User talk:Badagnani/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Orphaned non-free image (File:Tillamoookcheddarbookcover.jpg)

You've uploaded File:Tillamoookcheddarbookcover.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of arabism

Please don't move articles that are currently under deletion review, until the discussion has been resolved. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

Hey there, just dropping by to gently remind you of the three-revert rule; in general, please don't revert, but rather discuss and raise your issue on the talk page of an article. Thanks! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 06:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to your veiled nudge at me on my talk page. I wouldn't really say that's a threat, so I just thought I'd let you know. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 06:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's all fine and great; however, I didn't remove any number-referencing sources to my knowledge. Unless I was possessed by some force or something outlandish like that, all I removed was a blog post and a YouTube video, which shouldn't be sources in the first place. Then again, you may be talking about something completely different, so it would probably be easiest for us both if you could tell me which sources specifically are in question. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 06:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Hi, Badagnani. Just a quick note from a passerby: If you look carefully (I know it is not easy with diffs sometimes as it just looks like a mess of text), he did not actually remove cites, he just relocated them. He did remove some external links, but that's completely appropriate per WP:EL. I certainly understand why you believed he had removed the cites, however. At first look, it does appear to be so. Regards, لennavecia 06:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In his book Skinny Legs and All I think Tom Robbins refers a lot to "veils". Perhaps that is what was meant. Thanks for your help on Bush ballads. Much appreciated. The pics look great. I was distracted with nonsense today, but I'm going to try to get back to it soon... I'd like to group the balladeers maybe by 19th and early 20th century and more recent, and then chronologically. I'm not sure. Maybe I can make sections for them or even integrate them into the text. We'll see, but I'm happy about the article. It has a lot of problems and is incomplete, but it's a lot better than what was there. The Bushwhackers do a fantastic version of Waltzing Matilda if you get a chance to check it out. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I checked many times. They really were removed--major media sources providing references for discrete figures presented in the text of the article. I think I've mentioned that at least three or four times now. Badagnani (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Which sources? What sections? This discussion is going in circles, and it'll keep going this way unless you tell me which sources you think were removed. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 07:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the diff again, and you'll see them immediately. Not noticing major media sources that oneself removed entirely after seven or eight (or nine) passes doesn't make it appear that you have the integrity of our data foremost in your mind. Badagnani (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Myself and another editor have both failed to spot these diffs. So, I beg of you; please tell me which ones. I can't help you if you don't give me anything to work with here. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 07:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Check the lead. It's inexplicable to me how over ten careful examinations of one's own edits would not show one's own deletion of references. We really have to take the utmost care with all our edits. Badagnani (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

References are not necessary to be in the lead section, as that information is already sourced in the article itself. Wait... don't tell me this is what we've been debating over. Argh! :P So, now that that's over, think we can agree to put up my revision? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 07:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Those figures were not given in subsequent paragraphs of the article. Please utilize "Discussion," as requested quite reasonably following your first, second, and third (!) reverts, in which you attempted to force these removals (and before your ten scans of the diffs without noticing the removal of these crucially important sources). Badagnani (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of barrier in between our communication. I think what I'm saying is appearing in a different language on your screen. An article as small as this one does not need a sourced lead; if that information isn't included later in the article, it should be there. How about this; I'll add the information from the lead somewhere into the article, and I'll post it back up. Sound good? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

But that should have been done in the first place. How could I object if the links were simply moved to a proper place rather than removed? There is still the matter of the other non-major media links that you state were removed (still without consensus). Those should be presented at "Discussion" for discussion either leading to removal, or not. Badagnani (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm going on your word that the stuff in the lead isn't in the article later; I presumed it was, given that the lead should be a summary of the main body. Apparently, all that should be isn't so in this case. As for the non-major media, there's not really any consensus to be gained; blogs and YouTube videos shouldn't be used as sources when there are perfectly usable news items. That's policy, not my opinion. See WP:SPS for more, if you'd like. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On the road to Kakadu

Indeed the overlap and need for clearer distinctions was my concern and why I took some time to reflect, and didn't work on the article for a while. I agree with you on the need to elucidate the distinctions better. I think the overlapping genres is part of what makes it so interesting to me. I think in some sense it's as close as we have to oral history these days. That's why I like the songs about particluar experiences or issues that serve as storytelling. The Aussies are great storytellers and the humor is fantastic. Check out the rest of that bush song I used as an example. Too funny. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Church of God and Saints of Christ

Hello Badagnani:

In this article, you cited me on 12/29/08 22:38 [[1]] for "wiping" information. The information on this article regarding another "branch" of the church is 100% false. The organization you claim to be another "branch" is a separate congregation, with a separate incorporated name, that splintered from Church of God and Saints of Christ almost 100 years ago in 1909. Aside from that, it's obvious that they are not another "branch," from the sentence that was constructed. According to the sentence, they believe more in Christianity and Church of God and Saints of Christ is a Hebrew Israelite congregation (Judaism), and has been a part of the Hebrew Israelites article for years. That is the reason why I removed the line -- it's inaccurate as written. It still needs to be fixed.

Cogasoc member (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Revisiting this discussion, if according to the rules of Wikipedia 2 entities with a similar name should be mentioned on the same article, I also addressed the word usage in my previous message. The other religious organization cited in the article is mentioned as a "branch" of the organization, which is not true; it is a totally separate incorporated entity from Church of God and Saints of Christ. The word "branch" suggests an affiliation of some sort, which is not the case.

Cogasoc member (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Zydepunks

A tag has been placed on Zydepunks requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Questionnaire

As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK

I submitted a DYK hook a a few days ago for Bush ballad, but I should have added you to the nomination after you contributed some very helpful work to the article. Thanks very much for your help. And if there's a way to correct my oversight I'm happy to do so. I hope you're enjoying your weekend. I bought some cherimoyas, but when I got some trail mix I left the bag on the table and forgot about it. So I have to wait for the next farmer's market and the persimmons are done too which is quite sad. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Jan. 2009

I had some good Indian food last night. I got to choose two main dishes, so I picked a spinach and paneer dish (saag paneer?) and a nice yellow dish of some sort, accompanied by yoghurt. I added that nice green sauce, what is it called? It came with chapatti and pappadum. Also some other fried bready entity that I don't know the name of. While I was there I got some frozen samosas, naans, and a box of Ashoka brand patra, which I don't think I've ever had. The Japanese store I go to is nearby so I also picked up a couple dozen cans of pure cocunut juice with pulp. So now I'm all set. Nothing can bring me down. :) I'm planning to hit my Asian food store for my birthday in a couple of weeks, so hopefully I'll remember to bring a camera and take some good shots for your food quiz, and to illustrate some articles. Vaya con dios.Oh and the cherimoyas are only $1.50 a pound at the farmer's market, so they must be in season. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about this aritcle Mundana Quartet up for AfD?ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Truly I couldn't tell whether they might be notable. What about the polish news coverage and assertion of a soundtrack recording? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think you deserve at least one page and maybe more! ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revisions are over my head. I suppose since anyone can create an account it's not a major hardship. What are your thoughts on the matter?

As we live in an age iof nternet media, I'd like to add more video content to articles where appropriate. Unfortunately, copyright issues and a strong bias against youtube seem to be present. There is an American bush band that does a nice version of Waltzing Matilda and it's available on their website. What do I need to do to include it in the Bush ballad and perhaps the Waltzing Matilda articles? Do you think I can do this? Would it be appropriate? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

百戏图

百戏图 are Chinese pictorial scenes commonly from the tang dynasty depicting many people doing many things, all drawn out in exquisite detail. Think of them as ancient picture books in the style of "Where's Waldo?" that allow people (typically nobles) to experience various events and see individuals without actually being there. That's my knowledge of this... Sjschen (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

National Galleries of Scotland's photostream

• [2]

Many, many thanks. This could be wonderful for our WikiProject.

Can I just ask, do you know which copyright template we must use if downloading these images onto en.Wikipedia or Commons? Cheers. --Mais oui! (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Mais oui! (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Err... I note that Template:PD is deprecated, and the subst template (Template:Di-no license) reads as follows:

• "This image or media does not have information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted after Monday, 18 August 2008. Please remove this template if a copyright license tag has been added."

This hardly seems very satisfactory, therefore I am highly reluctant to spend time dowloading images that will immediately be tagged for deletion.

Any ideas?

--Mais oui! (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Beer and breweries in Vietnam

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Beer and breweries in Vietnam, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Beer and breweries in Vietnam has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Beer and breweries in Vietnam, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Griot

What do you think of this article Ablaye Cissoko? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

International foods

Can Badagnani identify this food? Vegetables to follow...

I just realized I have the name of this one. So don't hurt yourself trying to figure it out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

See sapin-sapin. I have some other ones I don't have the names of, but it seems weird to upload with a mystery name. What do you think? I got some frozen mangosteen. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I just opened two of them and the fruit smelled rotten and was red. :( I think I got a bum bunch! But the longans I got are great. Have you ever made popcorn with the giant Inca type kernals? Do you think it's okay to upload photos that I don't know what it's of and after it gets identified have them renamed? I don't know how else to do your "food test". I had trouble because so many things were wrapped in plastic. So I couldn't get good photos. I think you'll ace the veggie portion. And then there are a couple food items. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

All the canned stuff is in heavy syrup. I will never understand why pineapple or peaches are put in syrup. I buy the ones in fruit juice when I can find them, but I haven't seen lychees or Asian fruits in juice rather than syrup. Thanks very much for shaping up my gallery. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul Danblon

Your wish is granted, although I only made a longish stub. Polymaths bore me.;-). Just out of curiosity, why did you want this article? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Pinata

• Big shrug* Sorry I'm no help here :P Sjschen (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Stick candy

You've made it clear that you don't like my edits, and that you think the links are valuable. Please follow WP:TALK and WP:DR and address the concerns I brought up in my edit summaries. Please remember to focus on content and not contributors. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, please remember to "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Bonjourno Badagnani. Perhaps we can hide the refs in the article text? They are commercial websites. Please don't get in trouble over this relatively unimportant matter. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Relevant diffs

My 22:51, 2 February 2009 comment was in response to:

• 20:15, 2 February 2009
• 20:16, 2 February 2009

My 23:11, 2 February 2009 comment was in response to:

• 22:50, 2 February 2009

My 16:44, 3 February 2009 comment was in response to:

• 16:30, 3 February 2009

--Ronz (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Chinese music ensemble in Ann Arbor

Hen Mei has never been in this ensemble. The founder and the director are listed in the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauing (talk • contribs) 05:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Almond paste

Are they any dishes you know of except for the one mentioned in the article which use almond paste? Cheers.

Warrington (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Fitforlifecover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Fitforlifecover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Fit for Life

A tag has been placed on Fit for Life, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The page history was lost in the restoration. Were you the sole contributor to the prior version? If not, the page needs to be properly restored. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 12:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Even better, it needs to not have been deleted the way it was deleted in the first place. That was absolutely un-Wikipedian and the deleting editor appears to have been on a manic "delete rampage"; after examining his edit history over the past few days (take a look and you will see what I am talking about) I support the complete removal of his admin tools. Also, why would you imply your belief that I was the only contributor? Badagnani (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Because if not, the page needs to be properly restored by an administrator in order to comply with the GFDL, which requires that all contributors be credited in the page history. I think a request should be filed at WP:Deletion review, and your issue with the deleting admin probably should be brought to the WP:Administrator's noticeboard. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 18:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't do this again. If you disagree with a deletion, contact the deleting administrator and, if that doesn't work, take it to deletion review. By cut-and-pasting the page, you not only circumvent the deletion process, but you're violating the GFDL. It's disruptive and someone has to fix it. I've restored the article's history and sent it to WP:AfD. MastCell ^Talk 06:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani, this was one of a number of promotional, ill-sourced articles on fad diets which were alike in reproducing the claims of the authors, however scientifically dubious, as fact. I did not nominate any of these; I also declined several such nominations for diets/books where the subject was clearly notable and/or the language, while not neutral, did not rise to the level of overt spam. I stand by my work, and find your attitude offensive. (I will not deny that I tend to lean to the "deletionist" end of the spectrum; and I've never felt any embarassment if somebody feels a deletion deserves a deletion review.) Reasonable people can disagree civilly. Instead, you did a cut-and-paste, messing up the edit history for GFDL purposes, without even contacting me beforehand to make your case. The record will show that I have restored deleted articles, as recently as last night, when a solid case was made to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be, as you say, a "fad diet." However, like Pokemon, which is a "fad toy," or Guitar Hero, which is a "fad video game," it is highly notable. The manic "deletion spree" you engaged in was un-Wikipedian and I support your being blocked for such. We have a very specific manner by which pages on notable subjects may be deleted, and the way you did it (summariily deleting dozens with no paper trail, in a single day) was very wrong. Badagnani (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

YouTube

Could you comment at Wikipedia talk:External links#YouTube? There seems to be another back-door attempt to ban nearly all YouTube links. Like the ones at Tal Wilkenfeld and Freddie Hubbard. I had to return this link below awhile back after a drive-by deletion:

Live. Cantaloupe Island. Freddie Hubbard live with Herbie Hancock, Joe Henderson, Tony Williams, Ron Carter. At the Birdland (jazz club).

I am referring to the drive-by deletions with "YouTube not allowed" or other similar edit summaries. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

9/11: Press for Truth article

• Please tell me about your concerns on the article's talk page, don't blindly keep reverting with the same edit summary.--Sloane (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Inuse

Please observe the "inuse" tag and do your copy editing after I'm done with my major edits. Thanks, Xasodfuih (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Taro

I'm boiling the Taro root I bought... I hope it works out better than the frozen mangosteens... If you don't hear from me again it's whatever the toxins are, but I'm trying to boil it sufficiently... I just checked on it, and the skin is coming off and it looks like it puffed up a bit. How fun!ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Stick candy - adding unsourced information

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Stick candy. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read further.

Badagnani, my comment on the WP:RS board was not a threat. At the very most it was a suggestion. I can understand if you chose not to read further into my comment, but it may help your understanding of my intent if you would read the entire post. The fact of the matter is this: I wrote in support of including the material you guys want in the article; by citing policy standards and guideline advise. I went to the trouble of digging up a quite lengthy article on candy and and posting it to the candy talk page. Once everyone trimmed down 6 links to the same candystore to 1, I was behind the inclusion of the material 100%.

I have nothing against stick candy, I like stick candy. While I might feel that a merge of the start-class candy article, and the stub-class stick candy article could equal a Class-B or better article for the encyclopedia - I have no interest in doing that myself. I'm trying to help the articles, and many editors are missing that point.

If you would take a moment please, and go back and read through my entire post - you will find that I post some very valuable information quoted directly from the WP:V policy, which will help you establish your case. You already have consensus for inclusion. Now I've provided you the facts from policy to back it up. — Ched (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Stick candy - again

Please remove or refactor your accusation of an editor lying on the talk page [3].

Please remove your assumptions of other editors understanding, and remove the personal remarks in general.[4]

Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and refactoring them, since you appear to have decided not to do so yourself though you have continued commenting on that talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Stick candy one more time!!!

I started a new article on Polkagris that you might find interesting. This source [5] actually says that the town and this candy's inventor (a poor widow!) "invented peppermint candy". I don't know if I believe it, but it's an exciting find. And I included a video showing how the candies are made. You better check out the link soon before Ronz deletes it for some rule violation. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Check this out

[6]. I think you will know how to handle this, just letting you know. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Korean foods

Sorry about harsh words in the past. I'm new to Wiki editing and I do not know what the process is and who really controls the content. I proposed a new section to be created addressing controversial issues regarding Korean food. Please let me know your thoughts on section "Creating a New Sub-Section for "Controversial Korean Foods" and Expansion of "Fish and Seafoods" Santaria360 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Korean_cuisine#Creating_a_New_Sub-Section_for_.22Controversial_Korean_Foods.22_and_Expansion_of_.22Fish_and_Seafoods.22

Hello there

Hello, Badagnani. You have new messages at Chadsnook's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Advice

This is probably bad form to pull you into another potential dispute, but what do you make of this edit [7]? Should I just ignore it and hope for the best? Maybe you agree with it? Tell me you agree with it so I can let it go. Please? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic. I'm letting it go, although I don't really agree. I also thought it was weird that the photo was removed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

On a less controversial note... can you make sense of this Balhaf/Burum Coastal Area. I can't quite figure out what the title or the subject of the article is, and there aren't articles on the locations mentioned in it, so that doesn't seem to help either. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded some food photos on FLikr if you want to see if you can identify them. If you're not interested no worries. I will try to get the names when I go back to the place. The photos aren't great anyway. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Articles needing translation from Vietnamese Wikipedia

We need your help to translate from Vietnamese!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Gaoliang

Since Gaoliang (Chinese name for sorghum) is not a exclusively a product of Republic of China or is not directly related to the Nationalist Government, the standardized Hanyu Pinyin should be used in lieu of Tongyong (in accordance with the usage of Hanyu Pinyin in all articles relating with a Chinese subject not related to Taiwan). Additionally, if the Tongyong pinyin is to be used, it should be "Kaoliang Ju" instead of mixing Tonyong Pinyin's Kaoliang with Hanyu Pingyin's Jiu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vloeibaarglas (talk • contribs) 23:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Invitation.

You are invited, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink&diff=273754584&oldid=273728591

By the way, have you checked the Image policy on galleries lately :) ?

Warrington (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reminder: Please use edit summaries, especially in articles where there's an ongoing dispute

Re: [8]. As you can see, your edit is now being questioned on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Pagemoves

I haven't proposed it because User:Dr. Blofeld is doing it, and asked for my assistance. And it looks like he's already discussed it with somebody at the WikiProject, if I am to understand correctly. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 05:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't propose it, because somebody else a.) asked for help, and b.) had discussed it with a member of the Project. I assumed that some sort of agreement had been reached, given that the moves were already going forward. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 06:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Artichoke hearts

I thought you might have an answer to this [9] question. Also I wanted to thank you for helping me identify some photographs. I have to get better acquainted with how that all works. I didn't get a message when comments were left. Anyway, cheers. Also I think the article on "drug ballads" (Narcocorridos) is interesting and timely. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Note on your recent comments

Regarding:

• 02:15, 7 March 2009
• 03:26, 7 March 2009
• 05:29, 7 March 2009

Please note my reply 04:46, 7 March 2009. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hán tự and Vietnamese history

Hello there.

I knew you have added alot of Hán Tự into History of Vietnam realated article. I'm writing to tell you something as following:

First, please add Hán Tự carefully, not every terms or Vietnamese names that wrote in quoc ngu have Hán Tự versions. For example, the terms Tiền Ngô Vương and Hậu Ngô Vương has no official Hán Tự version (see Việt Nam Sử lược of Trần Trọng Kim, Tự Chủ Thời Đại, Tiền Ngô Vương), add Hán Tự might mislead the readers. So, I remove it all. I have no time to check all article now but I will do it later.

Second, please add into context, not in headline. It ruins the TOC, did you see any China related- article that has Chinese character in headlines? It's somewhat nonsense in English Wikipedia.

Third, don't use Wikipedia Vietnamese too much, it is not a reliable source with a lot of errors. Some Hán Tự in Wikipedia Vietnamese is wrong.

Fourth, I have an basic skill in Hán Nôm and pretty good knowledge in History of Vietnam. If you have any question, please feel free to contact me.

My Englsh is bad, please forgive If I had errors.

Your sincerely.

Amore Mio (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I demand you provide source for all Han Tu that you has just added into Ngo Dynasty article (aleast 2 of them were wrong), if you can't will remove it after 7 day from now. It's unbelievable that I talk with you alot you didn't reply me one word.--Amore Mio (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you thinking Badagnani? I edit and you revert with no reason?. Moreover, there is no Kingdom of Thục in the History of Vietnam, I demanded you provide the source for An Dương Vương is the ruler of Kingdom of Thục. Any blog link that I removed was personal and Vietnamese nationalist blog and contain a lot of original research! what wrong?

I'm considering to report you to WP:ANI as an disruptive editor.--Amore Mio (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dog meat

Please explain your reversion of material that is not referenced, is referenced to a member-only site, and/or is not suported by references. I will revert this unless you can provide real, verifiable references. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Dog meat video

Caspian, it's very poor form to give a 3RR warning to someone with whom you're in a dispute. I'm warning both of you, stop reverting each other. The model is bold edit --> revert --> discuss. Don't revert back. Get to the talk page, and explain why you're right and the other guy's wrong. I'll see you both there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Another thing - Badagnani's edits are not vandalism, and neither are Caspian blue's. Calling them vandalism is a very, very bad idea, and it will not lead you anywhere good. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Repeatedly and deliberately inserting such unreliable source and unfounded contents for over months is an act of determined vandalism. TBacchus, before accusing something, checking the history. The user "called me a name first". --21:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who did what first. There is a right way to handle this kind of situation, and a wrong one. Edit warring and throwing around accusations of vandalism is the wrong one. It's wrong because it's ineffective. Let's work effectively, instead, ok? I'm willing to help mediate here, or to find others who can help mediate... but for now, I'm giving you good advice about how to handle disputes. Take it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty much 100% certain that User:Badagnani believes that his edit makes the article better, otherwise he wouldn't keep making it. If he thinks his edit is good, then it's not vandalism, no matter how wrong he may be. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The order does matters since you're making the unwarranted and untruthful accusation to me. In your logic, vandals could be called "good hands" because they do believe that their participation make Wikipedia good. Your logic is false. Inserting unreliable source does not make the article "good". Never.--Caspian blue 21:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it made the article good. Never. You'll also note that I have removed the material from the article, following your helpful post at the talk page.

I made no false accusation against you, Caspian blue. The only accusation I made against anyone was that you were both edit-warring. The definition of edit-warring is making the same edits, back-and-forth. You did that.

I never said that any particular edits are "good hands". I said that making accusations of vandalism is a very, very bad idea. That is true. You will find that you are more effective if you refrain from it. Even when you're certain that it's vandalism, don't call it that. Just don't say it. This may seem strange, but it is very effective, when used in combination with other good strategies. I can explain this in detail, if you like. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits at Dog meat

Hi. Please see Talk:Dog meat#Badagnani's reinserting of YouTube link. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've got some information to share with you.

1. If you want that source to be in the article, your best strategy is to try and get the station to verify it for us. Arguing that policy allows that YouTube video is unlikely to be a successful strategy. If you do wish, however, to argue policy, then I will be happy to have that conversation with you, and we'll get to the bottom of it.
2. Referring to the ethnicity of other participants in the dispute is a very good way to make people think badly of you, to make people side against you, to make people think that you're a racist, and to lose whatever dispute you're in. If you have any desire to get anything done on Wikipedia, you will find a way to omit any mention of other editors' ethnicity, race, religion, gender, etc, etc. If your goal is to be blocked again, then keep talking about who's Korean and who isn't.

I hope you understand. I also hope that you note that I will be equally impatient with editors attacking you on a personal level. My goal is to see that we're all treated with respect and dignity, so we can get good work done on the project. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I new? No. I've been an administrator for 3 years. I know that ad hominem remarks are unproductive, inflammatory, and against our policies. Learn how to stop making them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I was curious about the image you restored and why it was previously removed. I'm wondering which "side" I may have ticked off by suggesting it be re-added... Anyway, hope all is well with you and that you're enjoying spring. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Wolfberry

I've removed your personal attacks against me here. I had hoped you would have changed this behavior after the comment above. --Ronz (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've restored your personal attack and the comments that you removed in the process of trying to restore them yourself. --Ronz (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, "Why did someone alter my comment again? Is this a form of WP:TROLL?" Yes, I think it is. You better report it if you want it to stop. --Ronz (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine Lyra

Thanks for your edits Badagnani. We need more people to edit the article. Its very interesting. (Stevepeterson (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Hi Badagnani, the Byzantine was a very big empire at that time and before the Crusaders. I try not to make oversimplifications on teh article. I indeed mention that Byzantine and Arabic empires were the most powerful of the time in the continent. Both instruments, lira and rebab were introduced to Europe from different directions, as the article mentions. Please dont be negative with this (historical and with facts) byzantine instrument and try to help me find more sources. I think that the reasons why Byzantine lira hasn't been mentioned and underestimated in the past in a democratic encyclopedia such as wikipedia was that there are no Byzantines alive to defend their hostory; so bringing light to Lira's history would make none proud. For example Greeks want to see the cretan lyra as a continuty of the ancient greek lyra, bypassing the byzantine lyra; Bulgarians see gadulka as continuity of later slavic instruments, and stop research there although the byzantine influence was huge due to their orthodox byzantine religion. Turks want to underestimate the Byzantine touch on their culture too for religion reasons. (Stevepeterson (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Good point about the pandura. So it might be the case that lyra developed after the pandura but copying the fiddling methods of rebab. (Stevepeterson (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Triệu Dynasty

Dear Sir,

Majority of Vietnamese people can read and understand what has been written in Records of the Grand Historian of the Imperial Han. Although, most of their history has been seized by us during the reign of Emperor Yongle of Ming and destroyed or rewritten and given back to them to favor the concept of Hua-Yi zhi bian (華夷之辨). We did not destroy all. Our portion of history of the Yue still remain. Records of the Grand Historian was too precious to be destroy. Majority of them can read and understand Chinese. Don't aggravate them. They are valiant race. We must pacify and overcome them slowly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.168.55 (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear sir,

DO NOT stir things up with them!!!! Let it be. Be wise, stay calm. We will win them at the end. You'll see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.168.55 (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

list of Hungarian Americans

It seems our disruptive editor has returned. You helped; I tried also. Hmains (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

From David Oei

Badagnini, lost you on last message. Don't know how to create message. Hope this works. Can't upload photo. Help!! David Oei now at Carlylewines.(173.115.222.103 (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC))

Foam takeout container edits

I consider it upsetting that you would apparently consider my edits to be vandalism, and to revert them without a valid reason. Your actions are hardly what an ideal editor would do. I understand that you may be trying to protect the content you added, but this is Wikipedia, you have to let it go eh? Eugene2x-^talk 05:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am asking you to please stop the unexplained reverts. If you're going to argue with me on such a simple and obvious issue, then just don't bother. Please. Eugene2x-^talk 19:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

People have different opinions on what is considered "encyclopedic", and frankly I don't see too much content that would be useful in the article. This is a community thing; we all improve on each other's work, so there's no need for this type of discussion. Eugene2x-^talk 19:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

damaru and dombura

Thanks for your improvements to "damaru". As far as dombra is concerned, I altered the title to match what was already in the text - besides, the term is closer to the general term "tambura" from which it stems. What makes you object? Please answer on dombra talk page. Thanks. We also need to talk about "morley consort" - your revert caused more changes than you seemed to object to, so I shall reverse it, but please reference the reservation of the term "broken consort" for this undocumented "Morley" one and we can fix it. Redheylin (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello - since you put it that way, there's quite a bit that "should have" been done before. For instance, the text "should have" been altered to fit the heading when you made the change. Will you be doing so? You are right that "dombra" is the most common rendering.Redheylin (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Better we stick together if poss since there are few people working here that have a clear history of musical instruments as their primary aim, and since many of your edits are sound - for example I was about to do the same with the "byzantine lyre" picture for the same reasons. Redheylin (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I also thought this woodcut could not be so early and - Spanish? The one now is better, but it is really important to have good pix here, exactly because without an understanding of Byzantine construction we cannot understand the development of near-eastern instruments like the kemenche and bandura. I usually like to have any pic but this one was problematic. I am also unsure about the one at Mandora and unhappy with the disambiguation and account of development, generally, of such similarly-named instruments, since there is a chronic shortage of references. So I just style and format the pages and if anyone intervenes I say "please supply refs". Redheylin (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Vietnamese

what i deleted in Zhao Tuo, are nothing to do with Viet nam, Changsha, Zhending, Gaozu Huidi Chang'an.KJ (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop it to talk.KJ (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hán Nôm

• Replied you in User talk:Sl#Hán nôm. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Listen

Why are you ignoring me? I've asked you to compromise, and here you are not listening and simply reverting my edits for the reason of blanking. This message also counts as an obvious incivility and personal attack. I am fed up. Just stop, please. Eugene2x-^talk 02:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

I'm sorry if I was a bit hostile before, but you can't just go around reverting my edits using the same exact message over and over again. Let's strike a compromise. If you ignore this final message of mine (which you can't claim is "highly threatening"; the last one was hardly threatening anyways), then I'm going to seek dispute resolution in some way. Eugene2x-^talk 02:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That was not a revert; I was simply following Ronz's instructions on improving the article. You still have yet to respond to my above discussion, and honestly, you are being hostile and rude for edit warring and blaming me for violating 3RR. Eugene2x-^talk 03:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Davidoeiphoto.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Davidoeiphoto.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 05:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry we cannot simply take your word for it. Please do not remove image warning tags. Follow the instructions above and forward your email for verification. Be sure to include all headers, including the photographer's email address (it will be kept private). Additionally, if the contents of the email are reproduced accurately on the image description page, that does not constitute an agreement to the CC-BY license, but the OTRS volunteers can negotiate that on your behalf. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 06:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Goji Berry

Hi there, I noticed that you reverted my changes to the Goji berry article for blanking without consensus. I looked through, and noticed that while some information that was derivative to the main article (e.g. Tibetan plateau elevation) was making various sections a bit cumbersome to wade through.

On the whole however, I feel that I made some valuable additions, including sourcing studies on the effects of polysaccharides, and adding some tags where citations are needed to back up unsubstantiated claims which seemed to build upon each other.

Perhaps we should keep some of the additions I made, unless you have reason to find them objectionable. Apothecia (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Badagnani (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not violate the 3-RR rule (that is, more than three reversions in a single 24-hour period).

Decline reason:

No. You made exactly three reversions one day, and exactly three another day -- you're edit warring, regardless of the 3RR, and the block is appropriate. 3RR does not create an entitlement to three reverts. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Regarding reversions[10] made on March 18 2009 to Foam take-out container

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo links

This appears to be a misunderstanding across a number of articles such as Wolfberry and Foam take-out container. It is not Wikipedia practice to hyperlink out to found photos on the Web. This is why people are removing material based on these links. Either use existing ones from Wikimedia Commons or upload your own (self-created or donated with permission). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary linking

I really question the need for linking every possible Chinese subject to Wiktionary, where the page doesn't exist anyway. A dictionary should be just that, a dictionary, not some directory of all the phrases you can find. On another note we still have yet to resolve the Foam takeout container issue, and instead of ratting each other out for policy violations why don't we just stay calm and try to work things out? Eugene2x-^talk 22:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I am asking you to please stop again. See this, I think it'll pretty much explain everything to you. Eugene2x-^talk 23:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 8e16533532240ac8ff459ed39e9bcaab

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Mediation Involvement

Hello. A fellow editor has requested a mediation for your situation regarding this article. Please come to this page to discuss this situation in clear terms. --NewSinew (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I'm not against you personally. I'm just discussing the term. I say sorry to you if what I said make you think to be rude. I have requested others to make a discussion tag. If you know how to mark, you can also make a mark. Best wishes to you! -Zhinanzhen (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Continual revert/edit warring

Badagnani, you hit almost 4 reverts on one article in 24 hours (List of Hungarian Americans) and 3 on another (Guoyue) - you've been blocked repeatedly before I can see and have clearly not got the hint. I suggest do not revert other users—at all. Discuss it on the talk page as, if you keep fighting battles in articles, your account is going to be blocked...and given your long block history it is likely to be much more than a single day - Peripitus (Talk) 12:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This constant violation of WP:OWN is likely to do nothing more than frustrate good faith editors. It's probably going as far as WP:DE. Eugene2x-^talk 17:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This comment represents a WP:TROLL, in light of your very own over-the-top edit summaries and exaggeratedly aggressive postings to my discussion page, perhaps the most threatening I have ever received while at Wikipedia. Please direct your energies toward focusing on how you may edit in a more collegial manner in the future rather than dropping in on the discussion pages of highly productive, long-time, and sincere editors and accusing them of disrupting Wikipedia, when your own disruption, consisting of hyperaggressive, insistent blanking (combined with ultra-aggressive edit summaries and discussion page postings) was the cause of this in the first place. Badagnani (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You are attempting to cover up your own errors by attacking your opponent. Do you think what Eugene2x did or didn't do has any effect whatsoever on your insistent reverts on completely unrelated articles? --iAdem (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of this comment? The original problem was caused by insistent, hyperaggressive blanking, which was responded to by restoration of content pending thoughtful, deliberate, and collegial discussion at "Discussion." It is never too late to make things right, however. Many WP editors don't have much experience with our ethos and ideals, and just don't have the interpersonal skills, or just don't feel they want to "waste" the time with such deliberative processes. However, these ideals really are worth insisting upon, as they are at the core of our project. We must be reasonable in everything we do. Badagnani (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Typing up personal attacks and being uncivil will most likely warrant a block, and probably not a short 24 hour one judging from your block history. I really suggest you be more careful of these WP:STALK accusations and attacks (which no one you accused ever violated). If you would rather continue to attack me on the basis of "insistent, hyperaggressive blanking" just because you can, I might as well just post a notice on WP:RFC. Eugene2x►^talk 19:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani, hi. I notice that you're involved in another personal dispute here. What's up? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)