Talk:Half-smoke

Watch unintended POV statements ...
Be careful with opinion statements (WP:NPOV) and "weasel words" like "the general consensus of the finest" and "arguably the most renowned." It's probably okay since you have references (WP:V), but it might be better to reword objectively (see WP:POV for guidance). -- 14:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin using Wikipedia article to advertise his restaurant and is using his admin powers to threaten people who try to prevent removal of his ads
An admin (user:BanyanTree, who I believe is owner of the restaurant in question) created an article about half smokes, a type of hot dog. It is an item on the menu of (Ben's Chili Bowl), one of hundreds of places to buy that item in Washington DC. He named that restaurant FIVE TIMES in this very short article about a sausage.

-- In his original article, he inserted a a photo of his restaurant, not the food the article is about. That image was eventually replaced with one of the article's subject (a sausage), but even then, the restaurant name is in the caption for no reason.

-- He also added a list of celebrities who have eaten at that resturant. This is COMPLETELY irrelevant to half-smoke sausages.

After I removed his advertising, his only excuse for reverting my edit is that his statements promoting that restaurant are true (i.e. cited -- it was reviewed in the Washington post food section.)

'''But much, much worse: HE SAYS HE'S A WP ADMIN AND WILL BLOCK ME IF I DELETE HIS ADVERTISING AGAIN.''

He didn't like the edit summary associated with my edit and angrily told me "to say it to my face".

I suspect BanyanTree is the owner of the restaurant. That would be one of Ben's two sons. But ''it doesn't matter if he is the restaurant owner or not. He OBVIOUSLY has a financial interest in it.'' Nor is it relevant here that I wasn't polite enough in my edit summary when I deleted the advertising. The salient point is that A Wikipedia administrator is using his admin authority to insure that his advertising is not removed.

'''I would like to request that: 1) his advertising be removed 2) this matter be investigated 3) if others agree that he used admin powers to prevent removal of advertising in Wikipedia, that his admin status taken away. '''

Techno Faye Kane 09:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would recommend WP:ANI for complaints of administrator abuse and WP:RFCU for requests to see if a user is sockpuppeting. Let me know how it goes. - BanyanTree 11:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That was my intention from the beginning, Kamal. This functions as a draft of my complaint about you. ANI is already open in another window.

Popular culture edit
Wow, I hope I didn't just walk into a firestorm here. I just added a sub-section called "Popular culture" and recounted an exchange I saw on Meet the Press this morning. I now see there has been a... um contentious debate over the inclusion of Ben's Chili Bowl. For the record, like Obama, I didn't know what a half-smoke was and came here to look it up. Upon reading the article I added this section because I thought it was interesting. I do not work for this company; I live in Ohio. Also, for the record, I referenced my quotes with inline citations from the Meet the Press transcripts. The word famous came directly out of Gregory's mouth. Na uf ana :  talk  02:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay it looks like there is an editor who has taken ownership of this article and prefers to delete rather than discuss. It's a shame. Na uf ana  :  talk  02:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That was rude and I apologize. Na uf ana  :  talk  03:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed them again because of WP:NotNews. To me it's trivial and nothing to do with the dish in question, but more with politicians playing to the camera. --Blowdart | talk 06:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. It's not relevant to the food, and I doubt it would even be relevant to the politicians involved. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I put on the editor's talk page I don't know what he is referring to because the link is dead. But WP:NOT only applies to articles not information within an article & WP:NOTNEWS is an essay and per WP:ESSAYS essays do not count for anything more than an opinion. Basing a deletion on an essay is similar to basing a deletion on one's own opinion, "I'm deleting this because I don't want it here" (more or less). For example if the edit violated a policy then that policy could be used to justify a deletion. But if the edit violated a guideline then the guideline can only "advise" conduct ("guidelines are more advisory in nature"). Finally essays do not carry any weight what so-ever. Na uf ana  :  talk  03:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit in question is totally irrelevant to the article at hand, and to me, smells of WP:COATRACK. You've been reverted by three different editors, and consensus is against this information. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)