User talk:Active Banana/Archive 4

Halo
i know u r group abuses other editors with group sock puppetry i have not done any unconctructive edits u please check the article and stop abusing me please please please

filmfare is not equivalent to oscars - national awards are due to national scale filmfare south is also presented by times group

(Kaverijha23 (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)).

Boy, are you a saviour...
Thank you. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  21:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Milken BLP page
Please explain to me why -- unlike any other BLP on Wikipedia - you feel it is necessary to include the Conviction, Penalty and Federal Prisoner number in the right-side box at the top of Michael Milken's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwimDude (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

confusion
hello there,

i'm cumminsr and i did a whole bunch of edits on the Sheridan College website. I use to be a student at sheridan and so of course had a sheridan email address. regardless, all my edits have been rolled back and I believe it was by you. Can I please get some clarification as to why? And how do I go about getting the edits put back?

Thank you for your time, Cumminsr (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's quite amusing and confusing
Thanks, I'm finding it quite amusing myself. Just hope that they really do end up being two distinct movies and that this isn't any hoax or false news! EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

your edit of David Walsh (art collector)
You took out a link citing WP:ELNEVER "do not link to sites illegally posting copyright material".

The link is to the museum's official web site - who are you to claim they publish this without a license? --QEDquid (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

modified article
Hi, i've modify the aticle you have revisioned with other citation (newspaper), it's correct? Are necessary many information about? Thanks and best regards Varta2011 (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

December 2010
This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User:MissBarkley, Taylor Swift, Kanye West, and Beyonce Knowles, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MissBarkley (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

February 1, 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing as you did at Lost Highway (film). If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Editor Ignasi (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Editor Ignasi (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=|link=]] You have been referred to administration for blocking. --Editor Ignasi (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And this administrator has reviewed your edits and determined them to be in good faith. Thank you also for opening talk page discussion on the issue. Carry on. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, just to note here that in addition to the spurious warnings above, posted to AIV; the post was removed as there is no case of any 'vandalism' from AB. diff.  Chzz  ► 18:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of common misconceptions for deletion
The article List of common misconceptions is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

why you delete my contribution?
sorry mr, i've added a citation to article and you mark the contribution with "promotional fluff"? why? can you verify the citation before preventing deletion? THANKS W4e (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your previous reply
ok, can i undo your mod and correct the wrong word? (famous restaurant) THANKS W4e (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

modified version
thank you for your fast reply! i've mod the article without unuseful information, do you think it's ok? THANKS W4e (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Rita Shane
I see you are working on this article. Presumably you've seen the note I left on the talk page about her date of birth. I don't suppose you have any suggestions as to how we could confirm it? It isn't exactly a major issue, but it would be nice to get it right, and I suspect the (supposedly incorrect) 1940 date is liable to find its way back in at some point if we leave things as they are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Banglapedia
Hi Active Banana,

I fully understand the need to ensure BLP as well as V. However, Banglapedia is actually a reputable print encyclopedia published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. This is a neutral organization which does not reflect the views of the Govt. of Bangladesh. (Note that the Banglapedia was published in 2003, at a time when Nizami was a cabinet minister in the Govt. of Bangladesh.) --Ragib (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding.

Banglapedia's official website is actually www.banglapedia.org ... the banglapedia.search.com.bd is actually an illegal mirror of the site. However, even the official site is not well maintained ... like traditional publishers, the Asiatic society is more focused on the print and CD editions. So, this explains their bad-looking website. --Ragib (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Howard King (referee)
Hi Active Banana,~

Would like to know why content and references were removed from this wiki, as it is appropriatelly referenced. I have edited the discussion board supporting the editing, but still you changed it. I think it is clearly referenced and the content supported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.177.182 (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * as I told you on your talk page "Please note that just because something hits the newspapers doesnt mean it is worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article. We must be especially careful when including content about living people. Your edit to Howard King (referee) has been reverted. King was only "cautioned" and so unless he does something like going on a talkshow spree to gab about it over and over, there is no reason to include this incident in his article. " Active Banana    (bananaphone  01:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Rajini
Active Banana please note that the picture makes a sense there and it is not just blindly added there. The purpose and reasons are quoted and within the usage of the article. Please you guys have a clear understanding and act acoordingly. Citing the importance only even though there was no free image available, it has been uploaded there. Why you take it other than these. Revise it by yourself.

Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ActiveBanana. I understand that people like you are too busy and can commit small mistakes here and there like that you did now. Also I beleive guys like you should accept the right thing and neglect the bad, having a rollback rights. I respect you & all who make their sincere efforts to make wiki a reliable place. I go for true/legitimate inclusions and I support it. Small thing that I would wish to tell. Please understand that people like you are almost everytime I login are active and very very busy doing great works. That itself is a very appreciable thing. Because once I started of interest I stayed for hours, but these days bcoz of other works/compulsions I am unable to do so. Always deal each issue on its own merit and circumstances and dont, never inter-relate things. Thats it. Thanks.


 * Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mandaue City Central School
Hi There, if you want to look the sources of the MANDAUE CITY CENTRAL SCHOOL you may look this webpage http://smart.com.ph/smartschools/mandaueccs/. Thank youQatarCebu (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Mandaue City Central School
Hi There, if you want to look the sources of the MANDAUE CITY CENTRAL SCHOOL you may look this webpage http://smart.com.ph/smartschools/mandaueccs/. Thank youQatarCebu (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

regarding deletion of Syed Akbar
hi Mr Syed Akbar is an important journalist in the southern Indian State of Andhra Pradesh. He is senior editor with Deccan Chronicle, India's third largest read English daily. the deletion is unjustified and will deny wikipedia readers their right to know about people.Mehditanveer (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging
Is that really something to brag about? ;) You dropped a tag on Prem Rawat before driving away. I've started a thread about it at talk:Prem Rawat. Your input would be appreciated. If I don't hear from you I'll remove the tag.   Will Beback    talk    09:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mike Masnick
You have an edit reversal in for an item "sourced from a blog". The problem? Techdirt as a whole is a blog, and pretty much everything in the Bio is "sourced from a blog". The comments regarding "The Masnick Effect" are as valid as pretty much everything else in that bio, and it is a phrase and terminology that traces back at least a year or more. I am not sure why that particular edit is removed, yet other "blog sourced" material in the bio is permitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.66.173 (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will respond here since you appear to be editing from a very dynamic set of IPs. The edit in question is a selfpromoting, primary soureced claim from a blog for a non-notable phrase failing many Wikipedia content requirements.

Active Banana    (bananaphone  21:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mansicks own writings cannot be the source to claim he "invented" something
 * The "something" that he is supposedly responsible for inventing is not important enough for its own article, and there is no indiction that it is a widely used phrase, so why would we mention that?. Pretty much every writer has come up with a unique turn of phrase and we dont include them in articles.

Yet, the article refers to his own "Streisand Effect", which is his own turn of a phrase. By your basis, that part of the article should also be removed. The only external reference is the subject himself discussing his own ideas on a radio program. Are we to suggest that the discussions on his blog are somehow not "media", but NPR is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.66.173 (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes they are two completely different situations. 1) The "phrase" under question is in fairly wide use and has been discussed by third parties so that it has its own article. 2) And the attribution of the phrase being on a third party source that has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Active Banana    (bananaphone  14:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, there is no fact checking on the NPR piece, it is only an interview with the man who coined the phrase. You have no significant third party usage, no usage really at all outside of the blog or the person in question in interview. I am unable to find third party usage of the phrase outside of techdirt.com except where Mike Masnick is either the topic of discussion or being interviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.66.173 (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you make a claim that there was no fact checking related to that interview? I doubt that you will convince me, but this discussion should be taking place on the article talk page and you may be able to generate a consensus to remove the claim. Active Banana    (bananaphone  15:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And please, sign your posts. And even if you are not going to create an account, since you are editing from such dynamic IPs it would help if you used some type of "screen name" (LisaInAmerica or Not_A_Fan_Of_Self_Promotion) to link your discussion comments together. Active Banana    (bananaphone  15:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * moved to the discussion page.Masnickeffect (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Digital Fuel
Hi Active banana, Thanks for your welcome! I do need your help, I'm trying to improve the page of Digital Fuel, I include a new section with it's products, in a very objective way, but it was delete. I do read the wiki instructions and follow them, including references and so on...so, what should I do to improve the article whithout having it deleted? Thanks in advanced, SanTrac (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Welcome
Hey there and thanks for the welcome (even though I have been here for a while!). This might sound a bit weird, but did I do something wrong to merit the welcome? Or was it just a good-natured message (which I'm sure it was). Sorry about this, it's just that I'm always keen to know if I've made a mistake. Thanks, Andrew vdBK  ( talk ) 23:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just saw that you had had several templates tagged on to your page, but no "official" welcoming. Many newer users have run afoul of Wikipedia standards without ever having been introduced to the "way things work around here," and so I like to make sure that people have had an opportunity to get acquainted with some of the basic tennants. Active  Banana    (bananaphone  23:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case, thank you very much :) Andrew vdBK  ( talk ) 23:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

its a modern world
Hi, regarding your edit, diff here imo we can show a little leeway in this modern world there are a few massive media connections and we would be foolish to reject that position completely, readers benefit from a little of that and as I understand it, unless its excessive its not rejected. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ''[[WP:ELOFFICIAL|"Minimize the number of links

If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate. However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Complete directories lead to clutter and to placing undue emphasis on what the subject says."]] I dont think we need to be encouraging linkfarms of any sort. Active'' Banana    (bananaphone  00:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A thanks and other things
Hello, I would just like to thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. On a somewhat unrelated note, I noticed that, soon after my edit to the page Teen Top, you removed a sizable amount of content from that aforementioned page. Overlooking my extreme confusion over the seeming coincidence that you edited the same page I did and welcomed me in a short timespan, I was just wondering what the problem was with that information. Thanks again, cheers, Jinmohl (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears I may have said that incorrectly. I was not trying to suggest you had done something wrong, if that's what it came off as, I apologize. As for the article itself, if I found a source with that information, how exactly would I add such a source to the article? I think that the information that was there, or information of its type, would be quite useful on that article if, I suppose, sources were found. Jinmohl (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This may be a stupid question, but would the band's official website be suitable for such purposes? Jinmohl (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But if, say, the entertainment company the band is signed to is the one that writes the information on the website, then it would be okay? And for concrete, indisputable things like birthdates, even if the band itself kept the site, would that be okay to use? Jinmohl (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright thanks. And as for the birthdates, I suppose it's true that they're not exactly needed on the band's page itself, but until sufficient information is gathered to create pages for the band members, having a little background data on those people couldn't hurt, no? And I don't think the validity of including the birthdate in a bio of the person themselves is in question. (Now I might create those pages too, but I'm not sure how I'd go about doing that either... ha~) Jinmohl (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Well, I suppose I better not do anything then, ha~. Too dangerous. Somebody might get angry. I guess I can just find some sources then. Is that an ok on placing band members' birthdates on the band page until/if separate pages are created? Jinmohl (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. :). Thanks for the advice and help, and I apologize for asking you all of these questions. xP. Jinmohl (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Shreya Ghoshal
It was not a POV edit. The last edit I made was the one suggested by the other user. Anyway, can you provide your comments here - Talk:Shreya Ghoshal -- Arfaz (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Russell Goldencloud Weiner
I think you have removed "Goldencloud" in error. Do a search and you will find plenty of substantiating info that is not derived from Wikipedia. I found an article in "Bloomberg Businessweek", another on www.sfweekly.com, another on www.examiner.com. Here's a link from a NY Times article (page 2): http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/dining/04well.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

So I think you should check out the credibility of these and other references before you go deleting this part of his name because you don't believe it. You may be a good faith editor, but unless you can repudiate this evidence, it looks like you have inadvertently lost real information. 206.54.220.113 (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * thank you for providing the source. however, even if sourced, the inclusion in his father's article is irrel and not supported by the manual of style and has been removed from there.Active Banana    (bananaphone  15:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it is irrelevant. You are deleting information that is of interest to me, and perhaps many others. That such a conservative personality had named his some "Goldencloud" is unusual and worth knowing. Why you are bothered by this escapes me, and your vague citation of MOS is irrelevant. Bring a senior editor in on this to resolve our dispute. I don't believe in deleting real info about a person.206.54.220.113 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Without any third party discussion or analysis of why a "conservative personality had named his some "Goldencloud"" you or any other reader does not have any gain of information or knowledge, all you have is trivia. Since the actual article name does NOT include the middle name, we should not include it. Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You won! Although I disagree with that deletion, I respect your tenacity. I agree with you about deleting articles on trivial topics. Wikipedia has some great content, but way too much fanboy rubbish. I support your proposal for removal of the Russell Weiner article. If only more people sought to make WP more like a real encyclopedia than a cultural rubbish repository... As for the Michael Weiner article, there is a lot of gossip and innuendo on it. I will not be editing it, for I plan to get banned by the cowardly anonymous bureaucratic pussy who threatened to ban me for my part in an "edit war". Carry on the good fight!206.54.220.113 (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

George Fernandes
I have replied to your query at Talk:George Fernandes. You are welcomed to copyedit the section. But if you are unable to copyedit within the next few days, I'll revert your edits. Xavier449 (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

martin bormann
hullo why did you remove my martin bormann in popular culture ref
 * random comment to date for auto archiving Active Banana    (bananaphone  17:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Policy Regarding Unsourced Material
"If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the tag, which will add "citation needed," but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time." Please add the fact tag in the future, instead of simply undoing the changes that have been made.

You can choose to do otherwise, but the policy does suggest that you add fact tags for information that is not harmful. You're free to believe what you want, but it's hard for me to believe that being listed as an associated act is harmful to the article when the article already references that association.
 * random comment to date for auto archiving. Active Banana    (bananaphone  17:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Reason put by u was wrong
This is in response to ur message osted on 8th october. i had no time to reply.

by the way i have no obsession with the "nickname" and moreover superstar is not a nickname but a title conferred out of respect and admiration for his varied performances given by critics.

its u who had unnecessarily edited and written he is called a superstar cause of he had maddest fan following among female fans.

the entertainment one india article is actually talking about why he still remains the biggest superstar-- for that that was cited as the reason.Read the lines from the artcile ---"Why since four long decades 'Kakaji's' superstar status is still not passed on? Because he had the biggest and the maddest fan following, especially his female fans."---http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/interviews/2009/rajesh-khanna-interview-100609.html.

but why superstar he is called for that the reason is he was called as superstar by critics for his performances beginning with aradhana and giving consecutive 15 hits, then giving critically acclaimed box office hits continuously and consistently if not consecutively!!these reasons needent be mentioned as they are covered at various places.it need not be repeated so stop raising this issue. the artcile didnt need that wrong reson as put by u. infact i had no problems with the artcile untill 8th october ....as article looks pretty good.
 * random comment to date for auto archiving. Active Banana    (bananaphone  17:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

good day
 Russart 1999 has given you a LOLipop! This horrible pun and delicious candy promotes WikiLove and tells the world how low you will stoop for the sake of humor. Spread WikiLove by giving someone else a lollipop, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the unrelenting joy of lollipops by adding {{subst:Lollipop}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

how can i know if the sources that i put is not reliable?
 * random comment to date for auto archiving Active Banana    (bananaphone  17:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Salman Khan
Hey Banana--it's not exactly going crazy in this article, but I'm wondering if IP-protection isn't a possible next step. Thanks for helping cleaning up. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Girls' Generation
Hello, I just undid a revision you made on the Girls' Generation article. I created a talk page section on the subject where I state my reasons for the revert.

Thanks Grayfm (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry!
Oops, yeah, sorry, I should have done so! Apologies! Johannes003 (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm new here. Probably should've discussed in the movie page but then it wasn't me who insisted to discuss in the 'talk' pages. Apologies.

Sanjay911 (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding! :-)

Sanjay911 (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Chinese protests
I feel obligated to point out that I'm pretty sure you went over 3 reverts on this article, although I haven't bothered checking. Since I just blocked the other party for repeated addition of copyright violations I imagine it will be a moot point for the rest of the day, but please remember that POV edits are not exempt from 3RR. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it was two or more edits attempting to bring the article into a version that more closely meets Wikipedia standards and reprsenting what the sources actually stated, and then 2 times to bring it back to that state and remove Copyright violations. But yeah, it was close. Although I would probably also argue that removal of the copyright violation materials does not count in 3RR. Active Banana    (bananaphone  20:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Kudos
Nice work at Aaahh!!! Real Monsters — blending the cast into the "Storyline" section reads very nicely and avoids a redundant list. My compliments!

And, man, that was such a great animated series. I can't imagine why on earth, with all the crap that's on DVD, that this particular children's series, along with Ka-Blam!, aren't on video. (Don't even get me started on the missing third season of the brilliantly surreal, incredibly well-cast The Adventures of Pete and Pete.) Children's shows do particularly well in that medium, since kids often watch them over and over. *Sigh* --Tenebrae (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Annoying Orange Geico spoof
You were told twice that this is a clear parody of Geico commercials. The title of the video clearly states it, as you were told twice. Please do not remove the information again, or I will be forced to seek intervention. --173.54.203.93 (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Still looking for your considered, point-by-point ack or response
Still looking for your considered, point-by-point acknowledgment or response at Talk:List of common misconceptions, where you attempt to discredit the new inclusion criteria. Your questions and assertions were all answered - every single one. It would be polite for you to acknowledge that fact, and continue discussion. It is not civil to merely gainsay, claim TLDR, or repeatedly vaguely claim "failure to meet" criteria in multipage multitopic policy/guideline/essays without linking to specific sections. You vaguely claim multiple failures, but were only specific about one ("don't reference Wikipedia" - which cannot apply to inclusion criteria if you think about it. Be sensible; even FA reference Wikipedia all the time - ever seen "Main article" hatnotes?). I'm not trying to split discussion - discussion should continue at Talk:List of common misconceptions - this is just a poke. --Lexein (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of season one episode articles of House for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  X  eworlebi (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Aaahh!!! Real Monsters
Kelzorro has objected to their block, claiming that you have been edit warring as much as they have. That is not true, but even so there is some point to the claim. You should hold back from anything that might reasonably be considered edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Kelzorro is now claiming that any changes to his version, which two editors now disagree with, is vandalism. Kelzorro is not respecting consensus, and is exhibiting WP:OWN. I'll let JamesBWatson know that another editor agrees with your version. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I already knew that. That was a factor in my decision to block Kelzorro, but just to give you a friendly warning. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Weeds (TV series)
Hi Active Banana,

my original proposal discusses how I wanted to change "comedy-drama" to "black comedy-drama."

Although, black is sometimes substituted for dark, it is important to note that Wikipedia wants articles to be an easy read as the average person does not know the meaning for "black."

My point is I think it is easier to change it to say:

Weeds is a dark comedic television drama or Weeds is a dark dramedy.

I will put this up on the discussion page as someone wrote in the article the following:

black (Click edit to review the hidden text.)

Please reply with your opinion on the talk page.

Thanks!

ATC. Talk 22:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Urban fantasy
Hi. First of all, please avoid throwing around terms such as "crap." Relax and keep it civil. Secondly, the statements in the opening paragraph are supported by the sources. No one is trying to "promote" anything; the sources are used for descriptive purposes because they describe works of urban fantasy. Note that I used reviews as opposed to the publisher Websites because I thought they would be more neutral. Also, I removed the "anime" section which you seem to have missed.

Anyway, there's a discussion on the Talk Page. Instead of simply deleting stuff right away, please share your thoughts on how the article might improve. If you can make it a better article, or provide better sources, your contributions are obviously welcome. -- James26 (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ponniyin selvan (2012 film)
Hello Active Banana. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ponniyin selvan (2012 film), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The issues raised in the AfD discussion, lacking sources, has been adressed with new sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Share your thoughts...
Hi Active Banana, I've made a small discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Please share your thoughts. EelamStyleZ (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

EAR
Hello. The article Richardson, Texas has been the subject of a discussion at EAR. Among the comments were suggestions that the contributors could consider discussing any issues on the article's talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Paige Miles
Hello Active Banana hey quick question i attempted to do an update to the current status of the page seeing that of the AI9 finalist she was the "only" finalist with no current verifiable update but from my reading has been just as active if not more active then other finalist from that season ..i used sources from CNN..and Also Naples news and as i understood it read from the Reliable Sources verification of blogs,newspapers etc it stated "Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" the writer of each story is a professional writer and writes Entertanment stories for several establishments and also alot of the same coverage can be found on several cites Aside from CNN.Com so checking against other finalist update pages which list more smaller entities be it blogs,newsletters..etc i just wanted to get youre thoughts on what exactly didnt qualify before attempting to re edit the Page...thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AGJM (talk • contribs) 17:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Paulo Francis
Hi Active Banana: I have just revamped the entire article, and given the controversial nature of much of it, I look foward to have your feedback. All changes were explained by me, point-to-point, in the article's talk pageCerme (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Russell Weiner
In February you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please could you use them, eg: at Cactus Garden. It will be going to AfD anyway unless you find some non-SPS/trivial references, but edit summaries are always good (as I am sure you know!). Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not sure what you have done here. You have removed the PROD, added a ref and then added back the notability concerns that it was PRODed for & a minor copyvio. It is a bit of a mixture. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the PROD, that was gone before I got there. Active Banana    (bananaphone  20:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that you removed it Active  Banana    (bananaphone  20:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It that there may be a source in india today that supports a claim of "largest cactus garden in Asia" which would make me lean towards keeping, but the actual text is not visible in the snipped view  The remaining sources appear to be only trivial and so I would not object to the AfD. Active  Banana    (bananaphone  20:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Darn it! It is reflinks that removed it - the bot for converting bare refs. Sorry about that, and I have not seen it happen before. Now I wonder if that is a known bug? I thought it was odd for someone who has been around for as long as you have to do what appeared to have happened.


 * The problem with the India Today article, even if it can be seen, is that it almost certainly is regurgitated from a press release or similar. India Today is not the greatest of news sources in that country. Anyway, sorry to have messed you about. I've spent most of the last four or five days firefighting the antics of the person who created that article, along with a few other editors (& we're all feeling the strain a bit now). Although the bot was in fully automated state, my brain is obviously fuddled. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration - and my lack of edit summaries did not help. (incidentally, I ended up at Cactus Gardens because that user's page is on my watchlist from an earlier period of similar disruption back in Jan/Feb) Good luck! Active Banana    (bananaphone  20:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the inputs on my talk page
Earlier i was not in the habit of using talk pages. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the advice and suggestions given on my talk page. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Jersey Shore Relationships
Can you please explain why you've undone my edits on this page? They had been up for many weeks and provided useful analysis of the very unhealthy relationships on the show. I know you say they weren't reliably sourced but that is the only source for this information and the website I cite is written by experts who use scientific information. Unfortunately people watch Jersey Shore, but by demonstrating how bad the relationships are people who visit the wikipedia page have a chance to learn about the show and perhaps their own bad relationship. My edit frankly seemed more beneficial and supported than most of the information on the page. I've run into trouble with previous edits (some because it is from this website, though others have been deleted and they were citations of journal articles), but many of the other cites on the Jersey Shore page are from websites so I'm not sure why this one would be singled out. If the goal is to have factual, accurate, and beneficial information for users of the Wikipedia project, my edits meet that criteria. Gpwhld (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU - BUT
I have no idea what you are talking about

I just said do not include stardust awards and zee tv awards in the AWARDS section, as the article is getting elongated

ALSO PLEASE DONT SEND MESSAGE TO ME

I KNOW WHO YOU ARE

(Veera828 (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)).

Regarding deletion of content
I think it is not necessary to remove unsourced content from articles. It would be better instead to place the citation needed template so that other users will be able to find out what needs to be cited. - Windows72106 (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I had seen instances where editors had actually provided sources to the flagged content, I might agree with you. But in my experience, all that happens is that the questionable content stays in the article forever with no sources ever provided. Active Banana    (bananaphone  11:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And it seems that the items that you are concerned about fall under entirely differrent categories:


 * potentially controversial content about a living person and losing their job MUST be properly sourced WP:BLP
 * fancruft about every segment that ever appeared in a show doesnt belong EVEN IF it had proper sourcing WP:IINFO
 * I completely stand behind those removals. Active Banana    (bananaphone  11:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I shall be removing the section (Discontinued segments) from every television show (as per your rationale.) - Windows72106 (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

halo halo halo
stop teaching me here - I have corrected the info - further, im not a fool to just use peacock terms like multifaceted - few months back I have actually edited this girija shettar article but some how, the article happened to be maintained by girija shettar her self, as one of administrator indicated it to me- that is why until several months I did not touch this article, now i touched this article - Associate director for a film and info connected to him comes under technical information only. Further, untill i receive confirmation from admin that IMDB is only used for technical info, I am not going to stope reverting ur disruptive edits in film career section of girija shettar

(Veera828 (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).

i think u have no idea what ur talking about - WHY ON EARTH UR REMOVING THE HRUDAYANJALI 1992 film SECTION IN GIRIJA SHETTAR - THAT HAS RECIEEVD 4 NANDI AWARDS?????

PLEASE PLEASE STOP THIS 3-4 EDITORS (bollyjef, u and this rogue shahid Shshshsh CLUBBING TOGETHER AND ATTACKING A FELLOW EDITOR WITH GROUP PUPPETRY

stop behaving like knw it all - untill admin is allowing my edits - i will not spare you

(Veera828 (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).


 * Okay, this guy basically admits to being a sock puppet of the guy that is stalking Shshshsh. See point number 6 in this edit on my page. Can we go through the process to get him blocked yet again? BollyJeff  ||  talk  13:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly disruptive and certainly at this point not willing to listen to anything coming from any of us- but it doesnt have quite the same feel as my past encounters with the Shshshsh stalker, although that was some time ago and the MO may have changed. Active  Banana    (bananaphone  13:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On second thought [] - the "Halo i know u r group abuses other editors with group sock puppetry" is EXACTLY the same! Active  Banana    (bananaphone  13:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now he has started abusing me with vulgarities on my talk page. I have reported to admins on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Hopefully this is the right place. BollyJeff  ||  talk  13:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

hiii
what do u want from me - why ru harrasing me - okay i take it back - thanx (Veera828 (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).

User talk:Veera828
Thanks for the clarification ;). I guess the matter is moot anyway, though. -- Luk  talk 14:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Diego Gomes
Hi, just wondering why you redirected Diego Gomes to The Next Star page.... it was perfectly fine the way it was if you had just left it. Please clarify this to me. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

MONA FOMA
You made MONA FOMA this a redirect to MONA without any discussion on it's relevance and importance. The MONA FOMA article is not well-written but it is a notable event and with time and effort I am sure will raise to the standard required. The fact the instituion ties in with MONA does not preclude the article from being independently important and notable. I recommend discussing issues in the discussion page before such a rash move. This way it allows other users to be involved particularly when they are likely to know more about the topic concerned.--TinTin (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

reference
http://www.thehindu.com/arts/cinema/article2032058.ece says Though “Aakhri Khat” is my first film, I received my first break as a leading actor in Ravindra Dave's, “Raaz” in 1967. My heroine was Babita, already a popular actress then. Though I had lots of confidence, I was shy in facing the camera initially. In my first three shots, I had to perform with stress on my body language and dialogue delivery. Though I was right with my dialogues, my movements were not up to the mark. Ravindra Dave explained me my scenes and movements very clearly correcting my way of walking.

in two places same reference needs to be used.Paglakahinka (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

External links on Victorious
Your edit here was made without discussing it on the talk page first. I had started a discussion asking anyone who disagreed to please feel free to comment, before I re-added the link. Please discuss matters on the talk page before removing ELNOs in the future. Thank You. --Confession0791 talk 12:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Auteur Theory Comments
Hello! And thank you for the comments on the current dispute going on in Auteur Theory. If you have time could you also point me in the right direction for reading up on how to better handle situations like this one? I've read Wikipedia for so long, but now that I've just started editing, it would be an understatement to say that I'm overwhelmed by the protocols, etiquette, tag use, html, and pretty much everything else. I don't even think I have a page for myself yet and I have no idea how to do that. I apologize if this type of request is too menial. I just honestly don't know where to turn and you were the first to seem to respond to my initial request for assistance. Thanks again! (oh, and why do people add the two dashes before their signature like I'm about to do? Is it merely a style thing?) --Lindhorst (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously guys, PNCM as well? Haven't you got anything better to do? I was trying to help Lindhorst, what are you doing? This is leaving a nasty taste in my mouth.--Filmmaker2011 (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert at List of Victorious episodes
Hi, why did you revert my contribution at the list of Victorious episodes (see here). If you watch the episodes you can see that Avan Jogia doesn't appear in it. --Simon.hess (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand. But why is at the episode Tori gets Sucked stated that Avan is absent? --Simon.hess (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

image
y a picture of rajesh khanna put up by a fellow user was deleted? if a nice picture is put up whats the harm after all many wiki articles have display images?Paglakahinka (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Cat Behaviour
Thanks, AB, however there is enough additional supporting information in the public domain that agrees with my edit without really needing to go publish a new book. In fact, there is more emperical evidence to support my edit than there is for global warming, right now. My last reference had content that was extremely detailed and seemingly provides a far better resource for the subject matter - I'm only trying to improve the content on this page. Addtionally, you already have uncited paragraphs on here which would also fall under the category of common knowledge.

If you feel the references provided have content that is disputable, then perhaps mark it as 'further citations needed' rather than removing it.. or if you do agree with the content, perhaps you could help track down a citation that you feel is more reliable than the 4 I listed from the thousands of pages that offer the same information? ... http://www.google.com.au/search?q=cat+blinking&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-au&sa=2

Here are 2 that I found to informative and accurate, the former being one of the original references: http://www.messybeast.com/cat_talk2.htm http://www.catsinternational.org/articles/senses_and_features/tail_ear_eye_signals.html

Cheers, Josh

PS. I'm not going to bother adding any further edits to this page content. Feel free to use or improve my edit, or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.180.132 (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

image
frank request can u urself upload some nice image of rajesh khanna from the period 1965-1985? example http://photos.santabanta.com/close-up/all/events/54/1548.aspx or http://forum.santabanta.com/showthread.htm?t=230378Paglakahinka (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

we will let the admins decide that
I am reporting you, i suggest you read the rules your self.... 96.244.254.20 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 96.244.254.20 (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I just want you to know I hate seeing your username all over the place...
Every time I see your username, I get the Bananaphone song stuck in my head. ;-) In all seriousness, as annoying as it is having that song stuck in my head, it does indeed make me smile (which is always a good thing around here). So, thank you for that, as well as the massive amount of contributions you've racked up in such a short period of time. Hope your day is going well! Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 00:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Felisa Wolfe-Simon edits
Hi Banana. Just to explain why I had to use a live article for my test: There was a problem with that particular article not showing the latest version (at least in the UK), so I was testing if there was a problem with new edits (which there was). I tried to keep it discreet, but the live test couldn't be helped in this case. The problem seems to be resolved now, and I reverted the edit immediately. Cheers, 129.67.72.140 (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice to know u
thank you for ur suggestion on POV - (stardom and dominated ) - that was constructive (61.2.75.241 (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)).

Salman Khan
Mr. Banana I've a question please. Why does this Salman Khan article still need citation verification tag, if there's no citation needed anymore? If you, or anyone, would be kind enough to put the citation needed tags where needed, I will readily provide reliable sources. Let's remove tags from the head of the article now. Looking forward to quick reply. Thank you very much. 175.110.140.196 (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per your request, I have removed the general tag either and either removed any remaining questionable content or specifically flagging statements that need supporting citations.Active Banana    (bananaphone  18:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so very much. Let me provide the remaining WP:RS for those as well :) Greetings from 175.110.140.196 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

All done with the citations and related formatting! A barnstar? IPs rarely get 'em :) Thanks again. 175.110.140.196 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

FWS edits
I have no intention of starting an edit war, I was just following WP:BRD. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.76.170 (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Band Member Profile
so are we not supposed to have any band member information on the group's page? There's still a lot of korean groups with band member personal information, are we supposed to delete all of it then? Baekheejung (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

how do I remove information? because when I do, other members will quickly add the information back Baekheejung (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

so what should I put as the reason for edit? (unsourced BLP violation fancruft)?Baekheejung (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

so I unsourced the members section and birthdays on korean group coed school and someone undid it and said it was vandalism, can you go to that page and see if I did it right? did i put the wrong reason? Baekheejung (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Making Mary Cunningham Agee article less resume like
Thanks for your help. I'll will try but I am new at this. What is the correct way to create a Ref and then refer to it again so that it doesn't appear in the list at the bottom multiple times. I have read the FAQs but I can't figure out how to use a reference a second time. Or do you never use a reference twice even if it supports two different sections? If the reference exists and I want to use it again, what do I do then? Thanks so much Omnibus170 (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)