Jump to content

User talk:The Banner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 147.172.223.99 (talk) at 15:11, 20 March 2015 (→‎Disruption of RfC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I try to the best of my knowledge and belief to contribute to the small red block of the image

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

The Burren

Hi, Banner I wrote to you earlier when you removed what you saw as promotional material from The Burren page. Not sure why you left the external link at the bottom . . . this link: Information on the history and archaeology of the Burren. If you click on the link, you'll see it leads to a private business which attracts tourists. Was that an oversight on your part?

Just trying to learn my way around wikipedia.

Thanks.

Jet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet Cooper (talk • contribs) 19:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, all your info is removed again. Partly by a bot who discovered that the text was copied from your facebook-page, partly by another editor who removed the link to the facebook-page as being deemed unsuitable per WP:LINKSTOAVOID. But when the bot had not removed the copied text, I would have removed it because is was plain advertising. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place for advertising. Information should be relevant and neutral in tone and style. They also need to be backed up by reliable (no social media), independent (no own website or related websites) and prior published (no own research) sources.

Perhaps Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user is something for you. The Banner talk 21:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hermes for Switzerland

Sorry just saw now that i used the wrong (old) refernce , will build in the right one now (unfortunatly also only in german)

This one is the right one : http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/de/home/dokumentation/assets/beschaffungen_vorhaben/ads15.html "Beschafft werden sollen sechs unbewaffnete Aufklärungsdrohnen Hermes 900 HFE des israelischen Anbieters Elbit Systems" "Die Beschaffung erfolgt hauptsächlich im Zeitraum 2016 bis 2019. Die Auslieferung der Drohnen und des Bodenmaterials erfolgt 2019. 2020 soll das neue Aufklärungsdrohnensystem einsatzbereit sein."

Sorry that i used the wrong, old one, hope now it is OK. FFA P-16 (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can change the text a little bit more into proper English. The source is okay now. The Banner talk 23:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ag-gag

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ag-gag. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pilatus PC-24

Well the page is about the PC-24, so the very first engine run of the PC-24 is a milestone in the Program. Also it is the first Jetengine testrun for Pilatus because all Pilatus aircraft before the PC-24 are not Jetengine equiped aircraft (Turboprop is not the same). So I don't would say it is unimportant for this topic. There are not much pictures of a real PC-24 at the moment, so my idea was to put in this link until better clips /photos exist.. and then chanche it (i had written this as reason for changin your edit again). How ever as you not agree with this, lets hope in a few months good pictures and movies (from the first flight?) will be aviable and can be found on the wiki commons. Unfortunatly i don't know the exact day for the first flight not yet. Bye FFA P-16 (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely not relevant. Every single motor and every single motor type gets tested on the workbench before it comes close to a plane. A configuration is thoroughly tested before a plane even comes out of the hangar. So your engine run is nothing more than "let us make some noise in front of an audience". The Banner talk 22:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes every engine get tested first on the workbench and has a first run before it get build in an aircraft. But even after this a even if it is not a new engine , if its just back from the maintenance and is build in the exactly same aircraft. A engine testrun on the ground is normal (I have chanched a few F-5E engines (GE J-85) to knew this). Well such standart engine testruns are nothing special for an aircraft who is in service since some time. But in the history of an aircraft type the roll out, the first engine run, the first hig speed taxiing and the first flight are something special. "let us make some noise in front of an audience" its in the case of the PC-24 not quit right because there was no audience, and the reason was not to made noise but to thest the proper work of the combination of aircraft and engine ( respond of the engine of on the Pilots inputs, are the instrument readings in the Cockpit correct to the Engineparameter and so one. and btw its not my engine testrun  :-) How ever I look forward to the first flight of the PC-24. Wish you a good night, bye FFA P-16 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is just part of a normal testprogram. The Banner talk 09:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is just part of the normal testprogram, but my idea was that because it is by the very first aircraft of this type and the first flight not yet has been made, this give some idea how far the PC-24 programm is at the moment. Well I think the "case" is closed as not only you but also other people think this information is not needet on english wikipedia.... and I think we can expect the first flight of the PC-24 in the next 35days. Something other, as we often dont see the same thing as same important, and before i spend time on it, a question. Some days ago some medias (20 Minuten) had made public the numbers of Live and Hot-Missions of the Swiss Air Force in 2013 and 2014 (2014 277 Livemissions and 15 Hot-Missions) I was thinking about to build in thes numbers in the Swiss air Force page. As the Medias have only given 2013&2014 but it is possibel to get the numbers of mission of every year back to 2007. What do you think? Good or bad Idea? Bye FFA P-16 (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor detail: what are "Live and Hot-Missions"? The Banner talk 10:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like you knew the Swiss Air Force is apure defensive airforce, so most of the flight's of the fixedwing aircraft are trainingsmissions (if we have a look at the Pilatus Pc-7, PC-9, Pc-21 F-5 and F/A-18) Live-Missions and Hot-Missions are no training (but these are of course also practiced in the training). the swiss air force has the right to do a Live-Mission at any time on any aircraft without a reason who is inside of the swiss airspace (and airspace of Lichtenstein). so theoretical on any aircraft .. also airliner. But it is usual to do live Missions only on aircraft with a Diplomatic Clearance.. and only state aircraft can get a diplomatic clearance, State aircraft are Military aircraft (for eg GAF C-160 Transall, a CL-415 of the French Sécurité Civile,a Airbus 310 of the Turkish goverment, or the Fokker 70 PH-KBX of the Royals from Netherland and also of civil aircraft whohave a mission from the Goverment like if Monarch Airlines transport British soldier from/to afganistan. By this Live_Missions the fighterpilot describes the airplane (Typ Wing's Tail for eg Airliner Type Low-wing 2 engine on the back T-Tail), the Immatriculation (Regristration.. eg PH-KBX[1] , and what is written on the aircraft. al this datas get checked if they are equal to the Flightplan and Diplomatic clerance. Only with this you can see if a transit flight is a Pax/Transport AC Beechcraft C-12 Huron or if it is a RC-12 spy Ac because in the ICAO flightplan both are declared as BE20. Thats in short what Live-Missions are in the Swiss air force.

HOT-Missions are real time emergency Missions, Intercepting aircraft (Jets, Props, Helicopters , Ballons) if they enter a restrictet area (for eg WEF World Economic Forum Davos or a activ AA Anti-aircraft warfare Shooting area, or the CTRControl zone / TMA Terminal control area of an Airport without autorisation. also interception of state aircraft who enter swiss air space whitout Diplomatic clearange. But a Hot-Mision can also be guiding a VFR Visual flight rules AC with navigation or tecnical problems into a safe are. It is a topic on the Swiss Air Force Page [[2]] So I was thinking the numbers of Live and Hot Missions could be interesting. And as you understand German this shows such Live & Hot Missions so you can see what I talk about: shows a Hot-Mission shows differend types of Hot -Missions

Hot-Live Missions 2013 &2014 in public media [3]

Hope I have answered your question well enough. Bye FFA P-16 (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your use of terminology and your bad English are not making it easy to understand. But I think, as far as I can understand you, that live-missions are pretty standard and not notable. The hot missions, when that includes chasing away Russian aircraft that enter airspace without permission, are probably notable enough for a limited inclusion. The Banner talk 20:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Live-Missons are standart for the Swiss Air Force, but a few Air Forces don't do Live -Missions (for eg. Austrian Air Force or Royal Thailand Air Force, the do only Hot-Missions) Hot-Missions can be on any State aircraft if its enter swiss airspace without diplomatic clearance not only Russian, could also bee an American (NATO), a Swedish(neutral. By entering a restictet airspace a Hot Mission can be also on a civil aircraft/ Helicopter/ Balloon, glider,.. also a Hot Mission can be on an aircraft with technical problems (not working radio/transponder),violation of air traffic Rules or suspicion of hijacking. I think most people don't know how often such Live and Hot missions took place in the swiss air space therefore it was my idea to put in the numbers from 2013&2014. But from your answer I think you see no need for this. No problem for me, I was just asking. FFA P-16 (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian planes was just an example to get it clear. That is by now a rather popular hobby of the British and Dutch air-forces, but indeed, not the only reason to scramble a couple of planes. You should look for a more widely used term for this type of operations. The Banner talk 09:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think we can close this "case" and i don't put in the Live & Hot -Missions of 2013 & 2014 on the Swiss Air Force page. BTW the term Live- Mission and Hot-Mission, is not a idea from me it is the official term for this by the Swiss Air Force [4] "Im Rahmen des Luftpolizeidienstes hat die Schweizer Luftwaffe 15 (Vorjahr: 9) «Hot Missions» (Interventionen) geflogen. Zudem wurden 277 (Vorjahr: 202) «Live Missions» (Kontrolle von Staatsluftfahrzeugen) durchgeführt", the Federal Office of Civil Aviation and also used in public Medias [5] See one of the last sentens "In sogenannten Live Missions, die einer Routinekontrolle gleichkommen, überprüfen die Piloten Flugzeuge anderer Staaten – etwa Re­gierungsjets oder Frachtflieger auslän­discher Luftwaffen." Or at the 20Minuten Newspaper Link above. Just to show you that i don't have created this terms. By & have a nice week-end. FFA P-16 (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping Genes

We got this! I'll get around to it, or hopefully someone who is getting paid to do it! A lot of genomics people are supposed to be updating gene pages, and although a lot of human genes have nice pages, the wikipedia page sometimes has the incorrect gene name as it's title. Hopefully people that can see red may be able to find the gene and disambiguate it... if not, I'll get to it some day! Right now, I'm just trying to get the page basically updated with correct information. Thanks.... I get kinda lonely on this page! doctorwolfie (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Goldstein

Hello, I am an acquaintance of Jerry's and am committed to shape this into a high-quality article. As someone familiar with his accomplishments, it's surprising to me that his contributions to music are not yet very well documented online - therein lies my difficulty in finding sources for some info. I realize this article is not there yet but wanted to know if you have specific guidance on improving it? Appreciate your patience as I look for sourcing for information and continue to evolve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asher14 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is frowned upon to write about a subject that you are closely associated with, as it makes it often too difficult to determine what is useful and what is promo.
  2. First thing you have to do is give proof that the subject is notable, within and outside his business. The records he produced do not make him notable, as notability is not inherited...
I suggest that you take part in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, where experienced editors can help you and guide you. The Banner talk 20:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Totally understand your reasoning, however I'm definitely not closely associated with him. I'll look more into the resources and definitions you mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.205.202 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahendra Niraula's complaints to The banner

Hello, banner With the respect to my editing about Myanglung I have been editing it for about 2 months, & when I found the exact & reference from the hard evidence then I do edits. I have used the related citations as well so, what's more you need now? Sorry, banner, you removed my edit without any reasons leaving me but why & with what cause you reverted this edits.OK, if any unreliable sources are found in course of editing, these are welcomed, to correct more but I don't see any mistakes I made here while making edits, May be you reverted as I showed color in blue to subject, but i think that does not affect with the rule of wikipedia.May be you are trying to biase me as much as you can for the reason i i entered in en wikipedia,but sorry, Wikipedia is common for all not just for me & you so, i need much reasons & why you reverted my edit.The first time article was written by someone else but it was not complete & has not included much about myanglung therefore, I continued editing it by adding new & factual proofs here. But it was not reverted by anyone but you did, i have not included any advertisings here , i know its EncyclopediaI hope, you may recheck & make the edit I made in same situation, thank you.'''Mahendra Niraula''' 12: 40, 25/ February, 2015.

What I want is a neutral writing style without useless pictograms (example: <div = ''background: #def;boarder:1px solid 485;padding:0.5em; margin: 0.5emauto;min-hight:45px> {{z11}}[[File:information.svg|lright|90px|alt=|link]] and without useless links. (Example: ==[[Brief]] [[Introduction]]==. Information should be relevant and properly written. It is no use to start a section about education and state that it is just a five minute walk (for who? It will take me far more time to get there) and continue so0me chitchat about the post office.

In short, the tone and style was absolutely not fitting in an encyclopaedia. It ws fat from neutral, in poor English and it gave me the idea that you were promoting your own village. Texts like Ncell :This Telecom runs smoothly the Sim Ncellwhich is the cheaper in price in buying in contrast to the NTC. This Corporation has no such limited trading centres or selling centres like having in NTC but it has different strategy . is clear advertising.

I suggest that you take part in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, where experienced editors can help you find your way ar5ound at Wikipedia and give you advice about tone, style and relevance. The Banner talk 20:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As reply to banner

Hi, banner I am sorry for my great errors & mistakes but I was not intending to do so but it happened by accident.You see, for about 25 days the article was just fitting as no any comments have occured.Ok, by mistake i used useless pictogram to initiate the article it's my great mistake among other mistakes but i hope, i never do so in my comming editings.Also, you have complained me about not having good english but i dont think so.The technical words to use here for Wikipedia is not thought to be good in my vision therefore, I didn't use properly it.I was not intending to make any advertisements but the title i described as long became like advertising & another accuse is that I was promoting my village but that's just your delusion, how do I promote my village when it is quite far even from my own village? So many reasons you gave me are really silly.Mahendra Niraula 8:22 ( UTC),26, feb,2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahendra Niraula (talk • contribs) 02:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

NAC revert

Per WP:NACD, "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures. If this happens, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure with an appropriate notice ...". Please revert yourself, and follow normal process if you'd like to have the close overturned. Alakzi (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case about policies, not vote counting. That is why the case is not suitable for closure by a non-admin. Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator. The Banner talk 10:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That does not give you the right to revert my close. Alakzi (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ow, yes, it does. Because you have breached the rules for a non-admin close as this involved a controversial case. The Banner talk 11:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Wikia

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Wikia. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

79.97.222.210

I see you have encountered the disruptive IP that I have had to deal with for the past month or so. I had filed an AN/I already but it closed due to lack of response. I have the feeling with his continued antics a new one is in call for seeing as he is now spreading wider and being reverted on those articles he picks by other editors. Mabuska (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I fear that you have to refresh my memory a bit. The Banner talk 11:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Found it already. The f**l on Catholic Emancipation. I will keep an eye out. The Banner talk 11:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should have a look at "User:Frenchmalawi", active on Ulster. has about the same hobbies (Ireland and Israel) and seems to think that Ulster and Northern Ireland are identical. The Banner talk 11:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clare

I was wondering why there was some omissions. Quis separabit? 22:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because some wiseguy made a separate template for civil parishes although he (and friends) often did no know the difference between a village and a parish. The Banner talk 22:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:TurboTax

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:TurboTax. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you for taking back an AfD nomination. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 10

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
  • New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
  • TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

Mahendra Niraula's edit of Myanglung

Hi Banner, Thanks for message. I have asked him to write precisely and even suggested to write in Nepali. For this page I will try to improve the content. Further, I will try to encourage him to practice more in his sandbox before trying with article.--Ganesh Paudel (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Janet Jackson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Janet Jackson, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. wia (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing and hounding with allegations of bad faith on GMO comment

Hi The Banner, Your recent comment on the 'Canvassing and hounding' ANI discussion is ambiguous. You appear to be referring to Jytdog, but the placement suggests that the comment is a call for David Tornheim to be warned/topic banned. If your comment does refer to Jytdog alone, you may want to move it into the 'Jytdog's behavior' section of that lengthy discussion.Dialectric (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I have moved it to the right spot. The Banner talk 15:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, please

We all have busy lives, but there was no need to get "terse" with me on this.[6] I didn't know that the editor in question is considered disruptive. Their English seems poor, but other than that, I didn't see anything particularly wrong with the edits - except it left on image duplicated. Lightbreather (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry when I sounded terse, I am only human. I think I have removed the pictures of the pavement about 50 times already. The IP and the registered account were already blocked for disruptive editing. They did not seem to get the message. The Banner talk 17:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
I haven't been there in a few years, but the pavement picture appears to be a good-faith attempt to include a photo of the mercado area of the city. Last time I was there, it was undergoing a major renovation with bricks that look a lot like the ones in that photo. I am going to study the image some more, and maybe try to contact the editor, to see if I can verify this. Lightbreather (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, that pavement is not suitable to be the main picture... The Banner talk 18:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diocese etc.

Hi Banner, I see you reverted some edits I made, can you give me a response here if I have the wrong approach to the following;

  • A template linking to a redirect page, sending you to a disambiguation page seems a bit of a loop, I amended so that the template goes straight to the disambiguation page a much more direct route, is this not best practice?
  • I removed from the template a non-ambiguous entry as this seems irrelevant to the template itself, was this wrong?
  • I added the template to one diocese page as per all the other dioceses listed on this template, which you also reverted, should there not be consistency.

Kind regards The Original Filfi (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you did was reinstating links to disambiguation pages. Effect of your edit was that the template was linking to 19 different disambiguation pages. The redirect is a trick used in template to solve that for the eye of the world. Secondly, disambiguation pages are only for disambiguation not for navigation templates or long texts. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 14:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Banner, not sure I understand your response, after your revert the template is still linking to disambiguation pages.

On the template/page as an example and for clarity, the first entry on "Template:Canadian Bishops" is "Primate of Canada" this links to "Primate of Canada (disambiguation)" which redirects to "Primate of Canada" which is also a disambiguation page and notated as such.

The "eye of the world" would not see any difference if "Primate of Canada (disambiguation)" was the end of the chain or if that page was omitted from the chain and linked straight to "Primate of Canada", unless you are saying the template itself is outside of the manual of style and should itself be discontinued in due course, this seems to make some sense to me, as in, remove template call from each of the effected pages and then delete template (in 30+ days once idle), delete "Primate of Canada (disambiguation)", keep the only page that achieves anything "Primate of Canada". Hope this is not annoying, teaching or guiding me in this. The Original Filfi (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I stated that a trick was used.
In your version the template was directly linking to disambiguation pages. Something that was noticed by maintenance bots and they said that each and every article where the template was used contained 19 links to disambiguation pages. In my version, the template was redirecting to disambiguation pages. Something that was not noticed by maintenance bots. The method fools maintenance bots and keeps the template out of the maintenance lists. The Banner talk 10:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Banner, I have done some thinking around this and offer this as a solution, which if you agree, I will complete over the next few day. 1. Place appropriate hat notes on the articles that have an ambiguous nature. 2. Remove the template from all the disambiguation pages.

Once the above is completed the template can be tagged for deletion, the disambiguation pages used as redirects can be tagged for deletion.

So anyone searching for "Diocese of Quebec" will be taken straight to the correct disambiguation page, hat notes on all articles for ease of navigation, a few unnecessary pages can get deleted, no "Get-around" process in place, pretty close to best practice. Your thoughts and kind regards The Original Filfi (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the template will again show 19 links to disambiguation pages... The Banner talk 10:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No as the template will have no further use and can be deleted, we can blank it until it gets deleted. The Original Filfi (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say: try it. In principle we have not much to loose. The Banner talk 11:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Mohale Dam

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mohale Dam. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dänemark

The Danish military engaged in combat with the Germans for a total of less than 24 hours over two days three years apart. They were an occupied country and officially neutral. The Danish government neither declared war nor had war declared upon it. It continued to operate at least until August 1943 under the German occupation. The existence of a Danish resistance does not make the Danish state a belligerent, and no more makes it an Ally than the German resistance or the Bulgarian partisan movement makes those countries Allies. Denmark was not a member of the United Nations during the war. Denmark in fact has far less a claim to be regarded as an Allied combatant than Romania, Bulgaria and Italy, which were major co-belligerents in 1944–45. Denmark was a victim of German aggression, just as Albania was of Italian aggression. But just as Albania was not an Ally, so Denmark isn't either. Note also the difference between Norway, which by itself refusal to comply with a German "ultimatum" had itself declared—by Germany—a war zone, and Denmark, which complied and was never regarded—by Germany—as at war with her. It is very misleading to include "honorary" Allies in the infobox. Srnec (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep ignoring the fleet in Greenland/Iceland. The Banner talk 14:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first comment and that's your response? Are you saying that the Danish navy in Greenland and Iceland was at war with Germany? It wasn't. Srnec (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have reverted a few times already. But you better start reading Greenland in World War II or this one. The Banner talk 17:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, where is decided that only combatants were allowed in the list? The Banner talk 17:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Allies (combatant states)" right at the top. I didn't add that. Srnec (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talib Kweli Guest Appearances

hey Banner, Im not Sure Why you took down Talib Kwelis Guest Appearances off of his page. i was looking through nahright.com and there were a lot of records on there that everyone should know exist. i sighted my source im not what else i have to do. also "Right About Now" is a free Mixtape not a solo album, I cited that as well. Maybe we can help each other here. i a huge Talib Kweli fan and i think his fans deserve to see the right information. Can You please message me so we can work this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbitgreen (talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a fan page but an encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 02:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Walter O'Brien

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Walter O'Brien. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption of RfC

This request for comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allies_of_World_War_II#RFC_-_Albania is very useful to clarify the dispute. Be careful and note that you cannot edit an open and pending RfC request of another editor. If you would like to contribute to the case with a comment, please add it in the end of the discussion.

Please follow the guidelines on how to contribute to aRfC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Suggestions_for_responding 147.172.223.99 (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you are funny. You are evading a block and want me to play to the rules? Why don't you read the prior discussion? The consensus (not a stalemate) was clearly against you. The Banner talk 13:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your personal accusations. I do not appreciate your expressed commitment to violate Wikipedia rules and would like to advise you to respect the rules. Please allow users to express their opinions on the RfC, in order to help resolving the dispute and improve the quality of the article. 147.172.223.99 (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Banner&oldid=652741904"