Archives (Index)

2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July 2024/August 2024/September

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hey - For your info: I am trying to kick off a discussion at Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Here's a new one for you: Jogil9630 - just added a new Miss Supranational picture to Mutya Datul's page and is solely editing beauty pageant articles with Supranational connections. It quacks like a duck... Mabalu (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Wikipedia does not prosper with editors behaving like this. Trackinfo (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

• 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 • ^hasspoken 14:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in my opinion. It is just a preliminary round, not a separate event. The Banner talk 15:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love your 100% negative approach and your battleground mentality. Unfortunately, that mentality and your continued personal attacks are not the way to bring Wikipedia forward. Just prove the notabilty of the ladies with independent reliable sources, that is the only thing I care about. I don't care at all about your hurt feelings, I care about the reliability of Wikipedia. I am not playing games, as you do. And please, don't make a joke about yourself by following me around to shout NO in each and every AfD from my hand. The Banner talk 20:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, You helped earlier today with this article. Could you change his first name Achiel in the title of the article to Achille, the way it is in the rest of the article? I don't know how to do that. Thank you again for your help. Nicola Mitchell (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done You could have used the option "Move" on the top of the page. The Banner talk 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for your help in changing the name. A sign has come up on my talk page which I don't understand. It reads: A tag has been placed on File:Father Achiel Delaere.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated. I'm not quite sure whether this has something to do with the name change. This picture of Father Delaere is the only one I could find to put into the Wikipedia article, and I registered it as Achiel rather than Achille due to the site I got it from, which is how they spelled it. Could you help with this, so that a photo of him remains with the article? Thank you again for everything. Nicola Mitchell (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds horrible, but in fact it just said that you have uploaded the same picture twice. The first time as "File:Father Achiel Delaere.png", the second time as "File:Father Achille Delaere.png". As they are identical (except the name) the unused oldest version (with the wrong name) will be deleted. Nothing to get headaches about. The Banner talk 19:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for easing my mind. And thanks again for all your help with this article. Nicola Mitchell (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Would it be possible to move this photo into Commons in the Wikipedia? I don't know how to do it. You can find this photo at: http://yorktonredemptorists.com/our-history/redemptorists-from-the-beginning/ I have a Polish Wikipedia translation of it, but the Polish Wikipedia can't use the photo unless its in Commons and I don't know how to do that. Can you help? Nicola Mitchell (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before you start with the photo, you have to make sure that the photo is copyright free. But then the glitch comes: a photo is only copyright free more then 75 years after the death of the photographer, not the subject. With an anonymous or unknown photographer, the photo is copyrights free more then 75 year after the first publication.

In case you do not provide convincing proof that the photo is copyright free, Commons (and the administrators there) will assume that the photo is copyright protected and delete it. And 100% rights free, no buts or ifs.

i know, this sounds horrifying and difficult, but that is the big hurdle at Commons. Good luck with it! The Banner talk 21:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for explaining it so clearly. I'll try to find out when the photo was taken. Nicola Mitchell (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've just posted some feedback about changes to the Chessington World of Adventures Resort article to BenBowser's talk page, and as you have commented on changes to this article before, I would appreciate a second opinion on the points I've made. Thank you! JordanHatch (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in the history there. I understand the concern and the issues in the merge are addressable. If they are addressed, the expanded content can be moved back. I did some associated cleanup and once the job queue catches up, I think you will find that most of the inbound links are for the restaurant. For me that is an indication that having an article on that is a good thing. But again, this depends on someone expanding the section. Good luck. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I hope I am not bothering you but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DATE (command) badly needs more input from the community. It has been relisted twice before and in spite of me having tried to publicize it before, is still at the risk of being closed without a consensus. The reason that I am calling you is that last time, I've been told to invite people that are more connected to the matter. I guess as a participant of Articles for deletion/Date (Unix), you clearly fit the bill.

Subject of the nomination is: "Wikipedia is not a manual and this article is written exactly like a man page."

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you not have worked with me over a few days to let me develop the page before nominating it for deletion then speedy deletion? Just need a bit of co-operation and time to develop. Fire me a message and we could have spoke about it. CDRL98 (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, don't tell me you live in East Belfast and that your surname contains an Y... The Banner talk 22:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checking up on me, nice to see it, served my time, trying to help though, but this page is just something I want on wikipedia, I feel it has a right to be here, I want to build it to be a suitable page, give it time please. CDRL98 (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was the article history that got me interested in EastBelfastBoy. It is sad to see that it leads to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EastBelfastBoy but you left me no choice. The Banner talk 22:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You had a choice, be civil and discuss, but you chose not to CDRL98 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this, he was a 13 year old boy when he was banned - or maybe younger even - barely old enough to even be considered a criminal under UK law if he did something against the law. It's very curious that you'd want to see someone receive a lifetime ban for something they did when they were 13 years old and also want to push this on towards a now 16 year considering you are a much older man.87.114.181.58 (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't buy that. The Banner talk 00:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not at all what is being suggested. We have clear pathways for returning to Wikipedia's editing community even after egregious infractions. Site-banned editors have returned. A great many indef-blocked editors have returned. There are very simply things CDRL would need to do to be afforded the "standard offer". That said, if he truly was 13 at the time, he is only 16 now. There's "maturity" and then there's "maturity". St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Banner. I didn't quite understand your request on my talk page? If you wanted to try to use the disambiguation page in the template, probably not needed. The breeds are listed individually already. JTdale ^Talk 11:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Belgian Bantam was already there before you merged the different breeds/varieties. So it left the template with a strange link to a disambiguation page. But I will remove the link, that solves the case too. The Banner talk 11:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks. Didn't see that; works well. JTdale ^Talk 11:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banner, you've made the same edit three times today, twice after being told that you were wrong; that is edit warring, and not acceptable here. I see that you thought you were doing the right thing, but that's really no excuse. Would you kindly now self-revert your latest mistake there? I'd be grateful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, because it was you who made the mistake. I am not taking the blame for your mess. The Banner talk 20:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you please expand on why reverted my changes to the EXIT festival page? I tried adding info about the last one - exit 15 - and sea dance too, but I'm not sure what I did wrong. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assono (talk • contribs) 11:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the summary: Revert unhelpful edits with too much screaming and too few sources. You have used useless disambiguations to create screaming band names as capitals are seen as screaming or shouting. And there were no hardly any sources. The Banner talk 11:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I volunteer for EXIT's web team, so I'll do my best to cut the screaming (a result of a poor copy/paste choice) and find the required references - although the site changes frequently, hopefully there are some press releases on the site that can be used as reference material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assono (talk • contribs) 13:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we appreciate independent sources. Press releases, clearly promotional and related, are seldom worthy as source. See Reliable sources. The Banner talk 20:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, that's going to be really hard, nigh on impossible, I don't know if you've ever been to Serbia or the festival :D I'll try my best to dig up sources that link elsewhere. Thanks for all the help though, I learned a lot about Wikipedia in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assono (talk • contribs) 08:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help in Jayme Amatnecks 179.104.192.67 (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. But it would be a good idea to reduce the massive pictures in size (standard thumbsize is good enough, who wants a better look can doubleclick on the picture) and the overuse of bold (replacing by italics is better). The Banner talk 09:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your edits to disambiguate the incoming links to Kick-Ass (comics)! Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The Banner talk 23:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Never mind, but you can keep the Barnstar, even though the links weren't disambiguated. Steel1943 (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The link fix had the same effect. The created redirect went to a disambig page while it was clear that the intended article was something else. So I have solved the multiple links to a disambiguation page. The Banner talk 09:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Though that may be the case that possibly all currently-existing links to Kick-Ass (comics) may refer to the subject in Kick-Ass (comic book), consensus has been formed on other similar discussions where if a "character" and a "comic book" article exist, then the title with the disambiguator "comics" should redirect to the disambiguation page, which was the point of the move discussion I started on Talk:Kick-Ass (comic book). A related redirect, Wolverine (comics), had a more complicated case, given that the title was previously the title of Wolverine (character), but the links to the redirect were split up referring to its move destination, Wolverine (comic book), Logan (comics), or some other random "Wolverine" comic book that doesn't yet have a Wikipedia article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wall's (ice cream) may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Peter Principle. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thanks for your DAB link edits to the article. I just, however, restored this article to an earlier version due to multiple IP sockpuppet edits by an indefinitely blocked editor (his editing style is very obvious). In the process I had to undo your edits. I apologise for any inconvenience. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll manually restore your edits where appropriate when I have some time ~ unless you know how to do it quickly some other way. Afterwriting (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gracefully forgive you. The Banner talk 08:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your and others' comments on the entry for Louisiana, American South and Mississippi Valley historian, author, archivist and humanitarian Brian J. Costello are quite severe and unfounded. I have worked with him on several projects related to historical and cultural preservation and promotion and, indeed, he is knowledge is mind-bogling and he is, indeed, a living person and not a "hoax." His innate modesty and humility is, doubtless, the reason why he and his work has not previously appeared in Wikipedia. I took it upon myself that justice be done to him and countless others of his caliber so that their works and accomplishments do go noticed in the world of Wikipedia. As an author myself, I intended to contribute entries related to American, European and Near Eastern historical and cultural interest. If the reception for this, my initial entry, is indicative of what I will have to contend with, then Wikipedia is not for me, nor my colleagues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okelousa (talk • contribs) 13:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there are certain guidelines for the notability of people. Important with that is that you deliver reliable, prior published, third party sources (WP:RS). And articles shoul;d be neutral, something what was not the case. Your own motivation makes clear that you do not have enough distance between you and the subject. The Banner talk 19:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for my revert on Jadoon, it looked as if it was an accidental of some sort as it removed a LOT of information which included citation to seemingly valid sources. I'm still getting used to this, I'll be sure to look out next time. --Kethrus///Talk To Me 13:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The Banner talk 13:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:JPY. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What fake merger? Here's the article before the redirect and here's the discussion that led to the merger. 93.109.171.237 (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the official merge-proposal? I see none. But I did see a repeated placement of earlier removed text. The Banner talk 21:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A merge proposal/discussion isn't required before performing a merge. I didn't look at the history of this article to see if any of the things I added were in it before. I thought some of the history in Çamlıköy, though unsourced, seemed plausible, so I copied it over. Also, if we're to ignore that you unjustly accused me of performing a 'fake merger', if your beef's with the merger, why did you revert my first edit? 93.109.171.237 (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you not follow procedure and do a proper merge proposal? Usually, a merger is subject to an open discussion, nor a hidden one. The Banner talk 21:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on User:Dr.K.'s talk page was for getting rid of the duplicates. There was no discussion for the merge, neither open nor 'hidden'. Stop trying to grasp at straws; you were obviously in the wrong for accusing me of performing a fake merge. 93.109.171.237 (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it was not even an merge proposal, as you stated just before.

But to play it nicely: add only sourced and neutral content (conform WP:RS and WP:NPOV) Everything else will be removed. End of discussion. The Banner talk 22:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about the idea of merger before redirecting but the duplicate articles were recently created and were not contributed to, or largely contributed to, by the creator alone. Therefore I redirected without any merge proposals. The IP editor duly informed me on my talk and after I performed the redirects s/he rescued some unsourced history with proper attribution in their edit summary. There was no intent on their part of a fake merger. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be more exact, Çamlıköy was first created as a redirect page to Kalo Horio/Çamlıköy by the creator of the latter, Passportguy. Subsequently, it was converted to a dab page, which in September 2014 was unilaterally converted by an IP into a duplicate article by adding the unsourced history. IP editor 93.109.171.237 expressed his reservations to me about the history, although in the end s/he added it to the main article. I don't mind if the unsourced history stays out of the main article, especially if sources cannot be found to support it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But what mr. IP was doing, was restoring earlier removed, unsourced information. And after seeing some remarkable moves before (Kalo Chorio moved between three locations and two nation states), I just take the tough stance: no sources, no content. The Banner talk 22:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not contest your removing the text I merged from Çamlıköy. I just thought you were a little abrasive in saying it was a fake merge and in the way that you responded to me here. A tough stance doesn't mean you gotta make unsubstantiated assertions and then refuse to retract them. 93.109.171.237 (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a merge, it was restoring info. (See 27 September). That Bir1akce started fooling around after that, does not matter. The Banner talk 23:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but I didn't know that. I think you can see how I could've taken that to mean that you were questioning my sincerity. Anyway, yeah, let's move on. 93.109.171.237 (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After Banner explained it, I saw that the unsourced history was removed on 27 September by him/her from the main article. In any case, neither the IP editor 93.109.171.237 nor I knew about this, and now that I examined the edit, I fully agree with Banner's removal of it. I think IP editor 93.109.171.237 added it hoping that someone could source it or improve it. I thought so too in the beginning, but I don't think it is salvageable, after giving it a second look. As a closing remark, editor 93.109.171.237 has helped fix a big mess regarding this topic and in general, s/he has contributed greatly to the cleanup of Cypriot onomatology. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ok. At least on the subject of restoring the unsourced history everyone is on the same page. In this topic area, that's real progress. As far as the fake merge allegation, I don't think it was, but given this is Banner's talkpage, I don't want to put pressure on him/her and I think that my part here is done. Thank you both. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation it is apparent that 27.32.217.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same as Bir1akce. I don't think this is an IP sock of the user but it may be the user editing while logged out. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At as a closing accord in this play, I had to revert some templates to get everything back to the right place. I think I have to send in my fellow countrymen to conquer the whole island and restore peace. And learn them drink Guinness. The Banner talk 09:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bits I restored yesterday seem to have been (mostly) copied from Lefka. There's some references there, but the prose is horrible. 93.109.171.237 (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would revert that article to the version of BGWhite on 1 October 2014. We might have to clean up all articles edited by IP:27/Bir1akce. The Banner talk 10:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I just did the revert. looking up the detail of the merge proposal for the harbour, I found some close paraphrasing but with the "Greek" names replaced by "Turkish" names. The Banner talk 10:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That port is closest to Karavostasi, not Lefka, though. 93.109.171.237 (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I obey your statement, but there are n number of villages, it is better to add an extra template named as villages in xxx district (in Andhra Pradesh), but still its ok for now, if it is excess we'll try. I want to let you know that I've readded content like Mandals because in your undid revision it was lost at this edit. Anyways thanks for info. I need some help regarding templates if you can see at Template:Cities and towns in Prakasam district and some pages in . Any suggestions, thanks in advance.--Vin09 (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found those templates because you had linked "see also". But the list of villages is not overly long while linking to a category is frowned upon. You can add villages that do not have an article (yet) to a template. The Banner talk 09:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]