User talk:Active Banana/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Re Notability of individual band members

Hello Active Banana. With all due respect, when a newly registered user suddenly blanks and redirects several related articles at once, it's usually labelled as vandalism... which I stopped short of doing myself. Those were major changes you made, and most major changes as such, are expected to be the result of discussion and consensus to move forward with a new plan. Though I agree with you that those articles are in desperate need of references, I strongly disagree with your claim that the subjects aren't notable. We are not just talking about any run-of-the-mill bar-band here, we are talking about The Tragically Hip, and I severely doubt there would be any shortage of source material available, if one would just take time to Google it up. If you disagree, and still feel that you have a better plan, I'd highly recommend that you start a discussion thread either on the talk pages of those articles, or centrally on the main Hip-article talk page. You may also wish to go a step further and take those articles to AfD, which would form a solid consensus through discussion over a seven day period. I personally would not support such an AfD, but would happily agree with its final decision, whatever that might be. Without consensus to make such drastic changes however, I can only view page blanking as abusive editing. I hope this addresses your questions. Have yourself a great day, and welcome to Wikipedia :) -- WikHead (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already addressed your further comments above. Please take major changes as such, to the proper discussion venue. Regards -- WikHead (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Landshark has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Samwb123^{T (R)-C-E} 17:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Damage of deletionism

Hi, you asked about evidence of damage done by deleting unsourced BLPs. Please see the reply I posted today to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people. Basically

• loss of many articles on notable persons. See e.g. an analysis by Ikip/Okip of several hundred "unsourced BLPs" that were or would be deleted in the recent drive. (Section 21.3 Comments in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Archive.)
• loss of many valid articles on non-notable subjects. Whatever little value they may have to readers, it is greater than zero.
• waste of editors work, namely the work of nominating, evaluating, voting and deleting the article, and replying to complaints about the deletion.
• iritation of the editors who created and worked on those articles, as they discover that their work has been deleted.
• loss of potential BLPs as editors become wary of creating BLPs.

There is also a long-term ethical problem with the "notability rule" itself, namely what authority does Wikipedia have to decide who is "notable" and who is "non-notable"? (Actually this decision is being made by a very small minority of admins who have no particular authority on the matter, and who were self-selected by their irritation with what they consider "unworthy" articles.) Imagine the situation where two professors are running for tenure, or two candidates are competing for mayor in a a small town — and one of them has a Wikipedia article, while the other has been declared "non-notable" by the Wikipedia staff. See the problem there? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the full right to decide what the criteria are for being included. And, no, I do not see any problems with Wikipedia having an article about one person who has been covered by reliable third party sources and not having an article about another person who has not been covered by reliable third party sources. Active Banana (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the full right to decide what the criteria are for being included: Yes, but who is Wikipedia? It seems implicit in the deletionist ideology that the deletionists — specifically, those editors who wrote the notability rule, tag articles, and have the AfD in their watchlist — are "more Wikipedia" than the inclsionists — specifically, those editors who create articles on non-notable topics or lacking explicit refs. Even though the latter vastly outnumber the former. That is where Wikipedia ends and Bullypedia begins.

covered by reliable third party sources: That is not what the notability guidelines say. Individual streets, schools, university professors, obscure movie actors, etc. are all covered by very reliable third party sources and could have valid articles (sometimes even *good* articles) with fully verifiable contents. Yet the deletionists have been deleting such articles, just because *they* don't like them.

Moreover, the notability guidelines are extremely arbitrary and illogical. For example, why is the New York Times more reliable than the IMBD when it comes to movies? (Before replying, think: where will the NYT reporter look for information about movies?)

I have seen many cases of articles that were improperly deleted or tagged only because the deletionist were just too lazy (or too stupid) when looking for sources and evaluating them. Unfortunately deletion is almost impossible to undo, and the wikinazis will not let tags to be removed without their demands being met.

All the best (one vaguely hopes), --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if "wikinazi" was too strong. Is "wikitaliban" better? "Wikihutu" perhaps?

Deletionism is the belief that one can make Wikipedia better by deleting articles that "do not belong", where the definition of "belongs" was made up by the deletionists themselves and passed as law by a "consensus" process that, in any other context, would be called "ballot fraud". It is exactly the same ideology that led the Taliban to blow up those old Buddhas (and to countless other similar incidents all over the world), and that leads a first-grade bully to destroy the homework of other kids.

Implicit in that idelology is the assumption that those who do not accept that particular definition of "belongs" do not themselves "belong", and therefore their opinion counts for nothing. When a certain deletionist refers to tens of thousands of valid but unsourced BLPs as "crap", one must infer that the editors who created them are "crap" too.

Every article that has been deleted because of the notabiliy rule is obviously a vote against the notability rule. But try suggesting to a deletionists that those votes be counted. It is like saying that the nazis should have asked the jews what they they thought of the racial laws, or that the Taliban should have sought the opinion of the rest of the world before deciding what to do with the Buddhas.

I used to think that deletionists did not care for the feelings of those editors who had their work deleted. Now I believe that they *do* care, in the same sense that the Taliban cared for the Buddhists' feelings. In both cases, "deleting what does not belong" may have been the ostensive conscious justification for the act; but the real subconscious motive was to irritate all those who were fond of the thing destroyed. The purpose of the act was to send a message to those who did not recognize the authority of the destroyers: "look, we are the bosses here, we can do this even though you hate it". The feeling of impotent anger that the bulies inflict on their victims is not an incidental side effect, but the very point of bullying. Those Buddhas would not have been destroyed, if they were not dear to anyone.

I know that feeling of frustrated anger quite well. In spite of my years of experience and understanding of the rules, I could not avoid having hours of my work being deleted simply because it did not fit some set of stupid criteria that were unfairly passed and ineptly applied by a handful of lazy and arrogant deletionists. Whatever your opinion on the merit of articles deletions, you must be aware of their effect on the victims. So, hopefully my use of the term "wikinazis" will give you an idea of how I — and tens of thousands of other editors — felt in those cases. And, seeing how the RfC has been handled, it is clear to me that my opinion — and that of all those other offended editors — will not be counted anyway, whatever words I may use. Just for being an "inclusionist", my opinion is automatically irrelevant.

The discussion about unsourced BLPs has made it clear that Wikipedia does not have an "unsourced BLP problem". It has been shown that those articles are no more problematic than any other kind of article; and that a large fraction of them are valid — even by the deletionists' notability criteria. Therefore, simply deleting the unsourced BLPs is not an option. Sure it would be nice if all BLPs had references, just as it would be nice if all stubs were expanded and all badly written articles were cleaned up. But deleting a BLP because it has been sitting there unsourced for years is as absurd as deleting a stub because it has not been expanded in years. The *only* proper way of handling an unsourced BLP (or a stub, or a badly written article) is to look for sources and edit it accordingly. Of course, that takes at least 15 minutes per article, if not several hours. If we have 50,000 unsourced BLPs, it is for the same reason that we have 1,500,000 stubs: no editor had yet the time or motivation to work on them. But that is inevitable. Wikipedia will *always* have millions of "need urgent work" articles that will remain in that state for years. We must either accept that as an essential part of the nature of Wikipedia, or go insane.

The "unsourced BLP problem" was created by the deletionists themselves, who took that non-problem and unilaterally defined it as a "top priority problem". Presumably they picked those articles because they were an easily identified category of Buddhas articles that did not "belong" in their view, and wich could be identified and blown up deleted with very little effort.

If it were only a matter of *my* feelings, I would either put up or give up. But deletionism is not bad *for me*, it is bad *for Wikipedia*, in a big way. Perhaps a million Wikipedia articles are now defaced by stupid article-side tags, inserted by arrogant deletionists who think that their crusade is worth violating the most basic editing principles. Thanks to the people who have actually looked at those BLPs, we know that deletionism has resulted in the destruction of thousands of valid articles. (Unfortuntely we do not know how many, because deletion is so absolute). Worse, taggings and deletions has probably caused thousands of editors to leave: not just lay newbies, but *expert* and *experienced* editors — the kind we desperately need to cleanup articles like Thebes, Egypt or Subroutine. And, worse still, deletonists are giving Wikipedia some very bad press: this time not by lay journalists, but by veteran and net-savy former editors who once loved Wikipedia and are very upset by what the deletionists and taggers are doing to it.

Eighty years ago some Germans decided to "improve" their country by first tagging and then deleting certain people who, in their view, did not "belong" in it. (Again, nothing particular about Germany: this has happened and is happening countless other times, among all nations of the world.) When it was all over, and deaths and damages had been counted, it became clear that the worst enemies that the German people ever had, in all their history, were precisely those who claimed — and perhaps even believed — to be their most genuine members and their most determined saviors. Let's hope that Wikipedia fares better.

All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandal report

Thanks for your note on the IP vandal's talk page just now pointing to Chrispreston20 (talk · contribs); fortunately your warnings seem to have done the trick and he has stopped, at least for now. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prods

Hi Active Banana/Archive 1'! You participated earlier in the sticky prod workshop. The sticky prods are now in use, but there are still a few points of contention.
There are now a few proposals on the table to conclude the process. I encourage your input, whatever it might be. Thanks. --Maurreen (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I just noticed that you're a fairly new account, and are participating in some of the big policy-related issues here. I applaud your bravery, but I know it can sometimes be confusing even with small issues. Hell, I've been here for 5 years and I still get lost in the walls of text. So, I just wanted to let you know that if you need any help with anything around the wiki, please don't hesitate to drop me a note. The Wordsmith^Communicate 15:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

re:Thanks

no problem! cheers--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. It would be appreciated if you stop your deletionist activity, especially if it's about a show you may or may not even watch.--Eaglestorm (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Active Banana and Pinoy Big Brother. Thank you.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 17:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Kyla

Thanks for helping clean up. Drmies (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Listen

Been here for like three months and trying to tell me what to do? I've been here for a while and created hundreds of notable stubs and I don't need you telling me a bunch of nonsense. There are some article that are large and some are stubs, and the stub template basically says you can help expand this article. Now instead of being a dick about it, why can't you get some references instead of merging. Now you may not be the biggest fan of a particular aritst, album, film, etc, but even you help an article. Alot of the admins, which you are not, will help an article by adding sources instead of abusing the "no source" template or "merge template". I dare you to take those article to the Articles for Deletion page and if those admins can not find any notable sources, whether it be Billboard, RIAA or otherwise, then I would be fine with that because these people would rather help an article if possible then have it deleted. But you? You ain't helping a damn thing, I would rather have a proven admin overlook the situation then someone like you who has not accomplished anything on this site. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So instead of putting all types of "No Source" or "Redirect" templates, why can't you help find sources, which is what alot of admins and good article contributers try to do before adding those templates? Does that make a little sense? Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Language

Please don't write that kind of (piss poor) language you use on my talk page. Thanks. --Mjrmtg (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting non-notable articles

Re User talk:MatthewGoodfan101#Notability and third party coverage: When you unilaterally turn an article into a redirect, you are essentially deleting it. Per WP:Deletion policy#Redirection, if a user doesn't agree with a redirection, please discuss rather than revert. In essence, unilaterally redirecting and being reverted is no different than having a {{PROD}} removed—one user boldly thinks the article should go, and the next thinks it should stay. Take the matter to discussion, and if you wholeheartedly believe in your actions, take it to WP:AFD. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:M.nelson#Redirects of non-notables. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:M.nelson#Redirects of non-notables. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop

Stop posting to my talk page or I'll report you. Stay away. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Empty

I usually remove them simply because they look bad and/or strange (i.e. a section named "References" with nothing in it - it's usually the only section on the page with no content). One solution could be to post a {{references}} tag inside it, so at least it has some content. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Just put in the {{references}} tag, then (under the ==References== box), and, aside from adding content, the tag explicitly implores the reader to look for references. Everybody wins. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

ABS-CBN Shows

Hello!!!

Please stop be pretending unnecessary warning about ABS-CBN articles and ABS-CBN articles shows among other Why you put warning in GMA Network instead if you that. I try to put the actual references about the ABS-CBN and ABS-CBN shows both the network website itself and other showbiz website like PEP for the truth. But if you are not an ABS-CBN viewers just leave them alone or I report you for what you have done. -- Puppyph ^{(Puppyph•contribs)} 11:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk page messages

FYI, it's OK for a user to blank messages from their own talk page as at User talk:124.106.168.43, it just confirms that the messages were actually read. It's also possible that the IP is dynamic, so they are not the one who the warnings were for. In any case, not worth the back-and-forth. If they continue to vandalize, just file the report at WP:AIV and point out that they blanked the talk page and continued to vandalize, and a block will come quickly. Happy editing!  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 04:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop Editing Philippine Wiki Pages

Why don't you just mind your own business and stay away from Philippine Wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.255.62 (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Dont Pose as An admin

Dont pose as an admin. I'll have you reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.255.62 (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

He's not posing as an admin, get your facts right. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 14:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have never said I am an admin. I am simply stating that if you continue your disruptive behaviors you will be blocked. Active Banana (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't own wikipedia

Just stop editing Philippine wiki pages and just edit your own countries wiki pages. You are not Filipino so stay away.

Unrelated editor here, but I saw your edits on Huggle. Really, it doesn't matter. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, that anyone can edit. You seem to be very arrogant of the rules, and I recommend you read them and stop the personal attacks before you are banned. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 14:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User Active Banana is actually messing up the wiki pages of our country, deleting articles which has already been there for quite some time that even Wiki admins didn't even bother to delete. As what you said, "Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, that anyone can edit." I believe Active Banana is the arrogant one.

That's weird, because I just looked at his contributions and can't see any rule breaking. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 14:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You may want to look again, he/she/it singles out Philippine Pay-TV networks, anyway, while he/she/it is at it, Active Banana, maybe he can also delete some artices in other countries' Pay-TV sites, such as Starhub TV, Astro (satellite_TV), STAR TV, Indovision and Sky Digital (UK & Ireland). These wiki pages all have Directory kind of entries. These wiki pages all have Channel listings just like these one: List of channels on Virgin TV. Actually, there's more but go ahead Active Banana, delete all of them and delete it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.255.62 (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You've already put tags again on the Philippine Pay-TV networks, to be just and fair, why not put tags on ALL of the Pay-TV networks in other countries. So, as of now, since you haven't done it yet, will be deleting the tags for all Philippine Pay-TV Networks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.255.62 (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AActive_Banana&action=historysubmit&diff=362460091&oldid=362448886) If it is so bothersome to you that other articles are in crappy shape and not cleaned up or tagged for clean up Wikipedia is a Wiki and YOU can take that step to improve it!. However, you may wish to read and become familiar with core content policies such as WP:N WP:OR WP:V WP:NOT WP:RS WP:NPOV. Active Banana (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Or you can just keep up your disruptive behavior and get yourself blocked. Then I will have less to do to maintain the Phillipines articles I will be able to move my cleanup efforts elsewhere. Active Banana (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You are not being fair and you are targeting and you single out, Philippine Media wiki pages. This is an act of racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.255.62 (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You just dont seem to get it. You can keep whining that "other articles suck and are not being cleaned up" but that in no way means that no attempt should be made to clean up poor quality Philippine articles. As I stated before, if the poor condition of other articles and the fact that no one else cares enough about them to clean them up really bothers you so much, YOU can make a difference. And again, please stop your personal attacks. Continually (and baselessly) asserting that I am committing racist acts is not likely to get me to follow any recommendations that you may have to offer. Active Banana (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is policy, not racism. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 03:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

List of IPs involved in this discussion/set of edits

• 143.166.255.60
• 143.166.255.61
• 143.166.255.62
• 143.166.255.63
• 143.166.255.65
• 124.106.168.43

Filmography

Please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.225.66 (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

WHY DO YOU KEEP EDITING PHILIPPINE WIKI PAGES?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why are you keep to remove the channel line-ups of Philippine cable providers but you are not removing those of other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.37.145 (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does it matter what country's poor articles he chooses to improve? He's improving the encyclopedia and that's all that matters. I highly doubt he's some sort of racist or has it in for the Philippines specifically.. it just so happens that most Philippine cable articles need cleaning up, so he's working were the job needs to be done. Read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, if you're seeing that other countries' articles also need cleaning up then, like he told you, why don't you help improve Wikipedia and go clean them?

As for Active Banana removing various channel lineups per WP:NOTDIR, he may be interested in some related discussions that tried to establish consensus on certain 'exceptions' to these types of listings. You may find that there's some valid arguments against your removals. See

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday) (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Australian network television schedule

Although I don't agree that Wikipedia should have these kinds of articles, it just goes to show that when relentlessly fighting other editors by citing various policies, you would do well to keep in mind the most important: WP:IAR. Regards, œ^™ 08:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I support what œ said, there are certain 'exceptions' to the policy you are referring to. As what I've said on my talk page, Channel line-up is different from Electronic Program Guide. Read the dictionary and the wiki page to justify, compare and prove your claims. The wiki pages of various Pay-TV countries in the Philippines does not even have any Program schedules. --g8crash3r 16:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Other than stating that the people who fall back on WP:IAR to justify their action generally only remember the "Ignore all rules" portion, but ignore the important second part "if it improves the encyclopedia" I will not be commenting here for now because this discussion is already on g8crasher's talk page, the ANI boards and the article talk page. No need to add another. Active Banana (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You are actually avoiding the topic. As always, there are exceptions to the policy or rules. How about defining EPG or Electronic Program Guide to Channel-Lineup. I challenge and dare you, If they are the same, delete the whole Wiki page and if not. Stop editing Philippine wikipedia content. You're actions are somewhat 'racist' since you are focusing only on Philippine wikipedia pages rather than focusing on the entire Wikipedia itself. There is more to Wikipedia than the Philippine Media and Pay-TV Companies. Try starting in your own country first or I will first do the honors of doing the same thing you are doing to Philippine Wikipedia pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G8crash3r (talk • contribs) 20:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As I noted above, this discussion is already sprawling over at least 3 other pages and I will not be adding this page to it. If you wish me to respond, do so at one of the existing conversations. The End. Active Banana (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You are really avoiding the topic. G8crash3r (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I am avoiding is having the same discussion on 6 different pages. Choose one of the existing conversations and link from here, but I am not going to rehash the same topic on yet another page. Active Banana (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I will not stop until an admin proves my point that SkyCable and/or all Philippine Pay-TV providers are only directory listings. You can complain all you want as if you yourself does not have any behavioral issues within Wikipedia. --g8crash3r 21:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The only topic that I will be discussing with you here is which one of the already existing conversations will be the active one. I am not going to be rehashing the same topics on yet another page. DO NOT post on my page again with anything other than a link to one of the already existing conversations. Active Banana (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AN/I about Peter Godwin (singer)

FYI, I mentioned you at [1], not in a negative way, but I'm just notifying you per standard practice.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

???

dude im not editing anything about joe penna, shut up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange Jooce (talk • contribs) 16:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

oh really? [2] [3] ???

Natasha Kinski photo tag

It seems like the additional rationale you asked for was provided which supports allowance of the photo. Your last comment was referring to NFC, to which I responded to: [4]. It would be good if you could remove the tags placed on the image if you have no other issues. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kristen Wiig

Glad to, I'll take a look. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. -Peducte (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well

I like how you try to promote wikilove. However, there is a difference between assuming good faith and promoting trolling. Cookies aren't for users who have a strong history of vandalism-only edits..—Tommy2010 22:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! Don't feed the trolls! And definitely not with cookies! ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 08:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If it only takes a {cookie} and a few helpful words to guide a newbie through the labyrinthian Wikipedia rules and turn them from a disruptive force into a productive contributor, I believe this is clearly a case where WP:IAR would trump WP:DENY. When you keep poking with a stick and it swats at you, what do you expect? Active Banana (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Momay

Please do not delete information in pages en masse as you did in Momay. Yes, you might be right about informations being unsourced, but removing them en masse will not help either, especially if the edits were clearly a good faith edit, instead insert a tag which requests references for the given information such as citation needed would be helpful.

And also, please stay civil when editing pages, comments with sarcasms such as these are not very nice. If your aim is actually to help improve Wikipedia, then you will try and improve the pages by finding sources yourself, instead of deleting the information. And if you have no idea about the page, then leave tags to inform other editors to improve the page. Thank you.--TwelveOz (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Watch your tone there. It looks like you're trying to be intimidating to scare this user off from making further edits. I looked at the edits and this "warning" doesn't seem warranted at all. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 11:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to scare this user to make further edits. I am only informing him to stop deleting informations en masse especially if they appear to good faith edits instead of vandalisms, which he has appeared to have many times, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and so on... instead leave tags first to inform the editors.

This user has a hobby of removing content en masse without actually informing the editors of pages first by leaving tags or warnings.--TwelveOz (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. After having seen this evidence, I think this user is doing a wonderful job here on Wikipedia.

An edit doesn't have to be vandalism to be subject for removal. Good faith edits can be reverted if they're not in accordance with the policies and guidelines.

If you come across such "en masse removals of content" and aren't cool with it, then find the appropriate sources and put it back. If said sources aren't findable, then the content most likely should not have been on here in the first place, even if it was true.

Editors with interest in the subject can always view the page history, or see the changes in their watchlist anyway; and regular readers shouldn't be presented with unsourced claims and tags that will just clutter the page. For every example that you brought above^, I think it really was better to remove the content instead of tagging it. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 12:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BrightBlackHeaven.

TwelveOz, I hope that you can take constructive criticism yourself, too. This warning is entirely inappropriate. Please refresh your knowledge of WP:V - removing unsourced information from a BLP with personal details about a child actor is not only valid, it is laudable. Banana, please keep active.  Chzz  ►  04:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikilove

I have gotten interested in creating templates for wikilove items. Before I do however I would like to ask a few questions.

Is the blank wikilove template only for administator usage?

Do we edit the blankwikilove or copy and make a new article? Gromoror (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello - I haven't edited for a while - can you please remove the note you left on the bottom of my page?

[5]

Thanks! Uncle uncle uncle 19:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the removal! Uncle uncle uncle 20:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

How do I get someone to verify this copyright image is a low res version as required by WP:FAIR?

{{helpme}} File:GumapangLusak.JPG This copyright image does not appear to be "low res" as required of copyright images under WP:FAIR, but I am not at all an image expert. How do I flag it for someone to check and verify, and if it is too hi res, replace it with a lower res version? Active Banana (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a bit big. You could add {{Non-free reduce}}, or start a discussion in Wikipedia:Non-free content review - however, in this specific case, please give me about 10 mins, and I will reduce the size of it. As far as I am aware, there is no specific rule on image size, but the 'rule of thumb' that seems the norm is, around 300px.

I'll let you know when I've changed it. Best,  Chzz  ►  04:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Now reduced to 300px. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  04:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done

P.S. For swift help with this or anything else, do talk to us live, with this or this. Pop in and say hi :-)  Chzz  ►  04:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Isang Lakas Page Protection...

I don't know how to request for page protection, i see already the page & its to complicated to see the steps on how would i request for protection, kindly show me how? simple steps of requesting for page protection... thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight Crawler X (talk • contribs) 05:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. can you also remove some speculative character/actors like captain barbell as piolo pascual, darna as angel locsin, & dyesebel as anne curtis, they are license to the other station particularly the rival station of ABS-CBN 2 which is GMA 7 thanks. by the way GMA 7 will again remake Captain barbell as a teleserye to be showed on GMA 7 as for their 60th aniversary this year... thanks (im just asking, i don't wanna wish that you will grant this immediately but you can see the list of shows of GMA 7 here in wikipedia if you want a proof) thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight Crawler X (talk • contribs) 05:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Bless your crusade (lol)

I've done a few, good work. Led me to an article by a sock that was 99% copyvio, which I deleted (the copyvio, that is), so that's serendipity. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Your interactions with Ceoil

A very messy situation which appears to been initiated due to my misinterpretation of an edit summary spiraled out of control. But the matter appears to be closed.

And one from which I think we have all learned. Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Although I'm loath to wade into a battle that has nothing to do with me regarding an article I do not edit, I do feel the need to point out, since you seem to like Wikirules and guidelines, that one very important bit of Wiki etiquette is WP:DTTR. You will find that personal (and civil messages go a long way. freshacconci talktalk 15:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

[6] following me are you. Not very clever, but not unexpected either. Have fun. Ceoil (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"following" someone who removes clean up tags and reinserts unsourced content without providing sources is completely appropriate. However, unless you are the person inserting "were blessed with" into articles, our paths crossing again today at Folly was a complete coincidence as a result of my current clean up crusade. Active Banana (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, big fucking coincidence. How did you jump from Baba Ramdevji ‎to folly. Also you do know what happens to empty headed & arrogent crusaders. You are crusading against the content people, so be very very careful about who you follow, revert, remplate, revert, template, rever, tempate, follow. Ceoil (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sourced content is fine, and I applaud those who are adding it. It is the POV people that my crusade is against. The phrase "were blessed with" is entirely inappropriate content for any encyclopedia article, unless part of a direct quote. And the fact that the phrase appeared in Baba Ramdevji [7] and folly (and has returned to folly under your pen, twice [8] [9]) is how such a jump occurred. Active Banana (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont believe you, given your form, and if you add tags again before spending the 20 or 30 seconds it takes to actually cite the material I will revert you again. Ceoil (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess you are right that I generally do not actively show my appreciation for those who add sourced material to articles, although that may be because I rarely come across them. But I did earlier today [10] and I will make more of an effort to notice such contributions in the future. Active Banana (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly applaud your ability to add citations in 20 seconds! However, regarding what may be seen as your declaration of intention to edit war, I might remind you that it is the burden of those who wish to enter or return content to articles to provide the appropriate sources. And It seems that it would have been just as easy for you to take those 20 seconds and actually add the citations rather than revert the application of tags and come to my page and hurl insults. Active Banana (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Normally I would, as is my habit, but since you were so persistant and brought it to my talk and insulted, demanded and demeaned, I thought to myself - fuck this guy. Thats what templates on regular's talk pages do. Treat me like I'm a boy, and thats what happens. Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

{e/c) One would think that a "regular" would know that content in articles needs to be properly sourced and that one shouldnt remove cleanup tags (while including deceptive edit summaries) without actually addressing the issues. When regulars follow these well established policies, they seldom get condescending templates for not following the basic wikipedia foundational principles. Active Banana (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

See thats why I think -know- you are such a tool. Fuck you and your basic wikipedia foundational principles. I've written around 20 FA's, more or less, and have fairly good idea how all this works, where it came from and where it is going. You are just a wikilayering serf who needs boxes, policies and bullet points -rather than thought- to tell you what to do. Ceoil (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Re burden - do you know what you did - you deleted two long standing paras on a major poet, in a bitch fit, because your taggs were reverted. Tut tut. Very naughty. Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am so in support of Ceoil on this one, Active Banana is such an arrogant Wikipedia Nazi and so trying hard to be a Wikipedia Policy Police. --g8crash3r 17:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by G8crash3r (talk • contribs)

I am inclined to agree with Freshacconci on this one. You should distinguish how you deal with regular contributors and how you deal with clear vandals. "attempting a false edit summary" is just condescending- it might be appropriate for a vandal but not for a regular writer of articles. Try to understand where we are coming from here. Wikipedia policies are in place ultimately to improve the Encyclopedia- but those who are actively trying to write an encyclopedia often take issue when some people just leave tags on one article and then move on to the next article to tag. How much more of a difference could you make in your "cleanup crusade" if you looked for information on google books to find cites for a fraction of the articles you tag? Now another shoot-from-the-hip wiki robocop is calling (if I'm reading this right) "a block, with or without warnings" [11] of Ceoil. The only things that should matter are this and this. Lithoderm 19:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There is improvement by the addition of quality material, and improvement by the reduction of bad material and improvement of Wikipedia's reputation in general by cueing in general readers/users: that this is a "work in progress" , that everything you see should not be taken as "the truth", that we are aware of our limitations and that we want our users to be aware of our limitations. I dont know about you, but for me adding quality information requires periods of uninterrupted time to do actual research, even if it is available on googlebooks. When I have times that are very likely to be interrupted, frequently, with no notice, my ability to improve wikipedia by adding quality sourced material is practically zero. However, my ability to impact the other areas of wikipedia quality can indeed be done very effectively between frequent unexpected interruptions - and so that is where I focus my efforts. Active Banana (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References and updating the Jordan Crawford article

Can you add references to the Jordan Crawford article and can you update the Jordan Crawford article? WayneOlajuwon (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well...

TwelveOz has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Now I have to eat a real one.--TwelveOz (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fulvio Wetzl Search

Thanks for the catch. I caught it myself, after noting my search had been for Fulvio Wtzl, it became clear I wasn't getting all of the results I'd thought I should have. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Mobbing

Good to see someone being proactive regarding the article. I would have made that change myself, but I don't think there's any way my changes would have been considered objective. Doniago (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status of File:Jordan Crawford.jpg

Can you fix the copyright status of File:Jordan Crawford.jpg? Wayne Olajuwon (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Isang Lakas Page

See what the IPs Done on the "Isang Lakas Page", we have to do something before the page is being super vandalize & the information will not be appropriate to the page, some of the information they intend to add are those character that are broadcasted to their rival station/channel particularly GMA 7, some of the characters mentioned are Captain Barbell(to be showed this year as part of the 60th anniversary of GMA 7), Darna (has 2 versions, 2 actresses are (1st)Angel Locsin, & (2nd) Marian Rivera), Dyesebel (Reprised Also by Marian Rivera), these character/actors/actresses Mentioned are from GMA 7, the IPs always including the Characters of Captain Barbell, Darna, & Dyesebel so that their shows/programs gain high ratings and to sabotage the rival station/channel particularly GMA 7, and also the IPs themselves are "Loyal Fans" of The Rival Station of GMA 7 which is ABS-CBN,

PS. Because GMA 7 are celebrating their 6oth Anniversary this year, Those IPs and others who like to Sabotage them are "Loyal Fans" of ABS-CBN the rival Station/Channel of GMA 7. so that they gain High Ratings & Dislodge GMA 7 from Contention... Thanks... --Knight Crawler X (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• GMA bought the rights for the characters single-handedly. They did not buy the whole franchise as a group for Isang Lakas. The rights for Superman will be completely different from the rights of Justice League.--79.72.128.246 (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Whatever your claims here may be, the content you are inserting into the article is NOT supported by the "sources" that you are citing. Stop it NOW. Active Banana (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathew Baynton

Regarding one of the sources you questioned: for what it's worth, The Stage is rather widely cited on Wikipedia,[12] which suggests there is some community acceptance of its reliability. However, if you're not convinced, WP:RSN might be a good place to seek more immediate input.

As for the other source, I'm not married to it. --Ibn (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused by your lack of response here or at the article talk page. Was my response uncivil? If so, I take it back. I'd hate to be the subject of a Wikiquette alert over such a small matter. --Ibn (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Active Banana (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.128.246 (talk)

Baburaj.T.V

Hello. Fyi, I removed your speedy deletion tag from this one because you had tagged as a recreated article. Surely the page had been deleted before but a speedy deletion of "recreation" is only valid for pages that were discussed on AfD. Pages that were speedily deleted before and are then recreated can only be tagged under the same CSD criterion again - which in this case was an author blanking.

Anyway, let the original creator of the article has meanwhile blanked and thus asked for deletion himself. De728631 (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Rothko image instructions

I did a quick search, but I was unable to find any freely licensed photos of Mark Rothko. Since Mark Rothko committed suicide more than 40 years ago, I don't expect any newly free licensed images to turn up and, naturally, one can't be created. However, to use a non-free photo you have to correctly source it, including relevent details such as the photographer or copyright holder. A much better, uncropped, verson of that photo is available at rothko_portrait.jpg (2100 × 2401) from Stampfli & Turci art dealers. The page that hosts that image "Mark Rothko. The Retrospective – Kunsthalle Hamburgturn" describes the photo as:

Mark Rothko. Retrospektive – Kunsthalle Hamburg

Mark Rothko, um 1961

© 1998 Kate Rothko Prizel & Christopher Rothko / VG Bild Kunst, Bonn 2008

If you upload the image, make sure you include that information in the image description. Please don't upload the full image (or if you do, edit the image description page with {{non-free reduce}} to ask someone else to reduce the size for you.) —RP88 ^(talk) 11:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Active Banana (talk • contribs) 11:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Active Banana, I realize you didn't have any ill-intentions by copy-pasting a comment I made to WP:MCQ here to your talk page, but by doing so it looks like I made the comment here instead of there. I've taken the liberty of modifying the comment of mine that you pasted above to make it clear it was a quote from elsewhere. When referring to other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed. Take a look at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines for additional suggestions.

Anyway, back to copyright issues :-) There is a bit more discussion of this issue at WP:MCQ. Feel free to ask any additional questions you have about this image over there or here on your talk page. I'll monitor both. —RP88 ^(talk) 11:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wild Goose Chase

I took your advice and I am writing in IAR Talk page, but it seems the page is visited very infrequently. Please if you want to make a comment right now use my talk page, so you won't disrupt what I am writing. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Isang Lakas - "Long Version" or "Short Version"

for me the "short version" is the true and only verified characters, in the "long version" characters like captain barbell, darna, & dyesebel are not verified characters that will be shown in the telefantasy show, they are license/link/related to or to be shown on GMA 7 like captain barbell for their 60th Anniversary this year.. as for the others like lastikman, varga, kapitan boom, tiny tony, dragonna, flash bomba, & maruja all are license/link/related to and to be shown as "Isang Lakas" on ABS-CBN. All my information are verified, and if the following characters that i mentioned for GMA 7 are to be shown on ABS-CBN 2, i swear i will not edit this "Isang Lakas Page" anymore. I will assure you that my information is true and verified... thanks. --122.53.125.234 (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

#1 BLP Violator in the Eli Soriano article

Hi, Active Banana! Thank you for your contributions in the Eliseo Soriano article. Reading the history of the said article, it seems that most of the persons and users involved in trying to remove the BLP violations (i.e removing poorly-sourced claims at the lead) were blocked since their edits were accused of being vandalism by an editor (who is currently not around). The pro-violation editor has, surprisingly, violated the 3RR rule by reverting the anon's edit three times (within 24 hrs).

Aside from numerous "personal attacks" against pro-Soriano editors (I'm neither pro-S nor anti-S) and BLP violations in talk pages, the editor seems to be Canvassing other users with the same opinon as what she believes (here). Should the user be reported and blocked due to his "borderline incivility"? IronBreww (chat) 02:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Francisco Yeste

Hi there BANANA (no offense meant!), VASCO here,

I am well aware of the site policy on civility and akin, but i have ZERO respect for vandals and will fight them with my soul. Incredibly, one entire chunk of storyline in which i "worked my tail off" was removed, no words added - now comes the incredible part - and no one noticed, i bet the perpetrator did not even get a notice. Ah, and i would reinstate it also if it was another editor's work.

Yes, i am also aware this is not a fansite, i have been here at the site, and have NEVER added: falsehoods, POV or weasel (ok maybe the latter a little, when i was a rookie). Unref'd info which is true is less true? But don't worry, i will find a ref this week or so.

Cheers, keep up the good work, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• I could not agree more, sincerely. And i suppose it is never appropriate to remove chunks of storyline, just because, without a word. Sorry for any incovenience - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry my friend, i have reinstated storyline (why did you remove it? i really fail to understand), but removed POV from intro and left tags. Can we reach a compromise? If you read it carefully, you will see that almost the entire info in storyline can be contested with EXT.LINKS (which are REFS in itself). If you remove storyline again, i think you should follow suit with the entire Athletic Bilbao squad's storylines too i suppose - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Found some refs, reworded storyline (and don't say it's all my storyline when it's not, i just happen to know the player, so left it be from other users). I am almost 100% sure you are on my case for calling idiots to the other folks (removing stuff just because, and if you check some summaries, there are two chaps there insulting each other!), if you remove it again will be 100% sure, getting treated worse than a vandal, okeydokey - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Added more REFS. I don't know if you are intimate with soccer or not, but i called the Athletic Bilbao youth system "prolific" because it is widely regarded (in Spain no question) as the best youth system in football, i have written that in THOUSANDS of articles, and no one (especially users connected with the sport and part of the WPFOOTY project) removed it or questioned it.

Was really taken aback with your reactions but, as the WP "good book" says, i assume good faith (hope you do the same with me, only trying to help) and hope we can cooperate well in the future. Yes, i know, no personal attacks, but my tolerance with vandals will remain the same (ZERO!). Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, how do you see it now? Is it possible that the tags can be removed now or shall we wait? - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts on major editing without consensus during an AfD

I don't think it is appropriate to be making substantive removals of a material in the midst of an AfD, especially when the specific plans for removal are not proposed and discussed on the talk page first. I did a brief search to see if there is a policy, guideline or essay on point, and didn't find much of anything. If you are aware of such items, please let me know. If we don't have such guidance, I plan to propose that we discuss some guidance, as it is unfair to participants in the AfD. (I am aware that editing during an AfD is not prohibited. I thought the unwritten rule was that improving the article with the addition of sources, or doing uncontroversial cleanup is not just allowed, but encouraged.) However, I think removal of sources, especially ones that have been discussed, without even attempting consensus, is not something that should be encouraged.--SPhilbrickT 14:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

While I am still interested to know what guidelines we have for this situation, my post to you was motivated by thinking that you had removed the Lovely citation, when in fact it was moved. I won't bother checking to see if you really did remove anything of substance, I'll leave my request for any thoughts on what the policy is or should be, and strikeout the implication that you removed substantive material.--SPhilbrickT 15:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh

• And I was like
  

Baby, baby, baby ohhh
Like baby, baby, baby noo
Like baby, baby, baby ohh
I thought youd always be mine mine
--PrimeViper (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect

Hi! When you have a minute, would you mind responding to my reply to your remark of 17:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)? I'd like to clean up my mess. Thanks!--Yopienso (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you mind if I deleted everything we both struck? Two reasons: my pride ;) and to reduce clutter. Yopienso (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Fastily#Philippine Cable Channels Remove Again

Hi Active Banana. There have been some allegations made against you at my talk at User talk:Fastily#Philippine Cable Channels Remove Again. Comment from you would be appreciated. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit War Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -143.166.255.64 (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Stubbing an article at AfD - WP:Articles for deletion/Stevie Tupu

Hi. I disagree with your re-stubbing of this article during AfD, but I don't want to edit-war about it, so I have raised the question at AN/I here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is with you; I've added a note to the AfD as suggested at ANI. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: India Ennenga

Hello Active Banana. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of India Ennenga, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Appearing in a national TV show is an assertion of notability - use PROD if it doesn't meet WP:N. Thank you. Ale_Jrb^talk 12:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Blogs

Personal and group blogs which allow anyone to post anything without oversight are not appropriate sources. Professional blogs can be.

"Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psdealer (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Rain (entertainer). Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 99.243.117.17 (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Rain

Hi - I just dismissed an AIV claim against you from an SPA, but in reviewing the rain article I can't seem to find anything contentious in the awards section. The 2010 Badass award matches what the MTV award page states. Can you please let me know what parts were contentious. Thanks.  7  02:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Active Banana is not saying it is contentious. Rather, he's saying that none of the awards contain citations proving he won any of these awards. For each and every one of the awards listed, a credible source outside of Wikipedia must be added as proof of the award. Groink (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Gore Effect" - Consensus building

Inre your recent undiscussed edit of the article introductory, as you are aware, a discussion is currently in progress within the article talk attempting to reach some consensus regarding the introductory text. While you are certainly free to continue editing in a manner of your choosing, perhaps it would be advisable to consider that, should consensus be reached within article talk as to that same introductory text, subsequent unilateral edits will most probably be difficult to defend.

Please consider refraining from further edits to the article introductory (perhaps even self-reverting) and, instead, re-consider presenting your suggested edits within talk as a more effective method for influencing the article development. Rgds JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

3rr on Siobhan Magnus

Just as a note, but you have made three reverts in a 24-hour period and any other revert could result in being blocked from editing. Aspects (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

These are the three edits I was referring to, [13], [14] and [15], not the image reversions of clear copyright violations. Aspects (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are still three reversions that do not fall under any of the exceptions listed at WP:3RR. Aspects (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#User: Active Banana

Hello, I am a Reviewer (verify) here, and I am responding to the request on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#User: Active Banana. Please go to Talk:Rain (entertainer)#Sourced content. Thank you.Taric25 (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rain (entertainer). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I have reported you, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Active Banana reported by User:Taric25 (Result: ) is where you may see my report. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

ALL ABOUT REMOVING CHANNEL LINEUPS.

I always read Philippine cable wiki pages. Do not remove those listings. I always refer to the listings so I can know their lineups. I strongly oppose your move of removing channel listings. 17:18(+8) 18 June 2010Vgyu 09:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)VgyuVgyu 09:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgyu (talk • contribs)

Channel Listings

I strongly oppose to what you are suggesting. Check Discussion pages for WP:NOTDIR. -G8crash3r | Talk 18:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I will revert what I said but delete this article, List of Verizon FiOS channels first to be fair. -G8crash3r | Talk 18:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove it, clear it out. You like doing that right, then do it to be fair and then I'll stop. -G8crash3r | Talk 18:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackmail you for what? All I want is for you to be fair. That's all. -G8crash3r | Talk 18:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot do it, I will assume you are really picking on Philippine wiki articles and trying to avoid being banned for messing up US-based articles, aren't you? -G8crash3r | Talk 19:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If it bothers you as well why do you keep on editing Philippine articles when a few of its editors are already complaining with what you are doing. Why not edit other articles instead? -G8crash3r | Talk 19:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, going technical as well by putting warning signs. BTW, it was not an attack its a question. Come to think of it, you are the one that actually Canvassed the whole of Wikipedia to side on you regarding the inclusion of "Channel Listings" in WP:NOTDIR because you partially "Suggested" it to be included. -G8crash3r | Talk 19:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Know what, I am already tired of this whole fiasco and I give up, you win. I already used so much of my time airing my side here and being blocked out of it. You can do whatever you want. I'm outta here. -G8crash3r | Talk 19:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

after the removing the Philippine Cable and DTH article what's next target, around the world?! I'm strongly disagree that you did. But many of Wikipedian user will react especially Cable and DTH provider around the world removing channel line-up in their different countries. and for your information G8crash3r and me are different person but I'm not type of person what you think. But no offense! -Puppyph | Talk 12:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe you should place the RfC tag in our current discussion, there is already a definition for "current channel listing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.50.101 (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

cable lstings

Some of the cable sites are inaccurate. Wikipedia is more accurate so STOP REMOVING THEM! Vgyu 08:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)VgyuVgyu 08:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC) 16:59 Saturday, June 19, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgyu (talk • contribs)

Nina Girado

Thank you for checking Nina Girado's article. I'm really learning alot in terms of finding sources. I swear the statements are all fact and confirmed, I just have a hard time trying to find reliable references, but I'm still searching for each sentence that needs one. Kristelzorina (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Krupp

Well my view is that words or phrases like "400 year old", "prominent" and "famous" are probably true in the case of Krupp (like the family or not) and not necessarily peacock words in this case. So I don't think we should just delete them unless we can reasonably demonstrate them to be false or 'over the top'. But feel free to start a discussion on the talk page. Also your edit contained a typo that broke one of the links. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Per your request, I have informed all of the users involved in the previous discussion prior to the policy I proposed. I apologize for the misunderstanding, as I was not attempting to votestack, simply to avoid concern with me leaving messages on talk pages. Please accept my apology. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about sourcing

Hello, can this link be a reliable source to - "Make You Mine", topping radio and video charts. - http://www.philmusic.com/main/content/view/4/7/

I'd thought asking you would be helpful. Kristelzorina (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF

Hello, could you please read WP:AGF before accusing people of conflicts of interest. FYI if you look at my edits, I just removed some "notsability issues" that were not justified, Google or specialized publication can bring a lot of sources. On the rest I agree that those articles (and others in the same field) are blatant marketing material. Canonebeseriouz (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking Google hits per se. I am just giving hints that reading what results Google gives indicates that some of the pages that where massively marked as non-notable are notable. Canonebeseriouz (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Image restore

Hi, I wasn't the one who deleted the image. Your diff showed an edit to the upload page which is something different. According to this it was Black Kite who deleted the image so you'd better ask him. On a first glance I don't the image will pass wp:nfcc though. Garion96 (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology for sockpuppet allegations

Active Banana, I cannot express how sorry I am an how much I feel like a fool. I recall putting the talk page of User:200.63.165.19 on my watch list, and I saw User:Amalthea blocked the IP, because it was an open proxy being used to evade a block. I was totally shocked, and I feel like such dick for suspecting you were using making sockpuppet allegations when in fact it was the user who reported you at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests who was actually using a sockpuppet. I really don’t know what to say other than sorry. Please forgive me. Taric25 (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability of Peers of the Realm and/or Members of the House of Lords

Hello Mr Banana,

I'm not entirely familiar with wikipedia rules and regulations but I was surprised to see that you have labelled the article on the 5th Viscount Younger of Leckie as possibly not meeting notability requirements.

Peers of the Realm are notable, and members of the House of Lords (who are peers of the realm as well as legislators) are certainly notable. The article may be a work in progress - I don't know much about the chap - but it includes a reference to the Offical Parliamentary Report (Hansard) which proves that he will shortly become a legislator. Can legislators fail the notability test?

Thanks.

Intermess (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Reading the links you provided it seems that WP:Politician, as a (soon-to-be) holder of national office, and the policy on reliable third party referencing (can't get much more reliable than Hansard) are met. Therefore I am removing the tag and replacing it with one for a stub article. I think that is a fairer assessment of the article in its present form.

Intermess (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Active Banana. You have new messages at Amalthea's talk page.
Message added 19:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MBLAQ page

Hello,

I am sorry, if it may look i am vandalizing wiki but i am trying to correct the things that were messed up during the day. I am using the official website, i took out parts that may have sounded not neutral. I am not familiar with wiki and the rules. But i tried and read it. A lot of the part are originally from way before. The only things i added are from the Official page of MBLAQ www.m-blaq.com

So sorry, i am not going to do it anymore, i only tried it cus people said really bad things, in their editing. Like one active member would be dead and such.

Anyway i am sorry,

Bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.147.198.48 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page Stalking

Hi Active Banana. Thanks for helping me answer my talk page posts - I really appreciate it. Not that I have any complaints about your current method of answering queries, but I just want you to know that you are free to respond to queries directly on my talk page too. At any rate, have a cookie.

Fastily has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Next time I will be more clear! Active Banana (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahathalla

You had tagged {expert} for the above article. Good move, however, the tag is being removed by another user. A debate is required on the article. Can you take up the resposibility and be a fair judge. Your help is required.Teutonick (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Top hat construction

In regards to the source, I have found one which can be seen here:

• http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=5016882&l=4d1027a455&id=688147062
• http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=5016883&l=12e5c4a124&id=688147062

I got these from a page I got off eBay. Unfortunately, no bibliographical info was given and I am trying to chase it up. If I can't get the info, how should I proceed with this in terms of citation? --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 09:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I found out the source of the page and have amended the article already. Thanks anyways. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 17:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Avargas2001

You may be interested to know that I have brought this user to WP:ANI here. Pfainuk talk 18:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on Angela Tilby

Thank you for all the work on the article I recently started on Angela Tilby - this certainly taught me new information! I am grateful for you for doing this - it could well help the article to be saved from deletion now. It is always good when people collaborate with others on Wikipedia in this collaborative way - so a big round of thanks to your there. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are being discussed by administrators

See WP:AN3#User:Warrenpd reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: ). At first glance it looks like the other guy made seven reverts and you made five. Both of these exceed WP:3RR. To avoid sanctions, you should comment in the thread at AN3 and promise to stop warring on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned your conduct at the ArbCom CC case workshop page

here [16]. It involved me alleging you committed some misconduct, but I said I didn't see enough of it to make your behavior worth an ArbCom sanction. Others (including ArbCom) may disagree, and you should know it's there in any event. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Were you unaware of the Climate Change case? If you mean "What is this case all about", look at the top of the Workshop page I linked to. It has links to the Main Case Page [17] where various editors commented on whether or not the Arbitration Committee should take this up. That's not really a "Reader's Digest" version, but there really is no RD version and that is what comes closest. I thought you knew. Sorry you had to hear about it this way. The evidence stage is over, so it's unlikely you'd be sanctioned. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just Started

I just started using wikipedia yesterday. I am an intern for Rasmussen College and they wanted me to update their wiki page. I guess I didnt really know what I was doing because the page is locked now. I read all of my messages and I have all of the sources for my edits. I really need to get this done before the end of the day. Is there any way I can get it unlocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenpd (talk • contribs) 14:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks a lot

The seldom coveted THUMBS UP AWARD

for pitching in at Russ Savakus. Luck you, here is your prize. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

HEY!

I changed Cast members of As the World Turns to July because today is the last day of June and they haven't come on the show. So leave them alone. They appear in July. THANKS!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.139.100 (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

help me in sourcing :)

Can this link be a good source for Nina Girado#Voice??? - http://www.casttv.com/video/rxgk561/how-other-artists-describe-the-asia-s-soul-siren-nina-asap-sessionistas-at-the-araneta-video Kristelzorina (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thanks!

Re your message: No problem. =) I'm going to file a quick CU request about the accounts in a moment. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is everyone reverting constructive edits to Kal Ho Naa Ho?

Can you please tell me what's so bad about the edit I made to Kal Ho Naa Ho that it needed to be reverted (three times so far)? I am only here to help. BollyJeff || talk 01:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the point was to show that User:Shshshsh performs excessive reverts, then I would tend to agree with them on that. BollyJeff || talk 02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for your speedy reply and correction. BollyJeff || talk 02:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for improving the article Nanjing University. And if any content described in a way like ads, also please help to revise. Thanks! Furthermore, I think query, debating and communication will help to ensure validity and proper way of description of contents. Peducte (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I see that User:Gun Powder Ma said you added advert template to the article Nanjing University. I also read Wikipedia:NOT#SOAPBOX, and the explanation about advertising. I don’t agree on the tag. The contents of article Nanjing University are serious, although there may be problems in translation. If you do think some contents are ads, please clearly point out the specific contents and let's have discussions one by one. If not, then I'll delete the tag. Again thank you for improving the grammar of article. - Peducte (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page. Please see my words and give your opinions. - Peducte (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your precious opinions. In some degree I agree with you. Since You added the Advert tag, would you please help to revise those words of overabundance? And those you think lack sources please add sign of citation request, and I'll see whether I can help to provide sources or not. (from my talk page) - Peducte (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

According to what said, the problems can be divided into two parts. So, the tag Advert is not proper. It should be replaced by requests of citation and the issue on problems of Peacock. - Peducte (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advising. - Peducte (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Nanjing University. (more reply) - Peducte (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Nanjing University. - Peducte (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh...

Bana shsh kibhenko (talk · contribs) is there too... Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Paulius Galaunė

I think ive written about most of the important things about this artist. what do you think I could do to make the article better, so it could be featured or something ? thanks. Nefesf9 (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Discussion at WP:NOT

I am interested in posting a request for comment on the issue of channel listings. Is it okay if I start that in a new section at WT:NOT? Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Just took a look at Dcoetzee's proposal. I agree that we should let it play out. If nothing comes out of that discussion, then we can consider an RFC. -- Wikipedical (talk)