User talk:Active Banana/Archive 2

Reliable sources
What exactley do you mean by reliable sources here? There are already sources about his past teams, his current age/data, and his recent transfer. What exactly isn't good there? Thanks. Catabv23 (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Any sources for information about a particular article, particularly claims related to a living person, must be substantiated by inline citations on that particular article page, not by a claim that "one of the references on another page can verify that statement". Active Banana (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's not true. Go back to citations. The policy states: "When to cite sources: The policy on sourcing is Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. It does not require inline citations for all claims related to living persons, only for claims that are challenged or likely to be challenged. --Crunch (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And the statements had been challenged by me. Active Banana (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Paulius Galaune
Hi. looking at John Boydell, which is an arts good article, it looks like i have quite a lot more work to do before it is good enough. I'll see if i can find some pictures of his paintings/stamps. thanks for your help Nefesf9 (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks - do the articles have to be that long and detailed to become good articles, if biographies ? im trying to keep Galaune's article summarised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefesf9 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to Username Concerns
Thanks for the note. I understand your concerns. I do work with Chuck Grassley, and my goal is simply to make sure that information about him on Wikipedia is current, accurate and verified. I did not realize that using this name might not be the best username. I simply chose it to provide disclosure, as I wish to work through the community, and let other editors know where I am coming from. I’m familiar with Wikipedia’s conflict of interest rules, and I will take them seriously. If I must change my user name I can, but if this explanation works, then I hope you can help me. Grassleyworks (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Paulius Galaunė
Someone who doesnt have an account has been putting lies into the article about Galaunė's military service. Can you stop them please ? thanks. Nefesf9 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * also, any other ways I can help out on wikipedia apart from writing articles. Nefesf9 (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern
Thanx for uprizing me on the subject.Wisdom24 (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion
What is your opinion on this issue? I think the article title should be without the "Munipical" word in it. Thanks. Catabv23 (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

MTM Enterprises
I thought you had a problem with the writing style and not the citation. My mistake. The citation is actually the same as the one for the next paragraph listing all the writers. I thought that citing it at the end of the two paragraphs was sufficient for all of it. Would you prefer the cite to be inserted in all the locations you indicated? Thanks for the input.Dohhh22 (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Greatful for your guidence
Thanks..I will keep this in my mind.Wisdom24 (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced
Information that has citation needed beside it in the Lee Jun Ki page needs to be removed. It has been there without any sourcers for years now. Can you please remove them? Thanks. 202.72.221.126 (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Taryn
Hello, about the edit on the Wrong Hole videoclip: I'm Italian and I can tell you that a lot of non-english speakers knows Taryn thanks to that video. The source are the views and comments on YouTube, a lot of which are from international users, and the thousands of views on the italian/spanish/etc. subbed versions of the video. --WikiKiwi (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I guess you're more experienced than me about sources :) but what did you mean with the copyviol link? I haven't linked to anything in my revision, refs were already there. --WikiKiwi (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I see... well be aware that those in Taryn Southern article are still linked since you undid my revision but the refs were from older edits. --WikiKiwi (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

AIV
I've blocked those two IPs. If they pop up again, let me know, as there may be a feasible rangeblock. TN X Man 16:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I knew it
I knew you would think it's actually not the same guy. I am very well experienced with him. I never accuse unless there is a reason to do it. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  06:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Need your help
Playback singer wikipedia is for authenticated singers of south asia. I have notice that whenever some authenticated names of famous Pakistani playback singers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_Pakistan) have been entered in the playback singer wikipedia, the editor showed a biased stance and removed those names. Recently, for the first time, I included some names with the source, even then the editor not only reverted that edit but also reverted my another contribution in Naheed Akhtar's wikipedia which clearly reflects his biased nature. He also declared me a sock puppet. I, here by, request you to look into the things yourself and help me in this regard if possible or atleast give a full stop to this biased attitude as Pakistani playback singers have equal rights. I will be highly greatfull. Wisdom24 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi..I am Wisdom24. I have been blocked and declared sock puppet of Dr.Mukesh by the biased administrator Shahid which I am not. I need you help again in this regard against this conspiracy. Yellow monkey has done it on his request. This is very unfortunate that such people are occupying dominant place which is frustrating. If you can unblock me..I will be greatful or if any thing you can do....Wisdom.Wisdom (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)(Wisdom24)

Quite astonished...
Hi there BANANA, VASCO here,

I think you have been getting on my case ever since my personal attack on A VANDAL (still not justified, i admit it) on Francisco Yeste. After i worked my tail off in order to get references, you kept on inserting the tags. After a couple more, i asked you "do you think it's good now, can i remove tags?", getting total silence for an answer. By the way, the tags have been removed.

Now, at Alan Osório da Costa Silva (yes it was i who edited anon a few days ago, sometimes i have an idea and don't want to waste time logging in, lest i forget it, and i have nothing to hide, my IP is standard, so...): you removed every sentence that smells a bit like POV, backed up or not by external links (in this case BACKED UP): a guy who plays ALL the league matches IS an undisputed starter, truth of truths, that is not POV, period. I mentioned Ricardo Quaresma because this player was at his prime - at club and national team level - when Alan (not Osório as you wrongly "renamed" him, player is known as Alan!) arrived at F.C. Porto. The only thing in which you were 100% right was the INTRO that reeked of POV ("pacy and scoring winger"), i should not have inserted that in an encyclopedia.

Some more surprises: in late storyline, you removed that Alan scored against Porto "the only goal in a home triumph", meaning the game ended 1-0. What, so me saying one game ended 1-0 is POV too?! Also, i believe that the unref'd tag should remain if some info in storyline looks "suspicious", not remove that "suspicious" info and keep tag altogether.

I have brought up a discussion at WP:FOOTY. Also, i have "tipped" an admin about this stuff. When he reads this message, if/when he says "Vasco, ActiveBanana is correct, you must desist in your approach", you can do whatever you choose, i don't care, if people want their WP articles in poorer quality... Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC) (e/c)
 * 1) unless he is ONLY known in reliable sources as "Alan" (in the same manner Madonna is generally only referred to in reliable sources as "Madonna" and not "Madonna Ciccone" or how in reliable sources Pelé is only known as Pelé and a majority of reliable sources do not include any other name identification) we use the real name and not the stage/nickname.
 * 2) for the remainder of your point of view, I suggest you read WP:ASF. We simply state the facts as reported in reliable sources and allow the reader to determine if they consider it a "triumph" or merely a "win". Active Banana (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply: About 1) Check links #1 and #2 to see how he is known please, 100% reliable sources both - a player playing in Portugal for several years now, 2 Portuguese sites. About 2) Totally honest man, not being sarcastic, i write "triumph" in the same manner as "win", just did not want to engage in word repetition (in the opposite pole, like "loss" or "defeat"), i NEVER wanted to engage in POV there (if it's more satisfactory to the site, i'll gladly change the word "triumph"). Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The admin has replied, he also feels some of my inputs (but not 99%, as you) are POV, i duly rephrased it more (the "fine individual effort" bit is now without the "fine", but it was ref'd, has been for months; also replaced the bit "instant first-choice" with a more suitable sentence, especially after i found out it was false, my bad :)). I have not still yet removed the tag, why should i? So you insert it again, like in Yeste, after it had nearly 10 refs? I respect your work (POV/WEASEL is sometimes not far away from vandalism), thought you could do the same with mine. Signing off - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is still lacking any third party reliable sources UEFA.com is "the official Website for European football" and so is NOT a third party for content regarding a European football player. Without third party sources, the references still need to be improved. Active Banana (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Panos Markovic
Hi! I've just seen you removed all external links I added. I can understand you removed self-published sources, even though RSSSF is considered a reliable source by WP:FOOTY, but why did you remove the link to Doxa Drama official website (this one), considering the fact that this article is poorly sourced. Tell me. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! I don't understand why you have not answered yet to my query. You have been active over the last days...--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not appear to meet WP:EL. And the lack of solid sources within the article is NOT reason to include random other sites in the external link section. Active Banana (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand. I added inlines sources, not external links.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar
Why, thank you! It's much appreciated. - Biruitorul Talk 16:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Overzealous
You are being overzealous with Mecislovas Gedvilas and looking after user:Nefesf9. The effort is appreciated, but please do not be so strict will all the rules. Relax & cut people some slack before mass tagging everything with clean up tags and citing ten different policies. This is a voluntary project & we are human. We make mistakes, but there is no need to scrutinize every single edit looking for stuff we messed up and then tagging it without any effort to fix/address/discuss the issue. It's very disheartening and does not create a welcoming atmosphere for any editor (a newbie, established editor, or an admin). Take care, Renata (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All I am saying is that you should show a bit of good faith.
 * Regardless, you seem tense. I sincerely suggest you take a wikibreak... Sometimes when you spend too much time in this place, it gets better of you and wikidrama just creates itself for no sane reason (been there, done that). Renata (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
He never learns, does he? Thank you for the support. Actually, don't forget he did the same to you... Don't let him mislead you again when another account is created. :) Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

SHINee
Hi! This is Farjad. You have helped before in maintaining the good article status of SHINee. I have a request; there is an unregistered IP address who has been changing whole general layout of SHINee article without prior discussion required before making huge edits. This endangers its good article credibility. I reverted his/her edits and mentioned to 'discuss' it first. But he/she continues to edit. There is a general layout for music artist biographies for all wikipedia entertainment articles and it can't be changed. I don't want to start an edit war because that also endangers good article credibility. Do you know how to deal with this or know anyone who can? Thanks! Please reply, I watchlisted your user page and talk page. Farjad0322 (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-thinking
Do you honestly agree with Oncamera? The headers are the same just made Main Headers how is there a difference in that? Jenaveev18 (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

List of South Korean teen idol musical bands
Hi ! I noticed you wrote something in the talk page of this page, only yesterday. Now I just nominated it for deletion in Articles for deletion/List of British pop musicians of the 1930s, because I think it doesn't meet our criteria. Feel free to join the discussion and maybe even vote. Cheers, Maashatra11 (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-Welcome
Thanx Banana.Falcon in air (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for your wellcome message. I think that I will be active user of wikipedia. I have made some changes in the article - Elchin Khalilov, before my changes there was deletet big part of an article from another users. Is it normal that someone deletes a part of an article without making any changes to improve the article and not to allow others to do this. Probably there are some rules to counter this. I also ask for help from you to finalize this and many other articles that I'll take to edit in the future.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elm478 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-Wikiproject - Indian cinema
Thank you very much Active Banana for sending me an invitation. I will definitely consider it. Falcon in air (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nadia (band) AfD
Hi agian! Would you please vote on AfD of Nadia (band). The band is under the same company as BoA, Kangta, TVXQ, The Grace, Super Junior, Girls' Generation, TRAX, SHINee, f(x). Thanks! Farjad0322 (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Breakfast at Tiffany's (song)
I removed the tags for notability and merger. This was a top 5 hit in the US and the number one on UK charts. This song is thus is per se notable, and attempts to merge are against long-standing consensus. There are literally hundreds of thousands of Ghits about this song, which was written before Google broke out of ARPANET. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, to answer your other question: I protected this article because that infamous SNL episode prompted the vandalism, and is likely to be re-aired soon. Bearian (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Toni Gonzaga
I remove the category filipino of Spanish descent because it does not have a source. and Some of the stuff i edited that have a source they remove it without even reading the stuff i added that clearly mentions what i added into the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.218.41 (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Walled garden
OK, I'm intrigued - what, with regard to Wikipedia, is a "walled garden" please?? (I think I know what one is in real life.) Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! I see, and thanks. It's one like of those little private projects that are here, but in a way aren't really part of it. I've seen one or two before. What an excellent expression! Thanks very much and best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, sir...
There was little reason for you to come down on me for what you determined to be an unsourced edit. I'm reverting my previous edit and will ask you to watch the video in question before you respond to what I say. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, it doesn't. You are being a little too aggressive in your patrolling of the page, and I would suggest you tone it down because that kind of attitude is not conducive to good faith editing. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not threaten me. Another portion of good faith is considering extenuating circumstances, like the ones that exist here. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You just threatened me again. I will revert, but will also consider filing an AN/I report against you for your threats and failure to assume good faith. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the Wiki's policies. I'm also cognizant to the fact that in a fair amount of cases, especially where episode lists for programming are concerned, there may never be enough actual research (by Wiki guidelines) to fully satisfy ever single guideline. That said, however, it doesn't mean that in every single instance that the edits should be automatically disqualified. The Annoying Orange episode list is one of those cases. You may never find an effective third-party source for these episodes. That doesn't mean you have to dismiss every single edit as fancruft, which you have done here. A lot of edits on the episode page are indeed cruft, I will concede. But when you revert edits that you can't define as cruft (i.e., making the descriptions clearer), that isn't assuming the best faith possible. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You just don't want to admit your fault in this, do you? If that's the case, then why does the Annoying Orange have a page? Come to think of it, why does any television series have an episode list? I presented you with legitimate reasons why there needs to be other consideration. If you're not going to accept them or apologize for threatening me I don't know what else I can do for you. Your overaggressive editing and coinciding failure to assume good faith, quite frankly, is bothersome and it seems like you have a battle mentality going on here. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I don't appreciate your condescending attitude. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouko block
I blocked Shouko for a period of one day (it's not quite blatant vandalism, but it is disruptive editing) However, I have little experience in this kind of blocking, so you may want to bring it to ANI. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive content editing by Shouko0624
has been editing content disruptively (removing some info (including birth name in edits such as this) and adding other info) without explanation, without references, and without communicating on any talk page. In some of this behavior, the user could be described as a Genre Warrior. Diffs include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. wrote in this edit that the user "keeps editwarring across multiple pages to do things like claim that a persons father is trivia The user has received a pageful of warnings and made no attempt to communicate back." wrote in this edit 'I blocked shouko for one day, but I"m inexperienced in dealing with disruptive content editors, so please bring it to ANI where people more well versed in this can figure it out.' The user has requested an unblock using the incorrect template, which was procedurally declined.    —  Jeff G.  ツ  06:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds about right. It's their failure to communicate, and their persistence which is the most bothersome. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also point out one of the edits where they are removing all references to the birth name of the person so that the article solely refers to the stagename. That was in a couple of articles, but I forget which right now, and I will be signing off after this. Active Banana (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Dear Active Banana,

Thank You very much for Your help. Sorry for that I have not thought of this. There is no need to respond quickly, I think, its early dawn now in America, and I am not in an urge in any aspect.

Of course I do not put my text back, it is prone to ambiguity at each word. I do not even try to reword it, I am not an expert and I lack even English language knowledge.

As far as I know. the words "neurotized" and "posttraumatic" do not affect the person, they affect the pure situation, independent of the "embracing" personality. I wanted to say that on the Hungarian counterpart of that website (daylishyt, a professional cyberbullying site), entirely normal and everyday teens are regularly observed neurotized and posttraumatic, right after the attack. This seems to be the standard and healthy reaction for humans to crime in personal context.

In short, this term has sort of paradoxical nature: posttraumatic behavior is the normal and natural response of human to unnormal situations.

All what surprises me in the whole case that it is presented as extraordinary in the media. In my experiences this behavior counts as entirely normal, healthy and natural, probably species-inherited in our race. I see neither mental nor moral issues. Only the criminal part is what counts as extraordinary (although observed daily in Hungary in great public, due to holes in the legal system). An article could be even beneficial for the victim if it could cut off the tangential or misleading threads (anything prone to moralizing, e.g. uncritical claim of "obscenity", for which no real proof exits), highlighting instead the essence into focus. But I am not sure, let alone authentical, that's why all this would require expert help.

You are right that all my wordings are prone to misinterpretations, not only because I do not speak English, but also because I myself lack true expertise and have only vague concepts. You are right also because both the words "neurotized" and "posttraumatic" are meant vulgarly as mental disorders, although I always use them to pure situations, strictly apart from personality. Following a typical, everyday Hungarian daylishyt-site bullying case, even Buddha and Jesus would act as neurotic, moreover, exactly the opposite would be unusual. IMHO the whole behavior of the victims is inherently normal and natural, moreover, even free of moral issues, only the criminal part and the anonymous organization of the criminals is what makes it important, that's what establisehs notability, e.g. of course most of these are highly unsourced, unfit yet for Wikipedia, I mentioned them just as possible future examples.
 * how the legal system will tack extremely distributed responsibility in such anon crimes (some amounting to "distributed murders" like the Hope Witsell case),
 * what objective responsibility can be attributed to the various service providers and enterprises in the future, if any at all,
 * how the legal system will readapt.
 * whether cyberbullying will be the leading crime of the next decades.

Thank You for removing all my ambiguous words, I have not thought of that these words are usually meant for persons themselves (I never use them so). Of course I do not put my text back, it is prone to ambiguity at each word. I do not even try to reword it, I am not an expert and I lack even English language knowledge.

The essence is only that it would be good to recruit an expert from a portal's task force (it could be done privately through Wikipedia's message sending capability, without any public trace), then most of the debates could be checked and resolved quickly, both the ethical and the factual issues (maybe subject consent would be still needed, I do not know, but in any case, it could be investigated much easier with expert guidance).

I am not mentioning the name now, not even the keywords, but if it can be still inferred through the context of links, pelase feel free to delete also this my message too.

Thank You for Your attention. Of course You do not need to respond, my proposal may turn out to be unusable (I do not know the internals of Wikipedia).

Best wishes and many thanks

Anticyberbullying (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there could be two conditions, which could solve some debates:
 * 1) The right of the subject to delete the article at any time (this would resolve the underage problem, because it would allow reconsideration at any time)
 * 2) A supervision with an appropriate expert whom the subjects accepts (this could deter further victimization)

A pro for the article could be that it could "overshadow" the media articles and deter victimization, if written with both external expertise and continuous (quit-any-time) approval of the subject. Wikipedia has the best googlejuice, this can be both a rescue (relief) and a nuisance here for the subject. In case of extreme expert control and subject feedback, it can be harnessed as a rescue.

I do not know whether it is usual (or possible at all) on Wikipedia to link an articles's "licence" to preset continuous "conditions". If not, then of course the above two proposals are invalid.

Anticyberbullying (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring per request (what request?)
Hi, thanks for the note: per your request, I am ignoring it so vigorously that I have already forgotten whatever it is that I'm writing to you about. :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply
and also for the much help, I am glad that the article case has been resolved in a humane manner. Thank You for Your continuous attention and work. We have the same problems in Hungary (moreover, a similar debate has just run on Hungarian Wikipedia), although the equivalent website's activity has been formally declared as illegal by court. Anticyberbullying (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollbacker
Hi Banana, I've been looking over your contributions and you certainly seem to do good work here. I've gone ahead and issued you rollback rights. Please be careful with the privilege - it can be easily lost. I recommend you carefully read up on the what you should do and should not do with rollback, then practice here before using it. I'm confident you'll use it wisely. If for some reason you don't want it, let me know and I'll revert.

You may wish to display on your user page. Happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Farjad0322 (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My name
Please don't worry about getting my name wrong. I've been called much, much worse! Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for watching Naidu page
I've observed that you have been keeping an eye on Naidu page today.Thanks for that.Try to ensure its not vandalised by some casteists who are hell bent to make it the name of a caste.

Raghavan 07:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghavan2010 (talk • contribs)

RE: NPOV
"Prominent" is a subjective term. My decision to use it was not an attempt to use "empty praise words," but an honest opinion that you happened to disagree with. I see your point and am not planning on challenging the word change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aifanp (talk • contribs) 07:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-reliable sources
Content added to articles, particularly information about living people, must be attributed to reliable sources. There is no reliable source is given in actress Zeba's wikipedia about her marriage with Mohammad Ali. So I have reverted your edit. Gray hours (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversial BLP
I'm a glutton for punishment. So what is it? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As am i, lets see it mark nutley (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, seems to have been nuked. Not much I can do under the circumstances. Never mind, maybe next time... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark Anstice
Hi Active Banana, I took them out because I was pissed off that you swooped and added them so quickly, even before I had the chance to finish the article. But I've put then back, until it's finished (ish). I can understand why your peeved, as I saw somebody do the same to you. Also I don't know where you get the idea that i'm some new wikipedian. I've been editing wikipedia for 3-4 years. scope_creep 20:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Lee Jun Ki, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not take credit for what others have done like you did on this article. Jenaveev18 (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit war warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Mobbing. 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. --Penbat (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not started an Edit war. You have. You have completely wasted my time and you did not check your facts. Also all my edits were supported by comments on the talk page.--Penbat (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Username
Please explain, in detail and citing reasons, your objections to my username. PozMyNegHole (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User blocked for the name and edit-warring.  Acroterion  (talk)  21:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC
Little..? My monster is one large wikipedian! [With threadbare dignity: ] Anyway, the monsters just make me a sockmaster. Not a sock! Bishonen | talk 20:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC).

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 18:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism in Madurai Nayak and Thanjavur Nayak articles
The Madurai and Thanjavur Nayak articles have been reduced to nonsense by a bunch of unqualified casteist editors who have crossed all limits in talking about the caste of these kings including posting unreliable sources.I intend to repair the articles and need your help to keep these fools at bay.Kindly do oblige.:)

Raghavan(Talk) 03:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

POV issues rising in the Periyar E. V. Ramasamy page
Some IP editor is fighting with established editors asking for script in ethnic origin and accusing them of POV pushing.One of the senior editors wants semi-protection since this is a GA.Could you kindly let me know if there is a possibility for this?

Raghavan(Talk) 14:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to circumvent AfD at Chernobyl disaster in popular culture
Since you have made it clear that you intend to persist in your inappropriate behaviour, I have reported you. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul Schiff
I've added quite a bit more to Paul Schiff. Why don't you take a look. Forteana (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
The Periyar E. V. Ramasamy article was modified by someone without justification from its original content that was there for long time based on facts. I tried to revive it back but faced the coordinated back-back reverting efforts to retain their POV by 2 or more other editors. I will restrain from reverting and try to follow other methods as you suggested. Meanwhile please protect the article in its current original status till the matter is discussed in detail. Thanks for your help. 76.212.15.82 (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Raghavan has again vandalized the article by removing original RS based Kannada script. He has ignored the reminder. Please take appropriate action to stop him or others vandalizing the article. 76.212.15.82 (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop jumping the gun.
All I'm gonna say, and you know why. --173.54.204.54 (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out some irony
Hi, can I point out hilarious it is that a recent set of reversions on Annoying Orange was done by a user named Active Banana? Thanks for your anti-vandalism work AND for making me laugh.  elektrik SHOOS  05:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please Stop The Happy
Following me around and reverting my fully sourced edits will not get you very far. For further information ask NYBrad or anyone else who had difficulty getting the gist. BassandAle (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Eli Soriano
You said "Content presented in articles, particularly content about living people MUST be presented in WP:NPOV format NOT tabloid gossip interpretations.. Active Banana (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)"''. Well then if that's the case why not reformat the sourced content instead of outright deleting it and getting into an edit war? Conrad940 (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You said ''Any content that beings with "apparently" is completely inappropriate WP:OR. Active Banana (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)'' If you're only opposed to the word apparently, then taking it out would remove your objection to the content, correct? Conrad940 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You said The fact that YOU used the word "apparently" signals to me that the sources do not explictly support the claims. Pre judging my intent because I used of certain words? Did you read the source? If you did, how would you form your content that would convey the same message as the content I contributed? Conrad940 (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You said ''   Because the source you used is not in a language that I read and so I cannot place appropriate content into the article. But I CAN tell that what you inserted is NOT appropriate. Active Banana (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC) '' Well then based on the source cited, how would you form the content that WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO YOU? Conrad940 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You said Based on the article, yes I am prejudging that anything that vaguely appears POV push, is very likely a POV push and needs to be stopped immediately. Active Banana (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC). Good. So then, something short of plagiarizing a source is not POV, correct? Conrad940 (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Request
Could you comment on whether i've quoted you correctly, and captured the context of your comment, at the bottom of this thread? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

just a note
I think you showed a lot of class here. I agree that it was humane under the circumstances to let the "moron" remark pass. It also raises the question of what we're willing to do as a "community" when other editors lapse into unhelpful language for emotional or psychological reasons we aren't in a position to assess. It's a problem of WP:IRL — the product is real, the editors are real, but the "community" is virtual and lacks many of the flesh-and-blood cues we need in order to know how to treat each other. Therefore, I appreciated your quick willingness to respect another editor's humanity. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Adalberto Román
Hi Active Banana (one of the best names I've come across in Wikipedia, by the way). Olé is a horrible source, its a tabloid sports newspaper with a reputation of incompetence when it comes to fact checking and accuracy. But it is useful for verifying basic information (Adalberto Román moved from Libertad to River Plate). In the same reference it says that the transfer was made for a 3 million US dollars fee, while the other reference provided (Diario ABC Color) says it was closed for 3,6 million. Those cases are when Olé can't be trusted and a different source is required.

Regarding notability, I understand that the subject passess the Athlete guidelines, having played more than 80 games on a fully professional league. Therefore, I'll remove the tag if you concur (is that a word?) with my opinion. Regards. Fache (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Cassandra Clare
Hello, there is currently a content dispute at this article and I'd like to see if an agreement can be reached. Since you are a recent contributor to the article, I'd like to ask if you wish to give your opinion on the matter. I'm not involved in the article myself, I'm only interested in trying to bring everyone to a discussion. If you're interested, please comment at this thread, thank you. --  At am a  頭 06:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Show just cause
Please show me the areas of the article that require additional sources. And I'm not talking about random points. I need to see points that could potentially undermine the article. And could "citation needed" templates be added to the individual sentence instead. The article has about 5 paragraphs. How many more sources does it need? It's so easy to slap unnecessary and unattractive templates on the pages, instead of taking 5 minutes out of your time and updating the page yourself. Oran e (talk)  22:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Initial response: WP:V applies to ALL content not just what "could potentially undermine the article".
 * And if you want to dictate to me how I spend my Wikipedia time, then you can hire me, until that time, you're not the boss of me. "Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users."Active Banana (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, I'd never want to hire you. Secondly, follow your own advice and improve articles (tagging them is not improving them). And thirdly, your work here has nothing to do with me, except when you blindly revert my edits, and can't even back it up with a proper explanation. Have a nice day. Oran e (talk)  04:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tagging certainly is a step towards improving the project. It lets those who have access to sources know where they can go to make improvements and more importantly it makes readers aware that 1) they should be aware that the content in an article is only as good as the sources and 2) that we are aware of the limitations of the tagged articles and are not trying to foist off second rate goods as prime content. Active Banana (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, and this may sound cynical, no one thinks of Wikipedia articles as "prime content". But I digress. WP:Verifiability states "in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged." I've gone through the article a number of times and nothing is likely to be challenged, and nothing could potentially undermine the article or violate BLP. Yes, tags are important, but definitely not when they are overused and unnecessary, like it was, in this particular article. And it's like I have to fight to keep unnecessary tags out. One user thinks that a point needs sourcing, and suddenly, the entire article is tagged. The articles look so extremely shabby and tasteless. Oran e (talk)  04:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "To be honest, and this may sound cynical, no one thinks of Wikipedia articles as "prime content"." I think you are very much wrong, otherwise Wikipedia would not be one of the first 5 hits for any topic that you search for. Active Banana (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No matter how annoying it may be, when someone puts a tag on a particular sentence or section, then the content per definition has been challenged. Now you may argue that some of that content is evident in references used elsewhere in the article, and thus remove the tag as been superfluous... But if the tagger persists, then you have to put a reference to the text - and all that would take, in such a case, is to make a named reference and reuse a reference already in the article. I do agree that articles can end up being overtagged or over-referenced - but this is the way that WP works. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm very much right for the simple fact that high schools and universities all warn against using Wikipedia for a myriad of reasons, ranging from the fact that articles aren't written by professionals, to the fact that they are unstable and may be changed by anyone at anytime. Wikipedia is popular because it's popular (circular, but true), not because it's "good". Oran e (talk)  04:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course they warn against using WP. I'd warn against it as well - but not because WP is bad, or wrong.... WP should always be seen as a beginning step in any sort of fact-gathering/research, which is also the reason why references are so damned important. You should always be critical of sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Inception_(film) & reliable sources
Sorry about that, it looked like page blanking to me originally but I see it clearly wasn't. I revently started helping with vandalism, I'll take more care in the future. I've reverted my edit. BioStu (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Dock jumping - thanks
Thanks for your input at Dock jumping. I'm slowly trying to improve what was originally a very poor article. You were 100% correct to tag the article and remove the external links. I'm going to work to find third party sources which are not directly from one of the organisations that run dock jumping competitions. Any further contributions would be very welcome. --Simple Bob (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added a few references which are an improvement on the previous ones which were nearly all from the jumping organisations such as Dock Dogs, Ultimate Air Dogs, etc. I do consider the United Kennel Club to be a reliable source though, what do you think about that particular one? Otherwise most of the references that I have added are from news sources - using only recognised organisations and staying away from blogs etc. I'm going to leave your tag on the article though, I'll leave it to you or someone else to determine whether or not it is appropriately referenced. --Simple Bob (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

b.t.w. if you are US-based you might want to watch the Letterman show tonight as it has a big feature on dock jumping. --Simple Bob (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Christian Marrero
I don't know if you already knew this; if you did, please ignore me. However, when you BLPPROD an article and someone else removes it without providing at least one source, as happened here, you can reinsert the tag, if you wish. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 23:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Jaume Sisa
I see you are developing quite a catalog of controversial edits. I removed your speedy delete tag from this page which was already tagged for PROD. I also reverted your removal of the external links which appear to be good sources to me. And a long discography is a pretty clear claim of notability. Rmhermen (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mohammed Rafi
Dear Mr. Banana, You deleted the section I had edited under Mohammed Rafi called Legacy citing reason as Source. I had provided links to all those singers who were inspired by him. If you check the specific pages of those singers, it is mentioned in them that they were inspired by Mohammed Rafi. My Edit was (Many successfull Indian playback singers were inspired by Mohammed Rafi and adopted his style of singing. While Mahendra Kapoor was his contemporary and yet swore allegiance to his voice, Anwar, Shabbir Kumar, Mohammed Aziz and Sonu Nigam continued the legacy after his death.) Kindly check the links and you will find the Source in the relevent pages of the other singers that I have mentioned. Thanks Much!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.48.2 (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

PRODding
Hi, remember that "Notification of the article's author(s) is strongly recommended. " - I see you didn't notify the creator of Zafar Nozim. PamD (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you would have found sources if you'd looked harder (e.g. searching using his name in Tajik), but the BLP PROD is moot now as he died a couple of days after you prodded it. Is BLP PROD a form of voodoo? Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Siobhan Magnus
May I ask what about the previous edit was irrelevant? You removed the names of her parents as well as a paragraph on her high school drama club experience. Even Lady Gaga's article has information on high school musical performances and roles. Please clarify this, as there are quite some people wondering why you reverted the edit.

Bulletinspace (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

- So you're saying it's relevant Lady Gaga was in her high school's drama club and it's not relevant that Siobhan Magnus was. Okay, the meaning of the name is irrelevant, granted. And what better sources for her parents' and siblings' names do you suggest, if not a local newspaper (Cape Cod Times) that has interviewed both her parents? Don't get me wrong, I just want to know what we need to do in order to expand this article and make it better, when there are barely any other sources than local/regional newspapers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulletinspace (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

- Personally, I think a musician's background (including vocal and instrumental training) is important, but maybe that's just me. What about her parents' and siblings' names? Also irrelevant? Bulletinspace (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

-- And the Cape Cod Times isn't reliable enough? I would think they know the names of the people they interviewed. Might seem rude if they'd been calling them the wrong names all along. Bulletinspace (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Furey x/National Airsoft Organisations
Hi Active Banana, just letting you know that proposed deletions are only valid for articles and disambiguation pages, user pages and sub pages aren't eligible. They can be deleted through speedy deletion if they meet one of the criteria listed there, otherwise they should be brought to Miscellany for Deletion. Thanks! --  At am a  頭 19:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I had PROD before the creator moved it back to user space. Active Banana (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, that makes sense. Never mind then. The creator should have removed the tag themselves in that case. --  At am a  頭 17:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Troy Davis case
It's not my personal point of view; it's the POV of the jury that convicted him and sentenced him to death.24.78.6.42 (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

RE:Kwon Yuri
I agree, the "Girls' Generation" section should contain something but the sentence "Kwon was a member of the group Girl's Generation." is totally redundant, since this is already said in the second sentence of the article. And it's partly wrong since Yuri still is Girls' Generation member... Somebody should add something more detailed... --Dr. Crisp (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Andrew Breitbart
Greetings Active Banana. It appears that you have undone an addition I submitted to the "Controversies" section of the Andrew Breitbart page. Could you please provide your reasoning? The data I entered is all sourced and referenced from other Wiki pages, is verifiably accurate, and in no way is biased or vandalous. I think the information I provided is salient and useful, and if there is some administrative issue with my submission I would like to address it so the content is available. Please advise. thanks. Trappem (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)trappem "Wikipedia pages are not reliable sources". An interesting notion. It is common for one Wiki page to link to others as I have done. I was in the process of adding external sources when I found my text had vanished. Would the submission be acceptable with additional external references? I'm happy to do this but the page needs to remain intact for more than 90 seconds. thanks, Trappem (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)trappem Hi Banana, I've re-submitted with external cites. If there are still shortcomings could you please let me know (before zapping the entire thing) and I will address them asap. thanks, Trappem (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)trappem

Talk:Reddy
I observed that this chaotic article has lot of fights related to whether Reddy is a social group or a honorary title.Reddy denotes a social grouping of many castes and is also used by communities like Kammas,Yadavas,Agnikula Kshatriyas and Vokkaligas as a title to denote a Village Headman.I presently have requested a move to Reddy(Social Group) to avoid further fights.Give your view on the talk page.-Raghavan(Talk) 12:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Kwon Yuri
"Wikipedia is not a fanpage. We refer to people by their family name, not their first name or vanity name. Your edit to Kwon Yuri has been reverted."

This explains why first names are used on the pages of every other Korean idol I have seen?
 * No, but it explains why it shouldn't be so. Feel free to apply this rule to those other articles. (Just stalking by.) Drmies (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Active Banana is right! Refer to WP:Common Names first. Farjad0322 (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, there is another article, Yuri (Korean singer). Farjad0322 (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Jason Leopold
Hello, the situation at this article has gone on long enough (over 2 years). I'm working on a draft RfC and wonder whether you would be willing to contribute, either as an involved party who tried to help the user, or as an outside view, since your involvement appears to be fairly minimal. Take a look and let me know. I think this could all be gotten under control if the user is restricted to making suggestions on the article talk page, though given the attitude of the user it may well have to end in a ban. Of course, that's a different venue... Yworo (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Nicole Polizzi
If you feel that there should not be a page on Nicole Polizzi, please do not blank the page and create a redirect. You can discuss it on the talk page. -- Sweet xx Talk 00:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Kristof Goddaert
Hi, I see that you have added an and an  template. This rider is a full-professional, and meets the notability standard for cyclists.

The article is referenced by his team's homepage and [www.cyclingnews.com|Cyclingnews]. MichaelJackson231 (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

MichaelJackson231 (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edit in Reddy
I don't know why you put the Template at the bottom.Just check Kamma,Vellalar and Iyer pages.They all have the templates at the top.-Raghavan(Talk) 14:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway,a big thanks for removing all those sites like ReddyMatrimony and all.They don't serve a purpose in that page.-Raghavan(Talk) 14:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

hello! nice to meet you!
oh, banana is rearly active! then, what do banana mean?--Saehayae (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ah, OK! you're a very weety person! (er....have 'weety' bad mean? Because i'm not good at English, i am a little hesitated.)--Saehayae (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Nigahiga
Hello Active Banana, you're invited to take part in the above discussion concerning this edit that you made to nigahiga. Regards, Airplaneman   ✈  03:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've responded again. Airplaneman   ✈  16:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've proposed a new format; how is it? Airplaneman   ✈  21:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

MichaelJackson231 (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Help
Regard Ibo Bonilla’s article. Thank you so much for your kindness dear Active Banana. I read the suggested links. At this moment I am working on academic investigation about public squares in Costa Rica, and I have additional information, references and quotes. But I need help to reach the required standard from Wikipedia. In this opportunity only I translate to Spanish an existing page and another one that initiated in English by Wikipedia system. If you could help me, I will be able to learn and then continue working on some other articles.--Axxis10 (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

welcome message
Hi Active Banana, thanks a lot for your message on my discussion page, I appreciate it very much! Keep in touch! Happy day and cheerio, Isabella Othertwice1504 (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

translate
Hi I took it out and noticed it is a new cite, it is in a video but in Chinese, its something about 200 days sitting, possibly in detention but its rubbish anyway imo I am not putting it back as I am unable to verify the details, I will leave it with you...

google translate Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You can use the translate to translate almost anything, just add the http address and change the languages and its good to go, no perfect but it helps. Off2riorob (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Major issue with this user is his seeming inability to discuss (perhaps a language problem) and his copyright violations, best of luck. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
Thank you for the welcome. Ally74 (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

list of the boondocks episodes
Is there a reason that you keep undoing my edit about the pages that were deleted? Inka 888 02:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inka 888 (talk • contribs There should be a link to the the pages in red saying page does not exist so people can recreate the page.(Inka 888 15:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Inka 888 15:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)) So your saying that every article on list that was deleted should not be recreated? I was not a part of the deletion discussion but i dont all of those pages were deleted for the same reason. (Inka 888 15:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)) I don't think every thing in season 3 was deleted yet i think it was the discussion was still going on. (Inka 888 15:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC))  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inka 888 (talk • contribs) Thats one there were alot more that were not closed yet. (Inka 888 16:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inka 888 (talk • contribs)

Christopher Herrod
Herrod is a state legislator; those are inherently notable, and should not be tagged for notability. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He's in the state House, not the Senate; see current version of article. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

signatures
I also am trying to find out how to make a signature. Every time i sign a page it does not turn blue i dont understand that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inka 888 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC) I do type in four tildes and it does not make a blue link to my user page or talk page. How did you make your signature? Inka 888 18:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you make a custom signature? Inka 888 (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:CUSTOMSIG. Airplaneman   ✈  22:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

typo
Yes, 'twas, thanks! -- Nuujinn (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Fried chicken flu
Whatever about the sources, my problem with what you did with that page is that you also erased the whole page NOT JUST THE SOURCES THAT YOU COMPLAINED ABOUT. So if you are going to use the rollback feature USE IT IN THE RIGHT TIME AND PLACE.Inka 888 (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When there is no third party sourced content, we do not have a stand alone article about the topic. And I did not use any roll back feature. Active Banana (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

your user page
just wondering how did you get a picture on your page? I am trying to do that with my page and i can't figure out how to do it. Inka 888 (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Inka 888 (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

pictures
I read about the upload files thing you told me about the picture i want to use is nt on the web, how do upload a picture from your computer. Inka 888 (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I got the picture i wanted to use on wikipedia but i can't get the picture on my user page if you look at my user page it just has a URL on it not the picture. Inka 888 (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

how do you give it copyright information? Inka 888 (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

How do i get a cobyright template on the picture's page? Inka 888 (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

another User:Dico Calingal sock?
Hi! Just want to bring to your attention regarding this "new" user (User:EternityInThePast). It's just weird that he posted this comment on my talk page regarding his uploaded audio samples. Please note that this guy also edits the same articles (Regine Velasquez, Mel and Joey, etc.) as the sockmaster and the previously blocked sockpuppet (User:Marco Carlo). -WayKurat (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Zhou Libo personal life
Here's a translated source about the accident. . Please reconsider the deletion of the source and statements: http://www.911usa.com.cn/info/post/1026/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.6.19.192 (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Email
Send me one when you have a moment, please. Toddst1 (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
For helping with the many socks of "Dr." Mukesh. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  21:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation internal format in Bruce Harris
Discuss at Talk:Bruce Harris, please. --Lexein (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Advizor Solutions
you deleted segments of the Advizor Solutions article saying that it was "promotional crap". It was simply listing information about products the company has to offer in an unbiased way. The fact that the company offers these products is fact-based.--Benj2199 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * view the wiki page for Tableau Software. They are listing products.  how does this differ?--Benj2199 (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please respond to my question about Tableau Software? I'm simply trying to create a truthful, accurate and unbiased Wikipedia entry while abiding by all rules and guidelines. However, it becomes confusing when I try to imitate the format from another Wikipedia entry and you're telling me it not allowed.  Why is this format of listing a company's products allowed in some cases but not in others? --Benj2199 (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So, if I listed products offered by Advizor then added citations, would this eliminate the label of "promotional crap"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benj2199 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. So, the Article talk page is not viewed by the same editorial standards as the main article page? --Benj2199 (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Help
Hi, this is Farjad. I need your help in roll-backing over 20 minor edits by an unregistered user, IP 112.207.96.228, on List of Korean musicians...without any explanation s/he deleted many entries...(I think s/he is confused whether singers belong to category of musicians...yes they do...music is music...whether it is vocalist or instrumental...or combined). Could you please revert those edits and ask him to discuss before making such changes. Thanks! Farjad0322 (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Advizor Solutions
Thanks for adding them. I should have moved them there myself. Toddst1 (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Pamela Geller
ActiveBanana, I think you are trying to be constructive, but perhaps you are not sufficiently aware that there is ongoing debate on the Geller article about what constitutes appropriate sourcing in this article. Your addition of the tag really isn't necessary - people already know that - and indeed it is a little provocative in the present climate. I hope you will please proceed with caution. Thank you. Arjuna (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

MBLAQ
Hi Active Banana, i wasn't making MBLAQ into a fanpage, if i was, there'd be heaps of pictures and more random information. The section was called 'Trivia' for a reason.Imaginazn (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Dostro
Hello.

Are you from Wikipedia or a Filipino fan? I am a fan of music and I adhere to Wiki's mission to provide accurate information. You have been deleting my contributions to The Pin-Ups. they are a legit band with a legit background. You are either nitpicking or a Filipino with a bad case of crab mentality. Worse, if you're not Filipino then you are dangerously close to being labelled a racist. Why can't a Filipino band be on Wikipedia? FYI, there are other Filipino bands on this site--why aren't you picking on them too? I just need to understand.

Putting up information regarding The Pin-Ups is not quantified as being biased nor is it being a "fanatic". Please do your research regarding this band's legitimacy before you censor others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dostro (talk • contribs) 15:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

fastily's talk page
what i said on fastily's talk page was assuming good faith because i phrased it as a question. I did not accuse him of using a sockpuppet account. Inka 888 00:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think User:Jrod2 may have been a little over-reactive in his/her response. Active Banana   ( <sup style="color:gold;">bananaphone  00:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I disagree. A heading of "possible sock puppet", with an edit summary of "possible sock", while the Fastily Sock account is clearly tagged that it is an alternate account, with links to the appropriate policies as to why it's permitted...hard to push AGF that far when there's a history of both a) not reading and b) huge misunderstanding of a wide range of policies.  While I appreciate that Inka tries to communicate, the answer to the question was right in front of them in black and white ... ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The heading Was POSSIBLE sock. I did not say any thing for sure. Inka 888 13:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Pamela Geller
Please read the Talk page. Discussion IS going on about this. Flatterworld (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Pin-Ups
You might want to look at the licensing for the main pic; I could be mistaken, but I don't see how it could possibly be considered a screenshot of software. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Korean musicians
Hi! Please participate in the discussion for criteria of listing at Talk:List of Korean musicians. Thanks! Farjad0322 (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources
May I please get a list of reliable and non-reliable sources? I don't see how we are supposed to know which is which. BollyJeff ||  talk  18:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Webpage Deleted
Hello, Active Banana. You have placed many alerts on my page. I have already discussed with another administrator why I believe this person is relevant (donations, being a CEO, etc.) What can I do to prevent deletion and to get the unsightly tags off the page. Thanks GiniChen (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hitler's last brownie
Thanks for the smile, it reminded me of the George Carlin construct "I'm going down to the softball field and beat up Hitler's widow". --CliffC (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Despicable Me.
Talkback. Please discuss the prose describing the box office figures. Talk:Despicable_Me -- Horkana (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag on Ngayong Nandito Ka declined
Hi Active Banana, I've declined your A7 tag for Ngayong Nandito Ka. WP:CSD doesn't apply to films. I cite this part of the criterion: "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works." This is a creative work. It does, however, look like a good candidate for AfD. Thanks, Airplaneman   ✈  03:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Patricia Mae Santos RfPP request
Hi there. I've actioned your request at RfPP for page protection. However, as I explained there, I really think this needs to be discussed wider, either at AfD or RfD (probably AfD). I'm hoping you're working on a computer with a script/twinkle installed that will make it easy for you to set these up, as I'm working manually at the moment and AfDs are so fiddly. Let me know if you can, otherwise I'll do it later today when I'm at home. Ged UK  09:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please correct
Hello, while you edited today Eido Shimnao page you reverted my edits in Bibliography. Why? Tao did the same. This had nothing to do section allegations. Please reinstate my edits to Bibliography ASAP. Also I do not know why you reinserted the section allegations in present form. The language of it is obviously inappropriate to BLP and in sources provided by Tao version there is nothing to support the wording of it. Previous version done by Slp1 was agreed by consensus during long discussion. Please, read these discussions carefully? Obviously two added sources you questioned are not valid. Thank you. Spt51 (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The edits were made in Bibliography, if someone reverts entire article the Bibliography was reverted too. This is not what should be done. Thanks.Spt51 (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits on All India Trinamool Congress
I don't really see it as a BLP vio. It seems like it has a bit of undue weight, and a little negatively phrased, but everything there (I think) is included in the articles. Why do you see it as a BLP vio? NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadnt fully read the second source. The first source was phrasing everything as vague allegations while the proposed phrasing in the article was stating connections as facts. After fully reading the second source I realized that they were making more concrete statements and BLP was not appropriate validation for immediate withdrawal of the statements from our article. Active Banana   ( <sup style="color:gold;">bananaphone  13:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Saturdays
You're removing useful information of The Saturdays page, stop removing it, THANKYOU! --92.16.114.116 (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Geller
Huh. Thanks. That's odd. Well, I think we generally give fairly wide leeway for people and entities to describe themselves how they describe themselves; if someone has a WP:RS that questions that belief then we can summarize the dispute, but absent good sourcing for calling that into question I don't see any reason to throw that kind of water on someone's own opinions about what they believe. Do you? Does such sourcing exist? &mdash; e. ripley\talk 20:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Well, I don't see any sources provided so I see no reason not to allow her to describe her own views, absent someone questioning how close they are to Rand's in a published source. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 20:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also thanks for the pointers and messages, I just dipped my toe in the article and haven't been following any of the editing history. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 20:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Thanks again. Hanging up the bananaphone! &mdash; e. ripley\talk 20:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Saturdays
After my undid edition it was red template. Sorry. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with uncited sources
Active Banana, even though I support your recent removal of material in Information security because of the material's poor quality, I figured that you indiscriminately remove information you find uncited. I highly discourage such actions when they concern information that is neither incorrect nor potentially libelous or otherwise discreditive as they are ultimately detrimental to building up a knowledge base. I support removal of material tagged with {dubious} and all uncited information in BLPs, but text that is not even potentially harmful should only be deleted when understood to be wrong or when obviously doubtful. My 2 cents, Nageh (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC) (Feel free to reply here or on my talk page.)
 * I think we are actually talking about Computer security. Active Banana   ( <sup style="color:gold;">bananaphone  21:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, right. Sorry, my bad. Please find a reply on my talk page. Nageh (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Another reply on my talk page. Thanks. Nageh (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I pointed out two specific edits on my talk page which - at first sight - I think could have been better left and improved instead of simply deleted. Nageh (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC) - Just as another note, I hope you understand there is nothing personal here. :) Nageh (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Tangled Up Tour
Deletion review/Log/2008 April 4 - it says another AfD can occur in the future if there are still concerns. I don't think deleting the article at your discretion is the appropriate resolution to your concerns. XL XR2 (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

He never learns, does he?!
Now you tell me would you spend/waste so much of your precious time for nothing, knowing that it won't help? That's becoming increasingly entertaining. Any idea of more effective ways to catch him from the outset, before he even starts editing these articles? That would make him tired way before expected, I believe. Thanks again for dealing with it and helping out as you usually do. It's appreciated. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  21:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your contribution to the article Caveman! Chrisrus (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeltek_Inc.
Hi, I see that you have just edited my article on Xeltek Inc. I see that you have erased a lot of content from the History section in which I guess you said the reason is for un-sourced promotion claim/hype. I see that this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elnec a company which basically does the same thing.(I remember reading about if A is on here why can't B be on here but I forget the term for it) If I use a source from a company that is already on Wikipedia, should it not be a reliable source? If multiple notable companies have written about this company does that not make it notable? Junjoon (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

José Dominguez - My defense
Hi there ACTIVE BANANA, VASCO here,

Please excuse me if i got out of hand in my summary, just that an anon "user" removed an entire chunk of storyline without any word in summary, and that really gets me going. Not justifying anything, just that my tolerance to vandalism is growing ever so smaller.

Have a happy weekend, sorry for any incovenience - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read this message i have sent User:Struway, it will elaborate on my original text (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Struway2#Jos.C3.A9_Dominguez_-_My_defense). - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

1.8.7
Careful with your edits!! You backtracked something bordering on libel (Unless you don't consider material that invokes threats troublesome.)  I added the page to the watch list for living persons. Quaranj (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Attention Concerning Paisley (design) Vandal
I just want to let you know that the vandal IP, 70.16.53.239, is an anonymous, returning vandal who repeatedly returns to insert that inane hypothesis that the Paisley design is based off of leeches.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weirder behavior? You mean like that one vandal at Timecube who tried to square everything?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Common names
Hello once again Active Banana. You recently changed stage names of Shinee members to their actual names. I would request you read this if you have not already. Thanks! <font face="Times New Roman, serif" color="Blue">Farjad <font color="Purple">0322 <font color="Amethyst">(talk&#124;contribs) 20:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for noticing. Working on articles like this is always slow, but it does take a lot of patience, I think, to keep from just spinning your wheels endlessly. All best, Mackan79 (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No bot fight
Just obsessive tweaking.
 * -) --Atlantictire (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Siti Nurhaliza
Hi, I noticed that you have tagged Siti Nurhaliza article with "Fan's point of view" tag. Please help me in pointing which part of the article is problematic, cause I'm using Mariah Carey and Beyonce's article as references on how to rewrite the article where both articles are either Featured Article or Good Article. I'm on my way of removing peacock words and providing reliable links for the article.Syfuel (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay. For the first point, it can't be helped, she has been always addressed as "Siti", because it is a Malay name, refer this Malay Names, for that, I've added a description on top of the article: This is a Malay name; the name "Tarudin" is a patronymic, not a family name, and the person should be referred to by the given name, "Siti Nurhaliza". For the second one, I think I better remove that part, because it is kinda hard to find sources way back in the 90's to support that. For the third one, I'll try my best, but so far, none of the sources came from her recording company except from her official website and newspapers. And I have been trying to clean all the links by added reliable sources. Thanks for the heads-up. :) Syfuel (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As all of the things that you have found out as problematic has been discussed and solved, I have removed the tag. If you still think some parts of the article are still problematic, please simply point it to me, and I'll try to solve it immediately as sometimes I do need some advices from the other party to improve the article to the highest level possible.Syfuel (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

September 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 Telecom Expense Management (TEM). 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 message on my talk page. @ 18:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)