The website is repeatedly removed and should not be added without discussion. Unfortunately, the website does not add anything to the article. Especially adding it to articles as Brian Boru and Féile an Phobail make clear that it is far more website promo then adding something substantial to the website. So please, stop adding the website. And plaese, don't use multiple identities to do this... Night of the Big Windtalk 18:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added link Brian Boru as to give a sense to the viewers of Brian Boru´s ancient dwelling place. The Féile an Phobail was a virtual tour of the community parade of the event. People are using nearly identical idenities as mine to delete and add spam. 360eire is non commercial website promoting the community and history of the island of Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dialinn (talk • contribs) 18:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at several of your links and viewed it. Even with places I know personally (like Kilkee) it noticed that it did not add anything useful to the article. Sorry. For more information: Wikipedia:External linksNight of the Big Windtalk 18:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the adding that information. I notice that it does add to the article of Kilkee, especially the aspect of the Currach races that are held there each summer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dialinn (talk • contribs) 18:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I advice you to stop pushing it? And secondly, could you plaese sign your edits on talkpage with ~~~~ (four tildes)? Those tildes will automagically be replaced by your name, date and time. Night of the Big Windtalk 18:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will stop pushing it. If I add any links I will text in discussion page before hand. Thanks Dialinn (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed that you not only keep pushing the site, but also uses sockpuppets for it. I advice you to request a voluntary block of all your sockpuppets. I am still working on the report (see the draft: User:Night of the Big Wind/sockpuppet 360view). You better ask yourself, because if I file this report you will be in serious trouble. Night of the Big Windtalk 07:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) The best thing you can do is report them at usernames for administrator attention. Which I'm guessing that you may have done in the past, and it was unsuccessful (based on their talk page). However there does seem to be a clear pattern and so action may be more likely now. --Mrmatiko (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
External link.
Will you please explain your reasoning for removing the link repeatedly, and who you suspect of being a sock puppet. So far you have not explained either.--Dmol (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it offensive that I have been listed as a sockpuppet on the list. Have a look at my history and you will see that I have been on Wikipedia with only that name for several years. Please remove me immediately.--Dmol (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I am still working on it. Some pollution during processing is evitable. Night of the Big Windtalk 09:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and Happy New Year! You participated in the FLC discussion for List of culinary nuts a while back. The discussion is flagging a bit. There's no negative input to speak of, but I'm concerned that not enough people have actually come out in support. Given that the objections you raised have been addressed, would you consider registering a support vote? Waitak (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I must apologise for adding the category to far too many articles. Once again, my enthusiasm got the better of me. It would have being better if I created articles on the surnames concerned, all of which demonstrate British ancestry (I mean British in both sences - Cymric speakers from Strathclyde/Cumbria/Wales/Cornwall/Isle of Man, and people from the island of Britan). Breathnach, Walsh, Wallace, and related names belong in this broad category. I also included people who bore surnames of French or English surnames, or who had a parent or grandparent who was French or English, in similar categories. Regarding Isabel de Clare, I thought that as she was part-Welsh it would be obvious that she was of British descent. Shall I revert all the articles, or have you already done so? Thanks for your input, and especially your courtesy! Is mise, Fergananim (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Several people have been reverting your edits because in most cases there was no clear proof of the British or French descent. Night of the Big Windtalk 10:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear they are reverted, but surely the evidence of the surnames indicates the heart of the matter? I did at least restrain myself to surnames of demonstrable British, Welsh, French and English descent. In the case of the Pearse brothers, their father was English, as was Liam Mellows's father. De Valera's father was of Spanish descent. Fergananim (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is not that a bit far fetched? Or would you say the I am a "Dutchman of County of Hainaut descent" because a few of my ancesters came from Mons? In this case, ten and eleven generations back... Night of the Big Windtalk 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am just letting you know that I've responded to your review. Thank you. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 04:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought and a question
Seeing so many Michelin-starred head chef passing by, I am politely panicking by the idea to have to describe them all. The number of restaurants is already about 300, the number of starred head chefs will be at least the double. That idea is too much, even for me.
So the question is, what should be a good cut off point? Only chefs who have earned stars in 10+ years? Only chefs who have earned stars in 5+ years? Something in between? Off course, they have to satisfy WP:GNG and have adequate sourcing. That will knock quite a few of the list. Many chefs just wanted to be a chef, not a celebrity.
You can choose whatever personal criteria you wish to use to decide what to write about. My suggestion is to write about the notable chefs and restaurants you care about. If you have passion about the topic, the article will be better. Thank you for improving our coverage of Michelin starred restaurants and chefs. Cullen328Let's discuss it 08:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RfC on schools
Hi, friend. I take it you're moving forward on an RfC on the question of notability of schools, yes? I'm actually all in favor of this and would like to co-sponsor it and help write the question in such a way that we get a clear A Scenario or B Scenario result. Drop me a line if you'd like on my talk page. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it was NickCT who came up with the RfC. I have asked him if he is going to launch it and he agreed upon that. No matter what the outcome, it would be nice to have a clear cut decision. As I see it we would have three options: a) articles have to satisfy WP:GNG, b) articles as to satify a set of rules, slightly lower then WP:GNG and c) articles do not have to satisfy WP:GNG as long as they can prove to exist. (maybe a bit crude description, I know) I could be an idea to help NickCT and launch the RfC as a triumvirate. Night of the Big Windtalk 18:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just point out that Nick's 'first' RfC ignored the first suggestion of a proper RfC proposal that was come up with here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can imaging that. If you say that "just stick to WP:GNG is not a neutral proposal", it shows a mighty disrespect for the community that came up with WP:N and WP:GNG and turns your proposal in a joke. Night of the Big Windtalk 20:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
January 2012
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to User:Night of the Big Wind/Workpage16, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Please remove the article categories from your user page drafts per: WP:USERNOCAT. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. If were, I would have listed them all. I was actually looking in good faith to see if you had drafted anything that could help us resolve this schools notability issue. WP:USERNOCAT is a policy, please remove them. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just an FYI that I am trying to see what we can do on that disambig page, all in good faith. I'm not the disambiguation expert, just wanting the original, primary use first. The other alternative would be to restore the (disambig) page back for disambiguation and redirect the title to cowboy, but I fear that would create yet more edit-warring every time someone did a search on buckaroo and landed at the cowboy article. Seems making the main word into the disambig will lessen future wiki-wars. At least, that's my thinking. Normally I'm a fan of [{WP:PRIMARY]], but in this case I think my general solution will minimize the drama. Montanabw(talk) 04:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for the support with the reverts. DubhEire (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am just confused on why you added this tag. The article has plenty of references. OKelly (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The essential question is: does the subject merit a stand alone article or could it better be merged with an article about the American Revolutionary War. Looking at the many questions for clarification/sources, there is plenty of work to do. Night of the Big Windtalk 08:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A little leftover of unclear ordinals in the en-Wikipedia
Hello Night of the Big Wind, please see User:Diwas/Ordinals for a new list of a little leftover of unclear ordinals in the en-Wikipedia. I hope, you will find some free resources in 2012. Best regards. --Diwas (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx, maybe the fastest way is to use the browsers text search function (e.g. with FireFox by typing 3th after press ctrl+F) on the edit page. --Diwas (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope, now you understand my rough list format (sorry). First there is the unclear Ordinal, for instance 3th, then sometimes some options what I may guess, for instance (should it be 3rd or 13th or 4th or ..?) below that there is a list of pages with similar unclear ordinals, for instance 1. William Smith Ziegler. --Diwas (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi! The e-mail was in relation to the proposed get-together. Just wondering if the message got through/answer didn't/you changed your mind. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ow, sorry. Slipped my mind. I was planning to do some research in Limerick for it, but my car broke down. I had in mind to make a combination of a dinner and something "cultural". A visit to a museum or so. Night of the Big Windtalk 01:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry. Might be time to take further discussion to Wikipedia:Meetup/Ireland. Dublin beginning to look like the best prospect so far. RashersTierney (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2011-12 Melbourne Tigers season
You tagged the 2011-12 Melbourne Tigers season as needing copyediting and updating back in November. As a member of the WP:GOCE, I am trying to see what needs doing in this 75 word article. Updating may be needed, but is there copyediting to be done? --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Half the article are empty sections. I will give a shout to the original author now it is clear that he forgot about this article. Night of the Big Windtalk 00:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the copyedit tag, with only a very minor change.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think all remaining two dozen or so links to nasal consonant are best left there. Specifically, there is no better link for Template:Nasal.
Thanks for your help! — kwami (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care what you think, but it is a fact that linking to a dab-page is not done. So you better solve it. I do not care how you do that, just that you solve the link! Night of the Big Windtalk 10:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm keen to help improve this and move it through. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind if I tweak it slightly and fill in some bits? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar that the draft is ment to leave a grey area where keeping/deleting should be discussed. I try to define the upper limit (on or above this = notable) and the lower limit (on or under this = not-notable). Life is to creative with creating special cases that I don't even try to make a manual! Night of the Big Windtalk 12:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Always that Amsterdam-centrism. At least Rotterdam did once have a three star restaurant (Parkheuvel). So are you also going to make a template for Michelin starred restaurants in Rotterdam? ;) SpeakFree(talk)(contribs) 20:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still 9 templates to go. See my userpage. And yes, Rotterdam is also on the list. Night of the Big Windtalk 22:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Night, when you create articles about restaurants in the Netherlands and put {{WikiProject Netherlands}} on the talk page could you then please rate them as well? Generally your articles are Start-Class but this may vary. You can rate up to C-Class by yourself but please do check if the article meets the criteria for it.
So please put {{WikiProject Netherlands|class=Start}} on them when appropriate. This helps keeping the Unassessed articles to a minimum. Thanks in advance. SpeakFree(talk)(contribs) 18:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, no. The project templates, okay, but not the assessment. That system is too dodgy and is often a gross insult to the hard working editor. Night of the Big Windtalk 02:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RFC
Do RFCs always get so sidetracked or is it just this one. What part of are secondary schools notable leads to a debate on primary schools. Just hope it reaches a conclusion one way or another it just seems to be bickering and not really going either way. Its the equality issue that bothers me not the must meet GNG. Whats your thoughts on mass nominations of articles at any one time its something I'm thinking an RFC would be good on its too many articles to nominate at one time on any subject. It was mentioned on AN at one point but didn't really get much attention.EdinburghWanderer 22:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im wondering from the no reply if you think i was trying to get a reaction or something which isn't the case I'm genuinely looking for your opinion.EdinburghWanderer 23:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disappoint you, but I was writing articles I take a look soon. Night of the Big Windtalk 23:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No disappointment i was hoping that wasn't the case just goes to show I'm paranoid. Anyway i just hope it gets resolved rather than going the way i can see it which is it getting caught up in side arguments with the main issue getting missed. EdinburghWanderer 23:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the warning. That was a nice try from Liveitup to make a joke out of the RfC. Reducing the requierements to zero, yeah, right... Night of the Big Windtalk 00:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Night... I really was not trying to make a joke of the RFC. I came to your talk page to see if you wanted to collaborate on further developing the guidelines you started. What I think many people have missed is the bit I put just above the actual straw poll: that getting consensus that schools needed more than local coverage was the first step in a likely long process. I don't want to spend a huge amount of time working on guidelines, just to have them tossed out because local coverage is sufficient to prove a school notable. In other words:
If local coverage satasifies notability then development of additional guidelines is a waste of time.
If local coverage does not satisfy notability then development of additional guidelines is a very good use of time.
I was only trying to answer this question before proceeding further. My straw poll was not intended to set a guideline (which is why I called it a straw poll as opposed to a "proposed guideline" or something). I see now that the majority of participants are not getting what I was trying to say, so I came here to see if you wanted to work together on this, develop the guidelines anyway, and see where it goes. I was also going to ask if you minded if I invited User: Masem since he seems to be on a similar line of thought as we are. Please AGF... I'm actually on your side on this! If you agree, maybe the three of us could use the talk page of your draft in your userspace as a spot for centalized discussion of developing the guidelines. Sorry if my straw poll ended up doing more harm than good! Livit⇑Eh?/What? 17:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To my opinion, local coverage alone is not enough to proof notability. You can use local coverage as source, but not as single source (even if it are multople articles) of notability. Night of the Big Windtalk 18:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concern
Hello Night. I noticed that you have just now de-PRODed a number of PRODs I applied, in various places on Wikipedia. I'm concerned about the possibility that you may be singling me out, and de-PRODing PRODs I've applied on multiple pages. Perhaps you felt slighted by our difference of opinion that preceded this activity on your part. I am concerned that this could be an effort by you to follow me and repeatedly confront or inhibit my work, or cause me irritation, annoyance, or distress. This series of de-PRODs, across the project--focusing on my PRODs--is disrupting my enjoyment of editing, and I feel it is disruptive. Please stop. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your mass nominations are also disruptive. It is totally ridiculous to expect that Gnews and Gbooks have any information about non-Western subjects. That is plain searching on the wrong place. Therefore I have contested all your nominations for non-western articles due to dodgy research. Night of the Big Windtalk 23:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ow, and I did not deprod all your nominations. I have asked WP Birds to look at the Witkop Cockatiel, because I can find that much sources that it looks like a hoax (written by user Witkop99) and that strange Validator Interview System thingy, that looks SPAM to me... Night of the Big Windtalk 23:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I correct that you have -- following our difference of opinion -- singled me out, followed me to PRODs I applied to articles across the project on articles ranging from sports (including Irish sports) to music to malls (including Canadian malls) to medical institutions? And de-PRODed well over a dozen articles in the process? And you that think that your behavior is appropriate, and refuse to stop?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you nominate articles based on dodgy research in sources that are guaranteed to yield nothing, I have no choice then to deprod them in the best interest of Wikipedia. If you apply thorough and realistic research on your prods, there will be no need for me to check them. Night of the Big Windtalk 23:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had performed a wp:BEFORE search on every article that you de-PRODed. You've offered zero evidence of "dodgy research" -- just made a baseless, unsupported, hostile assertion. And the overwhelming majority of my PRODs and AfDs this past month have resulted in either deletion or redirect, contrary to your insinuation ... they have overwhelmingly been in-consensus views of the notability of the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your feedback, but when you nominate a template (i.e. Template:Saigon Kick) for deletion, can you please do a little background research to make sure that the template does not have potential to grow before recommending it for deletion? An article being too short is not necessarily a valid reason for deletion. Thanks :)
But a template without useful links is a valid reason for nomination. Night of the Big Windtalk 18:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meet up
Sorry to hear of accident but good news that you were able to walk away. It may be more feasible to have an initial get-together in Dublin and perhaps we could discuss a later event in Limerick or environs with a fundraising aspect. We've had a few meets before but getting an initial commitment has been difficult. I think if we at least meet for a few hours it would be easier to get people to make firm commitments on sharing the organising of a larger event. What do you think? RashersTierney (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfD and PROD notifications
Hi NofBW. Back in December, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a ton for the constructive feedback. It's extremely helpful. If you want, I can keep you updated on any new tests or changes we propose. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Saigon Kick
The template has been expanded since you nominated it at TFD. If you want, you can withdraw the nomination. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Epeefleche
I reverted your last comment on Epeefleche's talk page. Language such as "If he really cares about wikipedia" is emotionally charged and does nothing to advance a discussion. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree with it, but I won't put it back in. BTW: this was already the censored version... Night of the Big Windtalk 03:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this article again.
Thanks. Jacopo188 (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to be nasty: your sources are not okay. The article should be backed up by reliable third party sources. His own website is off course not a third party source. And weblogs/forums/facebookpages and the like are also sources that are seen as unreliable due to their nature. But you are correct in sourcing it with Arabian script sources. Any sources from musea, galleries or the likes? Keep up the good work! Night of the Big Windtalk 13:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This site: [2], is in my ownership. I am wife of his sister.
At one book, which print in Persian "Yade Yaran (ياد ياران)" by Dr,Mahdi Roshanzamir, in some page wrote about Melmasi and his father. You can see in fa.wiki. I am wait for you. Thanks. Jacopo188 (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is it you that comes with the complaint at AN/I and not Eppie? Night of the Big Windtalk 20:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Back down
Night you need to take the advice and back of. You are both as bad as each other and no good will come to either of you by continuing it. Im saying the same to Eppie. This has dragged on and its clear now neither you are totally in the right.EdinburghWanderer 20:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I promise to back down, EW. I think he got the message that he must up the quality of his work. All his puffery makes me sick, so yes, taking a break from him is the best way to act. Night of the Big Windtalk 21:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I have catched the trout and will end up in the frying pan tomorrow (today is Pancake Tiesday!). I had already some doubts about the reasoning of the TfD. Night of the Big Windtalk 13:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Light In The Attic Records
Night Of The Big Wind, I'm curious as to why you altered such a significant portion of the Light In The Attic Records page? I sourced everything in that article ad nauseum and with seemingly no reason you took the majority of what I'd written. If anything could you please go through and make sure that what you added is at least spelled correctly ("Lite In The Attic" being a major problem) and at least appealing to the eye? I would love to hear your reasoning behind the drastic changes.
Sanders.noah (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why I have changed so much? Here an overview of the edit summaries, what should give you a good clue:
Hello. Thank you for changing the typos. Was still curious about why you made the changes you did? Seemingly the information was well sourced and though you stated that it was promotional, I didn't see that in any way.
50.0.164.169 (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please add your new edits at the bottom or under the correct section? If I can't find your edit, I won't reply on them..
The way the article was set up was full of totally unrelevant, extremely detailed information. Information that only an insider could know. What your marketing department made of the article, will be an asset on the company website, but won't fit in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia consists of bare facts, not human interest stories. Even with sources, it is completely irrelevant to tell how difficult it was to acquire the rights on an album or that a singer didn't want to cooperate. Night of the Big Windtalk 00:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added statistics to the ANI thread
In regards to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Epeefleche and Night of the Big Wind, I have commented adding statistical data in regards to Epeefleche's serial nominating of articles to AfD (in particular school articles, in which I have an interest) and comments on his tendentious editing throughout the rest of wikipedia. TLDR: based on his editing history, statistics of which I have compiled, I support a ban on Epeefleche's nominating articles per PROD and AfD and his tagging/challenging of text in articles. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to see this discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Clear_as_mud. I believe that ArbCom banned WBB not only because of the combative behaviour and outing but also thinks that WBB might have wilfully deceived Jimbo into banning TimidGuy. SYSS Mouse (talk) 05:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that is not a nice story. It does not affect my opinion that it should be easier to kick out admins after indiscretions. It does explain the indef block. But it does not remove my questionmarks at the ban appeal, how on earth van you prove that you will behave like a good boy? Someone can promise it, but only time will tell if it is the truth. Night of the Big Windtalk 08:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A note of appreciation
I just wanted to leave a note of appreciation regarding your efforts to do something about the situation surrounding schools. A couple of years ago, I largely gave up on the AfD process, mainly out of frustration with the "inherent notability" concept, which seemed to leave us with a worrying number of unsourceable articles which couldn't be fixed. Anyway, I'm not sure that you'll succeed this time. I wish I knew how many times one needs to chip away at the dam before it breaks, but I'm sure it will, eventually. Jakew (talk) 21:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, much appreciated. It is a tough battle but just as the Americans did at Omaha Beach: we will overcome the obstacles and win. I am still wondering why people are so fiercely fighting to prevent improvements on the quality of the articles on Wikipedia. I don't believe that is laziness, because they don't show laziness in fighting the proposals for improvements. I don't have a clue. Night of the Big Windtalk 22:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Even though I agree, in general, with your (Night's) idea of having actual notability guidelines for schools, thinking of this as a "tough battle" like Omaha Beach is way too WP:BATTLEGROUND an attitude. This isn't a fight. This is people with different opinions about what should be in the encyclopedia. Treating people who value inclusiveness as the most or one of the most desirable goals as enemies is a certain way to guarantee that people don't listen to your position. Keep pursuing your goal, but do so with the intent of finding a guideline that meets consensus, not with the intent of winning a battle. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talkpagestalker? How can I see who is stalking me?
Ever heard of being frustrated? It looked like we were going somewhere with the RfC. And suddenly, when I started to try to wind the RfC down, out of virtual nowhere, a whole bunch of naysayers showed up. I don't believe this is accidental that they show up now and thay they say no, as they should now that this is the most annoying moment of the whole process. And I am only human, I can get angry and frustrated. Night of the Big Windtalk 03:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, after looking into a few school-articles mentioned on Melanies talkpage, I think we better start a Taskforce Improve US Highschool Articles. Seeing how rotten they were sourced, the earlier proposal for grandfathering does not sound so strange anymore. Even with the leniest opinion about sourcing "every reliable third party source is okay", they have a problem. Night of the Big Windtalk 04:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way to know who is watching any given page (it's a privacy issue, I believe); you can find out how many people are watching any page (article, user, wp, etc.), with this tool. Make sure you select the right encyclopedia (enwiki_p), and you have to type the name precisely: so, for your page, "User:Night of the Big Wind", no space before or after the colon; shortcuts like WP: don't work, etc. Per that tool, you currently have 55 watchers. Note, also, that the tool doesn't report a number if its less than 30 (this prevents vandals from specifically searching for unwatched pages to vandalize). Regarding the schools...yes, I understand the frustration. But you point out a good solution: if the community won't support altered guidelines, either wait and restart, or just focus on improving the articles. Or, if you just think there's too many schools, focus on primary and junior high schools--there's whole categories worth of those articles that need close checking and, usually, redirection. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fact, I don't think the present consensus is there anymore. But there is an effective opposition against any change. And my little tour last night learned that it is well possible, that this opposition is there due to fear of the consequenses of any change, not resentment of change. Night of the Big Windtalk 11:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sure it isn't laziness. I've seen people whom I greatly respect defend the current "system" (for want of a better word), people who are very hard-working and dedicated to Wikipedia. It's probably a number of factors. Partly, I think people tend to be rather exhausted after a round of negotiation, and that can make them resistant to change ("Oh, <deity> not this again!"). It's completely illogical, but it happens, and it can cause people to defend what an external observer might regard as an absurd compromise. Partly, it's probably preferring what we have to the utter chaos of no system at all. Partly it's probably an instinctive desire to avoid gruelling AfD debates (and school-related debates are likely to cause students to show up to speak up for their school, making them more chaotic than average). Partly it's probably a desire on the part of those who believe that WP should be as inclusive as possible not to adopt more restrictive rules. Finally, I guess some people may actually believe that the present "system" is reasonable. Jakew (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you suggest a vandal who persistently just removes material for no good reason is dealt with? --OpenFuture (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First adequately warning the IP. Then reporting on the appropriate Noticebord to get him blocked (maybe by rangeblock). Article protection. But certainly not editwarring. Night of the Big Windtalk 04:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While the vandal is removing material, you have to be allowed to restore it, no? And if you ask for a range block of a vandal that just edits one page, do you know what the response is? Right, try temporary semi-protection first. Well, we tried full protection, and that didn't work. But before I even get time to firtsly request semi-protection and then bring it up on a noticeboard, you warn me for edit-warring. That's not exactly helping. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. The sock was rather ducky and I noticed it when closing, discounting its comment. The argument raised by DGG still holds and has not been refuted IMO. I have no issue if you take it WP:DRV if you disagree. -- Samir 02:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching the Lattice wlink problem! I had forgotten what the proper wlink was at the time. Rschwieb (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Private Passions
Hi, Night of the Big Wind.~
Private Passions page is better
I'm also editing.
I use the data from Classical Arts in this link:
http://www.classicarts.co.uk/pp-ajax-getSearch.asp
In this table there are errors in the names of composers and several names for the same composer.
I'm matching the names and also
I separated all the composers who were gatheredwith "&" or "-" and has no links in wikipedia and I am putting in separate links.
I use Imacros to check.
So, can you wait two days for me to finish checking and correcting the names of composers and check if the links are correct?
Thanks :)
Fundamentalbase (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I have been doing was mostly correting overlinking (one link to a composer is enough, 226 links to Mozart is overdone) and correcting links to disambiguation pages (one link, more choices). There are still 128 links left (as of last count). So please fix that, and I will stay at the sideline for two days. Ow, and watch out with the composer Schumann. There are two of them! Night of the Big Windtalk 13:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I separated the composers and removed the links that lead to the wrong page.
I'll put together the composers for the same work.
And check out the ambiguous links.
I ask you to wait because I'll compare to the database I have.
Thank you,
Fundamentalbase (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are few hundred links to disambiguation pages in the article now, some easy some difficult. And when you have fixed that, you can take care of the overlinking. One wikilink to a composer is enough... But you make progress, keep up the good work! Night of the Big Windtalk 17:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Religion in Ireland
Hi there. I reverted your edit the other day to Religion in Ireland because that page is a disambiguation. While I'm not disputing that there are more than two religions in Ireland, those topics are covered in better detail in Religion in the Republic of Ireland and Religion in Northern Ireland. I await your reply before restoring the page to its original state. Thanks! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it gives links to disambiguation pages in several templates. That should be fixed first. Night of the Big Windtalk 00:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi dear user, I took notice of what you mentioned regarding Alba Roballo. I have already added references. Regards from Montevideo, --Fadesga (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish laureates
Hi, the other two i removed did not have ref. either. Please remove them immediately or cite if you have time to waste proving scientists as jewish.HasperHunter (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please was typed before immediately. I am not sure if you are a physics student, but please do study relativity and you will start taking warmer things as then you will realize any perception is also relative--- thats if you think relaitively ;)HasperHunter (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah i can see how much you researched but how much you studied the article is the question... Sorry I can already see Hershko did not identify himself as a jew HasperHunter (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was not even for you. Please be relative, not absolute.HasperHunter (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, my friend. I been reading a bit on the talkpage and have seen your attitude there. Your aggresiveness there is appalling, unuseful and shows a POV towards the subject. My suggestion is that you leave this article alone, there are enough other articles to look at. Night of the Big Windtalk 02:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My friend Night of the big wind, if wikipedia articles can be that naive, of course i will stay on the article. But soon I will be quite busy with my real life research on astronomy, so I will have way less time :) Lets say I am one of those who wishes to get out of the Matrix >>>> > >> >> >>>>>HasperHunter (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have already requested page protection to stop the edit war you have started. It is very disrupting editing you do there. Night of the Big Windtalk 02:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. It wasn't meant to malign you at all. I thought the referral to Britannica might be of interest, given the illustrations in the graph on your talk page. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, then it was just an unlucky coincidence with a very angry editor of an article I have AfD-ed But my good old EB, edition 15, 1983, is still going strong. I still regret it that I had to give up my Winkler Prins when I emigrated to Ireland. That was also a quality encyclopedia, but space restrictions proved fatal. Night of the Big Windtalk 01:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still have a print copy of the 11th Edition of Britannica on my bookshelves. Of course, its on the web now, but the hard copy is nostalgic at least. I'm definitely not angry. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Best. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't create articles that will get AFD'd. Although sometimes the bots will jump on an early iteration, but I've learned to avoid that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ow, it happened my quite a few times, especially in the beginning. And I have lost articles to strange view points and POV, like a distant cousin/actor. Sourced and well, but five movies were not enough to save the article. Strangely, actors with one appearance in a soap often survive. That is life :-( And i have several articles in the fridge, due to changing opinions about Michelin starred restaurants. People now want more sources then only the Michelin Guide, but sometimes the are hard to find or not available on the internet. Especially with older restaurants that is the case. So I am hesitant to publish User:Night of the Big Wind/Workpage21, User:Night of the Big Wind/Workpage22 and User:Night of the Big Wind/Workpage23. Not enough info YET. The Koninklijke Bibliotheek is a bit slow in publishing old papers and I have to wait for that. Night of the Big Windtalk 12:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about the pecadilos and vagaries of Wikipedia. Writing in areas where there are few (if any) WP:RS is challenging. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your discussion about this topic. I really want to approach it but am not going to be able to do so, in part because of the reasons I gave on the talk page but in part because I'm actually a primary source myself, having been part of the effort to find and treat these poor souls which continued into the 1980's. I recall having been the first person track down and to give penicillin to at least two of the men and I followed several more after they were treated. At the time there was a great deal of discussion about how the experiment had initially tied in with the eugenics movement and where were the ethical and moral flaws. So when I try to formulate anything to put in the article my information from the online sources risks being cluttered by nonverifiable source info. I seriously thought about calling Regina Benjamin to see if she could send me copies of the original protocols and further info about the original experimenters' ties to eugenics groups but then I realized that to do so would be more for my own interest than for Wikipedia. Trilobitealive (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ! I strongly agree that there can only be one article about this forest (or park). But I couldn't find any article about Vincennes, using inside Wikipedia search. After I corrected the spelling of Boulogne Forest however, and this became a blue link -
this was when I noticed that the french name was used for both "Bois de Vincennes" in the east and "Bois de Boulogne" in the west.
So just delete my article. But if You could link a Wikipedia search of "Vincennes forest" pointing at "Bois de Vincennes"-article then it would be great ! (Searching "Boulogne forest" points to "Bois de Boulogne" already). Best reguards Boeing720 (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
St Peter's
Did you deliberately restore a copyvio version that I had rewritten free of copyvio? If you thought my version contained copyvio then you should have retagged it, not restored the version that undoubtedly contained the original copyvio. Why do you think stubbifying to remove copyvio is wrong? DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. Stubbifying the article does not remove the copyvio out of the article history. Too easy to restore that. So I just want to get the article removed, unless you know better ways of destroying the copyvio. Night of the Big Windtalk 01:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even in you last version the copyvio is still present in the history. Night of the Big Windtalk 01:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:
coding
Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.
All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.
Stuff to look at
We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.
I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.
I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another IP (actually the one who made the first deletion, but from same range and school so prob same guy) inserted a batch of dubious tags a few days ago. I guess the approach is to label as dubious and then return a few days later to delete? I'll check the listed refs but I know I've heard one of the theories before and I have absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Meters (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mess. One account added a new theory to the article, based on his own paper, and is trying to get competign theories removed from teh article. I suspect the two IPs are the same guy since they have virtually identical edit paterns. Meters (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should ask for page protection to get the time to clear this out. Night of the Big Windtalk 02:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Warned the user and the IPs, and threw some info on it on the talk page for now. I don't have enough experience to know if this is really as bad as I think, but it sure seems like it is. Meters (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input here. Did I do something wrong when I mentioned his name? He self-identified as the author of the paper, and his name is on the first page of the PDF copy he links to.
I've now identified 3 definite IPs hes using, 2 more almost certain, and a sixth likely. Meters (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should not mention his name when he uses a nickname. That is a breach of WP:OUTING and that can cause you a lot of trouble.
That he uses different IPs, does not say much. Mobile internet uses different IPs all the time. You should look to accounts. If you can see that he misuses multiple accounts, you can request a sockpuppetinvestigation. Night of the Big Windtalk 10:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In repairing the disambiguation from this template, you linked incorrectly to Azure (color) instead of Azure (heraldry). The former article is about the HSV color wheel, and not about coats of arms or flags. You may need to correct quite a number of other changes, if you have been repairing the 400+ lionks that were broken by the recent move of Azure. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have only tried to repair the template. No other involvement in Azure. Night of the Big Windtalk 17:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to take a look at an unproductive edit war that has developed at this article? You had contributed with a few dablinks to this article recently. Thanks. mukerjee (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How am i at an edit war? I have replied to each and every instance of discussion...there was 2 weeks without reply to build consensus (i removed the table after sometime and moved to his sandbox when he said it was not ready and even deleted my own table template as AGF) Then after 2 weeks without comment he comes back reverts it all (which, btw, going back and seeing early i did not even change his edits back till the long period, after suggesting he does so per BRD and "warring") and discusses nothing. See the talk page, each and every section. And this is not the first time (See his user page here) and the comment above yours on his page on npov additions elsewhere. Per BRD he needs to learn to discuss and im willing to piecemeal discuss changes but there is a procedure. Further this incarnation adds a 90k table that slows down reading make it difficult for readers. WP:ARTICLESIZE (also ignored by said user)
He wants to hypocritically (where he says on talk "pls do not act unilaterally; respond to other arguments as well on the talk page first" -- and then ignores that to unilaterally make his first changes and then calls for others to tell me what is wrong on his version) change everything to his version without disscussion...such large scale rewrites and content removals that were surced (when challenged at that) always need consensus discussion FIRST. He asserts something is important and then says something else is not, yet keeps the first that he agrees with and removes the second he dislikes (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)...and see the talk page, i do accomodate and i do come to agreement through discussion. (stuff like Talk:Association for Democratic Reforms is not constructive either). Also where was my "threat" of starting a war? Please see the talkpage and tell me how im not attempting a uselful discussion. where i have previously discussed and dissected every small edit...from 13 to 29 March there was no discussion from him yet a revert follows.
Talk:Uttar_Pradesh_legislative_assembly_election,_2012#Changes_needed_in_the_article I have discussed every single issue here...see there what happened from the 13 March correspondence to the 26 March one (he doesnt bother to reply to my attempts at talk and then accuses me of arring...could you see that before accusing me too). He then says "Please give your justifications, until then I am reverting to the more up-to-date version"...how is the onus on the stable version to justify "changes"? And his wording is quite clearly not neutral with loaded terms and synthesis
Dont see why we have to take his demands to insert his version but if need be we can lick it down to the stable version and perhaps generate discussion (which ive done on EVERY occassion for every redundant talk page section he generates)Lihaas (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further dont threaten to block (which was wexplicit as opposed to the claim of a threat to start a ewar) and further, ive restated the issues on talk which he can and should discuss there.Lihaas (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have warned the both of you that you should engage in a meaningful discussion. I am not taking sides or get further involved. Night of the Big Windtalk 12:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Night of the Big Wind. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Manx Breeds, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a copyvio or source is public domain or under another free compatible license. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 04:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited County Clare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Willie Clancy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain 3RR does not apply to blocked socks, correct? Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should proof that it is a sock, what I doubt. But by now, it is my text. Night of the Big Windtalk 18:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUCK, but I digress. I'm ok with the content. Not the sock. Regards Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editwarring with a suspected duck or sock, is still editwarring. Night of the Big Windtalk 19:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a "sock" and I even added the fact that she is still modeling. Why was my comment in the talk page removed by fastt? I added it back again but do not care if it is removed again. N!ghtl!ght (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Checkusers have a different opinion about you not being a sockpuppet... Night of the Big Windtalk 14:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Edit war clarification
Can you please clarify your recent edit summary at Louise Vyent? As far as I'm aware 3RR does not apply to indef blocked editors and their socks, thoug I admit I could be wrong. It wouldnt be the first time. Regards. Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you are running around like a maniac seeing sockpuppets everywhere. I advice you take a break from puppet-hunting because at the moment your efforts are damaging for Wikipedia. Night of the Big Windtalk 14:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What damage? if anything im trying to prevent damage. Once again, please clarify your opinion on 3RR and indef blocked users/socks. Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You AfD against Louise Vyent, clearly inspired by the activities of the sockpuppet and not on research about the topic. Night of the Big Windtalk 16:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I am blocked by an administrator who was already involved in the conflict and was therefor biased and not independent in his decision ([5]). Secondly, my responseNo, it is more that you have run into the black sheep of the family. is never ment to be an personal attack. The smiley there is not for nothing. It was a reply on an edit of Trilobitealive who wrote I've got to admit that I feel like I've intruded upon a domestic dispute between intimate partners who have been arguing for a long time.Night of the Big Windtalk 2:30 am, Today (UTC+8)
Decline reason:
The comment can easily be interpreted as a personal attack, and the use of the smiley does not negate that. Having been blocked for NPA four months ago I think you need to be more civil in your approach with other editors. Did your reply add value to the conversation on that talk page? No. Did your comment add to the level of tension on that page? Yes. Lastly, wrt the "involved" allegation, I don't believe Qwyrxian's block or comments comes anywhere near a violation. Take a break for the short remaining block time and when you return use preview and consider whether or not your comments will be positive and interpreted in the way you meant them. 7 01:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Another admin asked me to look at your unblock request. First of all, putting a smiley next to an attack does not stop it from being an attack. Second, while that comment itself may seem innocuous, the rest of your conversation on that page is a continuation of your long "battle" against ClaudioSantos. I'm not saying you followed him there like CS claimed; but I am saying that your responses there are deliberately confrontational and harassing. So my use of WP:NPA as a blocking reason is shorthand for a greater pattern of bad behavior you have directed towards CS for quite a long time. Finally, I'm not WP:INVOLVED per the meaning of that term, because while you and I have edited together before, we've both agreed and disagreed; I've never, as far as I know, edited on the topic of eugenics. And our interaction wrt your fight with CS was been (as I recall) from an administrative perspective, and thus not a breach of WP:INVOLVED.
Having said all that, if an admin familiar with the history between you and CS wants to unblock you they may do so without my approval. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note to the discussion about ClaudioSantos on ANI for an admin with familiarity with this situation to take a look at this block. Sorry if I confuse you; my feeling in this case was that you and CS were both bad. Since your action was direct and clear, a short block was the correct solution to prevent disruption. For CS, because I'm requesting a much longer sanction that will significantly curtail his edits, I felt I needed community consensus first. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank, just what I wanted to hear: your prior involvement played a role in my block. Night of the Big Windtalk 21:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean involvement in the sense of WP:INVOLVED, you need to re-read that policy. Having acted as an admin in a prior dispute/incident does not preclude an admin from acting again. Otherwise, I couldn't block someone I warned for vandalism, or, if I blocked them once, I could no longer block again. Yes, the block was based upon my knowledge of the history between you two. However, if you think I breached the rules, feel free to raise this at WP:AN once you're unblocked or your block expires. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I have the feeling that I get appointed to be the black sheep now. The use of the threats to stifle an appeal of the suspension is totally inappropriate and I can not accept that. Note the use of emoticon. The "smiley face" was intended to make it clear that it was an off-handed remark, not to be taken seriously or misread as being offensive. I was ment to be humerous and as a reply on the "domestic dispute" from user Trilobitealive. The comment is ambiguous, and mosr people will read it as an innocent comment, rather than the strained reading that the blocking administrator put on it. To my opinion, the encyclopedia's interest in promoting free discussion on talk pages is being "chilled" by an over aggressive and overly sensitive reading of my words, and a strained interpretation of WP:Civil. If offense was given, none was intended. And, I apologize for anything that was misread or misunderstood. Please be aware that English is only my second language, so humerous remarks can get lost in translation. The admin who had prior involvement in my dispute, made a finding based on alleged intent and motive, and he did that because I 'had been warned in the past.' What he really did was judging my conduct in the past and used that judgement upon this case. He clearly wanted to read a personal attack in it, so he started digging to find some intent. A fair and open-minded reader would not come to their conclusion. Night of the Big Windtalk 19:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You have a long history of various kinds of disruptive editing, and in particular unconstructive fighting with ClaudioSantos, which is not helpful to the encyclopaedia, and which could easily justify an indefinite block, let alone the short block you have been given. The details of the particular incident which led immediately to your block are irrelevant, as there are ample grounds for a block even without that incident. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
E-mail
I would like to reach you via e-mail. My e-mail can be accessed through Wikipedia (if you are so inclined). I don't believe your account is so organized. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Can somebody lift the autoblock of my IP? I was blocked for three days (14:27, 15 April 2012 Qwyrxian (talk | contribs) blocked Night of the Big Wind (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (Personal attacks or harassment), not for 78 hours (A user of this IP address was blocked by Qwyrxian for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Night of the Big Wind". The reason given for Night of the Big Wind's block is: "Personal attacks or [[WP:Harassment
This block has been set to expire: 22:48, 18 April 2012.
Night of the Big Windtalk 15:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
I was blocked for 72 hours at 15 April 2012 @ 14:27 UTC. So that should have expired by now. Due to autoblock I will be blocked to 22:48 UTC: Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Night of the Big Wind". (...) This block has been set to expire: 22:48, 18 April 2012. As far as I know it is not illegal to contest a block, but in fact I get another 8 hours for doing so. What I am doing now, is appealing against the autoblock. Night of the Big Windtalk 17:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept reason:
Block has expired, the autoblock should have been gone a while back. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just saw your message now. The autoblock generally triggers if you try to log in early, before the block expires--like, even if you try to log on 1 minute early, then the system automatically drops a 24 hours autoblock. It's not because you contested the block. Alternatively, it's just the system being imperfect. My system says there's no more autoblocks here, as DeltaQuad says, so I think this should be resolved. Send me another email if it's not; I'll be back to WP in about 45 minutes. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. When you recently edited County Clare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MacMahon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Sorry, I didn't know you reverted it. Thanks for telling me. The page had several flags for duplication of sources. The date system also didn't match MLA format because of its ambiguous nature (not for 15, but for 1-12) under WP:CITE/ES and Template:Cite web to name the month. Even if you keep the format style because of the ambiguous nature of the format it tries to fix the form to the one you saw. The only reason I hit that page was because of the duplication of its sources, but it flagged it once for each error, didn't realize you were undoing it. I'll avoid it, but my suggestion would be to name the month as it doesn't change the format as noted in the template. Keeps the format and doesn't hurt readability. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have used Template:Cite news in the common form "Day Month Year". I do that on all my articles. Even in your links, nothing says that my date format is wrong... Night of the Big Windtalk 14:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just pointing out that the template you are using says to use the name, not the number of the month. The access date is fine, but you switched format in the publication date. It is so minor of a detail I was trying to explain what happened, how it happened and why it should not be ambiguous. If it was 12-04-2011 what date am I referring to? Naming the month prevents ambiguity is all. I'd actually just edit it to reflect 04 as April. That way it matches the other formats. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the examples for the Cite web point to naming the month. Like '30 April 2005' and another '|date=30 April 2005 |accessdate=6 July 2005'. See for yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the trouble. I didn't mean to cause you any headaches. If you need any help feel free to ask for my assistance. I am a very prolific Wikipedian with a sticking point for format, but I can assist in improving articles to save them from the chopping block. You seem to fill a very niche center on Wikipedia with your articles and that is not a bad thing. Keep it up and I might give you a Barnstar! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just started checking my "old" articles and replace month-numbers by month-names. It can take a while to fix that, because I have close to a 100 restaurant articles Night of the Big Windtalk 16:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The AWB tool helps fix those and make them semi-automatic. Not sure who Lotje is, but do people mess with your pages often? He inserted typos into the article. I'm working on the TypoScan project and hate typos. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lotje is, as far as I know, a Belgian lady. So she should be able to read a Dutch text.
Combined with checking the dates, I am also adding more sources. The last period I have acquiered several Michelin Guides. I use them for the new articles, but did not go back to add them. Because I have to start somewhere, I have chosen "Defunct restaurants with or once holding two or three stars", because it has just 9 articles. Seems like a good practise run. Night of the Big Windtalk 17:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you think I am right by removing the copy and paste sections and the NuStar with its endless delaying, that IP user 68.231.15.56 may have a serious matter of WP:OWN with comments like this edit summary.[6] Or this. [7] I removed it once and cited a reason, if he has problems let someone else bring it up, the article is mostly fine, but definitely not neutral. Its not worth arguing with someone who claims ownership of the article, even if they are wrong about it. Even as he is, he is useful to the project. So please, don't revert again, otherwise you break 3RR and could be in trouble from the auto flagging. Don't need a edit war over this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I requested page protection last night, but no decision yet. Night of the Big Windtalk 14:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just look through the history, that IP address has basically owned the 2012 and 2011 articles and I do not want to look how far back, but he reverts EVERY change to the manual of style fixes. Even when such changes are proper under the article. Namely, linking every date to the calendar even when it should not be linked to it. Protection doesn't matter, this user has a year long history of claiming ownership on the article. They won't protect it, its an entirely different matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.
I'm interested in the work you have done about Ireland, and chefs and restaurants.
I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project.
Nice that you make loads of templates, but do you mind to clean up your own mess? Most templates are unfinished (like Template:Largest cities of Venezuela and contain links to disambiguation pages. Please do something about it quickly. User:Night of the Big Wind
May I respectfully disagree with you here, Night of the Big Wind? The way I see it, User: Maxtremus is placing these templates on what appear to be thousands of articles, and the templateis his contribution. Let others--who benefit from the improvement that he has provided--now do the work of which you speak. It will take only a short time for those who care about the article Venezuela to deal with the matter of that one template, but if Maxtremus had to "clean up his mess", as you understandably but unfortunately call it, then hundreds of articles would be denied his improvement, as his time would be spent doing work that others can do. For example, I recently found the cities template that he did for Illinois. Yes, he failed to place the political subdivisions (counties) in the template, leaving it with some blank brackets that needed to be filled. It took me about five minutes to fix the problem, during which time he was probably able to plant the same template on probably about 30 other articles. And now those users can each take five minutes to fix up the templates they care about, while Max does more good work. It's a good model, and I support him in the way he is doing it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised this at ANI (possibly hundreds of templates based on non-reliable sources)-- not sure how cleanup will be affected, but it's a huge problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See here: Samsum, where an older census makes the city 150% bigger. And on Template:Largest cities in Turkey, Samsum makes a jump of 9 places due to the falsified numbers. On Cyprus, he replaced a map backed up by a standing concensus, by a POV map. I consider adding a gross POV, capable of stirring up an edit war, as a form of vandalism. Besides that, the edit was done without any discussion, adding to the feeling that it was not a good faith edit. Night of the Big Windtalk 14:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is vandalism, there's a reason wikipedia has a specific definition of it. The numbers aren't falsified if there was a source, although they were perhaps not the best numbers. I haven't seen any strong discussion establishing consensus around this map, although there may be one, but it's ridiculous to expect a new user to know this. Anything on Cyprus is capable of stirring up an edit war, that doesn't make it vandalism (whether or not it is gross POV). Making edits without discussion is encouraged by wikipedia's guidelines. Please retract your warnings on their talkpage, they're inappropriate and don't deal with the issues you raise. Their edits weren't test, like your first warning, or vandalism, like your second. Instead, why not post a notice that actually addresses the issue, which in both cases is a content dispute? Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Regards, CMD (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are not impropriate, so I have restored them after your deletion. Night of the Big Windtalk 07:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how they are appropriate, given that the user's edits were neither test edits nor vandalism? CMD (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is your private opinion and I respect that. But it is my opinion that all three edits were vandalism and you should respect that too. Night of the Big Windtalk 14:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my private opinion, it is the wikipedia consensus. "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism...Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." (emphasis theirs) CMD (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not, I simply want to know if you can back up the warnings you gave with any sort of policy or guideline. Can you? CMD (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since there doesn't seem to be a policy or guideline based justification for the warnings, I've removed them again. I have no dog in this other than making sure a new user is not accused of something that they didn't do. That is something that would "make [a] target feel threatened or intimidated". CMD (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
Dag Night of the Big Wind, ben jij dat? Lotje ツ (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Ik bedoelde natuurlijk ook dit, je gaat daar heel anders te werk dan hier, vandaag mijn vraagje. ~~[reply]
Dat is inderdaad de storm die ik als nickname gebruik. Tamelijk stormachtig, niet waar? Dat ik hier anders opereer klopt. Hier heb ik namelijk niet een hele serie idioten op mijn nek. Night of the Big Windtalk 13:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ik begrijp niet goed wat je bedoelt. btw, ik vind het font van je handtekening wel leuk staan, echt Olde English. Lotje ツ (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New Pages update
Hey The Banner/Archive02 :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.
On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).
On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Night of the Big Wind! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
major clarification of already-existing but confusing, incorrectly-assigned references, and other problems (e.g. one technocracy-movement ref., discussing money-less economy and technological unemployment, was assigned to extractive technologies);
cleanup and clarification of messy, ugly presentation of some of the already-existing references;
addition of verifiable, reliable, published, secondary references discussing RBE; and
very brief addition to explain only the most basic concept of RBE.
Deleting legitimate edits before discussing on the talk page is not the Wikipedia way. According to WP policies, rules and regulations, it is much better to talk here first. Please follow these policies.
Please discuss here if you have further questions or concerns, or if you need further explanations.
Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.
The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.
Sorry, grabbed the wrong (adjacent) initial diff, now changed; Re "Nice, everybody can invent his of her standards?" I suppose we all could, but for some it's more understandable. Dru of Id (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Being an admin is no status, so he is just as important as you and me. And his opinions are just as important as yours and mine. Night of the Big Windtalk 18:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat corrected what you might have tamen as not neutral here phase_(band) while i was researching online i found lots of pages with out citation nor the notability of Phase. Could you please review and resolve the issue?
Hello Night of the Big Wind, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Leopard Capital, 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 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will AfD the article, because I think it is plain company promo. Night of the Big Windtalk 14:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Politics in the British Isles. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KarlB (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
before you revert
take a look at the talk page and
look at Category:History_by_country and Category:History_of_Europe. Do you really think Ireland is so special that it should be accorded a special place when the established convention is to NOT have individual articles there when the category exists? Or are you suggesting the convention should change?
Browse around Category:Categories by country and see how often the children are bubbled up. Very rarely. This is not a standard approach, and the guideline in question (WP:EPON) is currently under dispute.--KarlB (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I get the idea that you have a problem with the mere existence of the Republic of Ireland... Night of the Big Windtalk 20:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strange comment. I have no problem with RoI. In fact if there was a vote I would vote for Ireland to link to RoI, since that's the name. What bugs me is inconsistency in categories; there isn't any reason to add that particular article to all those categories when no other country articles are; if we make the change, it should be for all countries - do you at least agree with that? --KarlB (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you help Sebastian Lake by leaving him some tips on how he can write the article properly so it doesn't read like an advertisement? It is an area that I'm not entirely comfortable working in because I just wouldn't know how to write it. Are there any similar articles that he can use as a guide while writing it?RyanVeseyReview me! 23:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your last question first: not a clue! But I promise to look into it tomorrow. Night of the Big Windtalk 00:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC) now coaching a newbie on the Dutch WP[reply]
Similar message to preceding one on Ryan's talk page:
Hello again, Big Wind. I understand that you have a stormy temperament, but no hostility or offense was intended by my comments or responses. It is mostly about frustration with the new process of getting an entry posted, and not understanding how to respond to the many comments, etc.
I have edited to entry now to reflect all of your comments and concerns -- particularly in aligning this entry with those for Southern Comfort and Domaine de Canton. Please review it and let me know what you think.
I understand that you have some interests in cuisine, etc, and some experience. I intend to post many more entries in this category (spirits, cocktails, etc) as it is underrepresented and poorly covered in Wikipedia today. So your guidance is appreciated, particularly in terms of how to effectively game the Wikipedia process. FYI, this is my profession (not noodling around on Wikipedia, but I mean, actual writing and editing, journalism, etc. in the "real world") and I'm sure there are ways I can be an asset here.
Greetings, Big Wind. I'm not sure where best to post comments or continued discussion. It seems that the talk with you and Ryan Vesey is all over the place. But I want to post this here to be sure the topics don't fall through the cracks.
1) I am seeking guidance about why you find objectionable the photos used in the Sweet Revenge Liqueur entry, so I can remedy your concerns
2) While appreciative of your fine-tuning and attention to detail, I hope to clarify whether you have a preference for non-US spellings
3) Among your "nips and tucks" is the deletion of text that explains the Cooper family distillers. This information is not extraneous. For many readers who are seeking out information about the liqueur, and other Cooper Family productions, this matters very much. The text was designed to explain that there are three living Coopers, each of whom operated their own businesses while being second and third generations of the same family. However, in this world of spirits/liquor, the distinctions matter, and so I think the piece is less informative as a result of the trims. I am not going to nail myself to a cross over it, but I'd like to understand by means of our conversation, and your explanations, so that going forward I will know how to a) better explain and justify what I've written and b) "override" other editors changes when essential, without causing offense.
Hello Night of the Big Wind, I have checked our list User:Diwas/Ordinals. There is much done, but a little leftover. I hope you will have time and you will be motivated to find and edit the right numbers and suffixes. Best regards and thanx you very much. --Diwas (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
La Petite Bande
I don't understand your concerns regarding the neutrality of the article which you tagged massively in a very general way. The text does not differ significantly from the sourced version of 28 November. The main editor is absent. Kindly say more precisely what you see as a problem, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that user:La Petite Bande is using Wikipedia to get support for an internet petition against cutbacks in their funding. On the Dutch version they had added to the article: Vandaag, anno 2012, staat het ensemble opnieuw voor dezelfde commissie met opnieuw een negatief advies. Een nieuwe petitie ging op 5 juni 2012 van start. (Eng: Today, anno 2012, the ensemble is back again for the same committee with a negative opinion. A new petition was launched on June 5, 2012.). And they included two links:
[12] De petitie rond het voortbestaan van het ensemble (Eng: The petition around the survival of the ensemble)
Both websites are part of the internetpetion campaign.
And the last fact is the adding of a picture that seems to be copyvio. Night of the Big Windtalk 00:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably true. But please distinguish between a user and an article. I think the choice of user name is an open declaration of affiliation, which I welcome. (I know the same kind of naming from de:Münchener Biennale.) But is an affiliated user a reason to tag an established article as a whole?? Do me a favour and single out with tags only what you think is questionable if you find any, - if you really think that the addition of a discography and a picture is promotional. I will also take the topic to the project. - I am not affiliated with the orchestra but love it, love especially the recordings of Bach cantatas for the liturgical year. I mentioned it several times on the Main page. A friend sent me a link to the campaign before your tags. My POV. What is yours? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I have to admit that I lived in Groningen for 22 years, but I can't remember that I ever heard them singing. Night of the Big Windtalk 21:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your recent Dunlavin edit, have you noticed that some time ago AnthonyIreland, some of whose edits appear to be incorrect or even possibly POV, added the classification "unincorporated towns" to Template:County Wicklow that you have also edited? I'm not sure this is accurate and don't have any source available to validate it. Your comments are welcome. ww2censor (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that. But as far as I know only towns (with town councils) have official status. "Unincorporated Towns" is not an official term. Night of the Big Windtalk 21:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never saw that term in Ireland either. Perhaps we should ask for some WP:RS for the change. ww2censor (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I hope that this finds you well! I editted the Template:Michelin stars in Ireland, and made suitable notes on the Template talk:Michelin stars in Ireland re the includsion of both never Michelin starred restaurants (RedM is not and never been recognised as Michelin starred), and the fact that many of the inclusions were no longer Michelin starred. Any external reader would not be made aware of this fact without reading the articles. Please either ammend the template to show former Michlein starred restaurants, or leave it as it is as present, as it was factually incorrect. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the template. I am now reverting all your edits and repair the strange mistakes you have made. You should do your homework properly and look at the sources. Night of the Big Windtalk 23:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You had a point in former and present stars, but the rest is plain nonsense. It is a shocking display of not reading the sources. Night of the Big Windtalk 00:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don`t agree with deletion of my undos in the voyeurweb article. If you would look at the edit history, mine and other constructive data been allways deleted from the same 2 users. And there been URL`s to paysites added. Thats vandalism and spam. Everything can be clearly seen for anyone in the edit history. I really don`t agree you blame me for vandalism without looking close first WHO is doing vandalism & spamming. Regards, Concloser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concloser (talk • contribs) 23:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just copy blocks of text from a forum due to copyright concerns.
You mention names in your quotes, what might not be accurate or true. So, privacy concerns are a second reason to remove it.
The info about the frontpage of voyeurweb it outdated
The present text is sufficient and neutral. That is not the case with your additions.
You were editwarring with Thecritiquelondon, a blockable offence.
"Overleg gebruiker" contains more characters than "User talk". Your new signature length is only 4 characters short of the maximum in enwiki.
Also, comparing your previous enwiki signature:
[[User:Night of the Big Wind|<span style="font-family:Old English Text MT; color:green;">Night of the Big Wind</span>]] [[User talk:Night of the Big Wind|<sub style="color:maroon;"><i>talk</i></sub>]]
with your current one:
[[User:Night of the Big Wind|<span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">Night of the Big Wind</span>]] [[User talk:Night of the Big Wind|<span style="font-family:'Arial',sans-serif; color:maroon"> <sub><i>talk</i></sub></span>]]
...your previous signature used the default font for the talk link, so the addition of font-family:'Arial',sans-serif; (and the space before <sub>) has further increased the length. In fact, since one can add a style to existing HTML tags, you could use:
[[User:Night of the Big Wind|<span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">Night of the Big Wind</span>]] [[User talk:Night of the Big Wind|<sub><i style="color:maroon">talk</i></sub>]]
Sorry to tell you, but {{tfd}} now needs to be substituted to work properly. Twinkle doesn't do this yet. Could you fix up your recent nominations? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Iew, bah I assume is some combination of Dutch and Gaelic ;) Question: why did the first version of your fix to those templates have a zero before the date number? Did you do this, or was it an error by the template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I did not look good when I copied the text from an earlier nominated template. Later I did see your correction and went through the whole set again. Night of the Big Windtalk 11:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This must be a joke! Otherwise, I can only assume that MadmanBot has gone mad! Night of the Big Windtalk 22:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up: I will be deleting, one final time, the section dealing with the controversy. It is an extremely marginal topic, and has zero place in Slovak political discourse. It is being singled out for nefarious reasons by Hungarian nationalists to further an agenda (specifically, the rehabilitation of János Esterházy, the article of whom is also in need of a great deal of work to be NPOV). As such, the article on Gasparovic is unbalanced, politically charged and creates a incomplete and skewed picture for the disinterested reader. The section adds nothing towards the article itself, and cannot be improved without an extreme amount of work on the article itself (i.e. without adding every single inconsequential dispute and controversy, either domestic or international, that Gasparovic has been part of). The fact that the content is sourced (from a single low-quality web-only source) is not reason enough to override the safeguards that exist to protect BLPs and to make sure articles are balanced and NPOV.
As I said, it will be my last revert: For me this is a test case, and if it is this simple to hijack Wikipedia for political reasons and for the purpose of editorializing history, and if any actions done to remedy this issue are blocked and on a BLP page no less, then my efforts here are futile.
Please let me know if there is anything else you need to know, or what I can do. 89.173.110.130 (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The text that you criticizes has multiple sources. The politics.hu is an English language website and hardly be accused of nationalism. Furthermore the text includes the President's and the Slovak view. And, of course the Hungarian viewpoint too. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The text has, as its source, two articles from a single medium: politics.hu. The president's view (perhaps also, at the same time, the Slovak view) is explained first in one sentence, and then refuted by two (the author was even bold enough to use the phrase "in fact", so that we may never be in doubt on what the facts of the matter are). Gasparovic's view is again revisited in two more sentences, and they are immediately refuted by two paragraphs. In total, the pro-Esteházy view is presented in eleven separate sentences.
However, the amount of space dedicated to the views of either side is irrelevant, because the whole topic is irrelevant. Simply: this is not a significant controversy, and is only being made to look like one for political purposes (again, to rehabilitate János Esterházy). Indeed, the section was written for this very specific purpose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.21.162.2 Note the words "martyr". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.110.130 (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not easy to hijack Wikipedia for your own POV. Secondly, the parts that you removed were properly sourced. I don't think the article was unbalanced, because the removed and restored parts were in a clearly marked section "Controversies". If you want to balance an article, you should have added information. Not remove undesired text and editwarring. The Bannertalk 00:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a single controversy in the section "controversies", surely it is to be expected that this is his greatest controversy, or that this is a controversy that defines the person: but in fact it is not, by far. I have explained why I chose to delete the section, not add information: if I were to add all the controversies that are of equal or greater prominence, and gave them similar weight, the article would be nothing more than a list of this persons controversies. I do not believe "being sourced" is the only criterion when considering whether to include text in wikipedia. Please have a look at my whole argument. Imagine if the article on Obama included a section titled "controversies" with three paragraphs only his disagreement to open CIA archives on UFOs. While surely true, and probably well sourced, I believe it is clear that the section would hinder, not improve the article. 89.173.110.130 (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To make it clear: it is not me or you to decide if an article is unbalanced. It is up to the community. And editwarring over it is absolutely not done. Consider yourself a happy man for having the article locked in your version AND for escaping a block for editwarring. But I'll promise you: when you continue the editwarring, you will not escape a block. The Bannertalk 13:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many people make a community? I was bold and decided to improve an unbalanced article, gave my reasons and was open to discussion. My changes were reverted without comment. It is not I that was editwarring. 89.173.110.130 (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. It is considered editwarring when someone reverts three times within 24 hours. You reverted 5 times in six hours. That is clearly editwarring.
Secondly, I don't see any attempt of you to open the discussing at the talkpage. The Bannertalk 13:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where exactly the I was supposed to start the discussion. I gave the reasons for the changes in the edit summary, if there was a better place to put it, I would gladly have done so. Instead, my changes were reverted and my reasons for making them ignored. 89.173.110.130 (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to AfD this article as well. I'd do it myself, but I find the AfD set-up process extremely tedious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? He is clearly notable as general and with his Slovak order. The Bannertalk 03:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Slovak Medal notable? OK, then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.
On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right.
It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Hi, Nice to meet you.
I used foreign language wikipedia. As i said before, i'm not familiar English wikipedia manner/rule. I dispuate with one adminstrator. I belive this is unfair i want find how can appeal it. I need sincere help and advice. not bullying. Thanks. --Ejwcun (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm shocked. I want favor communication with you. suddenly you treat me i am a wrong guy. I feel this treatment is bullying to me. bad faith. Check me if you want, but i am not. --Ejwcun (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the investigation comes out negative, I will apologize to you. But for now, sorry. The Bannertalk 19:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking at it for a while. Tried to move it to a separate section. But the source you offered was so vague that I had not a clue what to do with it. Mentioning the marriage the way you presented it yesterday and based on the source you gave, will leave it into thin air.
On the other hand, a proper history section for the period before the Allen family moved in, is worth trying. The Bannertalk 10:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am very grateful because this History is a key core area of my mother's father's FitzGerald family history & tree that isn't at this time really clear to me because recorded names are confused, I've been slowly collecting, collating, chronologically, FitzGerald family history at my 10xGreat Grandfather,
LOL, genealogy is seriously addictive. I know that out of my own experience, I came back to 1665 with my not-noble family!
Maybe you can add a section "The Fitz-Gerald of Cloyne and Ballymaloe House", describing the pre-Allen-history of the house and the family. The Bannertalk 15:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be rude, but seeing you poor understanding of linking and how to write an article, I suggest you avail of Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. I think the mentors there are better suited to guide you through the tricky process of editing on Wikipedia, especially on subjects too close to someone heart to keep the necessary distance. The Bannertalk 20:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited De Fuik (restaurant), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aalst (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Country IOC alias ISV
Which page(s) require this template to output "United States Virgin Islands"? — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 23:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You recently nominated some templates for discussion, because they are redirects to mainspace articles. Pardon my interruption if I'm misreading this, but it looks like the {{Template for discussion/dated}} tag in each case didn't end up where you intended – they are on the target article, rather than the template itself. Here is an example. I'm wondering if Twinkle was confused by the redirect? Cheers, – Wdchk (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that the "Template:Dyson" is only redirecting to the article "Dyson (company)". And the rest of the series works the same. Templates are not supposed to act as redirect to another name space. The Bannertalk 16:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand your concern (and I am about to go to TfD to support deletion of those templates). However, the point I'm making here is that the tags you applied have gone onto the article page that is the target of the redirect, i.e. it looks like you are nominating the article for deletion, not the template that redirects to the article. – Wdchk (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ai, maybe I should have nominated it as a RfD, not as a TfD. I guess I gambled and lost. The Bannertalk 18:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to persist, but possibly I'm not explaining myself well. Also, the thing I'm talking about is so odd, you might not be seeing it. Please take a look at the article Dyson (company). That article has a {{Template for discussion/dated}} on it. Shouldn't that tag be on Template:Dyson? It's the template that needs to be deleted. Thanks, – Wdchk (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand the problem. Unfortunately, I don't know how to solve it nor do I know why the articles received the nomination instead of the template. Those templates are really dodgy... The Bannertalk 19:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Civility
Hello, I'm Jax 0677. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Wikipedia needs proper templates. You should care about that. To be true, I have by now seen so many dodgy templates of you, that I am a thinking about requesting a template-ban for you. Get your act together, my friend. The Bannertalk 20:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he did not sign he is still a notable undrafted player who won the Rose Bowl.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotsfan2821 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For an article about the draft he is completely uninteresting. That is he irrelevant for an article about the draft, will not say that his own article (Darron Thomas) should be removed. It is just that he has no place in the Draft 2012 article. The Bannertalk 19:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Talk:Euthanasia. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi The Banner
Yeah, I don't get what that's all about either. Very odd.
Could you also have a look at Concertgebouw de Vereeniging? I can read a little Dutch and it looks like Whitesnake isn't the most significant musical act to have performed there. :-)
--Shirt58 (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
We cannot attribute motive to others without sourcing; I am open to other ideas on verbiage but you must stop simply blind reverted every single attempted rephrase. Help work on this on the talk page; your refusal to even consider working with others is not a good sign that you can Work Well With Others rather than edit war over your preferred phrasing; I dare say if you actually worked with others we could find verbiage which is mutually agreeable. I hope to see you on the talk page; meanwhile, find sourcing for motives or don't revert again. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, considering I am working together with my big adversery to convince you about the pure facts, is a signal of cooperation. I don't need a kind of tag team to push a POV. Start with a serious discussion and not steamrolling an existing long standing consensus. The Bannertalk 23:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of tag teaming are as useless as your strident insistence that your version is NPOV and everyone else's is POV. You do realise you're simply insulting everyone, do you not? Please try to work with your fellow editors, and not accuse them of malfeasance when they merely disagree with you. I also find your accusation of "tag teaming" bizarre, given that it was you and no one else who went looking for a fellow editor to help you keep the article the way you want. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong again. That was just one of the three talkpages I requested an extra set of eyes, without knowing which way they should go. But I think you just have to eat your sour grapes alone. Bye bye. The Bannertalk 01:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STOP PLEASE! (sorry to shout but panicking a bit)
Stop!!! Please stop!!! You've just undone a whole bunch of clarifications, revisions and updates made since the edit you reverted to on Index of fashion articles. Sorry to panic but please stop!! Mabalu (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on it, mate. The Bannertalk 16:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a rather long time to work through the sections I'd worked through single-handedly so I was a bit horrified to see it all wiped away with one mass reversion. There are loads of links in there that link to incorrect/misleading pages that you've reverted back to, for example, which I had disambiguated/correctly redirected plus LOTS of nonsense links I removed since the previous redlink removal - it would be easier to just remove all red-links from the current page before your reversion and move them to the Talk Page if that's what you are doing, but at the moment you've swept away a lot of work in one fell swoop. Mabalu (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't panic, I am now going through your edits to pick up what you have done. But in an index of existing article, redlinks are out of place. They should go to a wishlist on the talkpage. The Bannertalk 16:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have to admit I would be deeply grateful if other people were willing to help me sort this out, but it IS a bit daunting to work through single-handedly. So I do appreciate your input on this. Mabalu (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it was easier to revert and then reinstate your edits... The Bannertalk 16:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, sorry for panicking. 16:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Even with your edits available it is not easy... The Bannertalk 16:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely in - it's a woman's cap and headdress of the late 17th/early 18th century. There are lots of historical terms in the list including ancient Roman/Greek terms, so definitely in. Mabalu (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I have never seen a wallet as a fashion item. But okay, I guess other do... The Bannertalk 17:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obligation! :)
Greetings! The Obligation AfD may be bordering on a snow keep situation, and I don't really see any way it's going to end up being deleted. You were right to nominate the article in the state you found it for deletion, but there's plenty of evidence that this ought to be on Wikipedia, whether it's as a full (and sourced) article or a disambiguation page pointing at other pages like Moral obligation. Regardless, my purpose here is not to suggest you're wrong on any particular point -- frankly, I completely agree with basically everything you've said -- but to suggest withdrawing the nomination so that the issues being discussed can be hashed out on the article's talk page. I suspect the discussion is going to end up being full article vs. disambiguation page, and that's obviously not an AfD matter. Totally up to you, though, I definitely understand if you prefer to let this run its course and wouldn't think less of you for that. Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please reverse the changes
Hi, As mentioned to Cactus, I work for the School of Science and Technology. Refer to the organisation chart on the main website if you have doubts. The photos were all taken by me. And yes, the school does have more than 20 cameras (do note that we are a SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY with media studies as one of its applied studies' subjects). I notice that there are a few nice people who did some edits on Wiki so as not make it look too much like an advertisement. But a good number of the facts were completely wrong (e.g. curriculum. We do NOT offer the 'usual' subjects as we do not have Literature, offer higher mother tongues instead of the regular level, as well as ICT and I & E as core subjects to name a few.) Note that we also do not have 3 classroom blocks but 2 as one is admin. Our vice principals are also vital in the info board as they are the ones that were involved in the planning since Ministry of Education's initiative. Check the website for the facts first before you remove the elements) and my colleague had tried to make the edits to those fields. There are also some grammar mistakes in the writeup.
The previous template and category heading and style in the writeup was taken from NUS High School of Mathematics and Science.
We are an elite high school in Singapore and there's not much news about us as it is a recent Government initiative and we only had our first intake in the recent years. I feel that you as an administrator should check the facts first before removing the changes. The only reason why my colleague took effort to change the writeup was because the current facts were wrong. What you are doing is not fair at all. We were given permission by the principal to use those information on Wiki. Do you need a note from him or for him to say it in person?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumcarol (talk • contribs) 14:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I refuse. What you were writing was an advertisement, not a clean description of your school. And even an elite school can't break copyright laws, as you did with a lot of photos and some text. You can try to contact Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team for help, they can help you with information how to waive the copyright claims. But watch out with that: everybody can use the information/photos you supply, even your competitors And instead of copying your own website, you should try to back up the claims with reliable third party sources: use sources written by other people (not blogs). Newspaper articles are very usefull for that. And important: sources in English are preferred, but not necessary. Sources in other languages are also allowed. The Bannertalk 14:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you saw the changes my colleague did earlier in the afternoon, they were newspaper articles. That was why I said that you probably didn't read before you revert back to the old change. She even included references for NEWS ARTICLES ONLINE. There were no blogs quoted. And the facts were wrong. The curriculum for Year 1 and 2, introduction and facilities are completely incorrect (changes to be made were addressed in earlier message). If you think that the writeup is like an advertisement, why don't you revert to the text that my colleague did and edit them accordingly since you don't like the way we write? Just make sure your FACTS in our page is correct coz a huge chunk of information in there is WRONG.
I would really appreciate your help on this, seriously. We welcome you to edit in any ways you think it's lest promotion-y but retain the correct facts. We've had a couple of parents calling us earlier if there were recent changes to the curriculum and we do not want this wiki thing to blow out of control. Many thanks.— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Lumcarol (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)]] comment added by Lumcarol (talk • contribs) 15:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She even removed AfD and maintenance templates, what is a big nono. She has picked up two warnings by now from concerned editors. See: User talk:Spyrakle. If you like to see a neutral page about your school, seize working on it. You, Spyrakle and "Wrc Ynapmoc" are far, far, far to involved to ever produce a neutral article. So my advice is: don't edit anymore on the article. Just give the usefull sources on the talkpage of the article and then "the community" can look if it is usefull information and decide to use it or not.
When you really want that I take care of the article, be prepared to see it pruned (axed might be a better word)... The Bannertalk 15:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She didn't know as the results in the template indicated "keep" so she thought it was safe to delete them. Anyway I've already posted the information on the talk page. Appreciate if you editors could edit them without any biasness or inserting false information into the page. Most of the changes that you or the other editors have made were completely off and not factual at all. We've already inform the Ministry and they will be looking into this closely as well. Thanks--Lumcarol (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And? You guys are not the owner of the article. The Ministery has no more right to edit then you and me. The Bannertalk 17:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page Triage newsletter
Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).
The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.
I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page Curation update
Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome.
I couldn't find a curriculum of Ross Enamait by a third party, but I think my description is quite neutral. Google Books and Google Scholar results show that this man is quoted by several other authors, by the way. --Antiachtundsechziger (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but reliable independent third party sources are essential. The Bannertalk 13:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meddling in articles with a "Construction" template
Please don't. The info in the "construction" template at the top is misleading. "To assist" with editing while the constructor is working on it, causes edit conflicts when the constructor tries to save his updated version later. Thanks. Kraxler (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your last edit was from 17:23, my edit from from 0:08. That is almost 7 hours ago. Not a recent edit. You should know better then dropping an unfinished article in main space. The Bannertalk 00:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC) BTW your userpage is a mess, I think something went wrong there (table of contents through useboxes)[reply]
promotional?
Mountbatten Square is a plain descriptive article, not particularly promotional, so I removed the speedy; the mall is not notable, so i sent it to prod. United Square Shopping Mall, on the other hand, was much more promotional and an appropriate speedy. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi as you might know I was the one who made the Template:Largest cities of India "heavier" what I would like to call "independent of other templates". I replaced your template again. Don't get mad. Wait a second, let me explain.
I am trying to get this template into India (FA) [most other FAs have that, India doesn't], people are against this change, I am trying my best to get a consensus in its favour. This template is in demographics of India an article which is best suited for urban agglomerations (table 3) [realistic figure], as opposed to mere city populations (Table 2) [vague and under-representation of the real population]. I encourage you to get involved in that discussion and/or propose new changes. This way we can muster more consensus. Please do not revert the changes, that's unnecessary. Cheers! Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?) 17:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reduced the number of pictures to four to reduce the size of the template in height and in bytes. This improves the loading times. The rest of your edits seems useless to me, but I am not going to fight over that. I don't have a clue why you should not use the standard template... Your version of the template had 50% more bytes, so 50% more loading time. Could you please keep in mind that there are still people useing using internet by phoneline and with a download-cap? The Bannertalk 18:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"seems useless to me" - well, if you're going to talk in those terms, then let me tell you, I could care less about how you "feel" or what it seems to you. The previous template was using another template namely {{largest cities}}, and you think it also didn't load with the previous one? Plus, any changes to {{largest cities}} would have also consequently effected the previous version. Besides I too have bad net connection for the time being, but it doesn't take too long for me to load. You have to have patience if you have slow connection, wikipedia contents should not be reduced solely based on the possibilities of users using internet by phoneline and with a download-cap. (see Template:Largest_cities_of_Australia)
What loading time are you talking about? The template is currently just "3.24kb" and the page demographics of India is "64.8kb" or the page India is "159kb". How do you load the pages themselves? If you can load the pages now, then I don't think an increment of ~1kb (~1.5%) will make any difference in terms of load on the net speed/time. Hence, your argument kind of collapses in on itself. Stop using such lame excuses my dear. Cheers, Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?) 05:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so agressive! That is bad for your heart!
Leave the template in the state it is now (4 pictures) and I will give you no trouble. And could you please refrain from changing my edits? That is a big nono around here. The Bannertalk 08:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment here left me wondering what were you commenting on. You chose “none of the above” why? The question was and still is, "Does a largest cities/city population template add anything to an article?" I thought you and I were on the same page with that. This is more than likely to be used as an excuse to not let a template be included in some particular country-article. Let's keep aside our personal predilection about the template's images or other configurations, and be honest (I know you are). See the larger picture. Do you really believe that a largest cities/city population template adds nothing to any article? (from your comment you seemed to be leaning in favour of it)
"Yes, I believe that a "biggest city template" can add something to an article. But no, I don't think it is always a worthy addition." - We are trying to discern whether or not these templates add any value to the article, and you say yes but may not always be worthy of inclusion. Well, inclusion, that's a different issue. We can have as many discussions as we want on the talk pages, but what we need to establish is whether or not these templates are inherently useless. Do you think they are inherently useless? Come on. Why "none of the above", I still don't get it, you could have said that in any section you wanted. Comment here, if that's okay with you! Let's not take everything we discuss here to RFC. Let me first understand your views here. If that's acceptable to you, of course.
Hi. I don't know why you rv my edits as vandalism; they were no such thing. Please re-review. Thanks. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed and undone again. No external links in plain text, amongst other things. The Bannertalk 22:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That does not constitute vandalism as far as I know, which is a term that should not be thrown around lightly. I will work on the "external links in plain text" issue. Quis separabit? 22:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the description of sources in a way that does not reflect the title of the article itself, is utterly useless. The Bannertalk 22:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey; is this problem continuing to happen for you? I can't seem to replicate it :S. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I really need a reply soon: we're stopping development in a matter of days. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bosnia template
Hi. you changed name of this template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Largest_towns_of_the_Federation_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina That name is wrong because list in that template actually show populations of municipalities, not of cities or towns. Municipalities in Bosnia are administrative units that usually include several towns and villages, i.e. municipality of Tuzla include city of Tuzla and other towns and villages nearby. Furthermore, this source which was used for that template clearly say that it refer to population of municipalities (općine): http://www.fzs.ba/saopcenja/2010/14.2.1.pdf I suggest that you revert this back to "Template:Largest municipalities of..." and, if you know how, you should change description in template itself so that it say that it refer to municipalities, not to cities and towns. PANONIAN 07:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the numbers in the articles before reverting. Otherwise, seek the appropriate numbers instead of changing the essence of the template. There is a whole series "Biggest city of...". Why should this one suddenly be "Biggest municipality of ...". That makes no sense. The Bannertalk 07:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I am aware of your reputation and ArbCom case.[reply]
You are kidding by referring to a census taken in 1991, over 20 years ago? Ever heard of booming towns when peace was restored? Besides that, it is far better to update the population numbers to the most recent reliable source then changing the scope of the template. The Bannertalk 07:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last population census in Bosnia was in 1991. And used source clearly say that it refer to municipalities. Do you want to say that used source refer to urban populations? PANONIAN 08:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the World Gazetteer, do we need a template of the biggist cities at all? From my Dutch coloured point of view, only Sarajevo (300 855), Tuzla (99 543), Zenica (93 233) and Mostar (68 392) are cities. We can debate if Bihać is a city with its 37 511 inhabitants. To me, all places with fewer then 50 000 inhabitants are not cities at all. The Bannertalk 08:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that and I removed this template from the article until it is fixed. PANONIAN 07:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Was it really neccessary to revert all of my edits without any explanation whatsoever? Do you truly believe that all of my edits (including mere grammar corrections) were vandalism or what? I even explained them. In this edit, I just made succession far less confusing (and more correct) to the readers and succession in an infobox such as this one is incredibly messy and impossible to understand. Thanks, 92.36.157.154 (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your edits were just plain incorrect. The Bannertalk 11:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds as if all of my edits were incorrect, which simply isn't true. It's actually quite sad that you refuse to discuss this and simply dismiss my edits. If you don't care to explain your actions, I'll reinstate those edits of mine which were unquestionably correct (for example removing places of birth and death from lead sentences, which are never included in the lead sentence). I don't understand why you would remove the "royal house" parameter from infoboxes, when it's natural to have one. I also don't understand why you would reinstate claims that William III's sons reigned as Princes of Orange - that is just absurd. I'm sure you know that the Principality of Orange was not a sovereign state back then. Is that what you call "incorrect"? Furthermore, File:Prinses Henriette Maria Stuart.jpg is obviously not a portrait of Mary II of England. These are just some examples. It seems to me that you just went on to revert all my edits without bothering to see what is it that I changed. 92.36.132.167 (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Charles of Sweden infobox
Greetings, The Banner! While I'm not entirely OK with removing all the parameters from the infobox, I do believe that including all is a bit too much. In fact, I was the one who removed them a year ago or so. Do you disagree? Surtsicna (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you have a better explanation then "confusing", I am willing to listen. The Bannertalk 16:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you don't know how Wikipedia works. I don't need you to listen because I don't need your approval. You cannot just undo an edit because you don't like it. You don't have any explanation whatsoever, so criticizing the quality of my explanations is a bit tacky, don't you think? Surtsicna (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am just asking for your arguments, not for an angry reply. The Bannertalk 16:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if I was too rash. My cookies and internet connection issues have been bothering me, though, but I thought my arguments were clear. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that you are identical to the two IP's? The Bannertalk 16:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And if you really want to use [Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Opening paragraph] as an argument, then you have a few articles to correct along that way... The Bannertalk 16:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been unable to remain logged in. For a few days, clicking the Edit button or refreshing the page seemed to have the effect of logging out. "Sorry, we've lost your data and couldn't process your edit" sort of thing. If there's a lot to correct, I sure do hope others will join in, as places of birth and death are nowhere to be found in lead sentences of featured biographical articles. Surtsicna (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
85.250.126.76
Hi, Thanks for reverting 85.250.126.76 (talk·contribs)'s vandalism. In case you're not aware, this person is a long running vandal who adds nonsense to articles on modern militaries (typically, though not always, the militaries of developing countries). Please let me know if you see them again and I'll block the account. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I did not respond to him as a vandal but just to his habit of adding unsourced information with loads of links to disambiguation pages. But it is good to know that he is just a vandal what makes cleaning up his mess far easier. He is highly visible on the Toolserver-page "Articles With Multiple Dablinks" where he suddenly storms the top places in the list when active again. Thanks for the warning. The Bannertalk 12:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template redirects RfDed on 14 September
Thanks for working through that big list. To make it clear when you've completed them, please could you leave an obvious edit summary so it doesn't get accidentally overlooked. Cheers, Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will, I didn't do it yet because I am afraid to annoy him. The big list is embarrassing enough... The Bannertalk 15:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In case I wasn't clear, I was meaning when you've finished the entire list rather than each individual item (although edit summaries are always good). Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page Curation newsletter
Hey The Banner. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.
Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page Curation newsletter
Hey The Banner. I'm dropping you a note because you've been using the Page Curation suite recently - this is just to let you know that we've deployed the final version :). There's some help documentation Wikipedia:Page Curation/Introductionhere that shows off all the features, just in case there are things you're not familiar with. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Middlesbrough
Hi there. This is not a moan at you but a request for information! :) I was very interested by this edit in which using some kind of clever tool you changed Middlesborough to Middlesborough. This is sort of good-but-bad in that it should simply have become Middlesbrough. (This is one of the things I do a little bit of work on here, in a mainly depressed and desultory kind of way.) Now, as I say, I'm absolutely not here to go yadda yadda at you about this except that, knowing nothing but nothing about how such tools work, I wondered, does it have a dictionary or something? Because if it does then I guess I should contact the owner and try to get it fixed, whereas if it's just a simple mistake or rather mistakette from you then I should simply offer you a cup of tea, bid you good day and move on! Please advise... thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have used WPCleaner in an attempt to remove links to disambiguation pages from the article. It was quite disheartening, due to the many unsolvable links. In this case "Middlesbrough" redirects to Middlesbrough (disambiguation). WPCleaner then offered all the links on that page as possible solutions and to me opinion, Middlesbrough was the link intended. Unfortunately, WPCleaner does not pickup typos in links, it just sees a link to a disambiguation page.
You can find more information about WPCleaner here: Wikipedia:WPCleaner. I hope that solves your question. The Bannertalk 20:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, thanks very much for the explanation. I shall read up on it a bit. I'm mildly disappointed because I thought I was close to stumbling over the Secret Middlesbrough Spelling Switch which when flicked would suddenly make the world a better place. (Mind you I would need to find something else to obsess about then, so ho hum.) Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not vandalism
Please be careful what you revert as vandalism. This categorisation maybe controversial, but Kevorkian was indeed convicted of second degree murder. It is helpful to take time to look through edits and if making changes, to give clear and accurate edit summaries. Thank you Span (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was indeed convincted, but Kevorkian was not Armanian. He was born and bred American. The Bannertalk 07:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was ethnically Armenian. I'm just advising you to leave summaries rather than rolling back things you don't agree with. Thanks Span (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly did miss your suggestion for a time-limited block, but glad to see we are on the same page. My prediction is nothing will happen this time, but maybe if it comes up again, and the same suggestion comes up again, it will fall on more receptive ears.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Ireland
On Wikimedia Ireland, I saw you were an interested user. Someone needs to submit bylaws to the chapter committee for approval, and you seemed an experienced user, so I am reminding you. If your'e wondering, I am not an interested user.--Lucky102 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I have not a clue what you are talking about. Bylaws??? The Bannertalk 20:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wrong person!--Lucky102 (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Totally curious now. Do you have a link where I can see more? The Bannertalk 20:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found it, read it, and still admit that I can serve best a plain foot soldier. The Bannertalk 21:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your latest edits to the County Cork and Mayo templates. I have also replied to you at the talk pages for the both templates. The confusion seems to arise because you are under the impression (which I believe is sincere) that towns in Ireland have councils, otherwise they are not towns, but that is not true. Most towns in Ireland do not have councils. — O'Dea (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice when you did your homework properly: see page 21The Bannertalk 20:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have cited this document before. Nothing has changed since the first time you cited it. It is a list of "Towns with Legally Defined Boundaries" which are a subset of Irish towns, meaning it is not an exhaustive list of Irish towns, meaning that most Irish towns (as defined by the CSO themselves) are absent from this list. That same document you refer to mentions the 664 towns in the state on page 17: "Towns without legally defined boundaries are called "census towns" ... There were 664 such towns in 2006." Please note that phrase "664 towns". The CSO has a more comprehensive list here. I will refrain from making snide comments like yours about homework. — O'Dea (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you take a look at Census town? A census town is just a statistical feature, not a real town... As example: O'Briensbridge-Montpelier. Sorry, but you should know the differences in legal status between a town with town council, a market town and a census town. The Bannertalk 23:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do, because I am getting highly annoyed by this POV-pushing. The Bannertalk 18:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have no monopoly on being "highly annoyed". I have been preparing comments to bring to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, as Asarlaí suggests, and will present them there when time permits. This needs to be resolved. The Banner, I have told you before to stop issuing personal remarks. It it not "POV pushing" when I cite objective sources, even if you disagree with them. You, yourself, cite the Central Statistics Office, so you believe they are a valid source. I am using them too. That is not POV. If you persist with mixing personal remarks into what should be simply a discussion of towns, I will post a formal complaint against your violation of Wikipedia policies. — O'Dea (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, what you do is pushing your own point of view, based on the mistaken idea that a census town is the same as a town. If you want to bring to WP:ANI about that, I will not stop you. I am complelety not sensitive for threats like that. About the CSO-sources. The link I gve to their site points to information similar to the Local Government Act 2001, off which I gave you the link earlier. It is still the Government who decides when a place is a town and worthy of receiving a town council. Not the CSO. The Bannertalk 07:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've created John Lee (ice hockey). I was researching him last night to figure out what to do with the redirect. Now, I don't know much about ice hockey, but it looks like the subject clearly fails WP:NHOCKEY. StAnselm (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it, as he is drafted by the Florida Panthers. Why he only started playing professional in 2012, I don't know. By his stats clearly shows that he played four games for the USA u19 in 2007. The Bannertalk 21:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.
However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.
Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sth personal
Hello, I was wondering why my edits (all) were reverted. Is it something personal? --Welshwind (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have told you before that the normal way of working on Wikipedia is based on consensus. With radical edits as mergers or title changes it is normal to discuss it first to obtain consensus (= broad agreement) about a proposal. And only after reaching consensus, the change is put through. That can take time, true. But it is best for the encyclopedia. The Bannertalk 10:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind to propose consensus, then. You see, only the two of us seem to be interested in tripe soups. Would you mind to propose a consensus rather than reverting all of my edits? I would like to see sth saying that tripe soups are present in most human cultures, and give far more examples. Central and Eastern Europe plus the Middle East is not really enough, because tripe soups are also present in the rest of Europe, Africa, Asia and even the Americas. If you could sort of revert your revert and adjust it to your taste a bit more, that would be great.--Welshwind (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By now another guy is looking into it. And I have requested input from Wikiproject Food and Drink about the merger. Let us see what the community thinks about it. We are in no hurry. The Bannertalk 12:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! AN/I Notice
First of all. I did not request this AN/I, nor am I on ChemTerm's side. I am required by policy to post this notice here because I have posted at the post however.
I provided all the evidence I could against him, because you have not done anything wrong. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm just noticing you that I'm pretty much fuming in real life right now at this whole situation.. If you think you can handle it on your own, and maybe defend any accusations against me, for a while I'd appreciate it. I will try to do it myself, but I'd rather not defend you or myself than get blocked for being uncivil.. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope he got the message now. The whole case is just sooooo annoying. For now it is closed, let's leave it that way. I guess mr. C. will screw himself even without our help. The Bannertalk 11:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Entries about Galway branch libraries
Dear Bannerman
I am disappointed that you felt you had to remove several entries on our branch libraries from Wikipedia.
The public library is a public service. It is not a commercial organisation. Public libraries from all over the world have posted information on their services on Wikipedia.
A library is not a profit making business. It is an essential community resource.
The public library service is deeply democratic, egalitarian and freely available to everyone.
The local library is one place where under-pressure parents can bring a child without them having to put their hand in their pocket to pay something out. Nearly all libraries run free story-times and workshops, and a parent can bring home some quality books for their child as good as (and frequently better) than books which the more well-to-do families find for their children in the bookshops.
It continues to be the case that the traditional role of the public library - in buying on behalf of the community that which individual members could not personally afford - is in these times more important than ever.
I think it is important that these facts should be brought to the widest possible audience.
I would be really grateful if you would undo the revisions which you have made to our Wikipedia entries.
The point is that the way you did put in the information, was plain promotional. Opening times are not encyclopedical interesting, nor is the number of books and exhibitions. Nothing special about that. It is good enough to add the library into a list of local amenities, unless a library has something special that makes her stand out of the ordinary (special building, name derived from a celebrity, opening by the president, disasters). To make it a bit more clear. On Clifden I have changed your promotional edit into a short and factual text.
I am aware of the importance of libraries, as I once trained to become a librarian (but never did, in fact). To come back to the point about the entries: what is important for the library system is not always important to th encyclopedia. You have to judge and balance what is important and what not. Especially when someone is closely involved (as you clearly are), this judgement is extremely difficult. (Further reading: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide).
I hope that this explains why I removed all your library entries. If you need help, please ask. The Bannertalk 12:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bannerman,
It is not my intention to carry on a long correspondence with you on this matter.
Many public libraries do post information on Wikipedia about their opening times, number of books and their other activities.
To take just one example, the Foothills Branch Library in the United States records the following on Wikipedia:
that it houses nearly 160,000 books.
that it has has 27 standard internet PCs
that it as has two large meeting rooms
that the library has a room designed especially for puppet shows and other activities
that the library is open Monday 1-8:00 P.M., Tuesday and Wednesday 10:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. etc.
In effect, I have just redirected that local library branch to the town it belongs to. This article was beyond salvation. The Bannertalk 12:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bannerman,
I think I am beginning to understand your point of view. May I just ask for one further clarification?
The following is the opening paragraph from the Wikipedia article on the Vancouver Public library.
"The Vancouver Public Library (VPL) is the second largest public library system in Canada, with more than 2.8 million items in its collections, 22 branches, approximately 375,000 cardholders, and nearly nine million item borrowings annually.[3] The administration centre, and also the largest branch, known as the Central Branch, is located at Library Square in downtown Vancouver (pictured).[4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Public_Library
Do you consider this to be promotional?
Thanks,
Pat McMahon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galwaylibrarian (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are talking about a library system, not a single branch. It is likely that the "County Galway Library System" (or whatever the name may be) will be notable, assuming that there are enough independent and reliable sources available that write about the County Library.
With the article about the county library in place, you can add the library to the various places with a text as "Part of the services on offer in .... (placename) is the ... (name of the library) with a collection of ... items. This is a public library and part of the ... (name of the county library system).
I moved all the categories to the /doc pages, see WP:Template documentation. This is no reason to duplicate the categories on the template page. Please undo your reverts, they are incorrect. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, clear. I looked rather strange. The Bannertalk 22:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'm fixing them and adding this line: <!-- PLEASE ADD THIS TEMPLATE'S CATEGORIES AND INTERWIKIS TO THE /doc SUBPAGE, THANKS --> --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the information on each of the churches at the websites provided, and it would seem as though all except the eponymous one were built in the 20th century. I've removed those, and moved the Sollentuna Church image to the administrative history section, where it is mentioned. Cheers, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Croaghaun & Slieve League
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
For a couple of year there is a simmering problem on Croaghaun and Slieve League. Main problem is dat Niallo301 keeps adding that Croaghaun is the highest sea cliff on the island of Ireland. It seems impossible to make him understand that Croaghaun (on Achill Island) is located on a different island then the Slieve League. User talk:Niallo301 shows clearly his warnings and blocks about this case. A friendly request to stop this POV-pushing is now met with hostility. He is now also accusing me of incompetence, saying that Wikipedia has a credibility problem (as defence of introducing mistakes!!) and declaring that he keep pushing to further the tourism to Achill Island.
He is getting under my skin now and I feel an urge coming to get really rude against him (but I have the feeling to talk to a concrete wall). Can someone give me advice how to deal with this guy? The Bannertalk 01:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC) As a measure of self-protection: bedtime[reply]
Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page. Message added 21:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.
In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I don't understand why you have marked the article for The Farm Group (2) for deletion when every single fact in the article is a direct quote from each of the 30 citations within the article's reference section; all of which come from recognised national British publications Broadcast Magazine and Televisual Magazine. This is not a promotional piece, it is a factual piece of information built from hard evidence from recognised journalistic sources and I don't understand why this article has been marked for deletion when there are many, many other articles on wikipedia which have much less (if any) references to back up their facts, some examples below:
Please can you explain? Also, I have added links to the page from the following pages so that it is no longer an orphan and have fixed all of the link problems:
It reads like an advertisment, that is why I nominated it. Beside that, every article is judged on its own merites, so it is useless to compare with other articles. See: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and Wikipedia:SpamThe Bannertalk 18:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- KC9TV 04:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organic food
Hi, I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organic food under WP:SK#2d. I understand you may be upset with what's happening over at organic food but making an AFD nomination like that which many editors would consider pointy is not the way to go. If other editors are getting to you, I suggest taking a step back with a wikibreak. Come back refresh, so you can continue to enjoy Wikipedia. Regards -- KTC (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Their stance to allow only reliable sources related to medicins in an article about food and agriculture it utter nonsense. Especially, because WP:MEDRS does not mention food. Those guys seem to close their eyes for reality and in the process produce a one-sided, POV-article. But no harm, I will work around it. The truth must be said and even Big Companies can be brought down. The Bannertalk 01:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make you aware and so you can correct your behavior; If you continue with your incivility, aggressiveness, POINTyness and WP:IDHT mentality, towards Yobol and on this article page, I will take the issue to ANI or elsewhere, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, making threats to scare me away? Not gonna work, boy, that is not gonna work. But make my day and go to AN/I. Then your incivil and threatning behaviour will also be scrutinized. The Bannertalk 19:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed that you have interpreted my advice as a threat. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is your problem, but it is loud and clear a threat as it is nothing more then "flip off or get hammered". The Bannertalk 17:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IRWolfie, if I were you, I would think very hard about the scrutiny your own behavior will get should you file an ANI on Banner; it is clear you have a problem with an inappropriate insistence upon MEDRS level sourcing where it is not required on multiple articles. But Banner, trout slap and noogies to you for the Afd, that was kind of pointy! ;) Montanabw(talk) 19:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, not the best decision. But anger and frustration got the best of me. Sorry, I am only human and I am quite allergic to tunnelvision and POV. The Bannertalk 21:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been there. Take a peek in a few minutes at the edits I'm making to the article; it might help. (or not) Montanabw(talk) 22:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your last edit was immediately reverted by the MEDRS-police... The Bannertalk 22:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I did step back. Not because a bunch of l*****cs, but because of demands of real life. An exam is approaching fast... The Bannertalk 22:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was amused that someone also restored it. Naturally, the "wrong" version got protected. Well, off to the talk page drahmahz... Good luck with exams. Personally, I use WP in part to HIDE from my students this time of year! :-D (among other things I do, I'm an adjunct prof at a local college) :=P Montanabw(talk) 20:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Organic food".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk 19:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Banner, noted your diff. Just so you know, I'm seeing some interesting tactics also. Hang in there and be sure to read WP:BAIT because I think that's what's happening. Keep your cool, and Illegitimi non carborundum. Also, I don't while advise prefacing any actual comments with "with all due respect", it's sometimes fun to THINK about it as you write. Also feel free to check out my "stress thermometer" on my talk page and feel free to steal it for your own! I find that if I make myself adjust the stress rating BEFORE firing off things, I often write better responses! So hugs and smiles, and we shall let the drahmahz begin! Montanabw(talk) 20:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting enough, I can't find why... The Bannertalk 00:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After asking around, I found that the article was never properly assessed when promoted to GA. When finally reviewed is was quickly taken down due to several instances of "citation needed". The Bannertalk 01:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind suggestion to archive my old discussions. Please, can you do arrange it for me? Thanks so much! Regards, --Fabio Descalzi, aka Fadesga (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 Bannertalk 00:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good luck with your experiment! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still an experiment, though. Wikipedia outlasts any group of editors in these things, my research has shown.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and it will outlast Common Outcomes. This is plain misusing Common Outcomes and maybe even POV-pushing. The Bannertalk 02:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 • hasspoken 13:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 Bannertalk 14:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 • hasspoken 12:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Wikipedia has a strong, but ignored and denied, pro-USA stance regarding to schools, not a neutral view. Plain double standards. The Bannertalk 14:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia. With the present US-centered POV lost, you can expect a massacre... The Bannertalk 04:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Bannertalk 05:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cast list
I would argue that a cast list, like a recipe, is generally not copyrightable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In general, true. But it becomes a different story when also layout and notes are copied. The Bannertalk 23:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per this requestTemplate: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·Talk To Me! 00:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have already opened a discussion on the talkpage. Hope it works. The Bannertalk 00:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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·Talk To Me! 00:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to User:Night of the Big Wind/Workpage16, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Please remove the article categories from your user page drafts per: WP:USERNOCAT. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Done William Smith Ziegler. It took me more time to find the mistake then to solve it 
Night of the Big Wind talk 08:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
wikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
is never ment to be an personal attack. The smiley there is not for nothing. It was a reply on an edit of Trilobitealive who wrote I've got to admit that I feel like I've intruded upon a domestic dispute between intimate partners who have been arguing for a long time. Night of the Big Wind talk 2:30 am, Today (UTC+8)
