User talk:The Banner/Archives/2013/June

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

Jax's templates

Regarding those templates, I don't even know how "guest musicians" on one or two tracks can be worthy of inclusion in a navbox for a band. Just more examples, albeit older ones, on how Jax thought he can do the bare minimum that doesn't necessarily benefit the encyclopedia. Going strictly by the wording of NENAN, I don't feel these two don't meet the threshhold. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Then I will hammer them. I am working my way down the list of created templates (1290!). I have fixed one today and with these two I will send 6 templates to TfD, out of about 25 checked templates... The Banner talk 17:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
...and yes, he would be able to go to WP:REFUND to request userfication of a template, as userspace editing of templates is expressly permitted. Please don't suggest otherwise (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
That is quite debatable, as it request on WP:REFUND fall under "broadly construed" in my opinion... The Banner talk 12:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
So, he's fully able to work on templates in his userspace, but he's not allowed to request userfication of a template? Really? That's rather illogical - besides, as the closing admin, I have clearly advised him that making REFUND requests - as long as they're not disruptive (for example, excessive quantity, etc) - are fully permitted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Yep, your the boss and we are just foot soldiers. The Banner talk 17:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Irish neutrality

Hello, I've undone your edit on this article, it is hardly irrelevant to state the consequences of the Irish Free State's neutrality, especially considering the preceding comment about how technological advances had reduced the Treaty Ports relevance. I'm perfectly happy to negotiate with you to modify the article so it pleases us both but ask that you don't just arbitarily remove my contribution without some compromise to form a NPOV Shamrockawakening — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamrockawakening (talkcontribs) 23:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It is totally irrelevant regarding the Irish neutrality, so I have reverted it. Please add only information that is relevant to the article. Problems of other countries due to the Irish stance are not relevant. The Banner talk 23:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you explain?

Hi, banner. I'm BlueSkyWhiteSun (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC). Would you explain why my contribution on Sōryū-class submarine and Joseon missions to Japan is not constructive?--BlueSkyWhiteSun (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

And onemore question, Do you think things in history that you think it is not a constructive should be removed?--BlueSkyWhiteSun (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

At the Sōryū your remove sourced information, claiming that it is unsourced. And I consider it vandalism what you did at "Joseon missions to Japan" as it is unconstructive and a an degrading interpretation of what is shown on the picture. The Banner talk 10:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
About the Sōryū-class submarine, the source you insisted on is not reliable. And at the Joseon missions to Japan, the interpretation is not wrong. The picture originaly have an Japanese description "朝鮮通信使(조선 통신사)の一行が町人が飼っている鶏を盗み逃げようとしたところ喧嘩になった様を描いている絵。"[1] which mean "Korean envoys to quarrel with the townspeople to steal chicken" in english.--BlueSkyWhiteSun (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. Why is that source unreliable?
  2. Why would you use that picture other than to add a degrading comment to the article?
The Banner talk 16:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

Nominating templates for deletion

You can nominate up to 20 templates for one discussion. If templates go under one rationale, then it could be clumped together into one discussion. Kingjeff (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Although the rationale is often the same, the cases itself are often different enough to justify separate nominations. The Banner talk 10:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree each case needs to be discussed separately, but the number of templates being nominate could be overburdening the TfD process. I appreciate the efforts you've put in cleaning up another's mess, but it's an awful lot to look through and review for anyone. I'm not sure the best way to limit it, except maybe to nominate the worst of the worst and/or don't nominate more than 5 in any single day. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
They don't all need to be discussed seperately. Here is an example of where it could be combined. You could have combined many of the templates you listed here. If they all must be listed separately, then the template that list 20 wouldn't exist and would meet the requirement for deletion. Kingjeff (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
When the sheer volume is a problem, clustering would indeed be the best way. But I have to look what is the best way to do that and when it is effective. Could you give me an example from my nominations. (You have my permission to cluster them!!) The Banner talk 19:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Moved 3 TfDs into one cluster. Hope I did this correct. The Banner talk 21:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I really not going to insist on it this time. But it's just easier to put them together and to have a discussion on it in one place. If you're worried that all templates will fall under one result just because they're together, Here is an AfD with two results in it. Kingjeff (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Something this? And did I do that correctly? The Banner talk 22:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Kingjeff (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd still rather just see a few nominations a day at most. It's too much to look at and not worth my time to go through a set of 10 rather than picking and choosing a few individually. The discussions for the most part have just come down between you and User:Frietjes (with occasional but infrequent input from others such as BHG, Whpq, or myself), and I'm not sure if that is productive. I won't be participating in any bundled nominations, although I'll try to fix one here and there that stands out to me, such as I did with {{Cathy Dennis}}. I'm not saying totally let it go, but there's got to be better uses of your time than to clog up TfDs with Jax's garbage templates. But if you want to clear out as many as possible through the TfD process, I ain't gonna stop ya. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
To be true, I hate what I am doing because it is so annoying and frustrating. That is why I use such a ferocious pace. But I am not out to kill as much as possible. There are enough templates out there that I have given mercy assuming that the fifth link will arrive soon. And I have a long list of templates set aside for rescue/improvement. On the positive side: I have just 220 templates to check, out of 1290! I really have no clue how many incomplete templates I have left behind just because they comply to WP:NENAN at this stage. Quite a few, but it is impossible to me to do real background checks. So I do that more or less at random or intuitively (although in some other cases it is an open door to kick in). The Banner talk 11:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


This is ITE College East we are not advertising or promotion, we are an institution and we are stating the information on our website. Please stop editing our page. Thank you. —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What you are editing is not your page, Wikipedia is not a hosting company. So stop your spamming! The Banner talk 03:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


There are no templates with links to disambiguation pages. Not one! A very rare occasion! Hallelujah! The Banner talk 23:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Tony Särkkä

I had to undo your edit because there was no discussion linked to. Would you mind nominating the template again? --217/83 17:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Strange, because it was definitely there. Some strange has happened. The Banner talk 23:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Very strange glitch so nominated again. The Banner talk 23:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Very strange indeed. --217/83 07:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

Templates: broadly construed

What do you think about Jax adding existing templates to articles or creating articles in attempt to influence opinion for templates at TfD? Both seem to be a way to continue his activity with templates. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply I have fully complied with the ban, but telling me not to add or edit articles is going too far. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
As they relate to templates. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
You are banned from all activity in relation to templates, Jax. So take this as a warning, next time you will be hammered. The Banner talk 10:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Clarification: Adding templates to existing articles is in my opinion an infringement of the ban. Creating new articles to shore templates (and include the template in there) is on the edge but I think just allowed. The Banner talk 11:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Show me a diff of him "attempt(ing) to influence opinion for templates at TfD" and I'll deal with it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Reply - I have asked on at least one occasion for a detailed description of what the ban does and does not permit. I don't mean to be rude, but the description so far is kind of vague. I have not violated any explicit terms of the ban in simply creating articles such as "Dead City Radio and the New Gods of Supertown". Regrettably, the ban prohibits me from speaking freely, so I can only say that I have only created and edited articles that I am allowed to create and edit. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The conditions of the ban are clear enough. In plain language: stay away from templates. 100% of the time. When in doubt, assume it is illegal. The Banner talk 22:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
By the way, Jax: it is good to see that you have discovered the "See also"-section. What is not good, is that you now have started producing sloppy articles. We need quality articles, Jax, not garbage like She's Playing Hard to Get, Keep It Goin' On or 2069 (album) The Banner talk 22:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Reply - Per WP:IDEALSTUB, "When you write a stub, bear in mind that it should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it". BTW, the closing admin allows me to utilize WP:REFUND, so "100% of the time" may not work. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
You just keep gaming the system, isn't it mr. Jax? You can go on with that but sooner or later that will seriously backfire at you. The Banner talk 03:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Reply - I am not "gaming the system". Since again, I am not allowed to speak freely, I can only say that there is a huge difference between short articles and other types of "abbreviated" Wikipedia pages. Short articles do not directly affect the a "good" or "featured" rating of other Wikipedia pages [case in point Clash of the Titans (tour) and Slayer]. --Jax 0677 (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

To make it clear, I am checking all templates of Jax. Unfortunately, due to the sheer volume of launched templates I only check on WP:NENAN. Sometimes I improve incomplete templates, sometimes I give them the go ahead due to their potential to comply to NENAN later. I do not check the quality of the underlying links. Assuming good faith, I expect that Jax has enough self-respect not to move into dodgy, sloppy articles but will produce quality articles that really add something to Wikipedia. By now, I would say that I have to hammer/improve about 20%-25% off all templates, what is a horrible high number... The Banner talk 12:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Jax, I strongly urge you to change your approach.
You currently appear to be trying to skate as close as possible to the limits of your ban. You may get away with that, but you may find instead that you simply exhaust the patience of the community. By the time a topic ban is imposed, an editor is already drinking in the last chance saloon, and is not likely to find themselves being cut much more slack.
Your creation of poor-quality stubs on non-notable recordings has been controversial before, and is likely to come into closer focus now that you are banned from templates. Article such as 2069 (album) are a disgrace: poorly-formatted, and no evidence of notability. If you are creating this sort of page in good faith, then there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, with which you need some assistance. To avoid further sanctions on yourself, I urge you to seek help from more experienced editors before creating mainspace content.
The best way to do this would be to create pages as userspace drafts, and engage a WP:MENTOR to guide you on whether and when they are fit to be moved to mainspace. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Reply - BHG, I appreciate your feedback. I will try to do a better job of formatting and inserting sufficient content and context in the future. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
His skating along the edges is growing quite tiresome, and will be stopped very shortly if it continues (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Reply - OK, I just redirected "2069". Had my article been deleted, I would have followed WP:BRD. I feel that I am being asked to follow rules when I don't know what the rules even are, because the topic ban given was vague. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
What was vague? You may not edit templates, discuss templates, add templates you have created to articles. You may create templates in your personal userspace, and you may only at REFUND request userfication of deleted templates - unless those requests become disruptive on their own (such as quantity of requests). Those limitations were very very clear from the start - don't pull any crap about vague. What the heck does "broadly construed" mean to you???!?!?!?! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Reply - That's much better. I was NOT aware that I could not "add templates [I] have created to articles" until now. Broadly means over a wide spectrum, and construed means encompassing, so broadly construed means encompassing a wide spectrum, which itself is a relative term. I will therefore assume that I cannot add templates that I created to articles that I start (or articles that I do not start). --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Tssss, and you are an engineer?? It was not for nothing that I said earlier: stay away from templates. 100% of the time. When in doubt, assume it is illegal. Mr. Wilkins graciously allowed an exception to your own working space and WP:REFUND. Everything else regarding to templates is or plain illegal or a dangerous minefield. The Banner talk 18:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Waiting for improvement as incomplete

Checking on completeness is only done at random with extra attention to bands/musicians I know.

  1. Template:The Righteous Brothers - just 5 of their 12/13 songs mentioned  Done 19:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  2. Template:Dick Dale
  3. Template:Chemlab
  4. Template:Cubanate
  5. Template:The Flying Luttenbachers
  6. Template:Deadliest Warrior
  7. Template:Monstrosity
  8. Template:Steve Stevens
  9. Template:Del Shannon
  10. Template:Lou Rawls
  11. Template:This Day Forward - band has more than one member
  12. Template:Grip Inc.
  13. Template:Cary Brothers
  14. Template:Cheryl Lynn
  15. Template:Lipps Inc
  16. Template:Sean Lennon
  17. Template:Krayzie Bone
  18. Template:Kelly Osbourne
  19. Template:Janis Ian
  20. Template:John Lee Hooker
  21. Template:Engelbert Humperdinck
  22. Template:Roger Whittaker
  23. Template:Luniz
  24. Template:Chris de Burgh
  25. Template:Benny Goodman
  26. Template:Louis Prima
  27. Template:Brian Setzer
  28. Template:Nancy Sinatra
  29. Template:Sascha Schmitz
  30. Template:Alexander Paul Coe
  31. Template:Bing Crosby
  32. Template:Maggie Reilly
  33. Template:Jennifer Warnes
  34. Template:Jean Shepard
  35. Template:Cilla Black
  36. Template:Afrika Bambaataa
  37. Template:Judy Collins
  38. Template:Sherrié Austin
  39. Template:The Jets (British rockabilly band) - that lazy cow even skipped the surnames of the band members, although available
  40. Template:Jon Oliva's Pain - quality? Not part of the dictionary of Jax

Waiting for improvement as messy and unclear

  1. Template:Subway restaurant - unclear what he wants with this template
  2. Template:China National Petroleum Corporation
  3. Template:Illinois Tool Works
  4. Template:Crane Co.
  5. Template:ITT Corporation
  6. Template:Eaton
  7. Template:Danaher
  8. Template:Gabriele Kerner - better known as (singer) Nena, who has a long, long list of recordings.
  9. Template:Nena - about the band Nena
  10. Template:TRW
  11. Template:GenCorp
  12. Template:The Aerospace Corporation
  13. Template:Atlas Corporation
  14. Template:Prestolite Electric
  15. Template:Teledyne
  16. Template:Dana Corporation
  17. Template:Rockwell International
  18. Template:AM General
  19. Template:Hillenbrand Industries, Inc.
  20. Template:Navistar International Corporation
  21. Template:Dassault Group
  22. Template:Cummins
  23. Template:Meijer
  24. Template:Nash Finch Company
  25. Template:Dorel Industries
  26. Template:Safran
  27. Template:Zodiac Aerospace
  28. Template:Konica Minolta
  29. Template:Cargill
  30. Template:Archer Daniels Midland
  31. Template:Herman Miller
  32. Template:Knoll
  33. Template:MTD Products
  34. Template:Husqvarna
  35. Template:Briggs & Stratton
  36. Template:Knorr-Bremse
  37. Template:Adecco
  38. Template:Tomkins plc
  39. Template:Melrose plc
  40. Template:Tektronix
  41. Template:Ernst Leitz GmbH
  42. Template:Beckman Coulter
  43. Template:Finmeccanica
  44. Template:BTR plc
  45. Template:Dunlop Holdings
  46. Template:Smiths Group
  47. Template:TI Group
  48. Template:Dowty Group
  49. Template:ThyssenKrupp
  50. Template:Stanley Black & Decker
  51. Template:Motorola
  52. Template:Computer Sciences Corporation
  53. Template:Magellan Aerospace
  54. Template:Unisys
  55. Template:Azure Dynamics
  56. Template:MacAndrews & Forbes
  57. Template:Dassault Systèmes
  58. Template:Renco Group
  59. Template:Heuliez
  60. Template:PSA Peugeot Citroën
  61. Template:Peugeot bicycles
  62. Template:ABB Group
  63. Template:SAGEM
  64. Template:Messier-Bugatti-Dowty
  65. Template:SMA Engines
  66. Template:Sud Aviation
  67. Template:SNCASE
  68. Template:SNCASO
  69. Template:AGCO
  70. Template:Techtronic Industries
  71. Template:Alcoa
  72. Template:Zippo
  73. Template:Cobham plc
  74. Template:GKN
  75. Template:Manpower Inc.
  76. Template:Brush Traction
  77. Template:Westinghouse
  78. Template:Invensys
  79. Template:Pirelli & C. SpA
  80. Template:Brunswick
  81. Template:Krupp
  82. Template:Thyssen
  83. Template:L-3 Communications
  84. Template:Rheinmetall
  85. Template:Marconi Electronic Systems
  86. Template:General Electric Company plc
  87. Template:Blohm + Voss
  88. Template:Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft
  89. Template:ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems
  90. Template:Transrapid
  91. Template:Aircraft seat manufacturers
  92. Template:Sendo
  93. Template:Menards
  94. Template:Allis-Chalmers
  95. Template:Dyson
  96. Template:The Hoover Company
  97. Template:Bendix

Waiting for improvement as piping is too difficult

  1. Template:The Three O'Clock  Done
  2. Template:Psychic TV  Done
  3. Template:Parliament (band)  Done
  4. Template:Bill Wyman's Rhythm Kings  Done

Not gaming the system?

Is this just a not-so-funny backdoor or is this not allowed? See: Jax on Frietjes talkpage. The Banner talk 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. It's creating articles related to a topic which just happens to have a navbox that Jax created and was nominated for deletion, and then notifying an editor who takes part in numerous TfDs about the creation of those articles. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
It continues on Frietjes talk page. I'd consider this canvassing in an attempt to save templates that he created. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you an expert of Bulgarian politics?

Just asking. If you want to make improvement of style here, do it. I don't guarantee to write properly even in Bulgarian when outraged with despicable socialist politics. --Aleksd (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

When outraged, you should not write. Anger is not a good advisor. The Banner talk 22:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Really? And who is going to write the news in articles then? See at my talkpage too. --Aleksd (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Somebody who is uninvolved and not angry. Wikipedia is not a news service. The Banner talk 23:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive edits. Its is not more important your edits than the relevance of content. --Aleksd (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Indeed encyclopedias refer not only about things that happened ages ago but have a current content, I am sorry if you are unaware of the fact. --Aleksd (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Could you please calm down? The Banner talk 22:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Cologne Business School

Hello The Banner, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Cologne Business School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 19:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


Hello The Banner, Thanks for all your instructions. I just started my work on Wikipedia, and I would like to be constructive like you. I went through some pages to edit. I read about reliable and secondary references and added to a page. I want to edit more, thanks for your instruction. I started on apache and I would like to work on others. Can you advise me whether I researched good and added enough citations to the page started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaoutlets (talkcontribs) 03:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ban, should the page I am editing be like this one . This one has no reference and only three lines. Hello Banner, your suggestions are helpful. What should be done?

First thing you should do is starting to write on the bottom of a discussion, not on top. And secondly, you should give up pretending that you are a new and inexperienced user. The Banner talk 11:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will probably stop editing. I just wanted to help. I just added almost 45 reference and secondary citations to the page which had been there several years Majid Rafizadeh, even adding to references to words. I was trying to start on Alireza Nader, Mehdi Khalaji, and Karim Sadjadpour. But it is ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaoutlets (talkcontribs) 03:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


Hello Banner,

The page, Rafizadeh, has been significantly revised and edited based on your suggestions to remove bias, negative, and major contributor's words. Farhikht removed everything that were added by the major contributor and major contributor's account has more likely been warned. The page has turned into what it was originally published without issues listed. Someone who publicly says does not like the human rights activism of the subject and posted negative things, blanked the page, but other professional editor returned the page. Would you check? Remobk (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Meet someone to talk to

what is your problem? because you obviously have one. you have your own rules of editing that have nothing in common with even having a little respect of the work of other editors. --Aleksd (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You should show some respect for the encyclopedia, not alone for your own political agenda. The Banner talk 19:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It is you who should show respect to both encyclopedias, Wikipedia community and editors. Aleksd (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
LOL, you are editwarring and POV-pushing. You really don't understand how an encyclopaedia works. The Banner talk 19:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
You are bureaucrat with out any ethical feeling. You abuse many rules while pointing to others. How is that called, hm? Aleksd (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Wrong, mr. POV-pusher. You are the one ignoring Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please read them and adhere to them. If you keep ignoring them, the consequences are yours. The Banner talk 19:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
How is it called when you have no knowledge whatsoever on a topic, still insist to edit on it, interrupt other editors, reverse over edit template, delete sources, disrespect efforts and give needless suggestions? Aleksd (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
You know quite well that you are talking nonsense, hijacking an article and are disprutive. Read the guidelines and policies before making an even bigger joke of yourself. And for God's sake: please calm down! The Banner talk 19:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Clare Smyth may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Smyth grew up on a farm in [[County Antrim]. She was the youngest of three children to her father William, a farmer, and mother

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, my mistake. The Banner talk 23:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Unitech may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[[Infogix, Inc.]], formerly known as Unitech Systems, Inc.]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013


Hello. I would like to elaborate on the rationale behind these edits [2][3]. 'Baden' and 'Württemberg' are historically ambiguous names; they may refer either to a series of historical polities or to their respective historical regions. Especially in the case of 'Württemberg' none of the historical polities could be described as a primary topic in either English or German usage. That is why the German Wikipedia has a dab page for 'Baden' and a geography-related article about Württemberg and that is why the English one should have them, too (see Baden and Württemberg and note that 'Württemberg' was also a geography-related article in the English Wikipedia until -Ilhador- sneakily made this merging without prior discussion; this edit was also a copyvio since he just copypasted text from one Wikipedia article to another without proper attribution). Of course, I do recognize that redirecting 'Württemberg' to 'Württemberg (disambiguation)' is also problematic since 'Württemberg' is currently linked from a large number of articles. But we can solve this by directing these ambiguous links to articles dealing with the specific meaning intended.

A sidenote: User:Jack Bufalo Head who created the afore-mentioned redirects [4][5] is a blocked sockpuppet of User:-Ilhador-: almost all of this user's redirects are highly controversial. Since January 2012 -Ilhador-'s agenda has been to substitute the use of Electoral for the adjective 'Palatine' and promote use of 'Palatine' only in the noun-form of 'Palatinate' — unlike standard English (which prefers, e.g., 'Elector Palatine') (see the relevant discussions here and here). This editor's changes tend to confuse historical polities with geographical regions. This editor's redirects in which they identified 'Baden' with the 'Grand Duchy of Baden' and 'Württemberg' with the 'Kingdom of Württemberg' were sudden and unilateral changes that followed a similar agenda. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

That might be true, but it screwed up several templates who were referring to either the duchy or the kingdom. The Banner talk 23:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
You were right in reverting my edit then. I am planning to work on disambiguating all those links. But first I will start a thread on the relevant talk page requesting the revert of this editor's moves. -- Omnipaedista (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
It is a mistake more people make: assuming that all edits are bad when the editor turns out to be bad. The Banner talk 23:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, the first paragraph of my rationale contains specific arguments why confusing a historical polity with a geographical region is bad practice. I also indirectly quoted WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "if there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page". --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)