User talk:Active Banana/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Kamen Rider Verde

You had previously edited at the AFD for Kamen Rider Verde, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamen Rider Verde. There is now an AFD for a related page, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamen Rider Ryuki Special: 13 Riders. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

re Kamen Rider

Agreed, perhaps you could take care of the legwork on compiling/merging AFDs into a mass nomination? I will defer to your prior expertise in that arena, but please do keep me posted. It appears most of these WP:NOR-violating articles fail WP:NOTE, and lack significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. That should help you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Kamen Rider

Cirt is ignoring me so I am not going to bother saying this to him. I have personally merged every single character article under the auspice of Kamen Rider Ryuki to List of Kamen Rider Ryuki characters. As I can predict, you have also been looking at the other various articles in this franchise, so I am going to take it upon myself to simply merge whatever I can. I hope that the series from 2007 onwards are fine, as they are chock full of references, both primary and secondary. Rather then sending the entirety of the individual pages in Category:Kamen Rider characters to AFD, I would appreciate your assistance in merging everyting from Agito, 555, Blade, Hibiki, and Kabuto.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I got rid of all the damn individual pages for these characters and put it into a list. What the hell is your problem with it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Also you !voted delete twice here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cant take that away from me

Someone has added Youtube, plus a redcarpet.com source (displayong tweets/twits) and more rap-up sources. I still dont think that's notable. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually Rap-Up is a highly reliable source but both me and tbhotch redirected the album/mixtape because there is only coverage from Rap-Up. To count as significant coverage there must be multiple and reliable independent sources. According to WP:NALBUMS pages should not exist just to provide the track listing. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's true. Personally I have my own rule... is the subject in question remarkable?. I.e. did the thing in question have any impact on the world? In the case of CTTAFM, the answer is NO! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, newbie

I would have thought new stuff went at the top - like email.

I kept checking the page and it looked like my entry had been deleted.

SelectSplat (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

WP: Trivia

Dont' use that on me. Let me refresh your mind. WP: Trivia does not promote removal of isolated information/trivia or removing trivia sections. It does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations.

The edit was in accordance to WP: Actors and Filmmakers's project style recommendations.

Don't go moving around moving other people's edits. You don't own Wikipedia -- y'know?58.71.79.8 (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

AIV

You may like to know that you have made it onto Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Here is my response. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

nambla

Hi Active Banana, the Delany context now comprises half of the lede. IMO this isn't good style. Do you object to moving the bulk of the item to a section, i.e. Criticism and response, and leaving a summarization in the lede? Lionel (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL

I thought you'd find this funny... [1]. So apparently this comment you left on my talk page was us having a conflict. LOL -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that that was meant to be this comment you left on Lil-unique1's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

it defo has an air of sock puppetry around it. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You may also be interested in this comment on the subject. The canvassing it refers to is in these edits: [2], [3], [4]. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

DRV

Hi, a couple of articles that you redirected are being discussed over at DRV. Reyk _YO! 19:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Savoy Opera Society

Thanks. What do you think of this one? Edinburgh University Savoy Opera Group. It's a pretty old group, but not, IMO, any more notable. Note that it was deleted once before (see talk page). -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Altaf Hussain

I agree with this reversion because it's off-topic and not supported by the given ref. But just a heads-up because I assume if you watch this page you may also watch other related ones...the statement added to the article appears to be correct per multiple news outlets. DMacks (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sunni view of the Sahaba

fair enough. but what does tagged for 2 years mean??Suenahrme (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC) oh ok. but its a shame that so much content had to be removed. there was some good sourced content that was also removed. ah well!!!!Suenahrme (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

can we use what sunni scholars say??? is that valid sources??? or do they only have to be secular historical sources??? thanks.Suenahrme (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC) hello are you still there??? i have started restructuring the article.Suenahrme (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC) ok i gotta go now. appreciate if you answer my questions.Suenahrme (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Elie

I wasn't acquainted with they reverted my changes. Thanks a lot. I will restore the changes.--213.97.61.24 (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If talk pages are censored at this level, it will be impossible improving the article.--213.97.61.24 (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hey friend. First, you are one of the users I respect, so you cannot blame me of not assuming good faith on you. But a box office success is a common term which is definitely acceptable and it is cited in newspapers, books, Wikipedia's own FAs and other reputed sources. If a film is described as a box office success or hit (which is, BTW, also acceptable if properly sourced) it simply means that it recovered its costs and even more, thereby getting a popular reception by the wide audience. The sources we cite perfectly help to explain what the status is because there are verdicts mentioned in them. By saying "the film grossed..." you do nothing because nobody really knows what Rs. 40 crore means, if it's good or bad. However, when such numbers or positions are mentioned additionally it could be well better, because it states a fact which is verified by a number (for example, "The film did well at the BO, grossing XXX million"). All that is of course while considering proper sourcing, and a good quality of prose. I'm ready to discuss it more, but I disagree with the clarification you've requested. It couldn't be clearer than this. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Even to an Indian, Rs. 54 crore would mean nothing because the film's budget could be much higher. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

John Prendergast

the person who took the photo of john prendergast requested that he be credited with the photo. Nell 22:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please help

Why did Andonic delete me on Death of Hitler? Gwen? Thank you!Wm5200 (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I seem to be holding my own. I had no idea how busy you can be. It's not just me (maybe), everyone has problems, and some are important. Thanks.Wm5200 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new

I have just removed a legal threat by an IP. Anyway, happy editing! Minimac (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Authentication

Yes, I complain again. What, in your idea, is the purpose of adding a myriad of templates to an article, besides that it is allowed to do so by current wikipedia practice? Does it help the reader? Nope. Does it help people like you? Nope. Does it help real editors? Nope, because they know what the issues are by working on the article. Pointless, stupid, and just backed up because it is not forbidden to do so. Nageh (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You said, I completely disagree with all of your points. Does it help the reader? Yes it warns them that the content they are reading is not up to Wikipedia's standards and they should take it with a grain (or more) of salt.

By that standard we'd have to tag every article that is not featured or at least a good article.

Does it help editors? Yes, editors wishing to improve article can use the tag categories to find articles about topics that interest them that have been identified by others as needing help.

This is a really bad excuse in my opinion. Do we have any statistics on people really adding content that way? I would rather say it is much more helpful asking for help on wikiproject pages, and even that usually attracts 0 to 1 people in average.

Is it merely allowed by policies? No, it is encouraged by policies for the above reasons.

Could you point me to such policies? Thanks, Nageh (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm, a little bit more constructive input from your side would have been welcome. I just don't see outside editors picking up articles simply because they are tagged. Nageh (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: See long discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)‎#Article cleanup templates if you're interested in various other perspectives. (This discussion above is very briefly mentioned, but is not at all core).

Also, regarding "... use the tag categories to find articles about topics that interest them that have been identified by others as needing help", see User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Cleanup listing. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, kul!

thx! (smiles)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: return of vandals like on Isang Lakas Page

after so many months the vandals strikes again, what can we do to take them off here in isang lakas page, we can seek help to administrators about this kind of vandalism... i/we can't tolerate this kind of crystal balling & vandalism...

PS. Like some administrators & editors here says that and i quote " Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, anticipating future events. Content in articles must be verifiable as having been published in a reliable souce. Please ensure that content added to the article appropriately indicates where the claims come from so that a reader or fellow editor can verify for themselves. Vague claims that on some talk show an actor said they would appear in a particular project are not acceptable. For one thing, an actors claim about working in a future project could be self promotional and so should not be used without further verification. Secondly, the name of the talk show and date of its airing would be needed, and a link to the official webhosted content would be helpful. "

--119.92.242.2 (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the edits

I am alittle worried of your edits on a number of cpop related articles. Some examples include:

this being not worthy, when it is. Or claiming some sources to be unreliable when Mingpao is among top 5 most reliable source.

Please look for sources to add or stay away from mass deletions. Benjwong (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Rajesh khanna

the references provided are all valid as administrators have agreed to it....they are all from newspapers,famous magazines.. also unecessary editing you are doing by deleting. neytral point is a must but at the same time facts need to be shown. so do not edit , infact add references more as a support to the article.the present article is presenting facts only. thanksShrik88music (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Rajesh khanna

there are no references of blogs in the article submitted by me. if at all they are a few by mistake then do not edit whats written instaed search for the references which say the same thing as wahts written by me is fact for which definitely u will get refernces.

there are no blogs or unreliable sources in the article. do not indulge in vandalism , you will be banned by administrators if they find u as a defaulter.

then try to get references to prove what i have written as right.Shrik88music (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rajesh Khanna. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.Shrik88music (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing blog sourced claims contentious information about a living person is exempt from 3RR. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Reema Khan - Controversies deleted by you

You deleted the entire paragraphs by not looking at the references. IT seems as though you want to protect her image in general. Are you her PR agency? but reality stands. As an actress she has got her self into many controversies and especially about her marriage.--67.55.59.173 (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Block Active Banana

I think this person needs to be blocked.. He is in an edit war on this subject - Reema Khan... and keeps on removing the controversy side to her news, as she is an actress.... The entire paragraph with all references were removed by this person - Active Banana.....I appeal to the other editors to look into this matter..... --Sonisona 05:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonisona (talk • contribs)

I am from Pakistan and I am interested in film industry. All I have to say is that Active Banana did a pretty darn good job removing all that hype and unsourced info. Wikipedia is not a gossip site. It is an encyclopedia and we need to think twice before making any unsourced claims about a personality like Reema Khan. Its against human rights. Also, pay attention to edit summaries and sign your talks by placing ~~~~ at the end. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 11:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There were references from Times of India as well as many Pakistani sites. I am a Pakistani too, so does that mean that we as contributors can only show one side of Pakistan. Im sorry to say that by removing properly sourced sites is not the right thing to do. --Sonisona 22:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonisona (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a gossip tabloid rumor mill. If you want to spread controversies, then start your own blog, but you cannot do it here.Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 22:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

banana.... the controversies are a part of many known figures.. It is not a tabloid collections but most news that comes out need to be reported on wikipedia as well. It just seems that you are monitoring this a lot and that you do have something against a lot of news that comes out. Well the news will be added or not. But in a few months and maybe a year. you basically are running around reverting a lot of people's work. it will only be a matter of time, when others notice what kind of vandalism you do. --Sonisona 09:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonisona (talk • contribs)

You might want to look in a mirror and ask who's being more of a vandal - although neither of you are doing true vandalism, but you're accusations are improper. If you would like me to lock the entire article down, it can be done - tabloid-style WP:BLP-violations have no place in a Wikipedia article. If you would like to propose WP:NPOV-type additions of the material on the article talkpage, please do. If they gain consensus, then there you go. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah guys this person needs to be blocked by editing the articles too much leaving it pale and inconsistent. You must be Blocked immediately. and what? from yours Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a gossip tabloid rumor mill. yeah you had a check for that but have no right to delete the purity of every article taht you'd always editing too mush, you are not in right place to do it coz you're only a user of this site not a ruler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.233.12 (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiesel

Thanks for doing the report at AIV on the newest sock. I was going to escalate it myself if the IP reverted me, but then it didn't so I let it drop. I wondered why it wasn't being more persistent, and on a whim looked at its talk page and discovered why! — e. ripley\^talk 16:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Spam?

Why are you reverting edits by 86.26.19.138 (e.g. here)? The user has been adding links to a perfectly legitimate, free website that contains highly relevant material - digital copies of important manuscripts. Not only that, but the user only added the link to very few pages, and only where the link is relevant. Why do you consider this spamming? --Jashiin (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd revert it for spam too WP:LINKFARM. The description even is spammy "anyone can download". Removing them is a good call, IMHO. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna article in wikipedia

show me which among the references were BLOGS? who said angelfire is a blog??moreover its a cineblitz magazine interview very clearly mentioned. i think if u r an indian u r a biased anti khanna fan or otherwise u r just out to delete articles,scenetcesa ..u r not contributing fruitfully to the artcile. there are no blogs to my knowledge.

if u say its a blog den u can ask for a replacement of reference.otherthan that angelfire...which one is a blog??? how come u keep deleting all the other details too for which sufficient references have already been provided. also if for each sentence about his life ,references are added it wil increase the page tahts all....y dont u fruitfully contribute by adding a relaible source and helping the artricle????

angelfire replacement kk i will find out...but its a fact so removal of reference is okay but not the data as cineblitz is a reputed magazine...online source i dont think they provideShrik88music (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Angelfire is a webhosting service for normal people - like Geocities was. Nothing on it can ever be considered reliable. If you think cineblitz should be allowed, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard ... until acceptable, don't use it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please remove your post from my talk page as there is no edit war. 41.210.55.157 (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Read-copy update COI

Hello, Active Banana, and thank you for your efforts on Wikipedia. You mentioned some COI concerns about my edits adding citations to the read-copy-update (RCU) page, and I hope that the following alleviates your concerns:

• My user name (PaulMcKenney) is my real name (Paul E. McKenney). I am not contributing "on the sly".
• I have been contributing to the RCU page since 2004, and this is the first time that a COI concern has been brought to my attention, which should indicate that I am doing a good job of handling any COI issues. Of course, if you are aware of any specific complaints, please do let me know.
• I am indeed one of the inventors of RCU. I am also co-maintainer of the RCU implementation in the Linux kernel and a contributor to user-level RCU implementations that Mathieu Desnoyers maintains. If it would help, I would of course be happy to declare all of this on the RCU talk page.
• I did not create the RCU page, though I am a significant long-term contributor (in terms of bytes, not number of updates). When I first encountered this page in 2004, it was fragmentary and misleading. I have updated and maintained it primarily out of self-defense: it is far better to improve the page than to deal with the consequences of its being incomplete or inaccurate.
• I am not using Wikipedia to promote RCU. RCU stands on its own merits, evidenced by more than 3,000 uses of its API within the Linux kernel, as well as its use in DYNIX/ptx, K42, and elsewhere.
• RCU is part of the concurrency curriculum at a number of universities, including U. of Toronto, U. of Kansas, U. of Rochester, UCLA, Yale, and MIT, to name but a few. RCU is therefore a legitimate topic in parallel programming.

Does this address your COI concerns? If not, please let me know what else is required. PaulMcKenney (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Rating up front?

The common “Wiki” customer may tend to take the articles at face value. I know you qualify “open source”, but is the customer the best judge of the accuracy of the article? They often don’t know about the subject, that’s why they are looking it up. Should a rating be shown on the top of the article itself, so the customer knows how accurate the specific article is? Just a thought, for what it’s worth. Thanks.Wm5200 (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Girl Group

You shouldn't have removed everything of the "Girl group" page... you should have discussed it first, and then peoplee could have found sources, but noooooooo. Anyway, I'd do it myself, but i don't have the time until the weekend AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't care how long it's been unsourced for, you should have discussed it before deleting about 2/3 of the page.... even if it has been unsourced for 3 years, they may still be reliable.AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah, i actually couldn't care less... sorry if it came across like I was having a go at you AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Your taking the time to offer me your recent kind words gave my fragile self-esteem a immense boost!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna article in wikipedia

there is no need for ur permission! u r just plainly removing facts! how can u deny his relationship with the three women anju,tina munim and dimple? how can u question his superstar status in India? books,articles all have been provided and u say FANSITE! see if u do not have time to read and go through the references provided by me then be patient and quiet! only when u notice a mistake or violation then u can make changes but fully reverting to ur versions is not the solution! contribute to the article fruitfully! be cool and sportive!

without going thropugh the references do not rermove anything bluntly! u r not being nuetral infact as u keep giving very halfbaked information of khanna! even a senior editor accepted that the hindusatn times and timesofindia and other newspapers i have given as reference for relation with the girls in adult life are all valid! Shrik88music (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion needs to happen on the article's talk page. Also, please don't personalize a content dispute. Additionally, just because something is sourced properly does not mean that it's necessarily appropriate for the article, as I have explained. All of this could be made clear if you two would engage in discussions on the article's talk page, instead of using edit summaries as a proxy for discussion. — e. ripley\^talk 20:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna

Hi AB. I can see how and why interacting with Shrik88music may be frustrating, as he has a lot to learn about Wikipedia. But I think that he has the capacity to be a fruitful contributor, and it's with that hope that I'm trying to advise him on how to work within the system. You were of course right that he should not have erased talk page content, however, when you reverted his edit, you also inadvertently removed a comment he left that probably should be restored. Would you like to do that, or should I? I am also encouraging him to try to post more on the article's talk page, and engage in discussions instead of edit warring, so to that end, I would ask if you would consider also explaining your edits on the article's talk page, rather than through edit summaries? It would make a big difference in helping him engage in a fruitful way, I think. Thanks for considering my comments in any case. — e. ripley\^talk 20:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! — e. ripley\^talk 22:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: Isang Lakas Questionable Character???

Cast and characters [edit] Main Cast

   * Vhong Navarro as Lastikman/ Miguel "Migz" Asis [6]
   * Jon Avila as Kapitan Boom [7]
   * Vice Ganda as Petrang Kabayo/Petra/Peter [8]
   * Mariel Rodriguez as Varga/ Vara [9]
   * John Prats as Tiny Tony/ Anthony “Tony” Aniscol[10]
   * Shaina Magdayao as Dragonna/ Rona [11]
   * Luis Manzano as Flash Bomba/ Roldan Legazpi[12]

(Note: * Vice Ganda as Petrang Kabayo/Petra/Peter [8], is not an/a mars ravelo character., sad to say the IP(s) Editors here are ruining the "Isang Lakas" Page.... thanks)

--112.206.114.110 (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

How??

active banana please help me how can i improve Regine Velasquez article. I used to copy the way the profiles like Mariah Carey, Beyonce and Siti Nurhaliza the way the articles made.There's no too much sources about Regine Velasquez so i used too used videos as a sources they're reliable because they're videos because you can see everything on it even the little thing.please help me regarding this matter.Thank you have a good day! :)Russart_1999 talk 06:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Regine Velasquez

You know Active Banana i just wanna say something, i know that also a administrator of Wikipedia, but it's not right that you're editing article too much, okay let say in word that you're cleaning her article and posting notes above that figuring the article was incomplete, some of the article inside doesn't had any source, etc.. but it's not right to delete some facts inside of it and editing it in a ugly way, like the article for theater, television you'd delete the facts inside of it and remove the formality tucked on it.you're taking it personally and make it dirty. its not right and ill gonna bring it to the higher administrator if you're still making regine velasquez article in ugly way.thank you

oh really?? ok let say that you're only doing this for an instance, and how can you explain about the page of Regine Velasquez in the "theater and television" they had the descriptions and little facts there that you'd remove, and the one that you didn't remove is the darna with the description of "her first villain role in television" why you didn't remove that? although the rest of the descriptions you'd deleted already? explain before you complain. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.207.60.150 (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Regine Velasquez. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kansan (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.222 (talk)

Spamming

Im sorry I have not spammed anyones page. I added correct data to pages and then it was immediately undone for no reason, even after approvals from the blp board. How is it spamming to explain this to the deleter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobelone (talk • contribs) 23:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: Edit war warning

Hello, Active Banana. Nice name. I apologize for the my reversion to Fulcrum (Chuck). I didn't give it much thought and it seemed as though the trivia was already sourced, but, after some research, it apparently is not. Now my second reversion was unrelated to the so-called "edit war". I believe you meant to revert this edit (which was already reverted) rather than this one. Thank you. --Boycool (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out the irony in the below section. --Boycool (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Regine Velasquez

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Regine Velasquez. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kansan (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

So many bananas.

I just clicked on your userpage and it made me think about Harry Belafonte, so now I have that song from Beetlejuice stuck in my head. Thanks. Thanks a lot. — e. ripley\^talk 19:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just look at it! Thousands of them! -- Quiddity (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Victorious

Item #12 of WP:ELNO says to exclude "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

Victorious Wiki has three administrators and 119 active users. The stability is due to to active administrators quickly reverting unwanted edits. Based on this, it meets the above criteria. --Confession0791 ^talk 20:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Substantial number of editors" seems to be in the eye of the beholder. --Confession0791 ^talk 20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to use that as a reliable source or as an external link? No way! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

divorce proceedings

"but did not complete the divorce proceedings" - provide proper reference for this sentence.Shrik88music (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Xavier College, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 12:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Oh dear

Patience young man, patience!

After all, it's only wikipedia. Using the F word isn't going to help - the people who agree with you already agree with you. The people who don't are going to take your use of the F word as evidence of their self-riteousness and as an excuse to ignore you. "It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it". Pdfpdf (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to TB or Not TB. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 17:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Whinge about maintenance template.

As far as I'm concerned, adding such a templete without any DIscussion (one post from you is not a discussion) is a POV act and closer to vandalism than anything I have done. Discussion is the key, not throwing templates around in an attempt to hide from the truth. I have done more good work on that article than you in the past twelve months. Attacking one unpleasant item is not the mature behaviour of a person from a great school. HiLo48 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You claim to have added it to stimulate discussion. There was already a perfectly good discussion going on, but it could certainly do with some more impartial editors, so please add it again. HiLo48 (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Active Banana. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 July 22.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

active banana please clean up the Ziana Zain article and profile they're putting some sources but they're liable and not about ziana,. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.193.39.206 (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC) 2NE1 hey i just wanna say you should really fix 2ne1's article cause it's 2010 and you're supposed to add more awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxbubbleworldxx (talk • contribs) 15:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Really vanity fair?

RE: [5] my google translator of the content of the source does not appear to mention Vanity Fair. Is something missing in the translation? also I am going to remove the content from the lead since it is covered in the body of the article and his sexual orientation does not appear to have (yet) been a major influence in his impact. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

1 2 3 and the magazine itself. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

bold needed for viewers convenience.It adds to beauty of article

how will the reader find when he won awards> its difficult to find & locate awards won!Shrik88music (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback - ErikHaugen

Hello. You have a new message at ErikHaugen's talk page. Message added 17:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC). Hello. You have a new message at ErikHaugen's talk page. Message added 17:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC). Hello. You have a new message at ErikHaugen's talk page. Message added 18:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

Sources

Hello there. I had a quick a question for you. All of the pages for soap characters have references from ABC.com, soapcentral.com, soaps.com and soapnet.com because that's the primarily place to get information for these characters and the first places that pop up on Google. I did do a more scholastic search on Google News and Google books, but there wasn't much information to be found about soap characters from these searches. So I was just wondering if any of the above listed sources would be acceptable for soap characters since there isn't much else to find when you're doing a more scholastic search? Thanks for the help. Sparrowhawkseven (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Twitter is a self-published source, valid in limited situations

Twitter—at least in the case of a verified account—meets the definition of a self-published source: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves." Accordingly, while I would not use it as a source for an upcoming role, it is acceptable for basic biographical information such as date of birth. Accordingly, I have restored the tweet as a source for Ariana Grande's date of birth, since it came from her verified Twitter account, and since a source must be provided for verification purposes. —C.Fred (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

Your talk page is really long so I would suggest setting your archiving for a shorter time. I don't think anyone really is going to edit a sixty day old conversation and if someone really needs to they can move it from your archive. --Inka^{888Come yell at me!} 01:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit article Corbin Bleu

Hello sir, possible service, see the article Corbin Bleu, the article is not complete, but to see this version good. look : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corbin_Bleu&oldid=388531348, possible to retrieve this version please, there is a difference between them. Good luck my friend . --2.88.74.115 (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

IP now blocked 72 hours for block evasion. Saudi IP interested in Corbin Bleu is certainly Chace Watson.—Kww(talk) 20:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

LAST WARNING: Please stop changing the dates to Generation X

I have been editing this page for over two years now, and have recently defended the previous consensus and provided reasoning and excessive amounts of sources supporting date ranges established. A couple of editors have decided to engage in disruptive edits (even after being proven wrong over and over again), and have been previously warned about making such changes only too recently. Please refrain from making additional changes to the dates. We do not go by what we feel on Wikipedia, but overwhelming amount and widely accepted sources. Any further changes to the introduction will be reverted. Thank you. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

NOTICE: The two editors Peregrine7981 and Educatedlady have a history of disruptive edits and have both had their edits reverted because of unreliable sources or a source that was not widely used/accepted. My overwhelming amount of sources support the previous consensus and are widely used/recognized and reliable. The evidence also comes from a variety of sources around the world. A consensus can say the world is flat (as it once did); that doesn't make it right. When evidence proves otherwise, as it has done, the previous consensus can stand against the new one.

These editors come back about once every month or two and stir things up again despite the evidence provided. Educatedlady has also been previously warned by at least two other editors for her behavior. Please stop adding fuel to the fire and respect the previous consensus based on evidence not personal opinions and "feelings". Elwood Carlson's book (and the only published source they cite that is not a blog or unreliable/not widely used source) is not widely accepted, and belongs on the Generation Y page (just barely). The reasons given have already been laid out. I have warned these two over and over again. Both editors have had their edits reverted by other editors/administrators as well. Looks like the warnings will be repeated. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

headlines

Hi, headlines are not WP:RS and are given license to be maximum dramatic and we do not repeat or cite them, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Also , Category:Anti-LGBT is a redlink and it should stay that way. It is an extreme position and likely with large BLP issues to label someone as such. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And that wasnt even actually the headline, I reverted myself. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool, no worries, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Brad Thor editing his own Wikipedia entry again

I see you removed all the promotional hyperbole most recently that Brad Thor put in his Wikipedia entry here. He's added it back again. Thought I'd give you the heads up. 64.38.197.206 (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Block of User:Shrik88music

I blocked this user to prevent further repeated unexplained and unconstructive edits being made, not due to IP edits or breaking 3RR. Instructions to appeal the block are included in the block message, which the user is free to follow. If the appeal includes an understanding that articles must follow Wikipedia principles, the appeal is likely to succeed. --Geniac (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Style question: lead/infobox

Hi, if you've got a moment, please chip in here could you. The editor's giving me a hard time because he's not getting the answer from us that suits him. He wants confirmation that he's right - and he isn't. Thanks. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Two merge proposals

An article that you have been involved in editing, Longevity myths, has been proposed for a merge with Longevity. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JJB 17:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Longevity myths, has been proposed for a merge with List of disputed supercentenarian claimants. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JJB 17:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

[[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Melissa Joan Hart. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kudpung (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC) RETRACTED. 3rr warning placed on this page in error.--Kudpung (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Melissa Joan Hart

Hi, I have struck the 3rr warning. Seems I I had 2 page histories open and I was looking a the wrong one. My humblest apologies. --Kudpung (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page

The normal procedure is to engage on the talk page discussion when engaging in edit warring. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

John Abraham (actor)

Someone is adding vandalism to this page and I wasn't able to fix it right. Can you take care of it? BollyJeff || talk 15:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Notes vs. Awards

Dear Active Banana, I'm not getting your point (I perhaps don't want to!) and not understanding your problem! We (not only me) have been following Hollywood-based articles and applying the same rules to "our" articles, i.e. Indian cinema-based articles. You now may check out all wikipedia articles of all your favorite famous Hollywood actors from George Clooney to Brad Pitt (whose article by the way is even a "featured article") to Angelina Jolie to Kate Winslet to... Now you please tell me, why did I do wrong? If I made a mistake and you know better, then I request you to first re-edit all Wikipedia articles of film actors!! Don't get me wrong, no offense! I think I can say that I'm quite an experienced editor and I know what to do and what not. We aren't trying for anything special, it was not our idea to name that column as "Notes", it is done everywhere like that, so we are doing the same in these articles, that has been the policy! Thanks for understanding buddy! Johannes003 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

May I know why we should change this "rule", why you are changing it? If that is applied to all articles, if that is the phrasing almost all articles are using, don't you think there is some specific reason for it? Don't you think there is some reason why everyone is "jumping off the bridge"? Why the heck should only this article have other columns then? Instead asking me, ask this first all the thousand of editors who worked on the other articles and named the columns like that, then I will answer you!!! It is common! I can't believe I am even discussing about this matter. Johannes003 (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I am very much not interested in this discussion. You are speaking as if it was me, who started this idea or "trend". Since you were yearning for a reason from me, her you are: "Notes" is better than "Awards", because a lot more can be added in that column apart from awards, like "TV series" or "short film" or "uncredited role" or "deleted scenes", we can include notes such as "pre-production", "filming", "post-production", "completed" etc. In a column like awards, only awards can be included and nothing else, which is bad! The editors who named this column are intelligent people, they knew how to name it, because they knew there is much more than just awards! Awards are just a small part of a film. You sadly didn't think further. I will rename the columns in "Notes" again, if you are still not satisified, you can do as you wish. Good luck bro! Johannes003 (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Surya Sivakumar

Hi, I'm not really sure how much awareness you have of Surya as an artiste (or person, infact) but you seem to be controlling (and reverting) changes to the page. Obviously, you are unfamiliar with his work to date, or with the structure of other similar articles of Indian actors on Wikipedia. By trying to implement your own rules, I (and I'm sure other editors) feel that your contributions to the page at the moment are not really helping improve the article. Possibly, instead of focussing on little issues such as the bolding/notes/random awards, we could all together build on the prose of the article and establish it to a B if not GA stage. See articles such as R. Madhavan, Kamal Haasan or Genelia D'Souza for the basic guideline of the articles of actors as per WikiProject Indian Cinema. Thanks.

Universal Hero (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Universal Hero, thumbs up! ;) Thanks man, I appreciate it! Dear Banana, I was really doubting whether you are familiar with Indian cinema-based actors and films, and it seems you aren't. No wonder, it was so difficult. Johannes003 (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

As I stated on UH talk page, one does not need to be overly familiar with the subject content to be able to apply basic Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:MOS / WP:V / WP:RS /WP:NPOV / to articles to poorly formatted, unsourced, poorly sourced, or excessively fluffy content. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Rajinikanth mass popularity, matinee idol status and named influential people in Asia

Hi. Firstly you asked me without proper reliable source dont edit, quoting -- SUPERHYPE. Then after providing one you say I am in edit war and warning me on other issues. Common are you crazy. Can I take this as you are finding a reason to not accept it whatever happens; just like a child says not feeling well, having fever, headache etc., to quit classes. Common its very rude on users like me. Please help and also accept if done neat work. Be wise and act wise.

It must be known that rajini is indeed the most popular figure in indian media and among fans. His appeal is drawn mainly from his mannerisms and dialogue delivery. Quoting these true/legitimate facts which deserves a mention does not mean its an act done as a promotional fan. EX: A glass is filled with half water. I am seeing the remaining to be filled. Others seeing it is already filled. So one issue has many views. So have the analysistic mind and judge based on that.

Why should I be considered as a fan if I am saying/quoting/editing that is truth/legitimate/correct/proper done meeting all forms of wiki policies. If everyone keep on saying that this article if edited, its becoz he/she is a fan --- then sorry there is no end to wiki editing on all other language articles also, including English. If anyone edits pages who is from Australia, involving italian city then ----> does it reflect he is local guy so he is promoting Italy. Not he is from other place but being a wikipedian he edits. Point is --> If the policies, statement being neutral and other key issues are satisfied then it should be allowed since the article deserves the mentioning.

Keep on pointing on lesser grounds, not accepting reliable/verifiable sources is an act against constructive edit and not fair. Reviewer/rollbackers please do understand this. I respect all in wiki for their truest contribution to wiki including those who raise silly questions.

   Source: http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2009/12/14/sunday-celebrity-rajini-simple-stylish-spiritual-explains-his-uniqueness
           http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/meet-indias-biggest-film-star-2096273.html

Even after proving satisfying all policies,issues others of wiki if anyone denies it or says against --- can users like me who does editing based on truth,honest,humble assume they are haters of person involued --- so they are attacking it personally since they never like them. Please understand it. So Anaylse, review, research, broad-minded, open, true, legitimate; instead of being the reverse!! Hope I clarified myself.

--Ungal Vettu Pillai 23:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)

"Hope I clarified myself" umm not really.

If all you have to say about an article topic whether it is a city/actor/breed of dog is "its great!!!! he's superduper!!!! everyone loves him!!!!" then you probably dont have anything appropriately encyclopedic to add to a wikipedia article. and if you think that someone applying WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK to article content is "a hater", then you probably shouldnt be editing the article either.

If all that is important about the person is that he has a huge fanbase then that is probably what the article should emphasise about the talentless douchebag. But if he is a talented contributor to the art and entertainment world, then the article should emphasise THE ACTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS and add a mention that because of the talent and work he has a fanbase. See WP:ASF - we document what the individual has done and let the reader decide. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

WARNING: Please stop "editing" Band Baaja Baaraat & Mere Brother Ki Dulhan immediately

Hello sir, I have noticed that during the past couple of days you have made a number of edits to Mere Brother Ki Dulhan and especially Band Baaja Baaraat, which would be fine if these edits contributed to the improvement of these articles however I'm sorry but they do not. If you have something to add to these articles you certainly are welcome to, but if the extent of your contributions consist in removing perfectly adequate, referenced parts of the article and rephrasing perfectly phrased others, then you really should dispense yourself from doing it. There is absolutely no reason to add a "scheduled" to a forthcoming film's release date. Who are you to determine whether a source is reliable or not? Expecially when previously to your edits the article was deemed perfectly satisfactory by the Films Project. So once again, please abstain from "vandalizing" these articles (or any others for that matter). Only information that is inaccurate or particularly badly phrased should be corrected. Thank you.Happy Evil Dude (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

RE RE Warning

1) You cannot tell any editor which articles they may or may not edit: I can certainly tell any editor that his edits are unnecessary, unproductive and in fact harmful to the integrity of the article, which is how one can define edits that remove factual referenced information relevant to the subject of the article or replace them by reformulating them in inferior English. Wikipedia is not about an ego trip.

2) EVERY edtior can and should determine whether sources are reliable and remove those that fail to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy: exactly, and the sources you deem unreliable have previously been deemed reliable by other such editors.

3) There is so reason the add "scheduled" to future dates as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should not be making proclamations about events that have not happened: I then suggest you go add your precious "scheduled" to movies that are coming out next week, because who knows if that will happen or not? Wikipedia may not be a crystal ball, but what that statement means is that Wikipedia shouldn't make unsubstantiated predictions. When there is substance to the fact that a certain event is happening at a certain date, Wikipedia can thus safely report on it without adding "scheduled" to the infobox.

You may have a precise idea of how you think a film article should look, however there are precise guidelines as per WikiProject Films on how they actually should look and which the articles previously mentioned follow.Happy Evil Dude (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

HIIII

Respected users, I know that banana and shshshsh are from the same user you both think as if ur administrators, do your edits with some ethics and without vanadalism, then all users respect you. Warm wishes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.209.89 (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Siti Nurhaliza

Hi again, can you point to me which part again is problematic as you have tagged the article as "citation needed". I have check the links, and almost every single link is working and almost most of the lines which is important come with link. SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 20:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the bolding parts, and I'm on my way to remove the link, and the official website is mostly used to verify her birth date, royal title received and the date of her company was launched, nothing really important, but I'll try to improve the article as much as I can. SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 20:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got one for you

Hi 'nana. Since you seem to like making fans mad, and you love to kill peacocks, I have a good one for you: Anil Kapoor. I have added banners before, but they keep getting taken down. Just be careful, and try not to butcher it totally; there seem to be sources for a lot of it. Have fun... BollyJeff || talk 01:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: User:Alan H Barnett

Good riddance. Thanks so much! Yves (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

guest appearnces need to appear in column of notes only

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitabh_Bachchan_filmography , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajinikanth_filmography , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Haasan_filmography

- in the column notes only the info regarding special appearances , guest appearances have been made in each of these fimographies.

so there is no need for special appearances appearing in role column in case of rajesh khanna filmography.Quicklight (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ali S. Khan

Hello, I've tried very hard to make the edits you have requested to the Ali S. Khan page (e.g., adding external references, removing erroneous or controversial text). In the future please consult me directly if you find fault in what is written there. I appreciate that you want to edit the page and make it better, but many of your edits have removed what many in the public health field would find major acheivements. I'm also not sure why it was necessary for you to edit the "category" field, what you replaced is incorrect. Dr. Khan is NOT a military doctor, if you read the biography you will understand that he is a member of the U.S. Public Health Service, which is a non-combative uniform office.

Also, I am new to Wikipedia, I was unaware that trying to respond to your edits was considered "edit warring" please do not threaten to block me. As Wikipedia policy stipulates you should take part in active dialogue if you feel a page is being edited improperly.

Thank you. Bensonme (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (talk)

Please

dont send any messages to me You stop your POV with hush puppetry Thank you (61.2.209.70 (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)).

Proposed deletion of Keith Springer

The article Keith Springer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable financial advisor. No notable reference on the subject himself.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Edcolins (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Keith Springer for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Keith Springer, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Springer until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Edcolins (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

vermonster

Hi, you agreed with my assessment before about the vermonster. The same user is still reverting. I know that this is a relatively low-importance article, and that he or she reverts infrequently, but I don't think he or she will stop. What can be done about this? Blafard (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

BLPN

Back in April, you were involved in a discussion about the article Pinoy_Big_Brother:_Teen_Clash_2010.  Some editors said that there were BLP violations.  There is now a discussion about that article at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard (BLPN).  Please come to BLPN to say whether you think there are BLP violations in the article now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Active Banana. You have new messages at Talk:Willow_Smith#vanity_name.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: External links

I misinterpreted the bit about other official links, I suppose. Her Twitter is linked from her MySpace, so it is findable from an official source. Plus, her Twitter is used as a reference—for one of the very limited cases where a self-published source is acceptable—so there is a link to it within the article. However, minimizing the number of external links is different from WP:ELNO, which covers links to be avoided—and that's a large part of why I re-added the link on sight. —C.Fred (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Pamela Geller

Hey,

I'm monitoring this page and will help you deal with that pesky IP. NickCT (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:96.231.31.238_reported_by_User:NickCT_.28Result:_.29 NickCT (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Annoying Orange

I used Grapefruit just as an example. I could have said 'Knife' or 'Liam' - would you have then removed those? What is your criteria for "trivial"? Far but no Cigar (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the evidence that 'Knife' or 'Liam' are not trivial? Again, What is your criteria for "trivial"? I can go looking for some sources, but I need to understand what the standard is, first. Far but no Cigar (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Shearography

You forgot to check the Google News Archives -- plenty of stuff there. Someone else has already removed the PROD, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Otaki Forks Article

By the sounds of it you have not actually been to Tararua Forest Park or Otaki forks, they are differet and a seperate page for each is appropriate.

Yeah its the main way through to the Tararua Forest. The Tararua forest is a FORREST compared to Otaki Forks which is a visitor and tourist location. Have you been there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postitnz (talk • contribs) 01:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the tone is hardly an issue and can be fixed easily. In what way is it not properly sourced? Its sourced with New Zealand goverment information, I can hardly think of a better source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postitnz (talk • contribs) 01:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Although In revisting the article there is no adjectives which are relative. Only facts, about what is there. So I don't see the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postitnz (talk • contribs) 01:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I'm sorry but in what way does the goverment be innaccturate in its facts when it has Rangers working out there day to day updating information on the land? Postitnz (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright ok, I don't think I can meet these standards with both my pages on Otaki Forks and Colonial Knob. HOw do i delete these pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postitnz (talk • contribs) 01:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Put {{db-author}} at the top of the page that you want to be deleted. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 01:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a little gentler approach with this obviously good faith new editor would have been desirable. I think Postitnz has been thoroughly and unfairly bitten. I hope s/he has not been scared off Wikipedia forever. LadyofShalott 04:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I see the good faith attempt now. However, the original posting of the user was asking for advice on a talkpage of a user account that was created specifically to add promotional content to Wikipedia for their paying clients. I assumed incorrectly at that point that it was a client attempting self promotion. Active Banana (^bananaphone 04:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

So the user was punished for mistakenly asking advice from the wrong user. LadyofShalott 04:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess that might be the case. And I hope that I will not make such incorrect assumptions in the future.Active Banana (^bananaphone 04:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. (I've been known to jump to the wrong conclusion before as well; I made one of the comments on my user page as a direct result of my own goof of a similar nature.) LadyofShalott 05:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Barbie

Hello, Active Banana. You have new messages at Talk:Barbie.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Siawase (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

LeShaun

I just wandered by, and it seems as if you may have missed that a 2-edit IP came and futzed with the name (in the infobox and lede) since this AfD began. I don't know if the sources I've mentioned are ones you've considered, but if you're looking for a LeShaun Thompson and not finding sources, that might be part of the reason, try LeShaun Williams or LeShaun Toreau Williams. Or perhaps, in looking through this as quickly as I have, I'm confused (quite possible, in fact!), but I figured I'd at least give you the friendly heads-up. Cheers! --j⚛e decker^talk 07:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

SkyCable

Why do you keep considering Channel Line-up as a program schedule, geez. G8crash3r | Talk 20:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you really onto it? G8crash3r | Talk 20:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIR does not explictly states channels numbers. Why part of that can't you understand. G8crash3r | Talk 20:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

again, cut me some slack and leave the article alone. G8crash3r | Talk 20:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by G8crash3r (talk • contribs)

know what active banana, since you're onto it, you can just delete the article, the purpose of having those channel numbers is for informational purposes only and is being done out of good faith, if you think its improper to have it, delete the article then and i will take the article somewhere else where everyone can write anything without being judged as improper. I guess being friendly to authors has also died in Wikipedia. G8crash3r | Talk 20:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

SB edit summaries etc.

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

Regine Velasquez page

Russart 1999 keeps putting back unsourced and biased claims in the article. he even sends me a warning but it's him who keeps vandalising the pages of Regine Velasquez, Regine Velasquez discography, and List of best-selling albums in the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.85.147 (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

Appears to be blocked as an IP sock puppet. I have a good idea who this is, the guy is a serial disruptive sock puppeteer. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The breaker

Hi. Questions about The Breaker (manhwa).

1. Why did you remove the link The official webpage of the artist Park Jin-Hwan (Kamaro). Yes, it1`s a blog, but it's also ofiialny site authors manhva, that they write news about The breaker.
2. Why did you remove the links The Breaker - Television Tropes and Idioms and http://thebreaker.wikia.com/wiki/The_Breaker_Wiki ?
3. Why did you remove "The Breaker (Part I)" and "The Breaker: New waves (Part II)"? It`s a summary. Амель (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the info. That was indeed the right rationale. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ben Lovejoy

Hey just a heads up, might want to be a little more careful when tagging articles. You tagged Ben Lovejoy, a professional ice hockey player in the NHL with {{notability}}. Grsz 11 02:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Salman Khan

Hi Active Banana. That'd be great if you can specify where citations are required so I can find and fix them. I very good with finding references. Thank you very much. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

12th Planet (musician)

Hi There-

The two magazine articles you are questioning use the interview with the artist himself as a resource. Any quotes or "sparkly language" were not used as resources for what is on the Sandbox page. Also, I see many other wikipedia articles for various musicians that use magazine interviews and URB.com as resources. I am simply confused as to why THESE musicians have wikipedia pages, as 12th Planet has equally as many (if not more) notability criteria, releases, etc.

I am curious to see if creating a new page as 12th Planet (musician) would work on wikipedia. That way there is no confusion with Stitchin's work, and no need to correct a redirect.

Thanks, Dambuleff (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Its Supposed to Have Seasons

It is supposed to have 2 seasons so please stop getting rid of the seasons. Gabriel Easteron 08:42 January 9, 2011. —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

You reverted my edit

Sir, I could not understand why "Teheleka" was not considered as a standardize published magazine by you??? The writings in Wikipedia are like in a way as if it is proved that Mr. Haji Nurul was organizing the riot..while there was not even a single FIR filed against him. Does not it affecting neutrality of page?? There are different views regarding this event and none are proved. TEHELEKA is one of the renowned magazine of India. So I request you to consider Teheleka as a standard source. Even, I did not delete other view. I kept both. Pramame (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sir, Sorry to say, but I think you are using unnecessary jugglery of language to deceive wiki. I doubt your neutrality. Teheleka nowhere told that they spread false news. While a page can exist in wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fernandes just due to Teheleka stinged him, then why can't Teheleka can be taken as reference?? Pramame (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Brisbane Floods

Look, I understand you think I'm forking the page, but I'm not. To prove it, I invite you to merge the content back with the original page, and reverse the fork that way, rather than deleting the list of missing persons lists. As long as the information goes SOMEWHERE, I am happy.

159.223.28.79 (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it might appear that I'm in an edit war. So I give up.

It's your problem now.

You'll be the one on record as having deleted important information in a time of crisis. It's just a shame that tomorrow morning when people start looking for their loved ones, Wikipedia will have it's editorial integrity intact, rather than useful information about where they are. 159.223.28.79 (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't you GET it? All those sites are DOWN. "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia", we don't have to wait for it to be history. There are people dead and missing. These are facts, not opinion. I can see floodwaters out my window. The minister is saying this stuff on TV. I will get you proper academic references LATER, but for the moment all we have is the Queensland Police Twitter/Facebook feed. 159.223.28.79 (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, this above IP is now WP:DUCK blocked. DMacks (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As stated elsewere, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a disaster relief coordination center. Not a emergency alert system. Not a memorial site for the dead nor a social networking site to find lost people. Not therapy for you to feel like you are doing something to help while you are in what must be a difficult personal situation. You would be better off directing your efforts to enhance a site that actually is dedicated to one of those purposes rather than being repeatedly wasting your efforts attempting to turn wikipedia into something it is not. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

George H. Moody Middle School

Thanks for the edits. It seems you more or less agree with me. --John (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And that's an end to that.

Buh-bye, Mr IP address. HalfShadow 21:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection

If you have a problem like this again, you can go directly to my user talk. I may or may not be there, but if I am I'll do it ASAP :P NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for the welcome Active Banana, though I'm not particularly new! Still feels nice though. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

IP 61.135.195.128

Hi,

Recently you posted a level 3 vandalism warning on 61.135.195.128 when I had posted a LV 3 right before that. I was wondering if you could go back and change that to a LV 4. I have a feeling this IP is gonna vandalize again and I want to get it blocked the next time that happens. Thanks! Bped1985 (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

George H. Moody Middle School

This article has more problems. Many editors have already abandoned it. It needs serious help. 74.110.198.236 (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

HALO

I should ask the same question to you why do u remove pictures in Hindi cinema and Telugu cinema??? and if I add a pic which is essential film during golden age of Indian cinema you remove that pic and u ask why do I remove pics??? you are a vandalism oriented user so u please stop dictating articles. (Padmalakshmisx (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)).

I am adding images which are accepted by wikipedia

you are no wikipedia administrator - i have the right to call people

who just delete sources or matter just because they think it is wrong

i am going to put the image in golden age of indian cinema

so you respect peoples borders

please dont message me

(Padmalakshmisx (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)).

Sources...

Sir, yeah great, I know what sources are and I mean it! We have some good reliable sources from 2003/2004 onwards, but for earlier period, there exist hardly any printed, currently available sources anymore (at least concerning South Indian film and music articles!) Either the old links are dead now, or the sources were not allowed or marked as unreliable (as they were from blogs or forums or some not-so-highly-reputated publishers!) or they never existed online (that doesn't mean they never existed, they can't be found in Internet, they were printed in magazines and news papers etc.) Mostly there are no archives, where older articles have been saved, and that doesn't make it any easier. We know how immensely hard it is to find even one good source to substantiate the statements. We especially had (and still have) big trouble to prove some award winners of earlier times, since we have no sources that report from those days and so people have been adding their idol's name there. We know it's false but we can't proof it. If you are interested in improving our sites, not only this one, then you may help us by searching and finding some reliable sources. This doesn't help! Johannes003 (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"we know its false but we cannot prove it" - doesnt matter, it is up to the person who wants to add or return material to an article to provide the sourcing, not for us to prove that they didnt win an award. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Moody School Sock

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Indextookviewsgoals and his response on his talk page, where he uses another sock account to reply: [6]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Girls Generation

erm i'm not good at editting, i cited the article already, why was it removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfriend (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your conflict with User:Kelzorro and Aaahh!!! Real Monsters

Regarding my response to Kelzorro on my talk page here, the same applies to you, especially the edit warring part. Please watch yourself. Regards, –MuZemike 17:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ivanka Trump

Hi Active Banana, I see you are active on Ivanka Trump's wikipedia page. I wanted to let you know she has announced she is pregnant through Twitter today. This is the second announcement Ivanka breaks through twitter, the first, her engagement.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knox387 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)