a disruptive editor again if you still continue Thank you. Also I'm taking the matter of victim's name to Dispute resolution noticeboard. You're welcome to talk about it there. Thank you and happy editing. TransVannian (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard - Name of victim of 2012 Delhi rape

Extremely sorry I posted it on it's talk page by mistake. TransVannian (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "2012 Delhi gang rape case". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi,
Just a reminder that you CANNOT re-add any removed warnings on another user's page. Users retain full right to remove anything from their talk pages, including warnings and others' messages. Only failed unblock requests are exempt from this rule.
Please do not re-add any warnings to anyone's talk page unless it is a different warning.
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I miss a remark on TVs talkpage about removing parts of my talkpage. The Banner talk 19:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll tell you the same thing I did to Luke. There is no point or need for any of us to reply back to this editor and increase the length of all the discussions pointlessly. Lets just ignore wherever possible, and let the DRN volunteer take over and solve the situation. We have an article to make, lets focus on that :) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I miss a remark on TVs talkpage about removing parts of my talkpage. The Banner talk 22:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Enough is enough

How many times do I have to tell you to not to comment on my talk page. Can't you understand what I am saying. Stop trying to harass me. Next time you paste a comment on my talk page and won't even think once before reporting you at ANI. TransVannian (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Look in the mirror, dude. And the offer for the archiving-bot was a genuine one. The Banner talk 09:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harley Pasternak

I found coverage about him, about his work, and he has his own Nintendo video game. SL93 (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Talking GMO

hi banner, as i said on the Talk page, hi! nice to hear you there. i did realize that you saw the RfC and came to join - that is why I welcomed you! anyway, thank you for toning down your last comment. folks have been remarkable civil so far... hope we can keep it that way. (don't know you if you remember me - we worked on a couple of organic articles together in what i thought was a good interaction) Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I remembered. Face-smile.svg
I find it rather remarkable that in an article about "Genetically modified food controversies" you can not say that the so called broad consensus is a controversy on its own... The Banner talk 22:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC) POV disclosure: got today the results for two courses I did and scored "distinction" on Food Crops and Organic Production Principles.
Hi, yes it has been hard on that page for a while now. There are genuine controversies around GM food - most of them about environmental and economic issues... there is no real scientific controversy about health issues. But this is the Red Flag that opponents wave and the public pays attention to and tries to get politicians to act, on the basis of. It is frustrating. Because it is BS. (organic, conventional, and GM are all just "food", healthwise, the best that science can tell us. There are LOTS of valid reasons to buy organic and eschew GMOs and other products of industrial ag ... health is not one of them, from any defensible scientific perspective. There is always the "excess of caution" perspective, but that is not based on science). I don't know if that makes any sense to you but there it is. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Who is telling us that it is just "food"? Those scientist that are depending on Monsanto and friend to get their funding? The Banner talk 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Banner, this line of argument basically comes down to conspiracy theory and there is no way I can respond to it. It is a viewpoint definitely outside mainstream science. I know there are a lot of folks who really believe that any science connected with companies is hopelessly tainted, and it is a sad thing to me - on many levels - that this kind of thinking is so widespread. Like I said, there is no way to respond rationally to conspiracy theory. I am sorry. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
In the earlier discussion we had with Yobol, he made a habit out of it of dismissing every research that did not support his stance. The effect was that he made me even more critical about "mainstream" and sponsored research. The Banner talk 10:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Not accepting as neccessarily true any study you read or any news report on the latest "health" thing is reasonable; dismissing it out of hand if it comes from a company and is connected to a product is lazy, sloppy thinking. Novartis owns, developed, and has published on Gleevec, which has saved the lives of thousands of people. And made Novartis a lot of money. Ditto companies that have developed HIV drugs. Companies can do good. And they can do good, reliable science. Sure they sometimes do bad. Both are true of academics, who can have their own axes to grind. The hand-wavy dismissal is just ... silly. Not respectable. You seem like a reasonable guy, and it is hard to understand how you could let yourself be that sloppy, much less try to advocate such a position.... regardless of what other people have said and done. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
When a company publishes something, you know that there can be a bias. That is why third party sources are so important. It is just that I am critical of "third party research" funded by the company. And yes, this critical stance is not always appreciated. But my critical stance on various subjects proved very right a few times. A property developer was quite pissed off when I told him in 2007 that within 5 years the Irish economic bubble would burst. He did not go bankrupt, but he only narrowly avoided that... And the long run prove more often that I was right. The Banner talk 13:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── and when an academic publishes something, you also have to know that there are all kinds of forces on him or her that distort results. The journal Nature has been really honing in on crappy research that gets published (see here for example). Publish or perish is a real deal - and so people cherry pick their data (throwing results that don't fit the hypothesis), they make lame statistical analyses based on very small Ns.. that sort of thing. And of course journals don't publish negative results which puts more pressure on researchers to find something positive to claim. My point is that nobody's work should be dismissed out of hand - everybody's work should be read critically. Of course you look at the published work of folks with a clear conflict of interest with more care, but you don't start with a presumption that it is fabricated BS... that is what is unreasonable. I respect careful, critical thinking a great deal! Blind enthusiasm, or blind rejection, I struggle with. And to the extent that you have written things that are hand-wavy dismissive of research funded by companies, you are indeed getting pushback on that from me and others. On the other hand, if you were to pick up a study funded by BayerCrop science and show that paper's flaws, and surmise that they were due to skewing done to serve Bayer's interests, that would be a different story (there would be concrete flaws to discuss). (Congrats on spotting the Irish bubble btw! I hope your clear vision spared you some pain) Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Diederik Stapel. Always stay critical... The Banner talk 14:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
ay yi yi! Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Johnnyminardi and Sean O'Keefe

Hi, The Banner. I've mentioned you in a reply to User:Johnnyminardi at WP:HD#Sean OKeefe discography. --ColinFine (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013