User talk:The Banner/Archive03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

  • From the editor: Wikipedia, our Colosseum
    In the impersonal, detached Colosseum that is Wikipedia, people find it much easier to put their thumbs down. As such, many people active in the Wikimedia movement have witnessed a precipitous decline in civil discourse. This is far from a new trend, yet many people would agree that it all seemed somehow worse in 2012.
  • In the media: Is the Wikimedia movement too 'cash rich'?
    A recent, poorly researched and poorly written story in the Register highlighted the perceived "cash rich" status of the Wikimedia movement. ... The Telegraph and Daily Dot, among others, have alleged that there are multiple links between the WMF, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, and Kazakhstan's government, which is, for all intents and purposes, a one-party non-democratic state.
  • Technology report: Looking back on a year of incremental changes
    In the first of two features, the Signpost this week looks back on 2012, a year when developers finally made inroads into three issues that had been put off for far too long (the need for editors to learn wiki-markup, the lack of a proper template language and the centralisation of data) but left all three projects far from finished.
  • Interview: Interview with Brion Vibber, the WMF's first employee
    Brion Vibber has been a Wikipedia editor for nearly 11 years and was the first person officially hired to work for the Wikimedia Foundation. He was instrumental in early development of the MediaWiki software and is now the lead software architect for the foundation's mobile development team.
  • Featured content: Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review
    At the beginning of the year, we began a series of interviews with editors who have worked hard to combat systemic bias through the creation of featured content; although we haven't seen six installments yet, we've also had some delightful interviews with people who write articles on some of our most core topics. Now, as we close the year, I would like to present some of my own musings on the state of featured content—especially as it pertains to systemic bias and core topics.
  • WikiProject report: New Year, New York
    This week, we're celebrating the New Year from Times Square by interviewing WikiProject New York City. Since December 2004, WikiProject NYC has had the difficult task of maintaining articles about the largest city in the United States, many of which are also among the the most viewed articles on Wikipedia. The project is home to 22 Featured Articles, 7 Featured Lists, 32 pieces of Featured Media, and a lengthy list of Did You Know? entries.
  • Recent research: Wikipedia and Sandy Hook; SOPA blackout reexamined
    Northeastern University researcher Brian Keegan analyzed the gathering of hundreds of Wikipedians to cover the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. ... A First Monday article reviews several aspects of the Wikipedia participation in the 18 January 2012, protests against SOPA and PIPA legislation in the USA. The paper focuses on the question of legitimacy, looking at how the Wikipedia community arrived at the decision to participate in those protests.

please stop messing with my page

i am keeping this short. please stop editing and removing my content. mark robertson is authorized to upload content and data as it has been provided by myself. i will start a dispute now with wikipedia to prevent further involvement. what interest or right do you have to remove my content and edit my page??? what interest or right do you have to upload incorrect dates or births, birth places etc. stay off my page. billie ray martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.231.226 (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please see User talk:Blinsenlinsen for more on this - thanks. DBaK (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
It is not your page. You don't own that page. The Banner talk 18:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Secondly, we work here from published sources, not from hearsay or personal information. If I stated things incorrect, come up with independent and reliable sources containing the right information. Promo, directly by you or by someone very close to you, is not desired. The Banner talk 18:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, I will keep it short: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VPanton The Banner talk 19:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Talk:Aan_de_Poel.
Message added 21:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BO | Talk 21:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

  • Op-ed: Meta, where innovative ideas die
    Meta is the wiki that has coordinated a wide range of cross-project Wikimedia activities, such as the activities of stewards, the archiving of chapter reports, and WMF trustee elections. The project has long been an out-of-the-way corner for technocratic working groups, unaccountable mandarins, and in-house bureaucratic proceedings. Largely ignored by the editing communities of projects such as Wikipedia and organizations that serve them, Meta has evolved into a huge and relatively disorganized repository, where the few archivists running it also happen to be the main authors of some of its key documents. While Meta is well-designed for supporting the librarians and mandarins who stride along its corridors, visitors tend to find the site impenetrable—or so many people have argued over the past decade. This impenetrability runs counter to Meta's increasingly central role in the Wikimedia movement.
  • WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Episode IV: A New Year
    The dawning of a new year offers both a fresh slate and an opportunity to revisit our previous adventures. 2012 marked the fifth anniversary of the WikiProject Report and was the column's most productive year with 52 articles published. In addition to sharing the experiences of Wikipedia's many active projects, we expanded our scope to highlight unique projects from other languages of Wikipedia, and tracked down all of the former editors-in-chief of the Signpost for an introspective interview ... While last year's "Summer Sports Series" may have drawn yawns from some readers, a special report on "Neglected Geography" elicited more comments than any previous issue of the Report. Following in the footsteps of our past three recaps, we'll spend this week looking back at the trials and tribulations of the WikiProjects we encountered in 2012. Where are they now?
  • News and notes: 2012—the big year
    The past 12 months have seen a multitude of issues and events in the Wikimedia foundation, the movement at large, and the English Wikipedia. The movement, now in its second decade, is growing apace in its international reach, cultural and linguistic diversity, technical development, and financial complexity; and many factors have combined to produce what has in many ways been the biggest, most dynamic year in the movement's history. Looking back at 2012, we faced a difficult task in doing justice to all of the notable events in a single article; so the Signpost has selected just a few examples from outside the anglosphere, from the English Wikipedia, and from the Wikimedia Foundation, rather than attempting to cover every detail that happened.
  • Featured content: Featured content in review
    Over the past year, 963 pieces of featured content were promoted. The most active of the featured content programs was featured article candidates (FAC), which promoted an average of 31 articles a month. This was followed by featured picture candidates (FPC; 28 a month). Coming in third was featured list candidates (FLC; 20 a month). Featured topic and featured portal candidates remained sluggish, each promoting fewer than 20 items over the year.
  • Technology report: Looking ahead to 2013
    Following on from last week's reflections on 2012, this week the Technology report looks ahead to 2013, a year that will almost certainly be dominated by the juggernauts of Wikidata, Lua and the Visual Editor.

question...

hi banner

you wrote the following: "I am sceptical about the neutrality of research organisations receiving massive donations from companies growing rich by or through conventional agriculture." and i wrote a kind of sharp response... this statement kind of upset me and i am sorry for the sharpness... but i just don't get where you are coming from. You seem, in general, to be a more rigorous thinker than the kind of thinker that produces this kind of hand-wavy, vaguely conspiratorial, and very useful for brushing away research results you don't like, statement (how is that for some germanic syntax, btw?) In any case, where are you coming from? Do you really think that way? i do hope you explain. thx.Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ever seen the movies "Food inc." and "The World According to Monsanto"? Those movies are good enough to make the innocent believer to become a believer in the conspiracy theory that Monsonato and agrochemical friends "control" the United States.
As far as I can tell, those movies tell the truth and the agrochemical industry has a very unhealthy influence within the US Government. But I am also aware that those movies are biased and that I can't believe them for 100%.
Yep when I started this project last summer I watched them both....and they insulted my intelligence, over and over and over. I know they are important to the anti-GM community which is why I stuck with them and watched them all the way through. But I ~hate~ being lied to and manipulated and they are both over the top in that regard. And as I have written several places on the organic food talk page, my good faith (really!) efforts to verify most of what the anti-GMO crowd says have yielded clear trails of exaggeration and misconstrual of facts or standard business practices... which just made me sad. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
More or less as a compromise in my head, I turned sceptical. Sceptical insofar that I think that the near total lack of positive results towards organic farming, is to some extent "funded" by by the agrochemical industry. No directly by manipulating results but by preventing positive research to be finished or published. He who pays the piper, calls the tune. As long as is not completely disclosed how a certain research is financed and out of what sources, how the research institution is financed and how the scientific magazines are financed, I will stay sceptical about the neutrality of the researchers, research institutions and magazines.
Thank you for explaining that. I hear you. Can I respond to this? Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion MEDRS-sourcing origininally is truly set up to avoid dodgy sources coming up with spectacular health claims (like the diet invented by Cornelis Moerman, who claimed that cancer could be overcome with a special diet and food supplements). But I really think that Wolfie and Yobol misuse MEDRS to prevent information into the article out of other sources than strict medical sources. Their plain refusal to allow published, peer-reviewed research from specialised agricultural institutions, even when connected to a reliable university, is an example of that. Their stance seem to be that positive research about organical farming is automatically unreliable and that negative research automatically reliable. The Banner talk 18:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
They have surprised me too - but interestingly they have not challenged the structure of the article with respect to separately describing chemical differences. I found some good sources I want to introduce in those sections. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
And just look at the way Yobol is "raping" Organic milk. Negative, negative, negative. The Banner talk 18:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I haven't looked at that article.... should I?Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Please! Our interaction gave me enough faith in your neutrality and dedication. The Banner talk 19:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Funny attempt by a POV-pusher to chase me away

Your recent editing history at Organic milk shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yobol (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice try to chase me away, but unfortunately it won't work. I want truth, and not POV on Organic milk. The Banner talk 19:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is enough

This Your 2 Warning if You did it again You will be Blocked 5 Days Because you want to Delete List of tallest Buildings in Iloilo City user:Jeb2003 7:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess you disagree? But block me, if you can... The Banner talk 11:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Bishop of Limerick has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Wikipedia has a policy called "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", which discourages such edits. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reference to a reliable source. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

AFD at List of Star Wars characters

I've gone ahead and closed your AFD on this article, as it's clear that you want the redirect List of ancient Jedi deleted instead. For that, you should head over to Redirects for discussion and follow the instructions there. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ehm, ooooooops... I guess I was fooled by the redirect itself. I have now but up the redirect for deletion. The Banner talk 21:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

  • Investigative report: Ship ahoy! New travel site finally afloat
    After six years without creating a new class of content projects, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has finally expanded into a new area: travel. Wikivoyage was formally launched—though without a traditional ship's christening—on 15 January, having started as a beta trial on 10 November. Wikivoyage has been taken under the WMF's umbrella on the argument that information resources that help with travel are educational and therefore within the scope of the foundation's mission.g
  • News and notes: Launch of annual picture competition, new grant scheme
    On January 16, voting for the first round of the 2012 Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year contest will begin. Wikimedia editors with 75 edits or one project are eligible to vote to select their favorite image featured in 2012. ... On January 15, the foundation launched its latest grant scheme, called Individual Engagement Grants (IEG).
  • WikiProject report: Reach for the Stars: WikiProject Astronomy
    This week, we set off for the final frontier with WikiProject Astronomy. The project was started in August 2006 using the now-defunct WikiProject Space as inspiration. WikiProject Astronomy is home to 101 pieces of Featured material and 148 Good Articles maintained by a band of 186 members. The project maintains a portal, works on an assortment of vital astronomy articles, and provides resources for editors adding or requesting astronomy images.
  • Special report: Loss of an Internet genius
    Comforting those grieving after the loss of a loved one is an impossible task. How then, can an entire community be comforted? The Internet struggled to answer that question this week after the suicide of Aaron Swartz, a celebrated free-culture activist, programmer, and Wikipedian at the age of 26.
  • Featured content: Featured articles: Quality of reviews, quality of writing in 2012
    Continuing our recap of the featured content promoted in 2012, this week the Signpost interviewed three editors, asking them about featured articles which stuck out in their minds. Two, Ian Rose and Graham Colm, are current featured article candidates (FAC) delegates, while Brian Boulton is an active featured article writer and reviewer.
  • Technology report: Intermittent outages planned, first Wikidata client deployment
    The Wikidata client extension was successfully deployed to the Hungarian Wikipedia on 14 January, its team reports. The interwiki language links can now come from wikidata.org, though "manual" interwiki links remain functional, overriding those from the central repository.

Logic failure

ONE: moves should not be done without discussion and consensus. (A large number of GAA articles were moved without discussion or consensus.)

TWO: an article that has been moved controversially, without discussion or consensus, should be moved back and a move discussion opened. (I moved them back and opened a talk page topic for each move.)

These seem to me to be fairly basic rules. Yet, when I move articles back under rule two above, you not only move them back but try to get your move protected! Brocach (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat what someone else did nor use that as an excuse to ignore a running discussion. The Banner talk 14:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

WorldMap

Banner: Can you explain as far as you can tell why you/they are deleting the WorldMap article I created? Is it sources? content? writing? I am quite surprised I have to admit. Richmond9 (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


User talk:Laurel Lodged

Laurel, who is currently blocked, has asked me to notify you about the discussion on their talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

James Porter

I haven't been the one reverting and removing sourced information.Swampyank (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Start counting, you have by now done 4 (four) reverts today: , , , The Banner talk 19:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

nomination of deletion of Eric Everard

I note your nomination of deletion of the page Eric Everard - you may wish to comment on my nomination of related pages EasyFairs the company to which he was related, and fellow directors Jean-François Quentin, and Julian Kulkarni. ---- nonsense ferret 00:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I note your interest in deleting my article on Eric Everard. How is Belgium's Manager of the Year of less interest than an Irish restaurant that closed in 2003? You have some strange criteria for what constitutes "encyclopaedic"! User talk:EdWalker58 —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I would have expected a less pitiful reply from a professional writer/journalist. The Banner talk 12:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
And I would expect you to respond to the points I made, rather than resorting to personal insults. How many awards and honours must Eric Everard win before you remove your nomination for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdWalker58 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
You are promoting your own boss. The Banner talk 13:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Armstrong's Barn

I am just curious, what precisely is the value of so many wikipedia articles (in English and Dutch) about long-defunct Irish restaurants? User: EdWalker58 —Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Far more then the promotion of your boss, mr. Marketing employee. The Banner talk 13:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it would be possible to have a sensible discussion rather than resorting to personal abuse and innuendo? I am not an employee, I am self-employed. I would like to understand your motives for wanting the Wikipedia page removed. --EdWalker58 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Reasons: promotion, advertising and puffery. Plus a conflict of interest of the author: (...) then you are very strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral. The Banner talk 14:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I have tried to be neutral and avoid conflict of interest issues. I will re-review to ensure that this is the case. Feel free to edit if you feel that anything specific on the Eric Everard entry is incorrect, misleading or lacks objectivity. Best regards --EdWalker58 (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Unicode characters and redirects

Please do not unlink symbols on unicode tables. Instead, if you find an issue with it, fix or flag the redirect instead. Thank you. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you just stop creating links to disambiguation pages? Just link them to the right pages, not to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 23:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

  • News and notes: Requests for adminship reform moves forward
    The English Wikipedia's requests for adminship (RfA) process has entered another cycle of proposed reforms. Over the last three weeks, various proposals, ranging from as large as a transition to a representative democracy to as small as a required edit count and service length, have been debated on the RfA talk page. The total number of new administrators for 2012 was just 28, barely more than half of 2011's total and less than a quarter of 2009's total. The total number of unsuccessful RfAs has fallen as well. These declining numbers, which were described in what would now be considered a successful year (2010) as an emerging "wikigeneration gulf", have been coupled with a sharp decline in the number of active administrators since February 2008 (1,021), reaching a low of 653 in November 2012.
  • WikiProject report: Say What? — WikiProject Linguistics
    This week, we spent some time with WikiProject Linguistics. Started in January 2004, the project has grown to include 7 Featured Articles, 4 Featured Lists, 2 A-class Articles, and 15 Good Articles maintained by 43 members. The project's members keep an eye on several watchlists, maintain the linguistics category, and continue to build a collection of Did You Know? entries. The project is home to six task forces and works with WikiProject Languages and WikiProject Writing Systems.
  • Featured content: Wazzup, G? Delegates and featured topics in review
    This week, the Signpost's featured content section continues its recap of 2012 by looking at featured topics. We interviewed Grapple X and GamerPro64, who are delegates at the featured topic candidates.
  • Arbitration report: Doncram case continues
    The opening of the Doncram case marks the end of almost 6 months without any open cases, the longest in the history of the Committee.
  • Technology report: Data centre switchover a tentative success
    On 22 January, WMF staff and contractors switched incoming, non-cached requests (including edits) to the Foundation's newer data centre in Ashburn, Virginia, making it responsible for handling almost all regular traffic. For the first time since 2004, virtually no traffic will be handled by the WMF's other facility in Tampa, Florida.

Dispute resolution

I've left a comment in this discussion. It must surely be clear to you all by now that edit-warring, multiple moves/requested moves and shouting matches on WP:IE, WP:IMOS, WikiProject Gaelic games and AN/I is not solving anything. I urge the three of you – Brocach, The Banner and Laurel Lodged – to put your heads together and take your dispute to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, and in the meantime declare a cease-fire and stop hitting your heads off a brick wall. I am posting the identical message to each of you. Scolaire (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Useless exercise. The Banner talk 09:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Causing disruption all over the shop is useful, but even thinking about dispute resolution is useless? I give up! Scolaire (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not causing the disruption! And I have no confidence that Brocach is willing to compromise in any form, while Laurel Lodged is prepared to accept topic ban alongside Brocach if that is decided to be the best option for the encyclopdia. The Banner talk 13:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
But as a compromise, I willing to accept a topic ban for Laurel Lodged, Brocach, you and me. The Banner talk 14:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
If the topic is the GAA, then I would gladly accept that compromise. A topic without endless disruption from you lot is preferable to a messed-up topic with the odd uninspiring edit by me. Go ahead and propose it. Scolaire (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, but hadn't you better include Mabuska as well? His proposals on WT:IE are part of this problem as well. Scolaire (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
LOL, you make it loud and clear that you don't want mediation and a compromise but just want everybody out of the way that does not agree with you. The Banner talk 16:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, not necessarily. Isn't there someone else who agrees with Brocach? I can't remember his name off-hand. Stick him on the list as well and we'll topic-ban everybody. Works so much better than going through a dispute resolution process. Scolaire (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Rene Redzepi

Please check my comment on the talk page about Rene Redzepi page referencing to his father. I write you because i saw that u were the last one that has done something to the page.Daci92 (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance,

but what does "c/e" mean in relation to page edits? JD2 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it stands for CopyEdit. The Banner talk 22:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response! Feel free do delete this section/question if desired.JD2 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Panama population

I did; As a matter of fact, if you review the content present in the citations I provided, you'll see they were right. If anything, your content is outdated or wrong. Mainly because Las Cumbres is within San Miguelito, and Panama City has a population of 800,000+ citizens. Additionally, any population inside a district is not a city, but part of it (in Panamanian terms, there's no distinction between city and district).

In fact, I think some cities after the top four are also wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocoliras (talk • contribs) 06:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware that those edits are incorrect; Those statistics from the City Council's site are correct. If we didn't use them, then the largest city would wind up as the smallest. Las Cumbres is a part of the city. Look again please. The government is to be trusted as the ultimate information source. Any others are inferior and can be ignored or disregarded as not being correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocoliras (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sir, those numbers belong to provinces/region. Provinces are no cities. Regions are no cities. Please, look at the [http://www.citypopulation.de/Panama.html#Stadt_gross source I have provided. As you can read in your own source, the 800k is for Panama Region, not for Panama City. The Banner talk 19:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This link of the city government's page still disagrees. Read the description, or shall I provide a translation? Cocoliras (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The city's page itself says the population as per the government's site, hence why we believe it instead of a shady foreign website that may have or highly inacurate data. Cocoliras (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Bejaysus, we are talking here about the biggest cities of the state of Panama. The Banner talk 05:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright; We are talking about the largest cities in the entire country right? Are you aware that the country's largest city Panama City has nearly 800,000+ inhabitants?

That's Panama City; You are placing lots of areas that are NOT cities but PARTS of the city. There's nothing in that page saying province! And yes, Panama uses PROVINCES not states.

Cocoliras (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

When those part have their own City Council, they are not counted as part of Panama City. The Banner talk 10:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

They don't have their own city councils. The city council's page (which is the one in the address) is the one you're looking at; The corregimientos are part of the city. If you don't know it; with it's metro area, Panama City has 1,400,000+ inhabitants Cocoliras (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That was not clear in the sources you provided! Often enough suburbs have their own city or town council. The Banner talk 14:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

  • In the media: Hoaxes draw media attention
    On New Year's Day, the Daily Dot reported that a "massive Wikipedia hoax" had been exposed after more than five years. The article on the Bicholim conflict had been listed as a "Good Article" for the past half-decade, yet turned out to be an ingenious hoax. Created in July 2007 by User:A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a, the meticulously detailed piece was approved as a GA in October 2007. A subsequent submission for FA was unsuccessful, but failed to discover that the article's key sources were made up. While the User:A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a account then stopped editing, the hoax remained listed as a Good Article for five years, receiving in the region of 150 to 250 page views a month in 2012. It was finally nominated for deletion on 29 December 2012 by ShelfSkewed—who had discovered the hoax while doing work on Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs—and deleted the same day.
  • WikiProject report: Checkmate! — WikiProject Chess
    When we challenged the masters of WikiProject Chess to an interview, Sjakkalle answered our call. WikiProject Chess dates back to December 2003 and has grown to include 4 Featured Articles and 15 Good Articles maintained by over 100 members. The project typically operates independently of other WikiProjects, although the project would theoretically be a child of WikiProject Board and Table Games (interviewed in 2011). WikiProject Chess provides a collection of resources, seeks missing photographs of chess players, and helps determine ways that Wikipedia's coverage of chess can be expanded.
  • News and notes: Khan Academy's Smarthistory and Wikipedia collaborate
    To many Wikimedians, the Khan Academy would seem like a close cousin: the academy is a non-profit educational website and a development of the massive open online course concept that has delivered over 227 million lessons in 22 different languages. Its mission is to give "a free, world-class education to anyone, anywhere." This complements Wikipedia's stated goal to "imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge", then go and create that world. It should come as no surprise, then, that the highly successful GLAM-Wiki (galleries, libraries, archives, museums) initiative has partnered with the Khan Academy's Smarthistory project to further both its and Wikipedia's goals.
  • Featured content: Listing off progress from 2012
    This week, the Signpost featured content section continues its recap of 2012 by looking at featured lists. We interviewed FLC directors Giants2008 and The Rambling Man as well as active reviewer and writer PresN.
  • Arbitration report: Doncram continues
    The Doncram case has continued into its third week.
  • Technology report: Developers get ready for FOSDEM amid caching problems
    As reported in last week's "Technology Report", the WMF's data centre in Ashburn, Virginia took over responsibility for almost all of the remaining functions that had previously been handled by their old facility in Tampa, Florida on 22 January. The Signpost reported then that few problems had arisen since handover. Unfortunately that was not to remain the case, with reports of caching problems (which typically only affect anonymous users) starting to come in.

Peace offer (from WP:ANI page)

":If Brocach and Finnegas will agree to a self-impossed ban on all GAA related articles for a period of 2 months, then I will too. If not, let the ANI case continue (on the arguments hopefully, not the personalities)." Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

I assume you are following the discussions at AN/I but in case you have lost it in the detail, I have asked all parties to desist, immediately, from any renaming or recategorising of articles linked to the GAA. This applies even to correcting an article that has been amended to the 'wrong' version. The AN/I thread has grown to astonishing length with very little interest from anyone except those already engaged in the dispute. Nevertheless I will block anyone who makes further changes to these categories before a true consensus is reached, ideally at WT:GAA but frankly any venue will do! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish you good luck with all the blocking. I have no faith any more that it can be solved by discussion. By now, everybody is sick of it, as you have seen in the discussion. The slightest edit in a way that is not to Brocach liking, and you have an edit war. () Even when it is according to policy. And the behaviour of Laurel Lodged is, to put it mildly, completely stupid.
Blocking and topic bans are the only way out. As you plain refuse to go the way of topic bans, blocks are left as only possibility. Good luck with that! The Banner talk 01:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC) The GAA is not my main goal on Wikipedia, just a side show. No problem to watch is from a distance while the others kill themselves off.
A topic ban can't be enacted by a solo admin. It's not that I'm refusing to implement one: I simply cannot. Only the community can do so and the community (at AN/I) has shown a spectacular disinterest in this issue. So blocks are what we are left with, I fear. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 01:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, fair. The Banner talk 01:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Gaelic games

Hi. I have reformatted the Article and category naming conventions proposals according to your suggested format, and with Mabuska's added proposal. I hope that means we can go ahead. Scolaire (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your preferences at the WT:GAA page - it's very helpful to have this calm and well-ordered discussion on what has previously been a very heated topic! There is a new proposal which has come in after your contribution, which you might also like to comment on. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 08:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
It was a pity that is started off with such biased questions and package deals. Now we have something better. The Banner talk 11:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Byrnes Cove for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Byrnes Cove is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byrnes Cove until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ShaneMc2010 21:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ulster-Scots on Irish people

I have reverted your removal of the Ulster-Scots on the Irish people article. In what way are the BBC and Tourism Ireland unreliable sources? You're editing against the stable version, so please seek consensus for your changes on the article's talk page. Thanks, — Jon C.ॐ 14:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tourism Ireland is a dead link and even when it was a valid link, it would only lead to a plan of action, not to a scholarly source. The BBC website is also not scholarly source and it is unsourced. Beside that, why should we add a dialect among languages? The Banner talk 14:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
How about because Scots is one of the three languages, alongside English and Irish, spoken natively in Ireland? More to the point, you are still edit-warring: you've been here long enough to know how the bold, revert, discuss cycle works, so I can only conclude you're trying to force your own version without discussing it first. Poor form. — Jon C.ॐ 14:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I am bold, I did revert and I have opened a discussion on the talkpage, something you did not. The Banner talk 14:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

  • Special report: Examining the popularity of Wikipedia articles
    On February 12, 2012, news of Whitney Houston's death brought 425 hits per second to her Wikipedia article, the highest peak traffic on any article since at least January 2010. It is broadly known that Wikipedia is the sixth most popular website on the Internet, but the English Wikipedia now has over 4 million articles and 29 million total pages. Much less attention has been given to traffic patterns and trends in content viewed.
  • News and notes: Article Feedback Tool faces community resistance
    Article feedback, at least through talk pages, has been a part of Wikipedia since its inception in 2001. The use of these pages, though, has typically been limited to experienced editors who know how to use them.
  • WikiProject report: Land of the Midnight Sun
    This week, we took a trip to WikiProject Norway. Started in February 2005, WikiProject Norway has become the home for almost 34,000 articles about the world's best place to live, including 16 Featured Articles, 19 Featured Lists, and nearly 250 Good Articles. The project works on a to do list, maintains a categorization system, watches article alerts, and serves as a discussion forum.
  • Featured content: Portal people on potent potables and portable potholes
    This week, the Signpost's featured content section continues its recap of 2012 by looking at featured portals, a small yet active part of the project. We interviewed FPOC directors Cirt and OhanaUnited.
  • In the media: Star Trek Into Pedantry
    On 30 January 2013, Kevin Morris in the Daily Dot summarised the bitter debates in Wikipedia around capitalisation or non-capitalisation of the word "into" in the title of the upcoming Star Trek film, Star Trek Into Darkness.
  • Technology report: Wikidata team targets English Wikipedia deployment
    Following the deployment of the Wikidata client to the Hungarian Wikipedia last month, the client was also deployed to the Italian and Hebrew Wikipedias on Wednesday. The next target for the client, which automatically provides phase 1 functionality, is the English Wikipedia, with a deployment date of 11 February already set.

It seems you are reluctant to acknowledge actual foreign input to the battle of the Boyne

I changed the armies' statistics to reflect the actual national representation of the Williamite army @ Boyne battle plus a documented detachment of 1500 Jacobites as a garrison troops previous to battle, but you revert to one showing only English Irish & Netherlands. while in fact there were many Scots, French & danish troops as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.174.224 (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have sources to prove it? The Banner talk 16:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Simplest at the moment is Osprey's campaign # 160 (Boyne) listing William's forces as: 1 French cavalry regiment & 3 infantry, 9 Netherlands cavalry, 1 dragoon, 6 infantry (incl 1 regiment of 2 very large guard battalions), 3 Danish cavalry, 8 infantry. British isles' forces are given w no break up but are: 11 regiments of cavalry, 4 dragoons, 22 infantry. As this was prior to the act of union Scotland was (as well as Ireland) a separate country w its own military. Some regiments present were Scots' (like Douglas's Regiment or George Hamilton's ), one may also possibly be largely Welsh (but Wales was legally part of England) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.174.224 (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I want sources. Where did you get those numbers? The Banner talk 17:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I just gave you one, Osprey's Campaign book # 160, If you want to look for yourself there's also Peter B Ellis Boyne Water: Battle of the Boyne, Story's An 1690, John MacDonald's Great Battlefields of the World, plus many more. George Storey also lists various nationalities & numbers in "An Impartial History of the most material occurrences in the Kingdom of Ireland during the Two last years with the present state of both armies" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.174.224 (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I overlooked Osprey. When you change the numbers, please make sure to add these sources to it. You can simply do this by adding <ref>details of the source, as detailed as possible</ref>. Do this for each source separately! Good luck. The Banner talk 18:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

  • Featured content: A lousy week
    Six articles, one list, and fourteen pictures were promoted to "featured" states this week on the English Wikipedia.
  • WikiProject report: Just the Facts
    This week, we got the details on WikiProject Infoboxes.
  • In the media: Wikipedia mirroring life in island ownership dispute
    Foreign Policy has published a report on editing of the Wikipedia articles on the Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute. The uninhabited islands are under the control of Japan, but China and Taiwan are asserting rival territorial claims. Tensions have risen of late—and not just in the waters surrounding the actual islands.
  • Discussion report: WebCite proposal
    Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include...

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

Please refrain from deleting this disambiguation page for a few days until I can sort out the page on "What difference does it Make? (quote). It will get reinstated. Thanks Paululrich (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I will not. Instead: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mdandrea. The Banner talk 22:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Shiro (restaurant) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shiro (restaurant) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiro (restaurant) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Kei Pilz for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kei Pilz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kei Pilz until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

  • WikiProject report: Thank you for flying WikiProject Airlines
    This week, we put our life in the hands of WikiProject Airlines. Starting in July 2005, the project has improved articles relating to airline companies, alliances, destination lists, and travel benefit programs. WikiProject Airlines has accumulated over 4,000 pages, including 4 Featured Articles and 26 Good Articles.
  • Technology report: Better templates and 3D buildings
    As of time of writing, twenty wikis (including the English, French and Hungarian Wikipedias) are in the process of getting access to the Lua scripting language, an optional substitute for the clunky template code that exists at present.
  • News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation declares 'victory' in Wikivoyage lawsuit
    On February 15, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) declared 'victory' in its counter-lawsuit against Internet Brands (IB), the owner of Wikitravel and the operator of several online media, community, and e-commerce sites in vertical markets. The lawsuit clears the last remaining hurdles for the WMF's new travel guide project, Wikivoyage.
  • In the media: Sue Gardner interviewed by the Australian press
    Sue Gardner's visit to Australia sparked a number of interviews in the Australian press. An interview published in the Daily Telegraph on 12 February 2013, titled "Data plans 'unnerving': Wikipedia boss", saw Gardner comment on Australian plans to store personal internet and telephone data. The planned measure, intended to assist crime prevention, would involve internet service providers and mobile phone firms storing customer usage data for up to two years.
  • Featured content: Featured content gets schooled
    Two articles, nine lists, and thirteen pictures were promoted to 'featured' status on the English Wikipedia this week.

Sheringham lifeboat Forester’s Centenary ON 786

I do not understand why you should wish to delete this template!. Whats your problem!!! I have left the comment below on the comments page

Keep This template was created to add to the page Sheringham lifeboat Forester’s Centenary ON 786 which has been done. If you delete the template this carefully gathered information will be lost from the article. It is a vital part of the article. I can not see why you should have a problem with it?  stavros1  ♣  23:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response to my question, but you still have not explained why you want to have the template deleted. I have inserted this information into the article in this form to shorten the script required on the main page. It also is less complicated for less competent editors to contribute to the main article without destroying the format of the table, a situation which has occurred several times on other lifeboat articles with this type of table.  stavros1  ♣  07:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
See Help:Template for how to use templates. The Banner talk 11:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
OK. your above comment is very patronizing. This was really unnecessary and unhelpful, You might want to review WP:CIVILITY.  stavros1  ♣  12:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
LOL, patronizing? I just tell you that you have used that template the wrong way and I point you towards a page where you can get more info. Nothing patronizing in that, not even intended. The Banner talk 14:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

  • In the media: Ex-WMF trustee creates "Wikipedia Corporate Index" for PR agency
    On 13 February 2013, PR Report, the German sister publication of PR Week, published an article announcing that PR agency Fleishman-Hillard was offering a new analysis tool enabling companies to assess their articles in the German-language Wikipedia: the Wikipedia Corporate Index (WCI).
  • Recent research: Wikipedia not so novel after all, except to UK university lecturers
    "Wikipedia and Encyclopedic Production" by Jeff Loveland (a historian of encyclopedias) and Joseph Reagle situates Wikipedia within the context of encyclopedic production historically, arguing that the features that many claim to be unique about Wikipedia actually have roots in encyclopedias of the past.
  • News and notes: "Very lucky" Picture of the Year
    The Wikimedia Commons 2012 Picture of the Year contest has ended, with the winner being Pair of Merops apiaster feeding, taken by Pierre Dalous. The picture shows a pair of European Bee-eaters in a mating ritual—the male bird (right) has tossed the wasp into the air, and he will eventually offer it to the female (left).
  • Featured content: Blue birds be bouncin'
    Six articles, three lists, and twelve images were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia this month.
  • WikiProject report: How to measure a WikiProject's workload
    How can we measure the challenges facing a project or determine a WikiProject's productivity? Several prominent projects have been doing it for years: WikiWork.

Ireland Reaching Out

Hi Eddy

I notice that you have been removing external links from the Wikipedia pages for various parishes in county Clare to the Ireland Reaching Out pages for the corresponding parishes and describing these links as SPAM. I have been unashamedly encouraging people on an Ireland Reaching Out training programme to create these links. On what grounds can they be considered SPAM? To me, the objectives and methods of Wikipedia and Ireland Reaching Out seem to be very similar, so it seems natural to provide reciprocal links, parish by parish.

I have not seen you at Clare Roots Society meetings for a long time!

Paddy Pwaldron (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you have figured out who I am! Unfortunately, genealogy is at the back-burner as I am not able to make any progress. Lack of sources is the main problem.
Strange enough I have found myself more or less involved in the National Famine Commemoration. I have to speak Brid Hedderman what kind of activities are on the cards for the Community Garden, where I have a plot.
About the Reaching Out-pages: according to Wikipedia:External links External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. Most of the RO-links were in fact empty links, offering no additional information to the articles. So these links are irrelevant (at the moment). The fact that they suddenly appeared on multiple pages by multiple accounts (including unregistered) made it look like a spam-run, although your name made me a bit confused... The Banner talk 23:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I take your point about empty links (in Wikipedia-speak, I guess they are really IrelandXO stubs), but you also removed the link for Moyarta, where I have put a great deal of effort into the IrelandXO page. I have now restored that link. I could also have copied and pasted most of my Moyarta text from IrelandXO to Wikipedia, but then the Wikipedia police would be accusing me of breaching my own copyright! If the IrelandXO training programme achieves its objectives, then we should see improved content on the IrelandXO pages for many parishes, making these useful inclusions in the External Links sections of the relevant Wikipedia pages. The familysearch.org parish pages, to which I also encouraged making reciprocal links, are also mostly effectively stubs at the moment. The audience amongst the diaspora for which the IrelandXO pages are intended are likely to have heard of Wikipedia and familysearch and to go there first, and then find the links to IrelandXO for the genealogy-specific information they want.
Pwaldron (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, The Banner. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ivan Tyrrell's Page

I have addded some information to the page of Ivan Tyrrell which you undid, the information is autobiographical and includes some bibliographic references. It's simple and adds an extra dimension to the page, so I think it merits inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNevil (talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_23#Template:Parliament_.28band.29.
Message added 17:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

  • Op-ed: We must do more to turn readers into editors
    Recently I was having a casual conversation with a friend, and he mentioned that he spent too many hours a day playing video games. I responded with a comment that I, too, spent way too much time on an activity of my own – Wikipedia. In an attempt to reply with a relevant remark, he offered something along the lines of: "So have you ever written anything?" After a second, I quickly answered yes, but I was still in shock over his question. It seemed to be rooted in a belief on his part that using Wikipedia meant just reading the articles, and that editing was something that someone, hypothetically, might do, but not really more likely than randomly counting to 7,744.
  • News and notes: Outing of editor causes firestorm
    "WP:OUTING", the normally little-noticed policy corner of the English Wikipedia that governs the release of editors' personal information, has suddenly been brought to wider attention after long-term contributor and featured article writer Cla68 was indefinitely blocked last week. This snowballed into several other blocks, a desysopping by ArbCom, and a request for arbitration.
  • Featured content: Slow week for featured content
    Three articles, six lists, and three pictures were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia this week, including the article on "Laura Secord", who was a Canadian heroine of the War of 1812 best known for warning the British of an impending American attack.
  • WikiProject report: WikiProject Television Stations
    This week, we tuned to WikiProject Television Stations, a project that dates back to March 2004. WikiProject Television Stations primarily focuses on local stations, national networks, television markets, and other topics related to television channels in North America, the Caribbean, and some Pacific countries. The project has a fair bit of work ahead of them with over 4,000 unassessed articles and only one Good Article out of 626 assessed articles, giving the project a relative WikiWork rating of 5.262.

🔔

I have reverted your change to 🔔🔔 because targeting the redirect page was the outcome of an RFD. If you want it to be targetted somewhere else please either take it to WP:DRV or start a new WP:RFD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, now you have linked it again to a dp with all side-effects of that. So I have put another RfD in to get or targeted correctly or removed altogether. The Banner talk 09:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI