Misplaced Pages

User talk:The Banner: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:55, 24 January 2013 editScolaire (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,739 edits →Dispute resolution: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 09:46, 24 January 2013 edit undoThe Banner (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers125,714 edits →Dispute resolutionNext edit →
Line 220: Line 220:


I've left a comment in ]. 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 ], 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. ] (]) 08:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I've left a comment in ]. 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 ], 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. ] (]) 08:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
:Useless exercise. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 09:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:46, 24 January 2013

Misplaced Pages key policies and guidelines (?)
Content (?)
P
G
Conduct (?)
P
G
Deletion (?)
P
Enforcement (?)
P
Editing (?)
P
G
Style
Classification
Project content (?)
G
WMF (?)
P
I try to the best of my knowledge and belief to contribute to the small red block of the image

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.


ANI-notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is False claim of vandalism.The discussion is about the topic Irish migration to Great Britain. Thank you. -- KC9TV 04:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, The Banner. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Moravia High School

I did not close that one (or the other one) because of WP:OUTCOMES, I closed for the same reason your AFDs are receiving nothing more than keep votes - All high schools are notable, by general consensus, and should not be deleted, or brought to AFD in the first place, regardless of how badly sourced their articles are. While WP:NHS is an essay, it is an accepted quasi-guideline, and WP:OUTCOMES clearly reflects that. I am at a loss to understand why exactly you needed those AFDs to continue when the end result is going to be the same - a speedy keep. §FreeRangeFrog 00:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Simple, because most keep-votes mentioned Common Outcomes or varieties of that. Unfortunately, Common Outcomes is not a valid argument as it reflects only the history of school-AfDs. You can't overwrite WP:GNG with Common Outcomes, but that is exactly what you (and the voters) were doing. The Banner talk 00:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, good luck with your experiment! §FreeRangeFrog 01:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Not an experiment, see Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (organizations and companies) The Banner talk 01:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Still an experiment, though. Misplaced Pages outlasts any group of editors in these things, my research has shown.--Milowent • 02:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Yep, and it will outlast Common Outcomes. This is plain misusing Common Outcomes and maybe even POV-pushing. The Banner talk 02:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the shorthand citing of common outcomes is not best practices, but its reflecting a well-known reality of notability in the vast majority of cases. If I had the money, I'd give ya a Christmas trip to Appanoose County, Iowa so you could access the archives of the Daily Iowegian to improve Moulton-Udell High School.--Milowent • 13:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
It would indeed be cheaper as you went over there and improved the article yourself. Have you ever noticed that far more people show up to defend a sloppy, dodgy USA-school article then any school everywhere in the world? With an American school you have immediately Common Outcomes as argument, while Indian schools have to satisfy WP:GNG. The Banner talk 14:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The amount of American news content online surpasses any other country, including Great Britain. But still, the only Indian schools I recall seeing deleted are ones that aren't verifiable. Getting sources for Indian schools is usually more difficult (primarily due to a lack of online sourcing, most non-English mainstream Indian newspapers are not online, and searching for Gujarati language sources, for example, is tough).--Milowent • 12:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
That is not the point. For American schools, the American guess that they can find sources. They are not provided. But non-American school are often requiered to show the sources. Misplaced Pages has a strong, but ignored and denied, pro-USA stance regarding to schools, not a neutral view. Plain double standards. The Banner talk 14:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
If you didn't do this as an experiemnt, you might want to scientifically pick it apart anyway just for educational purposes. Both of your AfD nominations ended as SNOW-keeps, without even a single delete vote. You have made arguments that this was somehow due to WP:OUTCOMES. I will point out that if you remove all of the OUTCOMES-based arguments, you are left with two AfDs that still would have been closed with SNOW-keeps. I used to feel just as you do, but the simple fact is that WP:OUTCOMES saves everyone a great deal of time, endergy, blood, sweat and tears. If you really want to get upset, take a look through the 3 person "unincorporated communities" that fall under outcomes, that never had so much as a post office. It was very aggrevating for me, but not as aggrevating as placing up the worse three that I could find for AfD, and watching the sourcing pile on. It was a very learning and enlightening experience. I hope that you can find something equally valuable to take away from all this. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
It would save a lot of people blood, sweat and tears when you just added the sources that proof that the school is notable. Check WP:RS what is regarded a reliable source. Not the own website, not the local genealogical society. It will not take that long before the US-editors are not any more the major force behind Misplaced Pages. With the present US-centered POV lost, you can expect a massacre... The Banner talk 04:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think that when you look at the unincorporated communities in particular, you will find that the opposite is true, at least when it comes to the UK. US history only goes back 300-400 years. In the UK it goes back 5 times as much. That's a 5x greater chance of notability for UK locations. I would bet that WP:OUTCOMES will turn out to have much more of an effect than in the USA. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
You are kidding, I hope? Common Outcomes is seldom used when a UK-school is up for AfD. Most of the time, the sources are provided to pass WP:GNG... The Banner talk 05:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Cast list

I would argue that a cast list, like a recipe, is generally not copyrightable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

In general, true. But it becomes a different story when also layout and notes are copied. The Banner talk 23:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Yugoslavia topics

As per this request Template:Yugoslavia topics has been protected for a period of 2 weeks. I suggest that you try and discuss on the talk page with the other editors involved to resolve the war for the sake of the template. ·Add§hore· 00:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have already opened a discussion on the talkpage. Hope it works. The Banner talk 00:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I noticed :). I will keep watching the talk page to see how things develop. If you think the war is resolved before protection runs out or vice versa please just drop me a message on my talk page. ·Add§hore· 00:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
My friend, please accept this barnstar as my thanks for tirelessly fixing all of those disambiguation links on my Texas Legislature templates. Thanks! Cheers, Freebirdthemonk 05:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

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: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/VPanton The Banner talk 19:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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. Misplaced Pages has a policy called "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at OrenBochman's talk page.
Message added 14:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BO | Talk 14:45, 14 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 ~ 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
You are promoting your own boss. The Banner talk 13:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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: , , , The Banner talk 19:13, 20 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)
User talk:The Banner: Difference between revisions Add topic