User talk:BanyanTree/Archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Contents 1 Adminship 2 Image Deleted 3 Deleting user talk page 4 Extra Time Ref. 5 Bizarre Ride 6 my @ sign 7 Thanks (1) 8 New Articles 9 Reservation (law) 10 Japanese battleship Kongō 11 Thank's 12 Thanks (2) 13 83.26.xx.xx Spammer 14 Help:Reverting 15 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 16 PARDS.ORG 17 Infobox NY Route redirects 18 DYK 19 Phallacy Clothing 20 Recently deleted talk page 21 Deletion 22 User talk:E Pluribus Anthony 23 Juba 24 Two-column notes 25 Waleed Malik 26 Why did you delete the Terry Ward page? 27 Welcome to the Military history WikiProject! 28 African military history 29 OK Jazz 30 RfA thanks 31 user:216.11.79.23 32 Did You Know 32.1 Similar problem 33 Eye 34 request, concerns, bothers... 35 Something going wrong 36 Your opinion is sought 37 Tagging articles 38 Unprotects 39 Kazakhstan 40 Un-semis 41 Kvenland 42 un-sp Nazism 43 Please reinstate semi-protect 44 Rafida 45 Royal Rife semi 46 The Game 47 The Coventry Blue Coat Church of England School 48 Semen Photo Revert War 49 Rwandan Civil War 50 Re:The Coventry Blue Coat Church of England School 51 Matthew Lukwiya 52 RE: Tiger 53 Template:Country

[edit] Adminship

I've now restored your adminship, as having checked your contributions and talk archives there is nothing which suggests to me any controversy in the matter. Hope you find the tools useful and avoid burnout. Best Wishes, Warofdreams talk 02:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cheers, BT 04:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

! I knew you couldn't resist from staying away from those shiny buttons... ;-)--Aldux 11:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Deleted

BanyanTree, I noticed that you deleted an image I uploaded yesterday (JBG_IMG_0011.jpg). I assume that it was because some information about the image was missing. I uploaded a new image: JBGAgo06.jpg. I clicked the Submit button before the description was complete (sorry!). I added the correct description in the Discussion section of that image. If you have the chance, could you copy the correct description and paste it into the image's summary, please? If you deleted the first image for any other reason, please let me know. I'm sure I could conform to Wikipedia standards. Thanks. Cimon38 talk Tuesday, 2006-10-10 T 11:50 UTC

Hi Cimon38, I'm not sure why you had problems modifying the text. Image:JBGAgo06.jpg was not protected in any way. In any case, I have pasted in the description from the talk. I couldn't figure out what you intended for the first license and simply removed it. Also, images are not categorized except in special cases. Since CC-BY is allowable under the GFDL, you may wish to consider uploading the image to Commons:, which does have an extensive categorization system. Cheers, BanyanTree 13:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting user talk page

Greetings, I noticed you reverted my request to delete my user talk page. According to the policy here, [[1]], User talk pages can be deleted if there is no policy violations that may need to be kept or if the user is leaving. Also m:Right to vanish states you can have your user talk page deleted. In addition, many editors here also had their user talk page deleted. I would appreciate it if you would delete my user talk page. Please respond here. Thanks. DarKnEs5 WaRrí0r

Please note that there is a difference between User pages and User talk pages, and that the former does not include the latter. The "no policy violations" line applies only to user pages and the policy you quote further states "User talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons". The rationale behind this is that, while a user page is the product of the user who created it, a talk page is a collaborative document that causes holes to appear in other people's contribution histories when deleted. The Right to vanish is concerned specifically with the self-imposed duty of the community to honor attempts by a user to disassociate themselves with past edits. You are not attempting to vanish; in fact you are continuing to edit actively, resulting in at least two more positive comments on your talk from other users since your last deletion request. I also see no personal information or legal threats in your talk history. I am aware that other users have had their user pages deleted and, in most of those cases, I believe the admin was in error. You are free to seek out an admin with less knowledge of the relevant policies, but I have never deleted a user talk page and I see no reason to make an exception in this case. Sincerely, BanyanTree 19:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I am actually attempting to vanish and have decided to no longer actively edit here. Could I restore the deletion request on my talk page and seek out an admin who would honor my attempts to vanish without somebody reverting it? DarKnEs5 WaRrí0r

Your best bet would be to contact an admin with whom you have had previous interaction and make a personal request. Alternately, you might contact an admin who has carried out a similar request in the past. Placing the speedy tag on the page places it in CAT:CSD, where admins tend to churn through a lot of pages in order to get ahead of the constant flood of requests and may not spare the time to read an involved explanation. As I stated above, I am uncomfortable with carrying out the deletion request myself. - BanyanTree 20:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extra Time Ref.

Here is one for the Currie Cup - [2]--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 07:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bizarre Ride

Thanks for fixin' it up there, brah. --PDTantisocial 14:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, though you may not be so favorably inclined towards me once you see my objection at the FAC. - BanyanTree 14:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my @ sign

Hello, You talked to me about my @ sign, but is it really a problem? Because I don't want to change my pseudonym, I didn't choose it randomly, it has a precise meaning and I want to keep it. So can tell me more about this probleme and possible solutions. 16@r 15:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi 16@r, Wikipedia recently stopped users from creating accounts with "@" to keep people from using email addresses as their account name. People with @ are encouraged to change their username per Wikipedia:Username, but it's not a requirement. If you are attached to your username, please just ignore my message and keep it, especially as it doesn't appear to be an address. You are quite unlikely to have any access problems unless policy changes again. Thanks and happy editing, BanyanTree 15:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks (1)

Thanks for you welcome! Ive really havent been that active on wikipedia until the latest weeks, so thats probably why oone has spotted my userpage. I use this site all the time, so I thought what the heck, Id better edit some as well...

--Screensaver 08:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Articles

Wow, you have been busy haven't you. For future reference, the items in Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/New articles are organized in reverse chronological order of the date of creation. It's probably not worth going through all of them, so we can just treat the group as one date. Cheers, BanyanTree 19:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, as far as chronology is concerned, I wrote or amended the listed articles within the past week; there isn't much of a chonological spread. I will be sure to add articles to the New Articles list in the future as I create them. Thanks for your note. --McTrixie 23:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reservation (law)

Good job on the reservations article. It definitely is an article which was missing in Wikipdia. Actually it's very annoying, I wanted to write that article, but kept putting it off. :) Garion96 (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not a legal type and have to admit to getting a headache trying to figure out the legalese of the Vienna Convention. I would appreciate it if you could make sure that the bit on accept and object is phrased correctly. Cheers, BanyanTree 00:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, will look at it in detail later. I will also add some parts of my draft article from my sandbox. Which was on old paper I wrote, I was (some day) going to remove the research and start the article., but I guess I can still use some of it to the current article. Garion96 (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweet Jimbo, that's impressive! Please do. That reminds me of my own sandbox. I have such good intentions... Ha! - BanyanTree 01:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese battleship Kongō

I've nominated this article, on which it appears you've done the majority of work, for A-class status at the Military History WikiProject. I think it's a very nicely long and detailed article, and I think it could do better than just B-class. Just thought you'd like to know that it's been nommed. Cheers. LordAmeth 07:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration! - BanyanTree 12:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank's

Thank's for your words about the Second Congo War... I use a big part of the English article, plus information taken in spanish around the web. Please follow your work! It's very important! Go get it! Salu2! Rakela 23:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry by my english... I love my native tongue ;D...

[edit] Thanks (2)

Hi BanyanTree; thanks for your offer of nomination. It means a lot coming from someone with such profilic contributions. I've thought vaguely about adminship in the past, but I don't think now is quite the right time, as I expect to be quite busy writing a thesis for the next few months. I hope to be more active in future, and I'll reconsider adminship then.

Thanks again, --Saforrest 17:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, Saforrest. If you do decide to try for the shiny buttons, let me know if you want me to nominate. Cheers and happy editing, BanyanTree 17:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 83.26.xx.xx Spammer

I'm having severe difficulty in containing and thwarting a spammer from Poland who keeps hitting the peer-to-peer and related articles with inappropriate links, sometimes replacing legitimate links with his bad content. I would like an RfA (or whatever procedure it is) to deal with vandals or spammers, unrepentant ones in particular, called upon this one. Thank you.

Apologies ahead of time for the derogatory edit summaries; I hate spammers with a passion unmatched by few other things in this world I reserve my bile and vitriol for. E. Sn0 =31337= 20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As for blocks, it looks like you are envisaging a range block, which I don't have the technical knowledge for. Please go to WP:AIV or WP:ANI and list the IP range with an explanation of the history of spamming. An admin who specializes in blocking and knows how to do range blocks will certainly be watching those pages.

Thanks.

In the meantime, you are doing a good job keeping him off the pages, but you really need to calm down in your edit summaries. Spammers and vandals need to know Wikipedia deals with their efforts with the same sort of attitude you would drop off the garbage and is is not a battleground for their petty fights, for the simple reason that Wikipedia always wins in the end. Your summaries do nothing to the spammer and hurt your credibility to other users. - BanyanTree 20:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, I never thought of it that way. I'll lay off the abuse. E. Sn0 =31337= 20:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help:Reverting

Thanks for updating the page but it looks like you forgot to paste over the last few sections, so the offending boilerplate is still there. Thanks! Katr67 22:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My ego is taking body blows here. OK, I'm never going to look at a Help page again. When I pasted, I simply selected all, pasted over the old content, and skipped away like a wood nymph in Elysium. The issue is that the wikicode included Template:Ph:Reverting at the bottom, which was where most of the content was located (for some reason that I really don't care to seek out). There's a subsidiary issue that I started at Help talk:Contents#updating content, but I blanked the template (it's a redirect on Meta) so at least the old content doesn't show now. My opinion of the Help pages is rather less than it was before. Reading the Meta masters would appear to be a safer option. - BanyanTree 23:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to thank you for telling me. Thanks! - BanyanTree 23:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad you were able to straighten it all out. Katr67 16:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you for expressing an interest in my recent RfA. As a followup, I wanted to let you know that unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate that you took the time to monitor the discussion. My current plans are to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 10:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, Elonka. I would be happy to reconsider my stance in the future. Cheers, BanyanTree 12:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Also, if you don't mind my asking, could you clarify a bit why you felt "conflicted" on the issue? Is there any information in particular which I could offer, to help set your mind at ease? --Elonka 18:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(re-indent) Now that's a complicated question. If you don't mind me going into some personal judgments, I'll give you an honest answer with some disorganized points to reflect my disorganized thoughts. I'm too lazy to go find all the pages that I had open during my review, so I'll just go on possibly erroneous memory.

• As far as I'm concerned, anything that happens in your first month on the wiki is not grounds for an oppose by itself, unless of course you're one of those people who wants to be sysopped in their third month. As far as I could determine, you created your AUTO articles before anyone had pointed out the AUTO guideline, so fair game. You did manage to cross just about the worst users you could have, but that's not your fault and the characterization of your RFC draft as an "attack page" is frankly disturbing.
• You've got lots of housekeeping-ish edits, which is good for an admin, as it often requires churning through the equivalent of paperwork.
• FAs: FA authorship is possibly be only easily identifiable credibility currency that has not been debased on the wiki. In my opinion, your claim to two FAs on your user page is disputable at best, and misleading at worst. In the first, a Polish cryptographer I believe, your substantive edits start around the nomination and your main source was mildly disputed on the talk page there. I do not recall seeing your name on that FAC; further reducing your claim to have been highly involved. The Lost FA: You received a ringing endorsement from at least one other Lost editor that your claim is deserved because of your aggregate efforts in the topic. I have no reason to dispute this, but your actual edits to the article during the FAC did not seem particularly significant. You would be better served by getting rid of the userbox and simply stating a claim with context, e.g. "I edit extensively on the Lost articles and am part of the team that got the main article featured."
• Subpages: Both of the subpages that were mentioned, the account of the dispute with DreamGuy and the cone of silence, showed either an ignorance of norms or policy, both revolving around issues of privacy. Wikipedia user pages and subpages are personal, but they are not private. Similarly, the keeping of a page naming users who you wanted to take a certain action is unprecedented in my experience. I understand that you asked for the cone of silence page to be speedy deleted, but that either implies that you couldn't keep track of your own userspace or felt caught out and were trying to hide the evidence, neither of which indicates a great quality.
• Lots of issues of tone: The first paragraph in the third answer at your RFA (now looking at it) just seethes with resentment. The use of {{userblock}}, as if reporting a problem user to an admin, is a dead giveaway. That, combined with the DreamGuy subpage, seems to indicate a willingness to harbor a grudge, or at least of not knowing when walking away is in your best interests. This at least leaves open the possibility that the opposers' argument that you do not have the personality that we wish to endorse with the mop is correct, though I did find many opposers' reasoning flawed. I spent a lot of time, after deciding definitely to support or oppose several times, looking at the sentence "My own goal as an admin is to be sensitive to the nuances of Wikipedia culture, and to adapt to the norms of this particular community." This is written as someone who is not a member of the community, and the very fact that it is written this way shows that you are not sensitive to the nuance that we expect our admins to have already drank the Kool Aid, and then get embittered later.

So I just spent a lot more time on the negatives than the positives, which are that you are highly knowledgeable, have put in the time and edits, clearly have a thick skin and, with the mediation as proof, are clearly capable of productive cooperation with users that you disagree with. A statement to be open to recall as a prerequisite to being adminned would have pushed me towards support, but probably not over the line. I'm sure that there are some other things that crossed my mind at the time that I've since forgotten. On the whole, it was a lot of little things that added up to a wash for me. I was thus not neutral because I thought I lacked information. Just a note, when going for your next RFA, make sure your nominator has credibility to spare. Regards, BanyanTree 21:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PARDS.ORG

Dear Administrator,

Where did the original Political Asylum page go? The link to our nationally recognized agency was originally included on that page. What happened? Why didn't you keep the links when revising the entries for Political Asylum? It's quite frustrating. Many asylum applicants and immigration attorneys did benefit from the way the page was originally structured. And now you're reverting the changes I had proposed. Do you really believe that asylum-related information on our website (http://www.pards.org) is not relevant for these discussions? Thank you.

Agency Director Political Asylum Research and Documentation Service (PARDS) 145 Witherspoon Street Princeton, NJ 08542—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.110.52.191 (talk • contribs)

Dear Sir, Political asylum is a redirect to Right of asylum, and has been since May of this year. If you are are referring to your addition to Right of asylum, I removed your link. Wikipedia practice is to include only external links that are highly relevant to the scope of the article. Right of asylum covers the concept since the Middle Ages, including that of sanctuary in holy places, for the entire world, while your site appears to specialize in current U.S. asylum law and thus covers only a small fraction of the ambit of the article. I have left your link on asylum in the United States as being relevant to the scope of that article. Note that Wikipedia articles are aimed at a general audience and should not be structured to benefit a smaller target audience. If you are a nationally known organization, you can rest assured that someone else will reference your organization in due course in other articles. Thank you, BanyanTree 14:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox NY Route redirects

I don't see the point in leaving them - they're useless redirects that are the result of updated code over time. Also, similar redirects were deleted per G6. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed Merope deleting that one. A far more liberal interpretation of G6 than I have. I tend to see deletion as getting rid of something actively harmful or confusing. Since nobody is arguing that they are harming anything, and the permanent deletion of a page that is not harmful seems IMO to be outside the ambit of G6, I won't delete them. Besides that, if it's useless/harmless why would one spend time tagging it to ask an admin to spend their time checking it out? Note that if you had stated in your speedy reasoning that you are a member of whatever wikiproject handles those templates and thus had some standing on decisions of that type, I probably would have just deleted them. As for unrelated users tagging harmless redirects for deletion under a housecleaning rationale?-I would never oblige, but I occasionally am told I'm grumpy. Cheers, BanyanTree 02:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a member of WP:NYSR (and one of the most active - I won't be humble), the articles of which used these then-templates, but I didn't think that I would have to supply that kind of additional rationale to have them deleted. When you say "taking the time for an admin to check it out", I agree, it's not worth the time to check out - if I had the power, I'd delete them myself. Why do I even care about these redirects? Surely these redirects take up some amount of space on Wikipedia's servers, space that could be better served hosting articles or images, or at the very least, useful redirects to help users find content. If the space they take is negligible, then ignore that point. Still, these kind of redirects irk me personally - but that's probably just me. Regards, TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you that it's nice to have things cleaned up. But as CSD G6 is phrased currently, I do not see it as giving explicit sanction to the sort of deletion you requested. It's in a grey area - certainly some admins won't think twice about it, while some (or at least me) err on the side of caution and want some assurance that the person actually knows what they are talking about and are not looking at some generated list somewhere and blindly sticking tags on. As far as I know, the amount of space used is the same. All the copies are kept on the servers, which is why admins can still access all the versions of deleted pages. It used to be that images disappeared forever, but now those are kept too. Sorry for being your obstinate admin for the day, BanyanTree 02:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On October 27, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Darfur is Dying, 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.

Welcome back!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

On October 27, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Reservation (law), 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.

Forgot...a double celebration...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Blnguyen! It's good to be back plugging things onto the Main Page again. Best, BanyanTree 00:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phallacy Clothing

The page was created mainly as a sublink page from hypercolor and photochromic. There isnt any information on existing companies producing apparel with leuco dyes. I was working on a Del Sol article and an article on Generra. Albeit these companies are not well known they're producing a rare unique type of product something i believe makes them notable. I'm taking a class on screen printing right now and came across these types of inks and then it took awhile to find these companies. I was wondering what you thought now that i've explained what i'm doing here. Perhaps I could recreate the article and focus more on the chemistry and less on the design philosophy. I used the American Eagle template as a foundation for the Phallacy one but perhaps a stub would be better suited for that company.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcool110 (talk • contribs) on 27 October 2006

An article on a company, regardless of the type, must meet the notability requirements at WP:CORP. That would more properly the determination of WP:AFD, if it were not that this article, being backed up only by mentions in MySpace and UrbanDictionary, falls under the "shoot on sight" directive here. Any user will tag this article for deletion and any admin will delete it without hesitation. It may be worth describing manufacturing methods being tried by corporations in the existing articles you mention, but any attempt to recreate an business article with such trivial external sourcing may be treated as vandalism, including by blocking of your account. - BanyanTree 23:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recently deleted talk page

please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Cogito_ergo_sumo_and_right_to_vanish for the full picture. Agathoclea 19:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I've responded at that thread. The first time a talk meets my bar and it turns out to be this. I'll let this be a lesson to raise my bar from high to never. - BanyanTree 20:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Grin, it was quite obvious to me that C.E.S. was a previous editor after his first few edits, but never dug any deeper. Even when he - very obviously - reappeared under a new name I would not have thought there is that much history. Agathoclea 20:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

hey BT ive noticed you deleted St.Leo's Green Beret's page why was that, its not vandalism and its not nonsence, you say urself that the internet is not about repression? but you deleted a page for what i can see as no other reason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.126.6 (talk • contribs)

St. Leo's Green Beret's included in its original lead the line: "It is an Cult dedicated to all good beer drinkers." That, of course, before it was targeted for silliness. As I noted in the my deletion summary "csd a7 - if you look farther back in the history", which refers to the seventh criterion for articles at WP:CSD. I have no doubt that the deletion was well within Wikipedia policies. - BanyanTree 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

what would need to be changed in order for the article to continue?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.126.6 (talk • contribs)

It would have to be on an encyclopedic topic first and it would help if it was written as an encyclopedia article. It's quite possible that it simply is not encyclopedic and will never be allowed on the wiki. - BanyanTree 12:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:E Pluribus Anthony

I see that you said that restored the history of User talk:E Pluribus Anthony, but from the history, it appears that it was just created instead of restored. Did you actually undelete it or are you blanking it for something other reason? semper fi — Moe 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the log, (aeropagitica) re-deleted the page and then restored a single version - my blanking. I haven't been keeping track of this since the post you linked above. The deleted edits shows subsequent attempts by E Pluribus Anthony to request deletion and repeated reversions by other admins. If I had to guess, I would say it's just a bit of confusion on (aeropagitica)'s part after he realized the deletion was contested, which he would probably appreciate being pointed out to him, if you want to do the honors. Best, BanyanTree 21:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and left on a note on his talk. - BanyanTree 23:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for not responding, too busy editing :p Now that I remember correctly, I left a note to (aeropagitica) for deleting the talk while the discussion was ongoing. Sorry, but I think I should have taken this whole discussion to (aeropagitica)'s talk instead of yours :( But I think the reason he only restored one revision was because of a glitch that occured (see User_talk:(aeropagitica)#User talk:Cogito ergo sumo for a comment on another undeletion he did. semper fi — Moe 23:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for inviting me to comment. I have had a couple of glitches when it comes to restoring pages, apologies for that and any inconvenience that this has caused you. I will try to restore the page again in order to bring the history back in to view. Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (aeropagitica)! I've added the page to my watchlist; I have a suspicion that another revert war is imminent and may have to protect the page to keep this from happening again. Cheers, BanyanTree 00:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've found a reference to the bug, in case you're interested. Working on it now. (aeropagitica) 00:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Restoration of the page history appears to have worked. Let me know what you can see. This history is the version that I saw before deletion, different to the one that I saw ten minutes ago. You should see the same thing too, bugs aside. (aeropagitica) 00:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, the log has you undeleting another 791 revisions, the history looks complete (500 view works at least) and some spot checks of revisions look good. It looks like all is well with the world again. Thanks for your attention, BanyanTree 00:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juba

I have seen your article about de Juba Talks. It's great! I'm going to use it for the Wikipedia en español. Just that! Congratulations! Rakela 05:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC) sorry by my english... it happend that I just love my languaje...

I also saw your excellent work. Very nice, KazakhPol 06:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. You can definitely tell that it was created a paragraph at a time because of the choppy writing, but hopefully it's nothing that a good copyedit wouldn't fix. Cheers, BanyanTree 13:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two-column notes

Hey, BT. I saw that you changed the "Notes" section on Charles Atangana to display as two columns, which is probably a good idea. However, they still display as one column on my browser. Do you have any idea what gives? Is it possibly a Safari or Monobook issue? Thanks, — BrianSmithson 01:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's possible. When you look at Darfur conflict, do you see the three columns in the references section? Cheers, BanyanTree 04:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Just one. Curious. — BrianSmithson 04:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That is strange. I've never heard of such a thing. Bring it up at the technical issues section of the Pump. In the meantime, you might want to try another browser to see if that is it. - BanyanTree 10:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Clear you cache. On firefox this is Ctrl + shift + R. Not sure on Internet Explorer. Hope this helps.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 10:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

According to {{reflist}}, multiple columns currently only render properly in Mozilla/Firefox. --Ezeu 11:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh. How discriminatory. Thanks for knowing stuff. - BanyanTree 12:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, I've just changed back to Safari after FF 2.0 wouldn't let me download pretty much anything without a nasty pop up error message that I couldn't close. That coupled with the predictable freezing, would test the patience of a saint. It used to be such a good browser. So I'm back to the ridiculously long references sections as well. - BanyanTree 15:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waleed Malik

Hi - you recently deleted a hoax page called Waleed Malik - I wanted to tell you that the same user has made the page again. Can you please look at this! Ozzykhan 15:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've delete-protected the page. If you see him try to introduce it again, let me know and I'll block him as he's had more than enough chances to stop. - BanyanTree 15:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you delete the Terry Ward page?

A Terry Ward page appeared long ago and I was rather flattered since it was about me. It mentioned flag designs and municipal seals I've designed. The designs are government-use emblems. The page is gone now. The log says it was deleted by BanyanTree and it says 'attack page'. Was it edited by someone into an attack? Couldn't a pre-edit page have been restored. I'm puzzled over who you are and where you get off deleting the page. Explain please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.60.217 (talk • contribs)

I have undeleted the non-vandalized versions of the article Terry Ward. At the time of its deletion, the article had for over a month consisted of sentences such as "Terry is known for not knowing what he is talking about, abusing various students and chavs (such as the boys) and being extremely offit", which I assume you would not find flattering.

As for me, I'm a volunteer administrator who occasionally wades through the hundreds of articles nominated daily for immediate deletion. I have no memory of deleting this article but, if I was following my normal process, I would have checked versions going back several weeks and the original version. Since all the most recent versions were vandalized and the original version was in extremely non-standard formatting (and the article is still in need of formatting to Wikipedia standard) I probably judged it to be an earlier version of the attack page. I apologize for not checking the earlier revisions more carefully, but I imagine that you would have preferred it to be gone rather than to have the version I describe distributed across the internet for the past six months. If you set up an account, you can create a watchlist for articles that you have an interest in so you can see when changes like this occur. - BanyanTree 16:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't realize fresh content appears at the bottom of the ppage. Thansk for the advice. At first, your restoration appears to be the old article. I'd better start watching out for the article since it seems to be a vandalism target.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.60.217 (talk • contribs) 3 November 2006

It appears that someone has a teacher with your name and is not a fan. Stuff like that normally gets caught immediately, but articles that are not well-linked to other pages get overlooked because there is no thru-traffic on the page. - BanyanTree 02:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Thanks Kirill. I hope that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/African military history task force will help me get my act together. ;) Cheers, BanyanTree 20:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] African military history

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/African military history task force#How to organize this task force needs some attention. I know you were already active, just wanted to remind you, while I invited the rest of the team to give their opinion. Thanks Wandalstouring 21:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OK Jazz

Hey. I noticed that you like the band OK Jazz.[3] I'm doing a presentation regarding the culture of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and I was wondering if you could send me a few of of their songs (some songs from African Jazz would be great, too, if you have any). Would you happen to have the lyrics for those songs, as well? And are the songs in French? Anyway, I know this request is a little random, but it would be such a great help if you could send me a few songs ASAP. -- WGee 19:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Francois Luambo Makiadi has much more background information than OK Jazz. There are plenty of songs available on MP3 blogs or elsewhere, though they tend to be in either Lingala or Frenchh. Franco is the guy in blue in this YouTube clip. (Listen to them pick it up about the two minute mark.) In fact, just check out the videos posted by YouTube user Nasipwondi. If you can handle the groove, here is Malage de Lugendo and Soukous Allstars singing a 15 minute version of "Mamou II". If you're interested in just hearing great music from the continent, MP3 blog [Benn loxo du taccu is amazing. There's plenty more on YouTube and MP3 blogs if you look around. - BanyanTree 20:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I particularly enjoyed your comment on my sanity. :-)|I particularly enjoyed your comment on my sanity. :-) I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks! Saxifrage

Congratulations, Saxifrage. I have no doubt you'll do great. - BanyanTree 20:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user:216.11.79.23

This anon user needs to be blocked for repeat vandalism, indefinatly, he has recieved numerous warnings.

Thankyou.

Suicidal tendancies 19:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone has already handled 216.11.79.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). In the future, post such reports to WP:AIV. - BanyanTree 19:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did You Know

While editing Template:Did you know I noticed this on the edit page: "After updating this section, please go to Talk:Main Page and click the "Main Page Cache Purge" so that all users will see the update." However, I didn't find a cache purge at that talk page. So should I purge the cache, if so where is the link, and should the directions be corrected? Art LaPella 19:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, that link got removed about a month ago when the new header template was created. The simplest way to do it, would be to add the purge link to the template, like in the box at the bottom of T:ITN. The link, which can be placed anywhere, is {{SERVER}}{{localurl:Main Page|action=purge}}. Cheers, BanyanTree 19:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similar problem

I edited the main page picture of the day to fix this, but nothing happened, despite clicking the cache clearing link on that page and on several others, and clicking Ctrl-F5 on the main page. Art LaPella 01:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I beat you to it and the disambiguated link shows up on the Main Page for me. I assume that you're having a browser problem - hard refreshing both on the template and Main Page may work... - BanyanTree 01:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I edited the wrong article Wikipedia:Picture of the day/November 13, 2006. Art LaPella 01:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, nobody has ever explained to my satisfaction why POTD row and POTD are separate templates. Also, note that morphology (biology) is itself a redirect. <sigh> If you haven't already, a read through of Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ makes the madness a little more understandable. - BanyanTree 02:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eye

Hey BT! Might want to keep an eye on this user and maybe offer some advice. Nice contributions to Lusoga and Uganda-related articles, but some seem to be copyright violations. Cheers, — mark ✎ 15:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, here are your images. If you need any more, let me know! — mark ✎ 15:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mark! I think I'll just go the board with questions like this from now on, as opposed to trying every single vaguely relevant application on my computer. As to the first item, my first inclination is to speedy the offending page under CSD G12, but I'll watch and see if the softly-softly approach you've begun works. - BanyanTree 16:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, too soft again. I just liked the bona fide contributions, so I was surprised to come across this. However, you are quite right that a copyright violation should be removed on sight, so I'll do that and go explain. — mark ✎ 19:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request, concerns, bothers...

I've at least nominally returned from my three week adventure in California, but I've decided I'm not quite ready to begin editting again. Prior to resumption however, I have some concerns in regard to the Petroleum in Nigeria article.

While there's certainly a large amount of information available on the topic, some of which has been injected into the article, I don't think I grasped the scope and complexity of the issues involved prior to commencing this project nearly a year ago. As a result, the process has been largely characterized by iterative evaluation and constant evolution of the "planned" final product as I acquired new information via perusal of related texts; generally this resulted in disorganization and poor management. I also had a strong desire to create a Featured Article in the eventualist manner; I also bought into the idea that article length equates to quality or status.

I wont articulate article plans here, but I've decided to read through comprehensive texts on Nigerian post-independence history, which will hopefully preclude attempts to edit using bits and pieces of information. When I'm done with those texts, I will return to editing. This introspective has provided the realization that I'm still something of a novice despite 1.5 years on Wikipedia.

Finally (I apogolize for message length, I blame my hiatus), could we semi-protect the Nigeria page. Even when I was editing, keeping pace with the anonymous and red-link editors was virtually untenable. According to the page on semi-protection, Nigeria should qualify: "semi-protection may be used in cases of "minor bios of slightly well known but controversial individuals" which are not widely watchlisted, if they are "subject to POV pushing, trolling [or] vandalism." Granted this article is not biographical in nature, but I believe the above quotation should apply. thanks for your time, I apologize for this message's superfluous length.--gozar 00:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey gozar, Good to see you back.

Last things first, the quotation from Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy is directly related to legal concerns about living individuals, all going back the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Protection of Nigeria would definitely fall under a prohibited "pre-emptive measure". I'm happy to field any requests you may have for blocks or temp protections, in cases of spree vandalism, but there is no way a semi pro wouldn't be quickly removed as being contrary to policy. You might ask at WP:AFR if more people can watch the article. Sorry.

As for Petroleum in Nigeria, you've basically stated my attitude toward almost everything on my watchlist. ;) I recently started working on background articles to the Darfur conflict, after removing the article itself from my watchlist, and have entangled myself in a mind boggling amount of detail that makes me wonder when I'm ever going to return with enough knowledge to do the ruthless pruning needed to make a really good article. I've thought of opposing as a matter of course every WP:FAC over 40kb as being the obvious result of either editor indecision or ego stroking, but I'm not up to dealing with the resulting controversy.

Tangentially, you might be interested to know that Alex de Waal, editing as Adewaal (talk · contribs), made a two day appearance to fix the lead to famine and point out an particularly egregious error at Darfur conflict. Probably the only time I've been vaguely starstruck on the wiki. :D - BanyanTree 01:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something going wrong

I don't quite get the meaning of your last edit on the African military history board. Don't you want an article? Wandalstouring 17:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Largely in response to an argument at Rwandan Genocide, I started an article at Rwandan Civil War. I basically fulfilled my own request, though History of Rwanda, Rwandan Civil War and Rwandan Genocide articles don't nest very well.. - BanyanTree 17:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion is sought

Hi. Please have a look at the Central African War. As I mentioned on its talk page, I attempted to rewrite it, but it remains problematic in several respects, one of which being the "War" in the title. Any attention you could devote the matter would be greatly appreciated. Regards, El_C 04:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging articles

Any article related to this task force should be marked by adding African-task-force=yes to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax). This will automatically place it into Category:African military history task force articles. Greatings Wandalstouring 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Of the 125 articles currently in Category:African military history task force articles, I added about 100. Most of the articles I wander through are relevant and I'll have to beg forgiveness if I forget or procrastinate tagging some of them. - BanyanTree 00:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotects

Do you think you could watchlist and help deal with vandalism on some of the dozens of articles you're unprotecting? They were protected for a reason. --W.marsh 02:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be ideal, but there are so many protected pages and some of them are not listed at WP:PP and have been protected for weeks or months, and the bad ones will be re-protected. It would of course be best not to unprotect ones protected recently, and to watch them all, but sometimes you have to take the bad with the good, and unprotecting the pages categorically is a net good; it has to be done some time, just shouldn't be done regularly. —Centrx→talk • 02:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sometimes very poor reasons. The longest protection I've found so far is 8 months, followed by a few four monthers, quite a few over one month and maybe a bare majority in the past month. Clearly nobody has gone through CAT:SEMI in a very long time. Semi-proteciton appears to have become so "normal" that people are clearly using it to prevent run-of-the mill vandalism - e.g. admins giving "vandalism" as the reason for semiprotecting an article that has had ten reversions over the previous three days; weeklong blocks on articles that were the target of half-hour spree but are otherwise quiet, or articles protected for elections that ended weeks ago. I may be unprotecting a few articles that won't work out and will require reprotection, but there is so clearly a bias towards protection that I figure this is the barest hint of a correction.

I am passing over articles that people have tried multiple times to unprotect without success, especially if the protecting admin basically says in the edit summary that it is an IAR exception to the SEMI rules. I am also passing over pages protected in the last few days. I have been thinking that the German version control is desperately needed but, as far as I can tell, nobody has passed policy stating that protection can be used as a kludge for stable versions.

As for your question, no - or at least not as a process. I do not see how a review of articles to make sure they fall within the semi guidelines obliges the reviewer to take on responsibility for articles that other admins have either forgotten about or have given reasons that do not warrant indefinite protection. Like I said above, some of the articles are sufficiently high profile that they may require reprotection if it overwhelms the anti vandal crew. However, protection tends to happen much more quickly than unprotection, and another period to see if vandalism has died down may be useful, if only to remind admins that they are specifically enjoined from using semi-protection indefinitely. - BanyanTree 02:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I just mean that these articles are going to get vandalized (indirectly) because of your actions, some of them quite heavilly, I think regular editors of the articles will appreciate at least some token help with vandalism that comes up, rather than just saying "Here's more work for you guys, I'm not technically obligated to do anything to help deal with the vandalism so I'm not going to". This is kind of related to stuff being discussed on WP:AN to some extent. I'm talking about extending a courtousy to people who work hard to maintain the quality of articles, it's nothing you're required to do but I think it's healthy for the community that people unprotecting articles en masse at least acknowledge the people they'll be creating more work for. I do appreciate the work you're doing though... 8 months of protection is rediculous. --W.marsh 03:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is there are hundreds of them, and they have to be unprotected sometime, and that's just not happening until someone goes through and does this, and watching 600 pages is not an option. It might help to put a link to WP:RFPP in the edit summary so editors can see clearly where to go if the page needs protecting again. —Centrx→talk • 03:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that I didn't say that I wouldn't help out; I stated that I wouldn't do so as part of a process. I refuse to accept that taking on moppage or editing duties in one area creates a obligation in yet more areas. I've already burnt out once taking that path. I certainly didn't expect to win any popularity contests by removing semi-pros, but you've convinced to take a break on this. I'll review after Thanksgiving week and see if I can get a broad sense of how things worked or didn't. Cheers, BanyanTree 03:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean to burn you out... sorry. I'm just trying to avoid an "Us against Them" rift widening between people who deal with vandalism and people who unprotect articles. We're all on the same side after all (the side of improving Wikipedia). --W.marsh 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Some pages will be repeatedly hit by vandals even years from now, where is the net benefit in unprotecting them? I don't like seeing dozens of edits on one page by vandals, and having to figure out where valid edits have been made in between them. It honestly just makes me less interested in editing those articles at all. falsedef 22:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess my entire point was missed... I want you to continue unprotecting forgotten articles, someone has to. I just think we need to be conscious of avoiding a rift between people who unprotect articles and people who deal with those unprotected articles. --W.marsh 04:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough. I admit to not being entirely clear on why this would create a rift, but I agree with the sentiment.

As promised, I went ahead and did a back of envelope (literally) review of the articles. I had gone through J, K, L and M and removed semiprotection from 84 articles. Two additional pages were the user pages of a new user who had apparently put the tags on on a lark and hadn't been caught. Of the 84, 11 have been reprotected six days later, including several in which the protecting admin has suggested in their edit summary that indefinite semiprotection may be warranted. Of these 11, two are the targets of a banned user, as mentioned in a section below. One was a user page that was immediately reprotected by an admin with an edit summary asking that any attempts at unprotection be first cleared through him/her first. I don't believe that it was clear from the page history that this was the case, so at least there is now a written record. That leaves 8 pages that have been reprotected due to general vandalism. I also found a template in the wild, {{sprotect-banneduser}}, that was not mentioned at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. I have since added it.

Of the 73 that remain unprotected, 14 have not been edited at all. Several pages have experienced significant levels of vandalism and I wouldn't be surprised if they too go through a round of reprotection. I was trying to see how I could fine tune my review to reduce the number of false positives for unprotection, but can't quite figure out a pattern. A number of pages that I felt were iffy but hadn't been on and off protection enough for me to make a firm determination, such as Joseph Stalin and Microsoft, remain unprotected with what appears to be a manageable level of bad edits. Others that I felt were obscure immediately launched into full blown wars that required quick reprotection. In many pages, I saw very helpful anon edits. I've pretty much convinced myself that a semi review is both helpful and needed, despite the headache, and will hopefully get back into it shortly.

I do feel that admins need to be a bit more descriptive in their edit summaries, e.g. "Page has been the target of long term vandalism probably requiring indefinite semiprotection" or "Page targeted by sockpuppets of ArbCom banned user BadDude", rather than the "lots of vandalism" or "per req" that seem to be common and require subsequent admins to spend inordinate amounts of trying to figure out what is going on with the page. - BanyanTree 03:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kazakhstan

Use of English language in the article about Kazakhstan is painful and somewhat clumsy.

Many parts do not make any sense. For example the part about demographics lacks common logic. Majority in this case cannot be this or that. Guessing is unessesary when it comes to clear statistics. The majority of Kazakhstanis are Kazakhs.

"The majority of modern Kazakhstanis are currently either ethnic Kazakhs (58%-60%) or Russians (25%-27%), with smaller Ukrainian, Uzbek, German, Uyghur, Koreans and other minorities totalling 15-17%. Many minorities such as Tatars, Soviet Germans, Poles, Romanians, Ukrainians and regime-critical Russians, had been deported to Kazakhstan before and at the beginning of World War II, ordered by Stalin." --Aldarkose02 06:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking back over the diff, it seems that I had lumped your edit in with the anon who preceded you. Sorry about that. - BanyanTree 12:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Un-semis

Hi there,

I noticed you have been doing a lot of work to clean up the semi category. Thanks for doing the clean up work. Hope it isn't too stressful... I'd give you a barnstar ... but... I don't know how to ... :(

Anywayz, Keep up the good work. novacatz 02:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. - BanyanTree 22:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kvenland

Hi,

Could you restore semi-protection on Kvenland? The banned user:Art Dominique's (the "Kven user") sock puppets are all over Kven related articles as soon as they come out of semi-protection. Thanks. --Drieakko 06:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kven for the situation. --Drieakko 09:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've restored semi protection with a more descriptive edit summary for other admins to follow. Sorry for the delay; I had a turkey day break. Thanks, BanyanTree 22:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] un-sp Nazism

Why should it? Have you read the kind of junk? It's for fun!--Flammingo^Parliament 20:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As is most vandalism. Looking over the page history before it was protected, there is not a continuous heavy amount of vandalism that makes indefinite semiprotection the obvious only option. It's worth seeing if the vandalism spree has died down, in any case. - BanyanTree 21:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please reinstate semi-protect

Could you please temporarily reinstate semi-protection on "Registered Agent" - I am writing to you direct as opposed to the protect page since you removed. As early as yesterday a spammer attempted to direct traffic (I'm assuming) to some AdWords ads or ?. Even since being SP'ed spammers have created accounts solely to make edits (note contribs limited to spamming) as on previous occasions. Dougieb 10:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:SEMI, semi-protection is not to be used to prevent run-of-the-mill vandalism. In the history of Registered Agent, the last 50 edits goes back two months. Considering that many pages go through an average of one bad edit every hour before people start thinking seriously about semi-protection, the article doesn't appear to have reached the level of heavy vandalism for which semi-protection is the only solution. - BanyanTree 13:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rafida

Thanks for the quick action there. Zora 03:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I'm reviewing my latest tranche of unprotections for any major issues and that user, given the history of that page, seems unlikely to engage in discussion. Cheers, BanyanTree 03:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Rife semi

Since the anon seems unreachable (due to a dynamic IP address) and may not even be reading the edit summaries, I think it may be better to return the article to semi-protected status. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 09:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Done. - BanyanTree 14:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Game

Hey, I'm a new member. And I was wondering, how come you did not put the info. about The Game being a stripper by the name of Doja before? And, why do people keep messing around with 50 Cent's new album Live or Die? I really want this to stop immediately!!..Thank You here's where I got my Sources about The Game being a stripper [4] [5] Also if you listen to the songs on the G-Unit Radio (mixtapes) 21, you will see.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunit789 (talk • contribs)

Your edit here is blatant vandalism. You will have your editing privileges removed if you continue. Please write in an encyclopedic manner, preferably by citing your sources within the article, if you want your contributions to be kept. - BanyanTree 13:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Coventry Blue Coat Church of England School

Many thanks for attending to above page. I was in the process of reading the manuals to try and work out what the next stage was as I had removed some of links a couple of times.

Keith D 13:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I'm watching the page and will be rollbacking and blocking users who insist on turning it into a rant again. Hopefully I won't have to resort to page protection, which would be lame. - BanyanTree 13:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As I was writing this Swarvellous dude has just removed the cite tags that you inserted.

Keith D 13:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict]Well let me go deal with that then. - BanyanTree 13:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just looks like the cite tags have been removed yet again! Keith D 10:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semen Photo Revert War

I am contacting you because you are the last admin to have edited Semen (just to unprotect it).

There is a problem that has been going on for some time. Anonymous users have been removing the semen photo. There has been much discussion and debate about the image, and consensus was to keep it. I have reverted two deletions today, and had noticed a third, but User:Erielhonan (who has made it clear that he does not approve of the image, but does not remove it because of the majority opinion) added <!--Three-revert rule in effect until 13:04, 2006 December 3 UTC -->.

I've read WP:3RR, and it probably does apply as a revert war, but one may use the justification that the consensus was to keep the image. I'll not revert it, though, until after the 24 hrs is up.

If the removals continue, I will need to take this further. Can you tell me what I should do? I've tried to read through Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but sometimes they are confusing. I appreciate any help you can give. Prometheus^-X303- 02:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, if there is a formal consensus for its inclusion, then removal is vandalism and is not subject to the 3RR. My first impression is that the various anons are sockpuppets of a single person, which may be worth pointing out either in an edit summary or talk. In any case, if there is a discussion with an unambiguous consensus to point to supporting the image's inclusion, you are in the clear. Though I would write very clear edit summaries in case someone reports a 3RR violation and an anon admin comes along and has to figure out what is going on.

Feel free to link to this discussion if you are challenged on this. I was thinking of giving it a couple of days before making a decision, but I'm very close to reinstating the semiprotection, if this is the quality of anon participation in the article. I'll kick off the reversion and watch the article to see what happens. Thanks, BanyanTree 04:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I support the idea of another poll, if someone wants to start one. Prometheus^-X303- 04:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I do not remove because of the ridiculousness that is a Revert War, not because of the 'majority opinion'. (I highly doubt that a majority could be reached in favor without violating the no-canvass policy). I see this as a problem that requires a managerial solution, which is why I don't revert.

Also, I don't find the image objectionable on its own merits. I'd expect to see this image at 4chan.org's /b/ section, or on a porn site, and wouldn't object to it there. I object to it in its usage on the Semen article, for the many reasons I have already put forth.

I put forth a stop-gap solution of making a small thumb ('gallery sized' - 150 px or so) at the bottom of the page, and then to seek bureaucrat-sponsorship for a binding decision from a user discussion panel. I hope that you can see the first part of this suggestion as a viable way to calm the controversy a bit. The second part is what I mean by a 'managerial solution'. This image seems to have become a cause celebre among disruptive editors, so a poll would likely result in people coming out of the woodwork to vote in favor of the disruption. A panel with some sort of authority to make a judgment on the encyclopedic quality of the image, without the disruptive input, will probably get us to a mutually agreeable result.  Erielhonan  09:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(reindent)And I've re-semiprotected the page after you were reverted. Considering that most of the users on your side appear to be sockpuppets, I wouldn't be so certain that the page should conform to your view. The "panel with some sort of authority to make a judgment on the encyclopedic quality of the image" is a discussion amongst your peers. The most likely candidate for this thus far is the poll against which you are fighting.

Both admins and bureaucrats are required to implement the consensus of editors (whether as policy, guidelines or the result of discussion) when using their special privileges, and otherwise have no authority beyond what they possess an individual editors. My personal opinion, as an outsider, is that there is probably a need for a better designed poll to let people choose options, but that there is a consensus now and that it is against your position. The only relevant managerial solution is a ruling of the Arbitration Committee, and you are not nearly at the stage required to seek one. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for how many steps you will be required to go through before the ArbCom would consider this issue.

p.s. Is it necessary for your sig to take up 10 lines in the edit window? I actually have to search for the text in all the markup. - BanyanTree 14:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rwandan Civil War

WHAT A HELL ARE YOU TAKING ABOUT? IF IS SOMEBODY A VANDAL, SO ARE IT YOU. COMMING AND TAKING LIKE YOU THINK IS THE BOSS. Killerman2 14:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the second time I've seen you engage in conversation and your grammar appears to improve when you're typing in all caps. Strange. In any case, are you actually looking at what you're reverting to? - BanyanTree 15:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:The Coventry Blue Coat Church of England School

From WP:RFPP: "This page has been a target for repeated vandalism by students from the school wishing to display their displeasure at relatively minor aspects of the way the school is run. The page needs to be reverted to the state that BayanTree cleaned it up to about a week ago and then semi protected. Eipped 15:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)"

There's been a lot of anon vandalism since you unprotected the page. Nishkid64 00:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh, that's funny. I'm pretty sure that the anons, who were removing the unsourced content, are Eipped (talk · contribs), who probably wants full protection to keep DanCrowter (talk · contribs) and Swarvellous dude (talk · contribs) from continuing their itemization of everything their friends think is wrong with the school. That's a self defeating move, if I ever saw one. Fortunately for my doubtful sanity, I'm going to withdraw my self-imposed riding rein over that article and let them do their thing. Thanks for the explanation. Cheers, BanyanTree 00:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I'm not "continuing [my] itemization of everything [my] friends think is wrong with the school". I'm presenting a WP:NPOV to the best of my ability. I'm still trying currently, actually. And Swarvellous dude is not affiliated with me in any way. at irst he vandalised my article, now he edits it reasoanbly responsibly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DanCrowter (talk • contribs)

You are the most reasonable person on that page. Sorry if I've overstated your cooperation with Swarvellous dude, though NPOV is not the only policy. Verifiability is also a core policy, and that appears to be ignored actively. Good luck with the page. - BanyanTree 13:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Lukwiya

Like the Sudan Black Book article, this article is so amazing. I was especially interested in his ability to give oneself over to the LRA and then wander through the bush and get back to work; it is so unbelievably important. It is very easy to learn about Africa from reading your work. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 16:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I remember Dr. Matthew from the Ebola outbreak, but actually didn't know about the LRA connection until I started writing the article. I enjoyed writing it and am glad you enjoyed reading it. - BanyanTree 16:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Tiger

Thank you for your comment. I removed the parts stating that the tiger is 'the most powerful cat'. As I, and others not least, have several times written to the discussion page, this is not a statement about the tiger, but is a comparison to other cats which cannot be considered of independent value to an article on the tiger. Moreover, it's factual basis is very much in doubt in two different ways: Both the lion and the liger are serious contenders for that 'title'. And, semantically, it is not a scientific statement on the tiger; 'powerful' how?? Can pull a heavier load than any other cat? Or more successful in combat against other big cats (this is where the male lion may one-up it). In any case, it is not a neutral statement, but one springing from (understandable) admiration for this big cat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.17.39 (talk • contribs)

Actually, assuming that I understand the situation properly, there are contradicting sources. (The statement you removed was cited to the BBC.) A discussion based on the credibility of the sources may be more fruitful than the "yes, they are"/"no, they are not" nature of the discussion that I've seen. - BanyanTree 13:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Country

Please see the request in talk to remove the line break from the template, it is damaging usage. Template should look like:

{{country_{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}|size={{{size|}}}|name={{{name|}}}}}<noinclude>
{{protected template}}</noinclude>

Thanks. --*Spark* 03:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, BanyanTree 04:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)