User talk:Banzoo/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Kingturtle 18:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I reuploaded the poster for falling from earth
I'm still a beginner with this so sometimes things are disappearing on me.... can you take a look at the khalass article i got a couple of flags i don't know how to deal with them....thanks for your help

Fair use rationale for File:Albalad-04032006.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Albalad-04032006.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Banzoo
I noticed you are quite active in the lebanese film category, would it be too much to ask of you to add Wikiproject Lebanon assessment banners atop the articles you write/edit talk pages? I am sure you are familiar with assessment criteria, you can always refer to the assessment page. thank you mate Eli  +  10:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * oh and i need your opinion about starting a barnstar-like WPLEbanon medal, leave you comments on the wikiproject's talk page thanks Eli  +  10:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Just noticed that your native language is Arabic and you're in Lebanon. There's some wonderful material at the Library of Congress about the Middle East, and your skills and knowledge would be really helpful (from the other side of the world it can be difficult to understand context). Your email isn't enabled, so if you're shy about enabling Skype let's talk on wiki. Best wishes, Durova 342 16:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Durova, I'll enable email later this week and hope to be able to collaborate with you on Skype later; (Sorry! A bit busy for the moment to enable it right now.) Cheers! --Banzoo (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the picture nomination
I just wanted to say, thanks for trying to get a picture through the FP process. I don't know how the discussion got so out of control, but please keep submitting pictures and don't get discouraged from gruff comments. Your contributions are appreciated. Remember (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank for this comment, despite the harsh debate on wikipedia, the same picture got full support when nominated on commons. This gave me a little push to keep submitting pictures. And thank you for doing this little research and for providing the reference. --Banzoo (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Banzoo! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Noura Rahal -

Fair use rationale for File:Caramel.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Caramel.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Danielle Arbid.png
Thanks for uploading File:Danielle Arbid.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — ξ xplicit  19:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Ghassan Salhab.png
Thanks for uploading File:Ghassan Salhab.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — ξ xplicit  20:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Caramel.png
Thank you for uploading File:Caramel.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — ξ xplicit  20:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

One of your photos is featured on the Disability Portal
I thought you might like to know that the photo "Blind man carrying a paralysed man" is one of the featured pictures on the Disability Portal. Roger (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Solomon&. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not add any comment. To the contrary, I added a tag to avoid having personal analysis inside wikipedia's articles. Please join the discussion in the talk page of the article instead of polluting my talk page. Thanks! --Banzoo (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Stating the bible is a work of fiction is pushing a distinct point-of-view, and tagging the article like a comic book can easily be seen as provocative. -- Avi (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias rely on scientific methods. If the content of an article lacks the evidence it should be clearly stated and presented as such. There is no distinction if it's a fiction book or a religious book as long as both are missing the proofs. Double standards should be avoided in articles. --Banzoo (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A warning because a tag did not meet a POV of some user, that's a first! --Banzoo (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a question of POV, it's a question of insulting lots of other editors. That is what's disruptive. Find a way to make your point without insulting other people, and everything will be fine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think misleading the readers is a much more important issue to solve. If you take your time to understand the tag, its only purpose is to push clarity inside an article. I am not sure how anyone would find it insulting when we ask for clarity inside an article. It is the same as stating that "citation needed" tag is considered disruptive for some people. --Banzoo (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Nadine labaki.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nadine labaki.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Kelly hi! 10:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Reporting of reverts on 1996 shelling of Qana
I have reported the dispute between me and you to the admin here  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain the 1st (talk • contribs) 17:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor edits
Banzoo, this is not a "minor" edit and shouldn't have been flagged as such. Could you please read WP:MINOR. Thanks.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohiostandard talk

 * Hi, Banzoo. Thanks for your agreement to "statements" in this article. I understood and agreed with your objection to "response, and perhaps "spin" would be a word I might use in casual conversation, too, but not in an encyclopedia article, unless supported by reliable sources. I'm glad this appears to be settled, but I did just want to point out to you that it would have been settled much, much more quickly and easily if you hadn't been so insistent on your way alone as the right way. Contrary to your apparent perception, the people you were arguing with over that word were not Zionists intent on whitewashing the article. On the contrary, most editors would, I think, agree that Owain and Sean Hoyland favor the pro-Palestinian outlook on I/P issues. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, is Errant known for any particular POV re I/P matters. Your having been so stubborn over the issue (sorry, but that's the way I see it) just sucked up a lot of time that those editors could have been using to improve other articles that you probably care about, in a more substantial way. Before you rush into battle next time with the assumption that those opposing your wishes are opposed to Palestine, you might like to look at their contribution histories. Or better yet, just don't assume that those who disagree with one of your edits are opposed to your views on Palestine. In this case, it would be more accurate to say the opposite was true. If you want to reply you can do so here, as I've temporarily watchlisted this page. Best,  –  OhioStandard  (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear OhioStandard, Thanks for your comment, although, I should note that I do not have any prior prejudgment on any user or contribution. From where I stand, the reverts were not founded and didn't answer my concerns, if you review the history, all reverts can be understood or summed up with: "you are wrong, we are right, do not try to modify our edits anymore or you will be reported and blocked". During all the lengthy discussion, it can be viewed as threats to be blocked. So, without any proper justification of their reverts, I did not see any reason to keep the word "response" since it is not used in a proper context.--Banzoo (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I read the thread, and everyone (you included, and perhaps most of all) just dug their heels in and said "You're wrong! I'm right! I'm changing it back to my way!" Those were very reasonable people you were fighting with, and if you'd approached the conflict more respectfully, had been willing to make your point calmly instead of in an accusing way, and been willing to think in terms of a reasonable compromise, you would have got what you wanted a lot more quickly and saved yourself and everyone else loads of time and strife. I know it's easy to dig your heels in when you're sure you're right, but maybe don't do it so fast next time? And maybe don't ramp up the intensity so rapidly, next time, if you can help it? Easy for me to say, I know, and much harder in practice, of course. Still well worth striving for, though. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't throw any accusations, I only reiterated my concerns about the choice of the title. I got no answers, only unrelated replies. As if my question has not been read at all. --Banzoo (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You did get answers, you just didn't like them. People said "spin" fails our NPOV requirement, and they were correct. I doubt you'd find one in one hundred established editors here who would accept "spin", even if those 100 included only pro-Palestinian editors. You might as well have said "propaganda" or "lies". It's fine if that's what you think, but it doesn't matter what you think. It matters what reliable sources say. If you want to say "spin" or "propaganda" or "damned lies" or whatever, you can only say so if reliable sources have said it first. That's fundamental to our no original research policy.
 * If you could have separated your argument into two parts, the first to say "response" is wrong, and the second to say "spin" is right, you would have done better. People would have agreed right away, without all the drama. It was your insistence on the non-neutral, original research (since no reliable source describe it that way) word "spin" that was the problem. Again, if you want to use an NPOV word, go find a reliable source that does so. Otherwise you have to use neutral words that do not imply any value judgment, even you think a value judgment is called for. No rudeness intended, but that's really all I have time to say about this. Best regards, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The definition of the word spin is valid in the case of the article, while "response" is not, regardless if others would like it or not. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's about accuracy! --Banzoo (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Rollback of your edit to Solomon's Temple
I have again reverted your persistent attempt to introduce material into the lead of this article. It fails because 1) you introduced issues into the lead not covered in, and irrelevant to, the body of the article; 2) the article is not a review of BAR, an established reliable source; 3) the link which you are citing to support the charge of religious bias on the part of historians is an online blog (regardless of whether or not it is reviewing the journal) not subject to editorial oversight and other factors which determine its acceptibility as a RS; and 4) the slur against a vague group of "historians" falls very short of Wikipedia's OR and NPoV policies. The initial report on the artifact(s) was widely reported, but its conclusions have since been seriously undermined (not by BAR, but by scholars). There is still disagreement over the status of the artifact(s), which is what the article should, and currently does, state. &bull; Astynax talk 08:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reverting is not the solution, the religious background of these "scholars" should be clearly stated whenever their claims are mentioned so the reader wont be mis-leaded. --Banzoo (talk) 11:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The scholars who are not in agreement with the IAA report include self-proclaimed Christians, atheists, agnostics and Jews (and there may be yet other religious and non-religious views of which I'm unaware). Were the religious views of the scholars a concern raised in other reliable sources, then you would need to determine the religious backgrounds of the supporters of all the various factions/views. When the forgery trials are concluded shortly, there will be more and firmer information which may lead to firmer consensus, or at least further scientific investigation. Until then, it is premature and PoV-pushing to attack views based on religion affiliation or non-affiliation. &bull; Astynax talk 07:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you provide the list of the scholars (along with their nationalities and religions) who agree with the fabricated doubts? Sources mentioning the background of each would be highly appreciated. --Banzoo (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can easily determine who has disputed (and/or changed the support for) the original IAA report which labeled the artifacts to be counterfeits. You should be able to gather that from coverage on the trial dealing with the alleged counterfeiting, as well as published recent statements by the parties. It is up to you, as the editor adding the assertion, to provide ironclad WP:V and WP:RS references to back up your contention that such scholars have been swayed by religious prejudices. &bull; Astynax talk 03:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I already provided a source, but you decided that my reference cannot be used and came up with claims without providing any refs to back them (e.g. "The scholars who are not in agreement with the IAA report include self-proclaimed Christians, atheists, agnostics and Jews"). When you come up with such assertions, would you provide your sources. --Banzoo (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Banzoo,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Pano Baalbek 1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 30, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-01-30. — howcheng  {chat} 23:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)