User talk:Renamed user ixgysjijel/Archive6

User:BanyanTree/ArchivesBox

Hi. Please don't do that to templates. It places not just the template at the top of its own category, but also any articles with the template. I have sorted this out with the noinclude trick. Morwen - Talk 17:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for catching that. I didn't think of that. When I checked the cat after the edit all the districts were under their proper letters, but the template was under an asterisk so it seemed kosher. Do you think that was just a cache issue? In any case, thanks again. - Banyan Tree 17:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, kind of a cache issue - things that include templates with categories won't get updated until you edit the actual page (as regenerating everything on altering the template would be rather impractical). Morwen - Talk 18:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realized that. Good to know. - Banyan Tree 21:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy?

Take a look at Holocaust mythology and tell me if you agree on a speedy delete, I thought so at first, but after reading it some more, its seems much more like Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina. (Please reply on my talk page)

Prodego^talk 19:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits below by Prodego. - Banyan Tree 19:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

The article's back

Thank you, if it comes back again I'll use the test messages

An indefinate block is good too. :)

It's back, little we can do now, its professional looking, but its probably a copyvio, its coming back too fast for someone to be retyping. Sorry it's Holocaust Mythology now

Mindmatrix scam adminship

I have recently been granted greater access to your systems, and can begin the process of salvaging the sensitive information from my politically unstable land, as I promised. Please accept this loonie as a token of faith that I will conduct myself as required to complete our transaction. Thank you for your support. Mindmatrix 20:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And it's "100% safe"! I'm sitting back and watching the bytes roll into my account. - Banyan Tree 02:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

major earthquake in Great Lakes region

this happened today, i have an article up and running at East African earthquake, 2005. Considering renaming to Lake Tanganyika earthquake, or Great Lakes region earthquake, or some such title. Any advice and help would be appreciated. also, are you actually in the area at present? Thanks. --Gozar 18:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gozar, I'll try to get some edits in. I have added the article to both the Africa noticeboard and Current events. I, sadly, have not been back to East Africa in a few years. :( - Banyan Tree 19:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiThanks

Hello, BanyanTree. Thank you for your kind words. I've seen you around Talk:Main Page, too. I was just following your lead there. So, you deserve more WikiThanks ! :-) Cheers ! -- PFHLai 03:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCruft Problem

I came across your comments in User talk:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee, and I completely agree, in fact I pasted them into a page on wikicruft which I'm putting together for my own reference as I try to organize my thoughts on this. I also have come across articles which "generalists" would be unlikely to instantly recognize as fallacious or highly misleading. Sounds like you would agree with me and with Larry Sanger that expert knowledge is sadly undervalued in the WP, to its detriment.

Incidentally, have you come across this book?

Bernal, Martin (1987). Black athena: the Afroasiatic roots of classical civilization. London : Free Association Books. ISBN 0-946-96056-9.

If not, you'd probably get a chuckle out of it. Ironically, as an undergrad I was slightly acquainted with the author, the son of J. D. Bernal and a grandson of the noted Egyptologist Sir Alan Gardiner.---CH 02:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CH, Thanks for your comments. I had written up that contrib and, after previewing, seriously thought of sleeping on it but went ahead. I still agree with it, though it's a bit more raw than I like my contribs to be. That's what I get for writing when I'm tired and stressed.

As I stated, I don't know what it all means for me just yet. The two issues that seem to add users that I respect to the ranks of Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians dispoportionately are too many ridiculous edit wars over minor issues and dealing with the constant onslaught of vandals and just plain schlock editors. It is not entirely clear to me if this is a steady state in which new users are replacing the users who are leaving fast enough to scale with the growth of Wikipedia as a whole or if Wikipedia's resilience is actually deteriorating. I think Larry has made some good points, but he does himself no favors by occasionally popping up to reminisce about how Wikipedia is all his idea and how much it began to suck once he left, at least if his intention is to help Wikipedia.

What the wiki desperately needs are some metrics, like someone threw together recently on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on the relative contributions of various categories of users, as right now all the discussion is taking place in a vacuum. Hopefully the recent hoopla will inspire someone to create statistics along the lines of "Percentage of new articles created by anonymous users that are deleted within one week", "...by users whose account is less than one week old...", etc. Once the article validation system gets put into place, something like this may be possible for individual articles as well to track individual editors.

A categorization of pages, going from "stub" to "growing" to "mature", combined with restrictions on user editing, is one idea that I've been thinking aobut. For example, any user may edit a stub, while only users who have made a few edits over the previous month may edit "growing" and "mature" articles can be limited to regular users. I'm sure there's something awful about this idea that hasn't occurred to me yet...

I'm still letting this all churn for a while, but I figure that there must be some way to address the issue of both lack of expertise and the "bad edit" onslaught that drives so many good users away. I have certainly begun taking a harder line on editing. I suddenly dawned on me that if a user inserts a racist rant into Rosa Parks, the last thing we want is for him to come back. But that's enough pondering from my end. Obviously, my opinions haven't coalesced on this. - Banyan Tree 04:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aksum

ok

If you want to discuss this with post it in the discussion. I mean the links are all broken or don't support the claims of whoever wrote it so you can't assume I'm wrong. Unsigned edit by User:TheOipian

Per your request, I have started Talk:Kingdom of Aksum to explain my reversion. - Banyan Tree 01:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Africa geo-stubs

Hi BanyanTree - I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:Africa-related regional notice board#Proliferation of stub templates which will answer your question (and added all the remaining stub types to the project page!). Grutness...wha? 06:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed the instantaneous response to my edit summary. Tell me truthfully, can you really sense any mention of stubs throughout the wiki? - Banyan Tree 06:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa graphs

I've reverted your edit, on the basis that while their graphs may not cross now, they did at press time. I have a sneaking suspicion that their data may be slightly variable, because when I wrote it, Wikipedia was clearly 27th in daily rank, while CNN was 28th. It'd be nice if Alexa kept their data straight :) Ral315 (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, good deal. It seemed unlikely that you would miss something like that, but the lines were definitely not touching when I looked. Cheers, Banyan Tree 16:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(anon edit)

I just have one question. How on earth do ufind out so quickly when someone has typed in nonsense i suppose you use some type of program but do you actually read everything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.193.107.80 (talk • contribs)

I have several hundred articles on my watchlist, which I usually check several times a day. I normally view any edits by users that I don't know. (That obviously includes editors who are not logged in, such as you.) If the edit is bad, I'll check out the other contributions of that editor, revert any other bad edits, and leave the next message in the "warning escalation" on the user's talk page. This takes almost no time once it becomes part of a routine... So please stop adding unnecessary profanity to articles; you seem like a nice enough sort and I would prefer not to keep adding messages to your talk page. Better yet, create an account and help improve articles! Cheers, Banyan Tree 21:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Africa Award from Wizzy moved to User:BanyanTree/Contribs.

Thanks Wizzy! I see that Jcw69 has already recognized you for your own contributions. Here's to improved content on Africa! - Banyan Tree 19:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Bayley

Thanks a lot for taking care of this so quickly. Also, the early article in the Australian press about the Nature article was a great catch of yours. I saw it on the Village Pump. Cheers! AxelBoldt 22:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Alphabetizing on Yasmin

Hi, you edited Yasmin here: [1] and alphabized the entries. According to disambig - Order of entries, we order entries according to revelance, not alpabet. Is it ok for you if I change the order back? Cheers! Peter S. 11:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Feel free to do so. - Banyan Tree 09:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Last May, when I working via an numbered account, you left a message there. I mean to get back to you, but I'm very bad about these things. Please accept my apologies for listing all work as minor, I did not realize I was making difficulties for the others. I just didn't think that my work was very substantial, so I listed them as minor. Thanks for the material listed below. Thank you very much for calling my work useful. It is nice to be appreciated.A.S. Brown 07:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC) This contribution has been moved from the top of the page to be chronological.[reply]

Hi A.S. Brown, Thanks for getting back to me. :) I'm glad you've decided to get an account and stick around. Cheers, Banyan Tree 00:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Chad

Hi! :-) Since we have a common interest for African history, I thought that maybe you wouldn't mind if I asked you some advice. Looking at History of Uganda and the History of Uganda Series, built almost completely with the public domain A Country Study: Uganda, I thought that the same project could be actuated for the other African country that are covered by the Country Studies, so to expand radically and modify History of Mauritius, History of Chad, History of Comoros, ecc. Every country should have, like Uganda, a template "History of xxx Series", so to not expand too much the main history article (as with History of Uganda, the chapters would be only relatively brief summaries, while seperate articles would treat in detail the various periods). A problem is that many of these studies were writteneJust to see how it comes, I've started to work the project on History of Chad, for now putting the country study stuff only before 1900. What do you think of the idea, in general? And regarding History of Chad, do you think I'm proceeding OK or is it better to leave the whole story and revert my edits on Chad? I'm sorry to disturb you, but I thought you could've been interested. Aldux 18:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aldux. I appreciate your question. I do think that the {{History of Uganda}} series is nicely organized, though as with all Africa articles it could do with some more attention. ;) Along with your thoughts, I think that sections that point to a "main article" should be no longer than three paragraphs. Looking at the Kanem-Bornu section of History of Chad, which is much longer than the Kanem-Bornu Empire article, I would suggest merging everything into the article and then writing a 1 or 2-paragraph section for the History of... article.

An alternate way of doing this would be to create a new Empires of Chad article and moving the text under History of Chad#Era of Empires (AD 900–1900) into it. However this would still require merging the Library of Congress info into the existing articles, and create an intermediary level that doesn't seem needed at this point. This appears to be a lesser option.

I don't see anyway of doing what you propose without some work merging it into the pre-existing articles. Of course, if the existing article doesn't have any information not already included in the LOC info, then a simple replacement may in order. I don't see any edits by you at History of Angola, but given the amount of work I see involved I would encourage you to tackle the first History of... article by itself until you see how much work you're giving yourself. Hopefully, this has helped. Cheers, Banyan Tree 22:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice :-) I'll follow your proposal, and merge the LOC Kanem-Bornu material with the Kanem-Bornu Empire article. I also see you've built Ouaddai Empire, and greatly expanded Baguirmi Empire; great work! :-) As for History of Angola, that was only an error on my part, and I'll certainly proceed one History for time. Bye, and thanks again! Aldux 14:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political lesbianism

You asked for at least a stub on Political lesbianism; I wrote one. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's what I had guessed, but so much of my thinking is shaped by the "nature" side of the argument that I was surprised to find an approach that conceived of lesbianism as a strategy. I've added a couple inbound links.

On an entirely different topic, I was looking over your user page for the first time in many months. I was a bit taken aback by your comment that the current CSB essay is "rather snide", as I'm pretty sure that I wrote the foundation of the current version. I vaguely recall that I did this back when I was trying to revamp the WikiProject around March 05. The CSB description at the time I rewrote it, had a lot of subpages that required constant updating and the lists seemed to encourage people to add their POV disputes and seek protection under the "I'm systemically biased against!" defense. I probably sound a bit defensive about this but I was taken aback to find such comments about work with which I was moderately satisfied from a respected user. That said, I am not attached to the current CSB essay and you are welcome to modify or replace it as you wish. Thanks again for the stub, Banyan Tree 23:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Woo-Suk

Just to let you all know: I told the author of the NYTimes article about the footnote, and he was pretty impressed :-) Good work BanyanTree! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. That was one of those things that you assume has a straightforward answer but was actually convoluted enough that it took about a dozen editors chiming in before I was convinced. Thanks also for your work letting people outside the wiki know about how Wikipedia functions, though I was pleasantly surprised that the author took the time to browse through the article history for his own article. Cheers, Banyan Tree 03:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascist

Hi Siddiqui, Why are you changing Islamism to Islam in a large number of articles? The Justice and Equality Movement, which is close to Hassan al-Turabi, is certainly Islamist in that it believes that Islam is a political goal. I see the word usage similarly proper in other articles that you are changing. - Banyan Tree 23:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word is Islamic and not "Islamist". Islamist word was created by adding Islam with ist from fascist. Majority of people who are termed as "Islamist" are not fascists. - User:Siddiqui 23:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not heard this etymology before and do not see it on Islamism. On the face of it, it appears to be a simple case of an -ism. (Note that I am happy to carry out this discussion on your page, so there is no need to copy it to my user talk, if you wish.) - Banyan Tree 00:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Alaska

Hello, and welcome to Project Alaska! While our member-base is small, we are growing. As a heads-up, one thing we do ask is any Alaska-related pages/images/lists/categories you contribute to, please make sure to add our {{Project Alaska}} template to the Talk page (no subst please), and most importantly, add the item & it's Talk page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Alaska/Alaska recent changes so we can track any future updates. Thanks a lot and again, welcome! —akghetto ^talk 22:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dear admin

I decided using my real name on wikipedia wasn't a good idea... meta says any admin can delete a user page, so please can I ask your assistance in deleting a certain page since it's just an old sandbox I have no use for now? If you could do me that favour I can put this account to rest. I don't see how it could violate any policy or upset anyone. thanks. --luckhurs-t 01:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luckhurst, You are correct. Admins may oblige requests from users to delete their user and user subpages. I do find it odd that you made most of your edits to that article as an anon. In any case, I have deleted the page and added a welcome to your talk. Cheers, Banyan Tree 01:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks verily. As for the anons, I got logged out (lost my cookies) and never realised. --luckhurs-t 02:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE.User:Tykell

In my opinion a month long block seems to be a little harsh. The user seems to have some good contribs mixed in with some vandalism/bad faith edits. His user page is discouraging, but all in all I don't think you are being "too harsh" though I would reduce the block significantly, but that is at your discretion. There are, just from scanning his talk page at least 7 warnings for vandalism, in my opinion those should not be deleted at all. That's the only reason I reverted and suggested that he archive his talk page. Thanks for the message and happy editing. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 19:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your input. There are some issues with this user, and I don't think that Wikipedia is the place to work them out, but I've been going through his contribs and I agree that he has built up enough credibility that a month is excessive. As long as I don't think about that last edit and start seeing red again. - Banyan Tree 20:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

And please read the copyright info template located on every coat of arms image page ({{coatofarms}}). Blanking of test messages is not considered good form and I have reverted your removal of the message above, though I see you have a longer interaction in your edit history. Cheers, Banyan Tree 02:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you do it? Skull 'n' Femurs 02:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your user page. Please feel free to conduct the discussion there as I don't like breaking up conversations. Thanks, Banyan Tree 02:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:198.234.191.189

you blocked User:198.234.191.189 last month, and now (s)he's at it again. Could you block him/her again. Thanks. The bellman 14:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I also found some previous vandalism that the user has carried out. Please leave a new test on talk pages when that happens as, if the vandalism continues, it justified longer blocks. Thanks, Banyan Tree 15:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rwandan Patriotic Army

Hi BanyanTree. Sorry for taking some time to reply to your message from the 9th. My understanding is that the terms "Rwandese Patriotic Front" and "Rwandan Patriotic Army" were synonyms prior to 1994, if the latter term was used at all. They were an armed rebel group, so their political and military functions were more or less indistinguishable.

After the reconquest of Rwanda, however, it is my understanding that the RPF decided to split its political and military functions (at least on paper). I have better source for this, but right now, quoting The Lion, the Fox, and the Eagle (p. 246), about the Kibeho incident:

As the months went on, the insurgent RPF and its now separate military wing, the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA), finally decided it was time to force these prople out of the internal camps; by March 1995, only Kibeho camp remained.

I imagine this sort of split is common for successful rebel movements, at least those that care to give the impression they're not military states.

It's possible that the term "Rwandan Patriotic Army" was used to describe the army of the RPF before reconquest. However, since it was more or less all one organization, I'm inclined to think that for clarity we should just refer to everything pre-conquest as the RPF, and reserve the term "Rwandan Patriotic Army" for the nominally separate post-conquest military entity.

It wouldn't surprise me to hear they had been renamed to Rwandan Defence Forces or some such thing; after all, the names are pretty similar, so if the Rwandan government is striving to convey the message that the party and army are separate, a very distinct name for the army would seem to be in order. I'll leave it as "Rwandan Patriotic Army" for now, and see if I can find a reference to the new name. Regards, --Saforrest 17:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback priviledges

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I suspected it had something to do with admin features. Good to know that he's not just a really really really fast typist. Deadsalmon 19:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<chuckle> I also remembered about godmode, which emulates many of the admin rollback functions, if you want to check it out. - Banyan Tree 19:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to you, Banyan

Thanks for the notice on my page. I was wondering if it is actually possible to find an image that I can put on my page within my lifetime searching on Google. do you have any tips on what to put n the search bar for that type of image you were telling me about?--Calvinsupergenius 19:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother with Google. See if if an image you like is already on the wiki - if you see an image on the wiki that has one of the images that is not fair use - feel free to use it to decorate your user page. If you want to look around, try the commons: first. (The Commons is a central repository for all media files for all of the various wikimedia projects.) If you've gone through the tutorial and still have problems, drop me a line. - Banyan Tree 04:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

where are the commons?--Calvinsupergenius 15:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Click on commons:. They have a better image category system that we do here, so you can go to their entertainment category and browse to see if there is anything you feel like putting on your page. - Banyan Tree 15:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's barely anything on the commons. is that true, or is it just me? also, the only reason I'm able to be here is I clicked on the back button on the task bar. it seems not to let me log in. Any idea on that?--Calvinsupergenius 16:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, wait never mind, that was just the file of the day I was looking at. Sorry.--Calvinsupergenius 16:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]There are about 300,000 media files, though not all of those are images. If you cannot find it through the wikipedia or wikimedia commons systems, try a Google search with "site:wikimedia.org" specified. More ways of finding images are available through the image tutorial. Commons is a different project of the Wikimedia from Wikipedia, and accounts to do not transfer between the two. - Banyan Tree 16:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defender of the Wiki

Hi, BanyanTree. I am humbled to receive such an honor and thank you profusely. Hope I didn't cause you too much frustration. :) Take care, Sango 123 (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baguirmi and Ouaddai

Hi BanyanTree. I was thinking of renaming Baguirmi Empire and Ouaddai Empire respectively Baguirmi Kingdom and Ouaddai Kingdom, but I first I wanted to hear your opinion, since you started Ouaddai Empire and ampliated Baguirmi Empire. As for the reasons, I have a feeling that "empire" is a bit excessive for kingdoms that never controlled more than a part of central Chad. Bye :-) Aldux 14:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aldux, I had thought that "empire" seemed rather grand for the size of the area controlled as well, but just followed the "Era of Empires" section title at History of Chad. Please do put them in a more logical place. Thanks, Banyan Tree 15:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ituri map

Wow, thanks! I'm glad you found it useful. :-) Quartier Latin1968 00:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 53

Thanks for catching the missing archive notice. - Triona 16:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. - Banyan Tree 16:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin again

I'm bored that I only know 10 sites. Do you have any sites you like that are fun? Calvinsupergenius 19:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw that you have that little box that says your page is a use page not an encyclopidia insert. How do I get that?--Calvinsupergenius 19:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use the {{Userpage2}}. - Banyan Tree 21:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you avoiding my questions?--Calvinsupergenius 20:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding seems like a strong word. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that has a body of editors attached to it. There are plenty of other websites that encourage socializing, so I don't do much of that here and certainly feel no pressure to respond to posts that don't relate to Wikipedia. I note that you haven't actually started adding content, limiting your participation to your user space and various talk pages. - Banyan Tree 20:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Still, where else do you hang out? I can talk to you there.--Calvinsupergenius 16:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calvin, I had missed your note in all the madness going on farther down the page. All my "social" time online is spent on the wiki and I haven't frequented boards or forums in forever. I simply don't have the time I used to. Cheers, Banyan Tree 16:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you used to play any MMORPG's?--Calvinsupergenius 19:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.60.107.154

Please block 24.60.107.154 he keeps on vandalizing Damadola airstrike. Fortunately another anonymous user keeps reverting his edits. KI 22:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC) The message above was blanked by 24.60.107.154 (talk · contribs) and I have rollbacked. - Banyan Tree 23:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

How did I vandalize the Damadola page? I took out outdated info and inaccuracies and got into a bit of a revert war with some other user. That's hardly vandalism.

Hi 24.60.107.154 (talk · contribs), would you like to explain your relationship to BlueTruth (talk · contribs) and 67.35.28.112 (talk · contribs)? It's odd that BlueTruth just blanked some warnings off of your talk pages, which raises suspicions that BlueTruth is your sockpuppet. It also seems odd that you would leave me a message now as I left a No personal attacks note several days ago. However, I did just leave a warning notice at 67.35.28.112's talk, so it strikes me that you could not be responding to another IP's talk unless you were at both. What makes this all the weirder is that you and .112 have been edit warring on Ayman al-Zawahiri and Damadola airstrike. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, Banyan Tree 04:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. BlueTruth is me. I am 24.60.107.154. I make no secret of this. I started editing Wikipedia just a week ago, and decided I wanted a name so came up with the BlueTruth account last night. I will use BlueTruth from now on. I am NOT however, 67.35.28.112. I have one computer I'm using currently and that's at my home address. I'm not having a revert war with 67 " " for kicks. I honestly think that person's information is inaccurate, and I'm really trying to keep the level of quality on both those pages to a higher standard. I'm still new to this thing, so I apologize if I broke any rules or overstepped any boundaries. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueTruth (talk • contribs)

As a newcomer to Wikipedia, 24.60.107.154 (talk · contribs) / BlueTruth (talk · contribs) would benefit from review of Wikipedia policies, especially WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:DR. Revert wars are damaging to Wikipedia. Nobody is perfect. Welcome to Wikipedia. --67.35.28.112 13:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BanyanTree you want to see sockpuppets? Go to the Damadola airstrike page and see the litany of slightly different IPs 68.214.55.165 (talk · contribs) / 68.19.9.149 (talk · contribs) / 68.211.67.48 (talk · contribs) / 67.35.28.112 (talk · contribs) This is what I was trying to guard against. Look at their history of edits. It's usually one or two revisions solely for that page and then they disappear. The proof is in the pudding.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueTruth (talk • contribs)

You are using the term sockpuppet incorrectly. Editing from an IP address is not forbidden and IP addresses that are not static will automatically reset to new addresses. Furthermore, you are not improving articles by "guarding" them by reverting to versions with wrong information and against several other editors. Please work with other editors to improve articles and do not engage in revert wars. Please review WP:POV and WP:CIVIL policies. Thanks. --68.214.55.165 15:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? Your information is blatently wrong, biased and outdated. Other contributors such as Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs) agree you're a troll and a sockpuppet. All I'm asking is that Banyan Tree look at your editing history and look at the editing history of the page and come to his own conclusion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueTruth (talk • contribs)

I have blocked the above 68.xxx and 67.XX IPs for 3RR at Damadola airstrike. I warned BlueTruth that he was on the verge of 3RR. I advise both of you to walk away but, since it appears unlikely that you will, I'll let you know that I have a bad cold, haven't managed to look at my watchlist yet because I've been looking through the edit histories of you two and the articles in questions, am thus exceedingly cranky and don't have a lot of patience left. If there is further actitivy and you want a decision that has a better chance of being reasonable, I advise you to report to WP:AN3 or WP:VIP, as almost certainly the first thing I will do is block the person who brings this up again on my talk. Regards, Banyan Tree 17:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to the users above. I am moderately recovered from my cold and regret taking out my general crankiness and frustration at finding myself in the middle of a revert war when I just wanted to check my watchlist before going back to bed. Altering my above statement, I will almost certainly block anyone who has broken 3RR. Banyan Tree 01:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, but what is 3RR and all that other stuff? --Calvinsupergenius 20:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR - Banyan Tree 21:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin assistance re: sockpuppets

I have a feeling that User:JohN and User:KJVTRUTH may be sockpuppets of User:Lightbringer, and I'mm thinking that User:Baphin may be a sock or meat puppet of one of the above. It is rare for people to join and then immediately start making repeated personal attacks or clearly try to obfuscate edits and page histories if they have no agenda, which I believe these users do, especially with regards to the Freemasonry articles, as they seem to have gone right after them. Could these users be looked into to confirm or deny sock or meat status? MSJapan 17:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the page you are looking for is Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. Cheers, Banyan Tree 22:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about that. Thanks! MSJapan 14:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just curious, if you do go to University, where did/do you go? For some reason I'm curious if it involved UD. gren グレン ^? 05:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi グレン, we haven't crossed paths in forever. No, not UD. I'm not even sure that I've been in the state, now that I think about it. Undergrad seems like a very long time ago... Cheers, Banyan Tree 13:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you e-mail me ?

Thanks. Zeq 20:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zeq. You don't seem to have your email set up. Mine is currently enabled if you want to send me a message. Cheers, Banyan Tree 20:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

barnrasing fiesta?!

greetings BanyanTree, i was curious as to whether you (and others from the wikipedia africa community) would be interested in helping to barnraise Petroleum in Nigeria, an article i started at the beginning of '06. I'm pretty much planning on camping out at the campus library all weekend working on it, and there is also a significant amount of information available online. that said i will be doing most of the work, but any help would be appreciated. this is a good place to start browsing info online (excuse me if im being presumptuous). thanks! --Gozar 18:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gozar. You're not being presumptuous at all and you've made a great start. I try to avoid pulling info directly from advocacy sites when I don't have enough background knowledge to figure out what is being left out, but will try to pull some relevant data from Bank, UN and government sources to provide a counterbalance if you handle the advocacy stuff. Also, I've decided I rather like the new reference system and will try to introduce it.

On a tangential topic, your note made me think that perhaps the ACOTW could perhaps be better served by making it much less formalized. (After seeing the troubles that the CSB COTW ran into, which led me to replace it with the open tasks template, I simply do not believe that we have the critical mass of editors to draw upon to sustain regular collaborations.) However, a template that any WP:AFR member could change weekly so it read "Gozar invites editors to a barnraising at Petroleum in Nigeria", etc, may be about the level of bureaucracy needed. Just a thought. Anyway I'll try to pitch in sometime this weekend, Banyan Tree 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on your opinion of the status quo for, particularly with regard to the ACOTW, which didnt seem to do much of anything. That said, help would be fantastic, because my strong suit in this matter is probably environmental/poverty stuff. anything way you could incorporate the 9 (it's something like 9) regime changes would be awesome. so far a broad overview i have of a section titled something along the lines of "history and politics till the 1990s", would include 1. discovery,2.a sub-section on Biafra which leads to--> 3. nationalization of the industry, 4. a sub-section on OPEC and the relationship with it.
some unifying concepts for the section ive written are "government control has evolved since the 1960s, with the gov. control increasing from no control in the 60s, to have a large stake at present" (i want to include charts of this growth, also historical production for the country). and, "smooth sailing in terms of productivity between Biafra and basically the early 1990s when the Ogoni became a "threat". this was despite numerous regime changes". all the events involving ogoni land would come under a "human rights section" of sorts. --Gozar 19:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

recent deletion

Hi Mel. It's been a while since we crossed paths. I thought I'd drop you a line about Talk:Aetherometry. Helicoid came up in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2 a bit in reference to the aetherometry battle. (Hilarious result.) Considering that there a few AN/I posts, etc pointing at those talk pages, I'm a little curious about why he's in such a hurry to delete them. Anyway, I hope you are doing well and having a good new year. Cheers, Banyan Tree 00:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, isn't this precisely the hidden agenda Mel was wondering about? The word that is being dropped to the wise (Mel) here is that - hint hint, nudge nudge - before he deletes the Aetherometry Talk pages, he should consider the fact that Helicoid voted against Connolley's adminship and participated in writing anti-wikipedia articles. But you know what? The reason I voted against Connolley and co-wrote the anti-wikipedia articles has everything to do with precisely these "hidden agendas" that seem to be one of the mainstays of how Wikipedia goes about its business. And after dropping this "hint", which clearly suggests that the non-deletion of the Aetherometry talk pages is meant as an act of revenge, this Banyan Tree innocently pretends to be "a little curious" about why I want the pages deleted! Please, can we stop playing these endless games? Helicoid 01:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helicoid, well at least you're forthright about it. I see that you are someone who appreciates and is accepting of an honest opinion, so I might as well make myself clear: I think Helicoid is a pseudoscientific loon who is trying to get an admin to remove easily accessible evidence of his looniness. I respect Mel's judgement and I don't have an exact objection so won't undelete it myself, but think that if anything good comes from Helicoid's participation in Wikipedia, it will be accidental. And if Helicoid has anything to say about me, I trust he will say it on my own user talk page rather than continuing to fill up Mel's talk. - Banyan Tree 04:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Banyan Tree, I am sorry, but I believe in keeping discussions continuous - and since the discussion started with your little hint to Mel, I think it is appropriate to work out the issues right here, where it started. As I said very clearly at the Village Pump, the Aetherometry Talk pages contain unfounded, unsubstantiated derogatory claims about Aetherometry. You are simply making another such claim, and acting as if you were saying something important and revealing. All that you're revealing is your own prejudice - and since you seem to be proud of it, I am willing to congratulate you on it. But I still don't see how there is anything "curious" about a proponent of Aetherometry wanting those derogatory claims removed. You insinuate that the reason for my wanting the claims removed is that they are true. But this, too, is completely unfounded: I might just as well want them removed because they are false. And your elevation of name-calling to the status of "evidence" is not a great testimonial to your intelligence, you know. Helicoid 04:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above discussion copied from User talk:Mel Etitis. Forcing yourself into a conversation, making that conversation between you and the visiting user, and then demanding that it continue on the third person's talk page is quite rude. I am continuing this here.

I apologize profusely. I had thought that when you said "Please, can we stop playing these endless games?", it was a request. It has become clear that you meant it as a rhetorical query about our collective capabilities, and what I meant to be forthrightness has most probably been perceived as a horrible rudeness. I have surely offended you and hope that you can forgive me. I am very sorry.

Due to my lesser intelligence, I have trouble understanding the "issue" you refer to. The Aetherometry pages were deleted because the community decided that the derogatory claims made in the talk pages were both well-founded and substantiated. I am but a lowly user of inadequate intelligence and I am certainly not the person to speak to about the consensus decision of my more intelligent peers, such as they reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aetherometry (second nomination), nor to speak about issues of true or false. If you give me enough time, I will try to do my best to formulate a response to any further posts you may have. - Banyan Tree 04:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come come, that's a patent lie. The Aetherometry entry was deleted because there is no mainstream literature about Aetherometry, one way or the other. This lack of literature includes the lack of any literature that would substantiate the derogatory claims. Or have you perhaps personally reproduced the experiments and obtained results different from the ones described in the primary literature on Aetherometry? Or do you agree with the results, but have an alternative and better explanation of the results? Speak up. How, in your view, how are the derogatory claims "substantiated"? Helicoid 05:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you have some gall to say that I "forced myself" into the conversation. You were making insinuations about me in a public forum. Surely it is very proper for me to reply, no? Helicoid 06:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good weekend Helicoid.

Actually, I consider my initial post at to be quite proper. Mel had asked at the Village Pump: "Nor is it clear to me what urgency there is in deleting them (any more than I can see the need to keep them). Is there some hiddn agenda here of which I'm unaware?". I dropped him a line pointing out what the "hidden agenda" may be. You jumped in saying that it was indeed the "hidden agenda", though your outrage at my initial post would hold more weight if your response to Mel's question had preceded mine.

I'm sure that some of my more intelligent colleagues have quoted many acronyms beginning with "WP:" in discussions with you in regards to the actual content of your post and perhaps applicable policies, so I will not bore either of us by attempting to replicate that conversation. - Banyan Tree 13:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your colleagues in WP (I don't think they have shown much sign of intelligence) have done, time and again, exactly what you are doing. People who don't know me from Adam and could not tell, if their life depended on it, what my ideas are, see fit to pronounce, in complete self-assurance, that I am a loon, a crackpot, a snake-oil-vendor, a fanatic, etc. And when I get frustrated and angered by this, they quote at me acronyms beginning with "WP". On the other hand, when I quote acronyms beginning with "WP" - such as the speedy-deletion rule for talk pages - they insinuate that this is "curious", and sufficient reason to do the opposite from what I ask. What in the world have I done to warrant this kind of treatment? Declared that the earth was flat and made of ground veal? Preached that ingestion of lye was the proper treatment for cancer? Promoted genocide, perhaps? No. I have declared my conviction that there is experimental and theoretical evidence that may very well support the claim of the existence of energy in massfree form, and that this evidence is worth examining. I am not asking anybody to share this conviction, and I certainly think that it doesn't make any sense to "share" it without minutely examining the evidence. But by the same token, it doesn't make any sense to judge it as "looniness" without minutely examining the evidence. Without examining the evidence, the only position that makes sense to me is to withhold judgement. Now, you called me a "pseudoscientifc loon", and you referred to the wanton name-calling that went on in the Aetherometry Talk pages, as "evidence". Do you not realize that the people who engaged in the name-calling had not examined any scientific evidence? They examined it as little as you did. Yet you, too, see fit to join them. Please, explain this to me. Treat me for a moment with the courtesy you would normally extend to strangers, and explain. It is the weekend, after all. Helicoid 14:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I'm glad to help. Thanks. :) --MK _{[06:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)]}[reply]

FROLINAT

Hi. I wanted to ask you if you could move Front de Libération Nationale du Tchad to FROLINAT. It was originally at Frolinat, and moved by User:KI, with whom I've started a Wikipedia:WikiProject Chad (anbody interested? just asking...). But now KI fully agrees to move it to FROLINAT (see my talk), so if you can, please move it. Ciao :-) Aldux 22:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aldux. The move is done and I changed the redirects. You should put the new WikiProject up at WP:AFR to increase its visibility. Cheers, Banyan Tree 23:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the earlier move. Please move Association Tchadienne pour la Promotion et la Défense des Droits de l'Homme to Chadian Association for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights. KI 23:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also... Collège de Contrôle et de Surveillance des Ressources Pétrolières to Petroleum Revenue Oversight and Control Committee... Thanks. KI 23:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please fix any double redirects as I am heading out the door. Thanks, Banyan Tree 23:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the moves, and also for the advice: I've immediately followed it. Aldux 23:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Uganda-geo-stub}}