Misplaced Pages

User talk:The Banner

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trackinfo (talk | contribs) at 17:21, 15 September 2014 (→Bad faith). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:21, 15 September 2014 by Trackinfo (talk | contribs) (→Bad faith)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Misplaced Pages key policies and guidelines (?)
Content (?)
P
G
Conduct (?)
P
G
Deletion (?)
P
Enforcement (?)
P
Editing (?)
P
G
Style
Classification
Project content (?)
G
WMF (?)
P
I try to the best of my knowledge and belief to contribute to the small red block of the image

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Dear User "The Banner",

I really appreciate your work on Michelin star restaurants in the Netherlands. It is a superb source of data. Actually, together with a colleague, we would like to use this data for a research project. I have some additional questions related to the data and it would be great if we could get in contact about it. I have created the Misplaced Pages account "Researchguy11", but I am not sure if Misplaced Pages allows for communication and/or if you are interested in sharing your insights on Michelin star restaurants and your documentation efforts. If so, maybe you can write me on my "Researchguy11" page. Thanks and all the best! Researchguy11 (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Point of grammar

On Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/El Dorado Kitchen, you said "I'm inherently bias as I'm the person who wrote the article." You are not bias. Bias as a noun means a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice. You are not the tendency. You may be subject to the tendency.

Bias as a verb means to cause partiality or favoritism in (a person); influence, especially unfairly which is what you appear to be trying to communicate has happened.

To be correct, you would say "I'm inherently biased.." using the past participle tense of the verb bias as the object of the verb "to-be" meaning you are subject to that partiality. A participle is a verb that modifies the noun. In this case, the verb is bias, and the noun is you.

Hope this helps. The Dissident Aggressor 16:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, that is not my text... The Banner talk 16:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Duh. My bad. <deliberate use of poor grammar> The Dissident Aggressor 16:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The Banner talk 17:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of MJ Mohamed Iqbal Page

Dear Banner,

Mr. Iqbal is well known personality as well as Islamic scholar in UAE (In Dubai). Iqbal is living in Dubai serving to Tamil and Islamic Society in so many ways. I can prove by providing photographs, Unfortunately very few web links are available at this moment. He is a freelance writer and he had been written so many articles in different topics, and they were published in magazines, newspapers, tabloids etc.

Iqbal is deserve to be in Misplaced Pages. Please advise what I should do to put about him back to Misplaced Pages. Your advise is very much appreciated. Nm.imthiyas (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No one has a right on a Misplaced Pages article. Both times now you have failed to prove that mr. Iqbal is notable. That is the problem. The Banner talk 17:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

In what way you are expecting to prove him? I really don't understand, Only web links can decide a persons notability? Nm.imthiyas (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Cavern airfield

Hello, why did you nominate it for deletion? What is wrong? FFA P-16 (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Double text, no need for a separate article. You can read that on the nomination page. And I note this page on the Dutch Misplaced Pages: nl:Overleg gebruiker:FFA P-16/blockmsg The Banner talk 19:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

But its not a dubble text. The cavern airfield was a project, it was not built. In this project the aircrat should start inside the mountain trough a tunnel like runway. the aircraft caverns (the article woh is said as dubble) are built and locatet on diffrend geographical locations. by aircraft caverns the aircrat did not start inside the caverns, the aircraft have to be pullet out by aircraft tugs and have to taxi to the runnway. FFA P-16 (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

Nitramrekcap: SPI

Following Drmies' advice at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#Enough is enough. I filed an SPI for the new IP emanation of the same: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Nitramrekcap

The new IP is blocked already --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring in organic food

Hi The Banner. This is to give you a friendly reminder that your recent reverts over at Organic food fall into edit warring when you ignore either requests to discuss content at the article talk page or discussions that have already taken place. It looks like you've been an editor long enough to know better, so I'll spare the links to relevant pages in the hopes that the behavior was just a temporary mishap in judgement. When editors are asking for content to be set aside for a moment for a breather so discussion can occur about resolving content discrepancies, it's not particularly helpful to stir things up with pointy reverts while not engaging in the discussion after being asked to do so. If you feel strongly about something, bring it to the talk page (and follow the discussion that's already occurred) rather than relying on reverting and edit summaries outside the discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not edit warring and you know that. The fact that you guys remove everything what is positive is making the article POV, and you and friends are to blame for that. The Banner talk 09:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Continuing to revert while ignoring the article talk page after being repeatedly asked to bring concerns there is one of the very definitions of edit warring, not to mention disruptive. Positive or negative content has never been brought up for the issue being discussed, and it's quite difficult to say the content in question is either positive or negative. The wording and content itself are rather neutral. It's been an issue of sourcing as the current content being discussed doesn't have a source directly supporting it due to synthesis issues as multiple users have pointed out now. It seems like you might have some other ax to grind with your deleting positive content remark, so I highly suggest stepping back for a bit and look into what's actually being discussed at the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You keep removing stuff and I have to step back? Are you kidding? You are now the one edit warring! The Banner talk 14:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed the content as part of the ongoing discussion, especially WP:STATUSQUO. We're discussing the content, while you were reverting content without joining the conversation. So yes, I am asking you to step back and read the discussion (not leave) because of that. That is why I was reverting your reverts. The whole point of the article talk page is to discuss and come to consensus. Right now we have multiple editors pointing out a sourcing issue, and Redddbaron is at the very least discussing it without resorting to reverts. You weren't doing that. Ignoring that discussion is disruptive, and I've been trying to point out how the content issue can be remedied without disruptive editing. Just set the content aside temporarily and see how we can work on it in the talk page. That's all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
First removal and then talking when reverted is no serious attempt to get consensus. The Banner talk 15:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
At this point all I can say is drop the pitchfork and read the actual talk page conversation and what I've explained to you. You're getting a very different idea of what's going on than what we're actually trying to do. Settle, read, and then discuss on the article talk page if you have something constructive to add. I can't offer much more help than that at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Pico de gallo

Hi. Thanks for trying to clean up the edit by the IP editor that I reverted earlier. However, you seem to have removed quite a lot of content from the previous versions of the article (before the IP editor came along), such as the whole "health issues" section. Also, quite a lot of the nonsense text remains, e.g., "fried tortilla chips is an option, can be transformed easily into guacamole but is not replaced by this" and the claim that it is "paradoxical" (rather than, say, obvious and complementary) that wet salsa goes well with dry pork. Honestly, I think my revert was the right thing to do: the 22nd June version of the article was a higher quality article than the version that's there now. Dricherby (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact, everything about salsa can be throw out, as it is something different. The Banner talk 10:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

Goodbye Miss Supranational.

Well - goodbye Miss Supranational. Finally, the heels have come off that particular meat show. Now we can start clearing out the dead wood. I've already XFD'd a couple of the winners and requested speedies for others. Mabalu (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have the nasty feeling that many of those article are created or edited by sockpuppets/meatpuppets of user Mrdhimas. When you check google, you can see that he is a professional organiser of beauty pageants. The Banner talk 11:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey - For your info: I am trying to kick off a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people)#Beauty pageant contestants, for your info. I think given the extent of the problem, we need some FIRM rules establishing. There has been a precedent in the past to consider individuals notable as national title-holders - and given that we have stubs on non-entity sportspeople who were once in a football team in the 1960s and never heard of again, I personally don't have a problem with these national title-holders having equivalent stubs (although I don't have to LIKE it.) Mabalu (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Rôtisserie Rue du Bois was accepted

Rôtisserie Rue du Bois, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!

TheCatalyst31 07:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I am truly amazed and delighted. Thank you very much. The Banner talk 10:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Talk page layout

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Talk page layout. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

Re: Thirteen

I appreciate your congratulations, but the article did not get promoted unfortunately, so they are unnecessary.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, you never made a comment supportive or unsupportive of promotion, so I am curious as to whether you believe the article was FA-ready or not. Thanks--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Oops, you are right, it was the article Megadeth that got promoted. Even when I had know that there was a vote, I would not have voted. As stated in my comment, I do not know anything about Megadeath and do not appreciate the music. So, I would not have been able to judge it. The Banner talk 18:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Well, in any case, I appreciate your input on the review. Happy editing--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

George Tiller

Excuse me! The NYTimes article specifically says that he struggled with substance abuse, overcame his addiction and served on the Kansas Medical Society's committee on impaired physicians. The only thing I have added is the fact that the substances in question were prescription pain killers. Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Nor the painkillers, nor the addiction is mentioned in the article, so you should not mention it. The Banner talk 07:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have reposted it without the words "addiction" or "pain killers". Just words used in the NYT article.
Dr. Tiller's success in overcoming his addiction and his service on the impaired physicians committee were a source of pride for him, and should be mentioned in any biographical article about him. Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
QUESTION: Are you ok with my transferring the discussion of the O'Reilly factor's comments on Dr. Tiller to its own section? I don't think it belongs in the CAREER section; O'Reilly's opinions have nothing to do with Dr. Tiller's career! Also, I have added a paragraph detailing Dr. Tiller's board certification, professional membership, and staff position to the CAREER section. If you revert these entries, please leave a note on my TALK page explaining why. Thanks. Goblinshark17 (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Bad faith

Copied from another post: We have WP:Before as a guideline, ignored by you on dozens of such articles. It is not rocket science to google each of these names. Major American Newspapers, otherwise known as WP:RS are doing coverage of each contestant. There is also a ton of gossip chatter. To say there is nothing but Facebook is a misrepresentation of the facts. The worldwide pageant is nothing but a publicity event centered around these contestants. For that one week, they are celebrities. For a different period of time, each of them is a national celebrity in their homeland winning the national pageant. What completely irks me is I have to spend hours of my time rescuing each of these articles separately, getting deep into a subject I care little about, because you have spread this damage around in little pieces, instead of taking this subject as a whole and making one reasonable discussion that I probably would have missed. Now I have to search, copy, paste. This could have been avoided with a little effort on your part but apparently removing content (justified or not) from wikipedia is more important to you. That is bad faith. Misplaced Pages does not prosper with editors behaving like this. Trackinfo (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not an advertising medium. Misplaced Pages is also wider than the USA. That you don't agree, okay, but stop assuming bad faith. Most of them have a very temporarily fame and are just notable for one event. The Banner talk 21:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I got a "notification" of mention thingie but don't see my name here. Anyhow, what Trackinfo is saying explains why he is pissed. It is not a surprise. Winning a nation's primary beauty pageant is simply a big deal in current world culture. Far more than being a footie player who appears in a few games in 1972 for Manchester United or won a bronze medal at the 1904 Olympics, i.e., the thousands and thousands of "one event" instances which are never thought to fall under that policy.--Milowent • 14:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It is your (I certainly think erroneous) interpretation that it is a preliminary round. You are WP:wikilawyering. These are clearly separate competitions on separate dates in separate locations. That by definition makes it multiple events. You wish to narrowly interpret these as all one competition in order to achieve an outcome-deletion of content. Deletion of content on a massive scale by removing a subject. If you look at many of the articles you are trying to delete you'll find a succession chart of National Champions, like Miss Gabon or Miss Universo Uruguay. These "preliminary" events are a big deal to in their countries--on their own. It is not humanly possible for you to have lived in each of these countries to know otherwise. To my knowledge, Miss America doesn't even have a world title to advance to. Are you wanting to delete that?

This is your intervention. I'm trying to help you get your head straight:

Philosophically, you and I butt heads not because you have attacked a subject I care about, this clearly is not. Its the general idea that you wish to improve wikipedia by removing content that other people have written and I think wikipedia is improved by gaining content. Don't get me wrong, I delete content too, content that is factually incorrect, content that cannot be backed up by sources. Bullshit. What has me on the warpath is you are making statements that are factually incorrect, stating repeatedly that there are no sources (while I continue to prove there clearly are), in order to remove content that you as an individual deem unimportant. And you don't back off when you are proven wrong. That is a judgement you should not be making on behalf of the world's knowledge base. These articles and supporting stories would not exist if other people didn't care about this subject. Even the Facebook level chatter wouldn't exist if people didn't care about this. More importantly is the fact that you need to reduce yourself to being a liar in order to achieve this ill conceived goal.

You need to look at yourself in the mirror and ask what the hell you are doing on wikipedia. Do you want to spend your time being a negative force, deleting other people's work and deciding what people around the world can't learn? Or as a senior editor, do you want to spend your time and use your skills to do something productive, something positive. If a subject is unimportant to you, don't work on it, don't help. If it is important, there are other people who will do it, or it will die of its own accord. But it doesn't work the other way around, that turns you into a mad bomber tearing down what other people construct. Trackinfo (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

Please comment on User talk:Bostonscribe/sandbox

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:Bostonscribe/sandbox. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)