User talk:BanyanTree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

If I have started a conversation on your talk page, feel free to respond there. If you leave a message for me here, I will respond here. I regularly clean out my watchlist, so if there has been a lull in a conversation on your page, please restart it here.

Contents 1 DYK 2 FA count on main page 3 The FA template 4 You unprotected Sahib Biwi Aur Ghulam‎ 5 Islamic Legion 6 Thank you 7 WP:FA Counter Bot 8 Thank you for the block 9 just few words about Jorbis player 10 Maybe not 11 Flagicon 12 Help needed with UHSA talkpage 13 Editor becomes anonymous 14 Tiger edit 15 Edits

[edit] DYK

On December 8, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matthew Lukwiya, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hello again BanyanTree. Thanks for all your articles which give African representation at DYK. Happy editing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that article, BT. Impressive story. — mark ✎ 07:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I'm glad you found it a good read. - BanyanTree 12:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA count on main page

Hey there BT, Thanks for your support with the main-page FA counter idea, especially for creating the template. What do you think we should do now - just impliment it or place a poll advertised at the community bulletin board?? I've asked the same question at the original disussion on Talk:Main Page. Cheers! Witty lama 15:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My thought is that the {{FA number}} template isn't worth much until Raul654, as the guy who makes the whole FA process turn, agrees to use it for his updates. I'm less worried about the folks at FARC. I'm waiting on a response from him on his talk, but there is an off chance that he wants someone to go ahead so he isn't seen as giving it some sort of "FA Director decree"-status or that he hates the idea and just refuses to discuss it. I think there is a strong consensus already, but I'm trying not to be a pain in Raul654's behind or give the appearance of going around his back. - BanyanTree 16:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I originally asked him on his talk page if he would like to comment on the idea. He responded on Talk:Main Page (as you have already probably seen). But in case you didn't, he wrote this:

I support this idea, as long as I'm not the one who has to do it, and it doesn't interfere with the way WP:FA works (e.g, with the actual numbering scheme). Raul654 04:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what he means by "interfere with...the actual numbering scheme" but I would assume your template does not. Otherwise he seems to be quietly supportive of the concept. In the light of user:Monotonehell's remider that WP:NOT a democracy, as soon as you get word from him I believe we should just impliment it. However, I am not confindent enough in media-wiki, and especially with how the main page is set up, to do this myself - at least in a "neat" way. Would you? Witty lama 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I would have done it a day ago if I wasn't taking a softly-softly approach. There has been another exchange at User talk:Raul654#Would you support putting the number of FA's on the front page?, involving Raul, Titoxd and I. I'll give it another few hours and, if someone hasn't beaten me to it, go ahead and risk the wrath. It seems to involve a permanent full protection of {{FA number}}, transclusion into {{TFAfooter}}, and a replacement of the two occurrences at WP:FA. - BanyanTree 18:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Far out, I hadn't been watching Raul's page, I didn't know how much technical discussion had already taken place. Can I just say Thanks! for working through all the niggly-bits. Witty lama 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The FA template

If the template is permanently protected, how do the editors who maintain WP:FAR update the number when articles are removed daily? Also, who will be able to run this bot once it's approved? I wish the folks proposing this would consider WP:FAR in addition to Raul - he's not the only person who updates that number. Raul has to edit the FA number roughly twice a week: FAR editors have to access it sometimes daily. I am not an admin, and when the regular FAR admins are absent, I may have to fiddle with the number. I'm sorry to see you're less worried about the folks at FAR, since we do have to access the template more often than Raul, and it will possibly be our lack of access that will mess up the number. Sandy (Talk) 15:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, While I had considered that there might be theoretical FA regulars who weren't admins, I thought you were an admin so the more decentralized nature of FAR would work to the advantage of the template. That is an issue. The requested bot would appear to be an even better solution. In the period while we're waiting for it to be created and approved (crossed fingers), an interim solution is needed. The options I see are either having people in your position make requests to Template talk:FA number or reimplementing a hand-updated number on Wikipedia:Featured articles. The former reduces the possibility of the numbers being thrown off, while the second increases the level of makework for the admin who copies that number to the template (I would of course volunteer). You can make that determination as you know how often you and other non-admins change the number; I would support whichever you choose in the interests of making the transition as painless as possible. Also please weigh in at the bot request.

On a slight tangent, I was about to ask if you wanted me to nominate you at RFA, but I see that you've recently turned down an offer. The impulse was of course prompted by this conversation, but you look thoroughly qualified. Best, BanyanTree 15:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Banyan - no, I really don't want to be an admin. There are other admins I can ask, who are FAR regulars, to update the number when needed, but we're just adding so many steps to the process, when there are already so few to do the work. During the times, for example, when the FAR regular admins can't do the work (now, for example, as they are busy with real life issues), is it possible for non-admins to be authorized to use the bot, if/when it's approved ? I don't really know how bots work, or what the protocol is, but because I follow both FAC and FAR, I try to keep tabs on all the numbers, and make sure that articles are listed and de-listed from all the different places where we track them (and that's more places than some imagine :-) and that talk pages are updated accordingly. Sandy (Talk) 15:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The neat thing about the bot is that it would simply count the number of articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured articles and then stick that number in the template. So anyone who could edit WP:FA would change the number on the template. I am concerned about possible vandalism, e.g. blanking the page to watch the number fall, for which I've offered a possible solution on the request page. The main issue is that the last time a bot with an admin flag was proposed it turned into a massive discussion, so I'm hoping that someone will volunteer to code the bot and then there is enough support to it get approved at WP:BRFA. Raul's support as a 'crat should help. - BanyanTree 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Joel just closed a FAR, so I counted the pages to be edited in the process - 1) close the review, 2) add the review to the archive, 3) remove the article from FA, 4) update the count, 5) remove star from article, 6) replace FA template on talk page, 7) add it to former featured articles, and 8) remove it from list of articles with citation problems. From Joelr31 (talk • contribs):

• Wikipedia:Former featured articles (+1 Revised Standard Version) (top)
• Talk:Revised Standard Version (no longer FA) (top)
• Revised Standard Version (no longer FA) (top)
• Template:FA number (-1 Revised Standard Version, and this template is very bad)
• Wikipedia:Featured articles (-1 Revised Standard Version)
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive (→Removed status - +Revised Standard Version) (top)
• Wikipedia:Featured article review (closing Revised Standard Version, no longer FA)

and then I remove it from:

• Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems (Removed status Revised Standard Version) (top)

So, if we have to keep track of yet another piece, we should start doing what Raul does when he closes FACs - not update the article talk page, and let someone else worry about keeping all the pieces together as far as removing stars and updating counts. It's just bad practice to have a number separate from the articles, and will be too easy to forget that step. Yes, I'm still kicking and screaming :-)) This is goofy. Sandy (Talk) 00:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have responded at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Template:FA number. Thanks, BanyanTree 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that I know someone has offered to work on the bot - and that it will run automatically - I'll relax :-) Sandy (Talk) 02:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You unprotected Sahib Biwi Aur Ghulam‎

Hello, Banyan, you unprotected Sahib Biwi Aur Ghulam - the moment it was unprotected, it was changed again. This time, the vandal has taken a user name, User:Sc4704, but does not reply to any notes one may write on his discussion page. Could you, maybe, semi-protect the page again, or have a word with the user? Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have left notes on the article and user talks, as well as putting the citation into ref format just for the heck of it. I am watching the page and will handle continued unsourced assertions. I think extended protection is pretty lame and am willing to wait and see if a non-protection solution is possible, though I will of course protect if that seems to be only option. Thanks for your help, BanyanTree 22:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply and *your* help. Will have an eye on the user myself. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 02:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Legion

Hi BT, would you give a look at a new article I wrote, Islamic Legion (a panafrican Libyan force that seems to have played a roled in Janjaweed evolution). Since you've got Prunier's work, I wanted to know if you could signal me some error and the year when the force was created. Sorry for disturbing you, but since the Legion's involvement with Darfur, I thought you could find it wort a look. Ciao, --Aldux 01:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aldux, Great job! I slightly expanded the article. Both my Prunier and Flint & de Waal books are tremendously confused about distinguishing between Libyan regular forces, Legion forces and Libyan-supported Darfuri militias in this period, but hopefully it made sense. I've also listed the article at WP:NAFR and nominated it at T:TDYK. Cheers, BanyanTree 15:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Grazie Mille!!! I really didn't pretend such work, I'm humbly grateful, the de Waal and Prunier input is highly appreciated. As for the confusion, don't worry: this is a typical result of Qaddafi's strategy, who masked even regular troops as legionnaires so to claim that no Libyans were in the bordering countries. So all works have to deal with this ambiguity. If I can help you in some way, please tell me; I'll be happy to reciprocate. Thanks again, ciao.--Aldux 16:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you know? was updated. On December 12, 2006, a fact from the article Islamic Legion, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Speaking of which....many thanks again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I am very grateful for the honor, and the award. I hope I can live up to it. Thak you very much. Themalau 20:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FA Counter Bot

I have fulfilled your request --Jmax- 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your work Jmax-! I have started a new subheader at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Template:FA number directing people involved in that conversation to the bot request page. I am also gathering names for the whitelist, as you requested. Cheers, BanyanTree 03:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the block

Thank you for the block on User:Sc4704. I suspect that he may be a persistent vandal who inserted contradictory information in an article about a movie with no reference. I am sure that he will re-engage in his vandalism after the block runs out but I will keep an eye out for any problems. Thank you again. ekantiK ^talk 15:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been following this after a post above. Let me know if this user remains unresponsive to attempts at discussion, and thanks for keeping watch. - BanyanTree 16:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] just few words about Jorbis player

I was your msg on Gmaxwell talk page and I saw too that you have a PPC running with OS X 10.3.5. Why you don't upgrade to 10.3.9 ? It's free and bug clean. More of that, it is now possible to listen .ogg file with the new Quicktime version (actualy version 7.1.3) directly with a navigator. But the JOrbis Player is obviously very useful and I hope Gmaxwell able to repair it. Have a good day.--Sonusfaber 08:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have done that. Not quite sure why I hadn't before... - BanyanTree 12:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe not

I don't really think you are the telephone company. Simply south 12:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's good to know. What are we talking about? - BanyanTree 12:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your username shortened to BT on the userpage. Over here it stands for British Telecom, a major telecommunications company whch is often shortened to its initials. .......... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simply south (talk • contribs) 13:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

BanyanTree a telephone company? As an admin, he makes good calls all the time so ... (On a related note: some time ago I made a redirect to here from User:BT, but I deleted it when I noticed that account was registered.) — mark ✎ 13:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation, Simply south. I hadn't heard that one. Mark, <chuckle> and thanks for thinking through my long-term use of a nickname. Cheers, BanyanTree 13:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flagicon

Can you do this reversion? Template_talk:Flagicon#Unsupported_use_restriction
Thanks. --*Spark* 19:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate for me to become a proxy in a possible edit war on a protected template. I have created a documentation subpage at Template:Flagicon/doc, which is well supported by current practice on protected templates. Regards, BanyanTree 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That does allow working around the protection problem. Thank you. (SEWilco 04:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Help needed with UHSA talkpage

Hi there, I'd like to modify some of my comments in UHSA's talkpage (some of my comments are inaccurate). How do I do that? The page is being closely monitored for vandalism. Thanks. DrGladwin 23:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In normal Wikipedia practice, a talk page post might be corrected for typos, grammar and links, but changing content is strongly frowned upon, especially if other users have already responded to the post. Given the delicacy of the situation at University of Health Sciences Antigua, it would be reverted on sight. It would probably be best if you didn't modify the comments. What might be acceptable is to, for your comments only, strikethrough your comments and add an indented comment that either explains that you are retracting the original comment or offering a reworded version so it is clear to everyone what was originally posted, as well as offering you the opportunity to correct misunderstandings. For example, if I wrote in this situation:

I like apples. BanyanTree 10 December 2006

To correct, I might write:

NOTE: I wish to modify several of my earlier comments. Since this is a sensitive topic, I have struck through the text I wish to retract or reword and posted reworded comments. I have not modified any existing content. This was the course of action suggested to me at User talk:BanyanTree#Help needed with UHSA talkpage. BanyanTree 13 December 2006

I like apples. BanyanTree 10 December 2006

Correction: I meant to say "I like to harvest apples." BanyanTree 13 December 2006

This is obviously a little silly, but any attempt to change the substance of comments on that page would undoubtedly be reverted. If you do this, be sure to use the above link to this discussion in the edit summary and sign every post with a timestamp. I'm unsure that it would be accepted by other users, i.e. it might just be reverted as an attempt to "cheat" in the conversation.

I'm not sure what you have in mind, but it would be much simpler to simply add a post to the end of the page offering clarification on your earlier comments. This would also be much less strange to other readers. I hope that helps. - BanyanTree 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll give you an hour to restore the line that you deleted and add timestamped commentary explaining what you are doing before I revert that last edit. - BanyanTree 00:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've used the strike feature and I'll also add a post clarifying my previous comments. I only meant to use the strike feature, not delete lines. If I did delete anything, its probably in error. Thanks again. DrGladwin 00:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editor becomes anonymous

Hello BT, I'm unsure how to resolve this particular problem. For some days, Shafiq.ad has been inserting a spam/promotional link to a blog that is an unreliable source for obvious reasons, into several pages that do not require that link (See his contributions). Naturally I have reverted these edits and explained to him on his talk page (with two warnings) that his inclusion of that link is not permitted on Wikipedia.

Just now I noticed an anonymous editor engaging in the same behaviour with Amitabh Bachchan and appears to have done the same with other pages too (See contributions). This clearly suggests that the same individual is at work and is most probably trying to avoid further warnings (and possible block notices) being placed on his (Shafiq.ad's) talk page. Please advise. ekantiK ^talk 14:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ekantik, I tagged 59.176.115.207 (talk • contribs) with {{spam3}}. If it is blatantly obvious that sockpuppets are being used, treat them as the same user and skip to {{spam3}}. If the user has a stable IP then a block could be used to affect all accounts. If not, I'm afraid that you'll have to report each new account individually. I'm willing to block if a final warning is given, though make sure that you write that it is a Shafiq.ad sockpuppet either in edit summaries and talk pages, so another user can recreate the story without asking you what is going on. Cheers, BanyanTree 14:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiger edit

You said to me "If tigers are the largest species, then they would be bigger than blue whales, assuming that you don't go beyond the animal kingdom. "largest cat species" is clearly correct. Please don't change it. - BanyanTree 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)"

I think you got confused when you looked at "current" and "last". I added the word "cat", as oppose to taking it away. By reverting, you removed the word "cat". I'll revert it back to my edit, which of course agrees with your sentiment. Atarr 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You are totally correct. I apologize for the mistake. - BanyanTree 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

no problem at all.Atarr 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

This is a schoolwide IP address. It doesn't seem very fair to make everyone suffer, neh? 206.170.112.2 22:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocks, unless specified otherwise by the blocking admin, will not affect users who are logged into their accounts. However, account creation is normally blocked as well. I you are sick of getting messages that have nothing to do with you and don't want to worry about being blocked, create an account now. - BanyanTree 22:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)