User talk:Badagnani/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18


Abu Zubaydah

Hey Badagnani,

On April 28, 2009 I posted this to the Abu Zubaydah discussion page under the headline "Major Edit":

Hello, I have been researching Abu Zubaydah for quite some time and have compiled a mass of information which conflicts with several portions of his wikipedia page. I have rewritten the wikipedia page in Microsoft Word and was hoping to effectuate a major edit. Before I did so I wanted to discuss with anyone who has been following this page what I plan to edit. I am not looking to ruin anyone else's work or create a poorly cited diatribe of my thoughts. But, I think there are factual inaccuracies and a general lack of citations for several points. For instance, the page starts off with an uncited statement that he has been close with al-Qaeda since their beginning and has run a popular al-Qaeda training camp. This actually is incorrect. He was at odds with al-Qaeda until 9/11, and the Khalden Camp was not affiliated with al-Qaeda. It was actually shut down by the Taliban at al-Qaeda's request. My rewrite is extensively cited to news articles (from legitimate news organizations), books, CSRT and other government documents, and other sources. In some places I cite six or more sources for a given point. I have been working on compiling information about him for school and was hoping to update his page accordingly. Please e-mail me directly through my wikipedia ID if you have any questions or comments.

I waited five days until I changed the page. I felt that this was a substantial enough time to allow people to share with me their questions or comments. As you can see from what I have changed I removed mostly uncited or poorly cited material and replaced it with heavily cited material. The page is the result of a year long research project compiling more than 250 sources. If there was something in particular that you feel should be added, please do so. Otherwise, I would like to ask that you don't revert this page back to the more poorly cited version it was before. What I have written is more accurate based on news accounts, government documents, books, and other sources. If you have any questions please let me know. I will check your talk page frequently in the coming days and look forward to discussing this with you.

Thank You, ArthurThomas24 (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied at my page

I replied to your post at my talk page, in order to keep the discussion in one place. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Badagnani, I've noticed your name popping up in places such as WP:AN and other noticeboards, and I think I'm noticing a disturbing pattern. Do you realize that this comment, for example, is extremely likely to worsen a dispute, rather than improve it? Surely this isn't your goal - we wish to resole disputes, not to prolong them.

I do believe that you will have a better time at Wikipedia if you take a different approach. I hope my posting this here doesn't bother you. I just think you'd be happier editing here if you do it in a manner that generates less heat. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A friendly reminder

I think it would be very helpful to review WP:BATTLE, especially, "Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users."

Many editors, myself included, will often make substantial changes to article without discussion, based upon the application of specific policies or guidelines. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I am tempted to remove this inappropriate comment that comes off as a snide personal attack a preachy and demeaning attack. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Substantial changes are often made to individual articles without much or any comment (such as reversion of vandalism or improvement of grammar), but when other long-time editors, in particular instances, request that deliberate and careful discussion be engaged in, engaging in such deliberate and careful discussion prior to large deletions does become the reasonable and right thing to do. Badagnani (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet you do not participate in these so called "discussions". It's only when someone files a dispute or mediation that you respond. Most editors simply do not care about any bold editing done on articles such as Foam take-out container and List of * Americans, which obviously need some work done on them. I am strongly questioning your overall behavior on Wikipedia. Eugene2x►talk 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your question at WP:UAA

I suggest WP:AN/I or contacting the two admins who requested the user have a clickable signature directly on their talk pages. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Badagnani)

Hello, Badagnani. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani, where you may want to participate. Eugene2x►talk 00:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


I would like you to read WP:DRNC, WP:BOLD, and WP:BRD. You should not compel editors to discuss whenever every single bit of information is removed. It disrupts the experience here and is the main cause for the edit warring issues lately. Eugene2x►talk 03:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think I am wikihounding you, then so be it, I will try to stop the edits you claim are against WP:STALK. I do not want to cause irritation or any harm, even if we are opponents. Eugene2x►talk 03:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Going along with this, kindly do me the courtesy of undoing the edits of mine you followed me around to nearly a dozen articles reverting, and pledge to, in the future, discuss large deletions with care, seriousness, and collegiality prior to implementing such deletions, when requested to do so with sincerity by long-time editors. Badagnani (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My statement did not necessarily mean that I would revert the edits (which were perfectly reasonable). It would also be a much, much better place for all of us if you stick to the WP:BRD essay and WP:DRNC. Frankly, just because you have the ability to undo someone's edits does not mean you can defend the edits with statements such as "use Discusssion."

Tibetan goji

Re this edit: the text is preserved at the Talk page for possible repair. It's clear WP:SYNTH - a collation of material to advance an argument, not collated previously - and no-one is obliged to discuss in advance the removal of material in breach of WP:NOR. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


फोडणी is the way we (Marathis) write Phodani. You can also use google search to verify this. Also check Marathi wikipedia article mr:फोडणी. - कोल्हापुरी (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That may be because they are not proficient in typing Marathi font ड़ is never used in Marathi, we use ड. And a lot of Marathi people are confused between "नी" and "णी". I know I am correct but I understand your dilemma. Google is your friend. Search old and new term to find which one is correct. - कोल्हापुरी (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
णी and नी problem is inherent to Marathi literate and illiterate folks irrespective of Hindi influence. In this particular case though I feel the previous writer didn't know how to type "णी". - कोल्हापुरी (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
फोलनी - I never heard of that, at least it is not used in south-west Maharashtra. Not sure of the etymology either but verb - फोड means "to break open". —Preceding unsigned comment added by कोल्हापुरी (talkcontribs) 08:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Bánh chuối

Thanks for starting this article. Is there a holiday at the end of January that this food item would be part of? As I recall it's not a regular item, but the store owner said it was part of a holiday celebration. Chinese New Years even though it's Vietnamese? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the info. I kind of wanted to try it although it wasn't cheap, but I got the sense from teh store owner that he didn't want me to buy it so his Vietnamese customers could have it as part of their holiday celebration. Fun stuff. I was back last weekend and got some good stuff. I still have to take some photos of the goodies... Cheers. Thanks for your help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this [1] may be Tan O (with all sorts of accents). Does that ring a bell? Also, is Can Tau (celery) different from our celery or same thing. I haven't looked yet to see what's on Wikipedia for that one yet... I also have a photo of Hung lui, so I have to see what's there for that. Sorry, too many things going on at once. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's tàu, that is an adjective meaning "Chinese" (literally "boat," as the Chinese used to be referred to as "boat people." Whenever you see tàu as a modifier after a word, you'll know what that means. In this case, though, it's cần tây, with tây meaning "Western" (i.e., European). Badagnani (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So Can is celery? I think they sell regular celery too... Am I missing something? It looks pretty similar but the stalks are more slender or maybe just harvested younger. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

See [2].
Húng lủi is either water mint (Mentha aquatica) or spearmint. Badagnani (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Tần ô is Garland chrysanthemum. Badagnani (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

List of liqueurs, then?

I'll see you there. One article at a time, one edit at a time. First important lesson - be the first to use the talk page. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, let me put that more clearly. If you're reverted, don't revert back. It's very bad form. Go straight to the talk page, and start a section asking why the revert was made. Explain your reasons for the edit. Keep anything personal out of it - it's a dry content question. This is the stepping stone from which you can later make more powerful edits. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Please, trust me on this. Let me help you, ok? You have to do that the way I'm telling you. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a right way to get behavior policies enforced, and there is a wrong way. Reporting people, as if to the police, is a very wrong way. I didn't make that fact true, but it's true. If you do that, you'll end up turning more and more Wikipedians against you. There's a better way. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a practical recommendation. If one editor is pursuing you to multiple articles, then the most powerful way to defeat them is to stop moving, and deal with them on one article. If you can do this in the right way, they won't follow you anymore. Think about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I respectfully disagree with this advice. If someone is stalking you please get an impartial admin to intervene. There are clear policies on stalking that need to be respected. Baiting and disruption are an unfortunate part of editing on Wikipedia, and those who engage in these actions should be discouraged form doing so by third parties. Since the trolls are trying to get a reaction out of the editor targeted, that person's doing so just feeds them. Take care. Thanks for you help and collaboration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Impartial admin? Cool, go get one. I'm trying to help Badagnani, but he won't provide me with the information I need to do it. How can I make a rational, well-informed decision in a Wikihounding case if the editor appealing to me won't give me details about the edits involved? How can I say that these link removals are wrongful, if I can't argue about the consensus support that the links enjoy? Maybe you can convey this to Badagnani, and persuade him to share the information I need. Good luck. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Is the history tab at the top of your page broken? Have you tried using the "contributions" history? If you need guidance on how these functions work please let me know. It appears to me based on your sarcasm and attitude, as well as the bad advice you've offered, that you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean about the history tab. No information there makes it clear why the links in question enjoy consensus support, so what do you want me to find there? All I see is Badagnani adding links, but nothing about how we know they enjoy consensus support. Nobody seems to be able - or willing? - to provide me with this essential information.

If you think I'm part of the problem, then I certainly encourage you again to find another admin. It's rather rash to speak of "bad advice" when you haven't tried it... -GTBacchus(talk) 04:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

External links

It appears, Badagnani, that you want to change the way Wikipedia handles external links. Is that accurate? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you - just asking. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you want me to do?

What do you want me to do, make people agree to use the picture you found? Do you think there's a way around persuading them? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You haven't cooperated with my attempt to help you. I asked you how we could demonstrate consensus for your links at List of liqueurs, and you wouldn't say anything about it. I asked, how can we demonstrate that your version is the one supported by consensus. I would ask that again about the ice cream picture. Most of the comments on the talk page don't support it. Do you think it is supported by a consensus? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That's what it looks like, but there really isn't a clear consensus for removal, just several editors coming over from the RFC edit warring about it, so it is really 3-3 to remove, and with no clear consensus to remove the image should stay. But more importantly, regardless of Badagnani's arguments, whether he's wrong or right, he is being hounded by at least three editors from the RFC, all of whom hold serious grudges against Badagnani from past and recent disputes. When I pointed this out to them, they tried to follow my contributions as well, proving my point. This is like dealing with a wild pack of juvenile wolves, and I'm surprised that Wikipedia tolerates this egregious behavior from any editor. Obviously, Badagnani has eroded some of his good faith due to his inability to deal with problems he has both created and contributed to in the past, but no matter the blame, a community is judged by how it treats its accused, and those who have little defense. My guess is that the editors (all of whom happen to be non-admins) doing this to Badagnani have the ok from several administrators. Basically it makes Wikipedia look pretty bad when the so-called authorities condone this kind of bad behavior. The RFC should be deleted and the editors admonished. And Badagnani needs to have a mentor so he doesn't keep getting into these types of situations. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know so much about the ice-cream headache image. I know that the links at List of liqueurs were inline links to commercial sites for non-notable products, and that sort of link had better have a very good reason for being in an article, despite our linking policies. The hounding I know about, and it's unfortunate. I'm talked with at least one of the editors involved, and I've been encouraging him to engage on a more constructive level.

At the same time, Badagnani has been responding to it badly. I'm trying to coach him to learn a less combative approach, but he's showing a lot of resistance to working with me. I think he really wants me to yell at someone, but that really isn't how I work. I can only teach him to empower himself, but he has to trust me a little bit. I don't know if it'll work. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that you get to make whatever you want, without having to use reasons to convince other people that your edits are good? If people don't agree to use your links, then we don't use them. You have to either go along with consensus, or do what it takes to change consensus. Yelling at people for hounding you will never have that effect. Think about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree?

Do you agree to work my way, yes or no? If no, then don't me for anymore help. I work one way. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani, is there a reason you aren't letting GTBacchus help you? If it's pride, then we all know where that leads... Viriditas (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yangmei in Shanghainese

is [jɑ̃.mɛ]; approximately "yang meh" (in psuedo-pinyin) or "yahn meh" (in pseudo- um, English?). Tone on the first character is dipping, on the second is rising. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Spirits

Hi there, I noticed your interest in the improvement and development on wikipedia's articles based around alcoholic beverages, spirits and liqueurs. Perhaps you would consider signing yourself up as a member of Wikiproject Spirits? Joining a wikiproject is as simple as going to the project page, scrolling to participants and following the instructions! Easy as pie Smile.svg If you have any questions regarding the project either ask on the project talk page or my personal talk page and I'm sure you'll get a quick response. Hope to see you around the project, Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 12:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


Tell me what's confusing, and maybe I can explain it. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not restore

Badagnani is right. Do not repost messages that an editor deletes from their own talk page. I have warned the user doing the restoring, and if he continues, he will be blocked. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi Badagnani. Yes, you are right... Arabic is the official language of North African countries but the musical instruments have African origins and have nothing to do with Arabic. Hope you are doing great. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Banh and Bahn

Okay, thanks for the catch. I think it is technically called Banh tet chuoi. Does that have a distince name? I also added a bit about the flat version of Banh chuoi. Should we do an article for Bahn tam #2, I couldn't find one. I'm going to look for Banh bot loc (3), green rice noodles (5) Xoi ga (11) Xoi gac (13). They probably already exist, but this is a nice source to add. Anyway, thanks for your help. I think I looked at the galrand chrysanthemum but the leaves near the flowers looked so different. But looking again and checking some sources, I think that is correct. The leaves do look similar to chysanthemum leaves. Anyway. Thanks for your help. I like Vietnamese food a lot. Everyone likes Thai, but I would like to move to Vietnam now. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just go get more people?

If you're right, it should be very easy to find others who agree with you. Why don't you just do that? What's stopping you? I'm not. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Because our project is about working together, not against one another. It's not a battle, it's a teamwork effort. I love working that way, and did, usually, until recently. One builds on the efforts and knowledge of the other. The thing is that some editors don't like to contribute new articles or content, or working in the collaborative manner described above, but just enjoy removing such, and don't really like discussing, even when asked. Those editors seem to have found one another over the past few weeks. I suppose, from your failure to do anything at all to stop their persistent hounding (a policy issue, not a guideline issue as the removal of the external links), you're one of these. Badagnani (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Your excuse for not getting others to work with us is that our project is about working together? That's insane. If it's all about working together, (I agree), then get more people and work together with them. Use your social skills. Do it.

I've been trying for days to discuss with you, and you stubbornly refuse to do it, because you'd rather ignore my substantive questions, and pretend you've already answered them. You know what question you've never answered? Why won't you go find people who agree with you? Why, Badagnani, why? Will it hurt so much, to go ask some questions? Am I the only person you know how to talk to? Do you enjoy this conversation we're having? If not, do something about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC) By the way, why should I do what you ask, when you've never done anything I ask you to do? Double-standard, much? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please remember, moderate your tone. You are an admin, with a great deal of patience (as you said), and such a tone does not assist in making matters better. Regarding your insinuation that I have not answered your questions; to the contrary, I have answered each one with great care and seriousness (and, in some cases, at some length). Is the reason you keep reiterating your belief that I have not answered them due simply to the fact that you do not like my answers, or philosophy of editing Wikipedia? You are perfectly free to disagree with me, but to say that I have not answered your questions is simply not correct, so please don't continue with it. I received your message which was obviously written and submitted with great care, but the failure to stop the hounding, combined with the fact that what you wrote disregarded the clear bad faith represented by several of the editors, led me to believe such a path is not viable. My original request, which is simply that large removals be discussed prior to implementing when requested to do so by long-time editors, was eminently reasonable, and should be upheld. In fact, such a policy means that edit wars won't ever happen, because consensus eventually does emerge through such careful, collegial discussion. There is no hurry at Wikipedia; discussion does take time, and should be engaged in. If admins would uphold this fundamental aspect of our project rather than advising editors to simply ignore poor behavior, using "Discussion" always and only after large deletions have been made, it would solve nearly all such problems. Badagnani (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You have yet to answer one simple question: "Who agrees with you?" I'm listening, very carefully... -GTBacchus(talk) 04:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC) By the way, I only advised you to ignore poor behavior in the very short term. At the same time, I offered to teach you how to deal with it very effectively. You spat on my offer, repeatedly. Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This is very offensive and I ask that you strike the above comment. As I said above, I believe your words to me were offered with great sincerity. However, your failure to stop the wikihounding led me to believe that should I follow your plan, I would again be left hounded, in perpetuity, always discussing after huge removals are made rather than before. It really is best if huge removals are discussed with care at "Discussion" prior to being made. Your point seems to be that if one "rises above" edit wars by refusing to revert huge removals, instead canvassing to get more editors to ask for the restoration of such content at "Discussion," one can avoid hounding. What happens in such cases, through the enabling of such aggressive and insistent deleting behavior, is that huge deletions are made, and stand, frequently impoverishing our articles' content. Badagnani (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you had your chance. You blew it. If I feel spat upon, then I'll say so. You offended me. Where is my apology? You were too proud to accept help, and now you complain. I'm not sorry for you. I offered to be your friend; you decided you'd rather be an enemy. I'd rather be your friend; I continue to offer help. Why do you continue to reject my help?

Did I not chase User:Sea888 away from your page? Did I not insist that you were right, that you the right to remove text from your own talk page? Where is my thanks for that? You ask for a lot, but you give nothing. I'm not sorry for you.

Your guess about what my point seems to be is entirely wrong, by the way. You never bothered to find out what my point is. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I do thank you for the very good things you have done and do not consider you an enemy. You did say, at the outset, that you hoped I would be gone from Wikipedia, which chilled my blood then, and I believe you said it again a day or two ago. That, combined with the failure to stop the hounding (the worst of my tenure here), a policy issue, while interceding strongly on a guideline issue (the removal of external links) also left me feeling that it would be difficult for me to evaluate your proposal. Badagnani (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said that. Never would say it. I only tell the truth you see, and I don't hope for you to be gone. I hope for you to learn. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I do thank you for the very good things you have done and do not consider you an enemy. You did say, at the outset, that you hoped I would be gone from Wikipedia, which chilled my blood then, and I believe you said it again a day or two ago. That, combined with the failure to stop the hounding (the worst of my tenure here), a policy issue, while interceding strongly on a guideline issue (the removal of external links) also left me feeling that it would be difficult for me to evaluate your proposal. If it were my decision to accept your proposal or not, and I were not being pressured, your strongly ascerbic language above would not have been used. Finally, I take the strongest offense to the statement that "I have given nothing" to Wikipedia. I am one of the 20 most productive editors, with over one thousand articles begun, and I always edit with our users foremost in our mind, in expanding our encyclopedia. Badagnani (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I never said that I hoped you be gone. I can't say it, because I don't believe it. I also do not mean to suggest that you've "given nothing" to Wikipedia. You've given a lot of good work. I meant that you were asking a lot from me without helping me by doing the small things I asked, like having simple conversations with me about edits that you expected me to defend. You wanted me to defend you blindly, I suppose. If you're ever represented by a lawyer in the future, be more communicative with them. Refusing to discuss your actions doesn't help. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


So, you've been arguing that the links should only be taken out with careful discussion. Are you willing to have that discussion on the talk page, or will you refuse to discuss the links on a case-by-case basis until your edit is reinstated? A short answer will suffice. I will happily discuss those links with you, one-by-one. What do you say? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm always interested to discuss articles I am interested in thoroughly. I would not have asked for such discussion, so many times, if I were not interested or committed to engaging in it. Keeping in mind that we have jobs and real lives, discussing 100 links all at once can be very difficult, but a few at a time would be very doable. I think we have done this on a case-by-case basis in the past, for individual liqueurs. Badagnani (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, then, let's do it. Go to Talk:List of liqueurs, choose one link to talk about, and start a conversation about it. Doing that would be a great sign of your good-faith willingness to talk about these edits. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This selection would be contingent on the editor wishing to remove a given link (I didn't wish to remove any of them, so didn't have a pressing need to discuss each one prior to the huge removal; I had scoured the Web to find them in the first place, and used the best one available for each). Once they come up with one, we can research and discuss it, and, if they're really interested in liqueurs, we can probably work together to actually create an article on that liqueur. Badagnani (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah. So that's a "no"? You refuse to do the simple things that it would take to show that your edit has consensus, and you're just going to insist that the burden is on others? Not impressive, Badagnani. Not at all. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
It is a "yes," as you can clearly read above. I do wish to discuss any of the references a given editor wishes to remove from the article, with care and thoroughness, in a collegial manner. In fact, in response to your request, I presented and thoroughly explained, through many paragraphs, a link verifying "Copa de Oro" coffee liqueur, which you failed to respond to at all, instead reiterating your own reading of our guidelines and failing to take into account anything I had said. Badagnani (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we are talking about the Copa de Oro link now, and I do appreciate that. I believe I have responded to you, with the main content being this: Pepsi is a notable product about which we have an independently sourced article. The best sources available are independent of the company, and we use them. Having written that article, we link to the corporate homepage of the company that makes it.

Copa de Oro is different in two very important ways: (1) We do not have an independently sourced article about it. A link to a commercial site will not help us develop an independently sourced article about it, because no such page is independent of those selling it. (2) The link you wish to include is not to the corporate homepage of Heaven Hill Distilleries, but to a company press release announcing a new promotion. That does not help us create an independently sourced article.

Does this reply address your concerns. If not, please let me know what I've missed. I do mean to respond to your points, carefully and seriously. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this

You seem to believe that arguing will accomplish what you want. Why do you believe that? In particular, do you think you can get your way without showing that other Wikipedians agree with you? This is a very serious question. I do hope you can answer it. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to refer to thoughtful and careful discussion as "arguing." Different long-time editors have different viewpoints regarding the purpose of Wikipedia; some contribute and write articles while others seek to delete from them. Our users must be foremost in our mind, and our job, through careful and collegial collaboration, is to provide the best, most thorough, and encyclopedic articles on each subject. This always involves using the best sources available (as at the Pepsi article, one of the best at our project). Badagnani (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The point I was really trying to make here is that you don't seem to consider it relevant that more people disagree with you than agree with you. Look at Talk:List of liqueurs and WT:EL. Even if you subtract out those people harassing you, your edit has not got consensus support. You seem to think that this is unimportant, as long as you can argue that your links are useful. However, consensus is very important, and it can only be demonstrated by the fact of other people actually agreeing with you. No amount of reasoned discussion from one person can demonstrate consensus.

Does this make sense? Do you agree that consensus requires more than one person? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Independent sources

"This always involves using the best sources available" Correction: This always involves using the best independent sources available. That word you omitted is very important. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be appropriate

It would probably be appropriate to move our discussion from Wikipedia talk:External links to Talk:List of liqueurs. Would you be ok with that? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be okay with that. You could simply copy the text rather than moving it, but either way would be fine. Badagnani (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of unanswered questions

I hope I have addressed your points. I certainly don't mean to ignore any. The first question I asked you about the liqueurs article is one you still have not addressed. Namely: "How do you know that people agree with you?" Where are these people? You have yet to address this question. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The asking of questions three or more times is becoming a bit bothersome. I had responded to you, in response to this same question, that the subjects I edit articles on often don't have many other interested editors. The ones who are attracted by the policy issues rather than content-adding or content-creation often do have a fundamentalist reading of our guidelines, which, as written, are eminently reasonable. As I also stated, our project is not a war or posse-based one, it is one based on collaborating to create the best and most encyclopedic articles possible for our users, who must be foremost in our minds with each and every edit we make. Badagnani (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you can't find people who agree with you, even after looking, then you have to accept that your edit has not got consensus support. It's the rule I play by; why should you be different? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Our community's consensus is that we work to create the most thorough, encyclopedic, and best-sourced articles on given subjects. That is all I have ever done, and it is an admirable goal. Those who primarily wish to delete and remove content have their own philosophy, and that is normal in any organization. However, I refuse to accept that our project is "posse-based," but based on reason and placing our users foremost in our minds with each and every edit we make, adhering to the inherently reasonable guidelines set out for us by our founders. Badagnani (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If no person can be found to agree with your reading of a guideline, that is a very good indication that your reading is incorrect. By your reasoning, you can do anything you want, as long as you think it's a good idea, and nobody may oppose you? How is your position different from that?

A reasonable person accepts that when more and more people disagree with them, then they might actually be wrong. Where is your reasonable side? Where is the side of you that even cares what other people think? Have you even looked for others who agree with your very singular reading of our policies? Is your conviction that you're right more powerful than any number of Wikipedians saying you're wrong? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

And now you're edit warring at Fruit wine. Stop. When your edits are taken you, it is your job to take it to the talk page. That's the rule I play by, why are you entitled to more?

The rule is not discuss before removing. The rule is, if it's removed, discuss before restoring. Start following the rule. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Again, linking to non-independent sources, I see. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The same pattern: the stalker (a policy issue, the worst stalker I have ever experienced in my tenure at WP) is not said a word to regarding 1) stalking, 2) reversion, or 3) highly aggressive edit summaries and discussion page postings, the most over-the-top I have ever experienced at WP. Our admins do have a duty to, even-handedly, preserve order at our project. I see now, clearly, how things work with some admins. I suppose we all have our human frailties, and it does seem that you are yourself afraid of that editor, and this is why you have left no message for him. I do not blame you! Badagnani (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
No. That editor is in the right in this case. He removed a non-independent source, per our policies, and you replaced it without discussion. If he has removed it again without discussion, you can be certain he will hear from me. I'll just check that now.

By the way, this "worst stalking you've experienced" is nothing compared to what I've seen. You would do well to grow some thicker skin, and learn to deal with stalkers effectively, and not by running to the skirts of authority figures. If you thought admins were like police, then I'm happy for you to learn otherwise. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't reverted. Where are you initiating discussion on the issue? Why aren't you following the BRD cycle? Why are your opinions worth so much more than those of others? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If you are willing to intervene on guideline issues but not on policy issues (the worst stalking I have ever experienced in many years at this project, as one of the most productive of this encyclopedia's content creators), but quite willing to use abusive language against one of our project's most dedicated and sincere editors (implying that you are my mother, of all things), please don't post here again. Our admins need to be even-handed and uphold our project's fundamental ethos and policies. You seem unwilling to do so, so don't seem worthy of such a title. Further, we don't all agree that BRD is a valuable policy in all cases, especially when specifically requested by a long-time editor to utilize discussion before making huge removals from an article. Badagnani (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
We don't all agree that your valuable either. If you think BRD isn't valuable, then we drop it, but if fifteen other people think your links aren't valuable, then we keep them? How does that work? Why are your ideas assumed to be correct? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Please don't post here again (second request). Badagnani (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Another admin

If you don't like how I handle the situation, then go get another admin. There are over 1500, and if I'm so unreasonable, then it will be very, very easy for you to find a more reasonable one. So, get to it. Bring another admin, to tell me how wrong I am. I promise to listen. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Burden of proof

The burden of proof is always on the one who wants to add content, not the one who removes it. The content must meet our criterion of being independently sourced; otherwise, any editor may remove it at any time. That's the rule we all play by. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm very familiar, as a long-time WP editor, with which links we try to use according to our guidelines, and which we try not to use. This repeated assertion of your personal reading of the guidelines comes across very much as a lecture, and one which is not place in proper context, privileging discussion of individual links and their value, at the pages in question. We must be reasonable in everything we do, and asking that editors evaluate each link with care، thoroughness, and deliberateness (as stated earlier, I only add the best available links as references) is eminently reasonable. Badagnani (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try not to lecture you. It's just that I'm very confident that what you call "my reading" is actually the consensus reading of many Wikipedians.

I claim that, if a non-independent source is the only source available, then we should not cover the topic at all, because independent sourcing is more important that completeness, which you seem to advocate. What do you think of that? Which is more important, independent sourcing, or completeness? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an unreasonable misreading of a guideline, and we must be reasonable in everything we do, keeping our users foremost in our mind, in our effort to provide for them the most thorough and encyclopedic articles possible. Badagnani (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You say it's unreasonable. I disagree. How do we decide? Do we assume that your reading is correct, and mine wrong? Why? More people seem to agree with my reading. What makes you certain that your reading is correct? -GTBacchus(talk) 12:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


You and I seem to disagree on how to read our guidelines, specifically regarding independent sourcing, and what to do when no independent sources are available. If two reasonable people disagree, and cannot come to accord, then surely the reasonable thing is to ask the question in a larger forum. Would you agree? If not, how would two reasonable people decide such a question? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way

I've left notes at Wikipedia talk:Lists and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, asking for more input. It seemed like a reasonable thing to do. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi Badagnani - please don't use {{China-geo-stub}}... as it says on the template, it's been deprecated (China's just too confusing a word, since it can be used for two different countries). For places on the mainland, {{PRChina-geo-stub}} (i.e., people's republic) is used. Cheers, Grutness...wha? 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Xôi Bánh Phòng

File:Xôi Bánh Phòng 004.jpg
Slightly squished from being wrapped in plastic food.
profile with bite taken out.

B, have you heard of this? It's also called "sweet rice waffler" on the package. I just ate them, and they were three rice and bean sweets: read bean, yellow, and (maybe) white, inside waffle with coconut. Something purple maybe too I foget now. I'm full and sleepy... I can't find anything about them on Wikipedia and I have a photo. Let me know. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah I meant to mention that I hadn't tried the software yet. :) My computer is on its last legs so I am reluctant to add much in the way of software. I will try to cut and paste some of the accented letters and try to use them so maybe that will help...? Sorry. I guess I'm hopeless! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't find anything about it on the net. Nothing. Weird. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

John Blake, Jr.

Thank you very much for your work launching his bio.Dogru144 (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy"

"Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." From WP:STALK. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Speak and read Italian?

I'm trying to get some info to clean up the gelato article, but the net seems to be saturated with hyped up junk from enthusiasts and fluff from commercial enterprise. I think I will first get some of the info from the italian gelato article before finding some more substantial sources for this food, but I can't read italian and I don't trust google translate. Can you translate italian, or know someone interested in food and willing to translate the italian gelato article? Sjschen (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Trieu Thi Trinh

I has just removed a part of Trieu Thi Trinh article because they are sourced content and moved them into talkpage. I'm writing to inform you and I hope you won't revert it with no reason.--Amore Mio (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


Editor Bulldog has once again removed loads of images without consensus such as those on French-Americans, Dutch-Americans, etc. I have replaced the images he has deleted, but it's a time-consuming process. I have sent him a message on his talk page asking him to stop with his unconstructive and random deletions.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Your random reverts

What is the basis for reverting all of my edits to pages that you contribute to? I don't know if you have some kind of grudge against me because you disagreed with my past edits, but it is especially inappropriate that you deal with it in such a snide and inappropriate manner. This can earn you another warning, and it's not going to help your reputation on Wikipedia. Additionally, I suggest you please stop this random Wiktionary linking; it only takes up extra space here and won't help a reader understand the term in any way. It's like trying to speak English by reading individual words from a Chinese/English dictionary. You end up with fragmented syllables that make no sense. GraYoshi2x►talk 03:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Chinese music ensembles in the United States

Hi, just saw your message about this article, sorry to see it deleted. I've stopped regularly editing Wikipedia. I only log in occasionally now. And also sorry I couldn't help with your last lot of questions. LDHan (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary linking

Though there is no specific guideline that explictly disallows what you are doing, what you can infer from the community and various guidelines is pretty clear that such random linking is discouraged. After all, if this type of linking was correct then every foreign subject should have numerous links to Wiktionary about the characters in question, right? I'm sure few people would bother to follow these links nor would they receive any proper definition of the term with such linking practices. Some terms (especially Chinese dishes) have no meaning in Chinese, so it would make absolutely no sense to link to them, especially when you know so little about the language. Link sparingly. A few Wiktionary links in the correct context is fine, but not this ludicrous edit-war cycle to insert space-taking and useless links. GraYoshi2x►talk 02:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to GraYoshi2x

Do not post here (as requested on 26 March 2009: [3]). Badagnani (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Second reminder to GraYoshi2x

Do not post here (as requested on 26 March 2009: [4]). Badagnani (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

An discussion on some of your recent editing has been started here --Ronz (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Second reminder to User:Ronz

Do not post here. Badagnani (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Third reminder to User:Ronz

Do not post here. Badagnani (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fourth reminder to User:Ronz

Do not post here. Badagnani (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fifth reminder to User:Ronz

Do not post here. Badagnani (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about my edits to Spare Ribs

I made some minor improvements to the article on spare ribs, a topic on which I am a noted expert (see my bio). You undid them. Why? (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Third reminder to GraYoshi2x

Do not post here (as requested on 26 March 2009: [5]). Badagnani (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Fourth reminder to GraYoshi2x

Do not post here (as requested on 26 March 2009: [6]). Badagnani (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks very much for the great steamed clams photo and for the project addition on rubbernecking. I was trying to find a project, but all I found was some sort of language project that seems very broad. Take care. I hope you can get some breathing room soon... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome templates

Hi Badagnani! On 23 April 2009 you posted a message at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia#Where are the welcome templates?. There is no sign that you ever received a response, so I have answered on the above page. Sorry about the month's delay! Dolphin51 (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A few queries


Background: I probably should have written something to you before this, my apologies that I have not. As you've probably seen, I've been trying to defend some of your actions. I'm not sure if I'm actually helping anyone, but I felt the urge to try.

Intent: Here are some badly/bluntly phrased statements and questions. I hope they can help us all to find common ground so that we can adapt to each other.

2 Specific things I'd request a reply about:

  1. I hope you can agree that you have been involved in a fair number of disputes. I also hope you can agree that some of them are at least partly your fault (or, that you could have handled them better).
  2. I was wondering if you could find a few examples in your archives, of someone giving you criticism, and you replying politely. GT has bet me $10 that there aren't any, but I don't have time to learn your entire contributing history here! (please visualize the grin on my face as I ask this, but do take me seriously. If you simply never respond well to criticism (which some people don't) then I can't go on defending you.

Sorry for anything I have badly/baldly stated. I hope you see that I'm trying to assist everyone in the only way I know how to. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message! Certainly I have had all forms of interaction with other editors, mostly quite productive and positive. Such interactions often take place at Discussion pages. When it has been indicated, and proven, that I have added material to an article in error, I have stood corrected. This is usually the case when collaborating with editors more knowledgeable than I on a given subject. Antagonistic messages left at my Discussion page, often made by aggressive editors attempting to enforce their own mistaken readings of our guidelines, are responded to as I see fit (in many cases to remove them entirely, if their language is overly vitriolic). The same question can and should be asked of the editors currently stalking me (for over 30 days straight, always in an effort to undo or delete my contributions, often on an incessant and repeated basis). In fact, the admin asking you the question about me has been unwilling, although he has been asked many times, to even request that the stalkers cease this behavior (which is against our WP policy WP:STALK. So how would we even know how they respond to criticism when admins appear too frightened even to ask them to stop? Badagnani (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. To start off, I need to convince you that actually the stalking (preferably called WP:Wikihounding so that it doesnt sound like real-world stalking) isn't that bad. The way they were doing it is rude, and annoying, but it isn't forbidden for them to edit the same articles you do. Very bad etiquette, especially by one or two of them, but not forbidden. I'd strongly recommend you cease mentioning it, especially so frequently - no admin is going to do anything about it, unless they start insulting you. If it continues or gets worse, the only option is to start an RFC/UC on them (collect diffs of clear-cut edits that violate the WP:Wikihounding policy).
2 questions. It would be really helpful if you could give simple "yes/no" style answers.
1) Do you understand why GTBacchus was upset that you called another editor a "Korean-nationalist"? Accusing someone of doing something based on their heritage is considered racist by some people. Comment on content, not on the contributor, is the first rule of interacting positively. (WP:NPA)
2) Do you understand that many of the sources you have added or defended at certain articles are simply not good enough - and, in some cases are worse than nothing? For example, in this edit, Bulldog was quite correct that most of these sources are inappropriate. Most of them don't mention Danish/Denmark, or they are not from reliable enough sources for WP:BLPs.
Thanks again. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:STALK is a policy, and our admins do need to make sure it doesn't occur. The current 30+ days of stalking (with the stalking editors always undoing or removing my contributions at any and all pages I edit) is quite different from "editors editing the same pages"; from my very first edits at Wikipedia I have very often collaborated with editors, particularly on Asian cuisine articles, with several of us building on one another's edits, working together to produce the best possible articles. Yes, in this case it is "that bad." Regarding Korean nationalism, you need to examine the history of the page in question to see it in action (always in an attempt to remove text about dog meat). The Administrator's Noticeboard contains a section about Greek nationalists at this very moment, yet I did not see that the admin you refer to has admonished any of the editors making reference to this. I suppose it's the same double standard that makes requests for thoughtful, considered discussion by a long-time, productive, and sincere editor a blocking offense, while Wikistalking, hyperaggressive discussion page postings, and massive blanking without prior discussion (even when asked for such discussion numerous times) are consistently overlooked. Badagnani (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Stalking: Then you need specific proof. Individual edit diffs [7], or article history pages [8]. You need to make clear exactly why you think the edits are HOUNDing (should be obviously close together from timestamps) and Tendencious. (and make it short or concise, with less adjectives & superlatives. Call it "blanking" instead of "massive blanking")
Remember, if those editors are removing what are actually inappropriate sources, then they are correct in doing so.
Do not expect an admin to discover the evidence for you - you have to provide it to them. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts. It's so interesting that some issues are so easy for admins to see and comment on, and attract such great interest for them, while others they have such difficulty noting, even when regarding a serious policy issue, and when asked numerous times for assistance with, from a long-time, productive, and sincere editor. The stalking (the worst I have ever experienced) is easily available in the edit histories of the editors engaging in it. If our admins really do live up to the position and tools with which they have been entrusted, they will do everything in their power to ensure that our project lives up to its founders' ideals and ethos. Badagnani (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The only 3 tools that admins have, that we don't, are: 1) protect/unprotect pages, 2) delete/undelete pages, 3) block/unblock users. They have no way of quickly sifting through hundreds and hundreds of edit diffs. Hence, you have to do the work of finding the evidence. If you don't, nobody else will either.
The editors were definitely following you. That much is obvious from the timestamps in various articles. But most of the edits appear to be just revert-wars, which establish nothing. I don't have time to search for proof that they were making actual-and-specific-and-clear-cut mistakes. You have to do that.
Or, ignore it and just edit articles, and resign yourself to the fact that people are infinitely diverse in their expectations of what Wikipedia should be - nobody agrees completely on that... :\ -- Quiddity (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears...

....that I have unintentionally offended you. I never meant to do so, and I apologize for any offense that I have caused. My only intention is that you be able to edit here in peace. I have tried to help you, and I have been extremely insulted by your disrespectful reaction to my best attempts to help you.

Since I untintentionally offended you, and I'm willing to apologize, do you think it's fair that you should apologize too, for unintentionally offending me to the bone? You insulted me so deeply that I find it difficult to type any response to you. I assume you didn't mean this. Are you willing to apologize? I apologize for offending you. It has never been my goal to do that, and I am sincerely sorry. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC) No response to my explanation of the "don't read policy" remark? Do you think it's fair to demand apologies from me without offering any for unintentional misunderstandings on your part? I'm happy to apologize for unintentional misunderstandings on my part. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I had asked you not to post here again due to your failure to address even a single word to the worst, incessant WP:STALK I have ever experienced during my years working to make WP the best encyclopedia in the world. Did you somehow not understand that request? The stalking has been worse today than over the past 40 straight days. Further, the terrible profanity and cursing you subjected me to in a private email was simply uncalled for--something I have never, ever done while at Wikipedia. In light of these two things, why do you now feel it is okay to post to my Discussion page? Badagnani (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I posted here to apologize, and you're welcome to delete my postings if you want. I won't complain. It's "okay" for me to post here because you don't own this page, but like I said, you're welcome to delete this. I have offered you my help, and that offer remains.

Have you offered to do anything about the insults to which you've subjected me? Is your offense to be taken seriously, and mine to be ignored? How is that fair? If I feel insulted, it doesn't matter, but if you feel insulted, it matters? How is that fair?

I'll help you, if you let me, but I'll do it my way. If you don't want that, then you don't want my help. However, it's not fair for you to complain that I won't enforce policy when I'm standing here offering to enforce it. All you have to do to get me to help you is agree to my conditions. I will help you, if you let me. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Hi. Sorry to jump in. Badagnani, I most emphatically urge you to treat GTBacchus as a helping hand. He knows your situation well, and is acting within his own comfort zone to assist you, and is demonstrating immense patience at the ANI thread. He is the best assistance you are likely to get. He is trying to get all people involved in the dispute to improve their methods of interaction, which I applaud. Please, please, take him at his word, forgive him any past mistakes/misunderstandings, apologize for any of your own, and, most difficult of all, recognize that some of your own habits need to be changed or improved. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Another admin?

You still haven't said why you don't get another admin to help you. If I'm so bad, then why complain about me when you can easily get someone better to help you? Why haven't you found someone else? Am I the only admin willing to take your side? And you reject my conditions? Do you really want help? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Fifth reminder to GraYoshi2x

Do not post here (as requested on 26 March 2009: [9]). Badagnani (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


Badagnani, I realize you were notified earlier of the RFC regarding you, but I just wanted to remind you about it again. It would be helpful if you could share your viewpoint. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Piva (bagpipe)

I saw this new article and thought you might be interested. This one too Cornstalk fiddle. One more Noodle-core. It's prodded, I have no idea if it's notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a freshman researching on Wiki. Could you help me?

Dear Badagnani

I am a student in Seoul National University in Korea doing a research project on Wikipedia. I am very impressed about your insight especially on NoGun-ri Massacre pages. Reading your page, I see you are truly concerned about a variety of issues, and I appreciate your contributions. So I thought you could provide some opinions really worthwhile. So, would it be possible for you to take some time off and give an online interview via E-mail or online messenger? It would provide my project a lively voice of an actual editor, and this will be of a great meaning; your experience, concerns, opinions and ideas would add a lot to my project. Actually I'm in real need of something concrete; for my project is about the mechanism a biased version of explanation is settled, and as you will probably guess, understanding such things involves a lot more than just watching explicit process. Again, I would really, really appreciate your help. It will not take that long; in fact everything will depend completely upon your will. If you are willing to give some help, would you mind mailing me within April? Thanks a lot.

Sincerely, Bongeun (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is very nice to hear from you! I don't know much about the subject you mention, however. Badagnani (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


It's the fifth tone.

The fact is, often I myself am unsure about the pronunciation of certain words due to certain idiosyncrasies I've acquired. Also, as I am not Taiwanese, I cannot vouch for the official pronunciation in the ROC without looking up an ROC published dictionaries.

This is especially true for neutral-tone things which varies greatly from speaker to speaker and from region to region.

Here are two dictionaries that I've found really helpful in looking up the pronunciation of Chinese words.

Simplified Chinese (PRC) Traditional Chinese (ROC)

-- ran (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes -- ran (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Aliste (shire)

Wow, that was trippy, within ten seconds of my tossig up a translation of the Spanish Aliste page, you had a redirect up. Just trying to see if we're crossing wires here, as the two Alistes you list are municipalities and not comarcas, best as I can tell. I think the article I translated is about a much wider area. Can you glance at *Aliste (shire) and see if you agree? Can you also read Spanish and glance at the es.wikipedia links to confirm? Oh, what thinks of the Iberian gaita variant pages I brought over? MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a big problem at all, there are indeed two municipalities named Aliste XYZ. For now I've notated the shire/comarca on the disambig page as Aliste (shire), though I might make the shire the main page and make a "for other uses" disambig page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, been mining es:WP a bunch this morning and this evening, with some minor forays into pt:WP ca:WP and as:WP. I can read Spanish and Portuguse well enough to translate about 95%, and can read most other Iberian languages well enough to hit 90%, though I have to use Google to get a few clues at times, and hit a few phrases I just can't get and leave out if they're not vital to the context. Lots of good pics there too. ca:WP has like 30 pages just of Catalan instruments, so I'll be headed back there at some point. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Right, but they're basically all within Aliste (shire). The page you link is the one I translated. It's not any worse than having a page for Texas and having tons of little towns called Texarkana, Heart of Texas, Texas Hills, the River Texas, Texas State University, etc. It does give some impetus to making the shire page the main Aliste page though, and letting the table of municipalities on that page help with the disambig. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a SNU freshman. The researching subject is....

Actually I'm doing a group researching. So the members also posted letters on the other's user talk. First we wanna know how the contents are settled, and why there are certain pattern or tendency on the history. We selected NoGun-ri Massacre as the typical controversial issue. If you are willing to help us and inquire something, please send me an e-mail. And I sincerely wanna interview you via e-mail or instant messenger.

Sincerely, Bongeun my e-mail address is (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It is very nice to hear from you! I don't know much about the subject you mention, however. Badagnani (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Solo man

So whats happening there? what you have put in looks very odd SatuSuro 11:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps my always trying to separate conversations from project tags may have spoilt it - still not sure what you were trying to do SatuSuro 11:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you be more clear in your question to me? I can't understand what you are asking. I added a WPINDONESIA project tag to that article's "Discussion" page, because as I understand Solo is in Indonesia. Badagnani (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
(Correct format should be WP Indonesia) Solo is in central java - apologies re my comments - it was probably a small format error on my part and not yours - sometimes when viewing some changes it is possible to think the previous editor caused the problem when it is ones own problem. sorry about that SatuSuro 14:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok took the time to check properly - it was, believe it or not some junk left over from 2004 - my apologies even further! SatuSuro 14:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


My breakfast

I'm eating something called Bươm bướm (butterfly? yellow butterfly?). It's great. Deep fried and sugar coated. I should take a picture, but I'm too busy putting it in my mouth. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hot and Sour

You haven't heard of the famous Hot and Sour and Sweet Soup? Lololol. Thanks for fixing my typo. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

A discussion on some of your recent edits has been started here --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Music of southern China

IP accounts

I'm curious if you have any idea who the IP accounts are on Talk:Buddha's delight. Can you show that similar IP's have followed you around? If so, we may have a foundation for a checkuser case. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Requesting images

Please note that {{reqimage}} is not a recommended image request template. Please use {{reqphoto}}, with appropriate parameters. Traveler100 (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate your input to the article Wikipedia:Requested pictures which provides hits on requesting pictures for articles. Is the explanation clear enough? How can we make this information more accessible and visible? Traveler100 (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Good question. We do need people to add photos to WP more. The FIST tool helps a lot in finding them. Badagnani (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


Hello dear Badagnani,

Can you say me please. Are you the creator of the category site "Americans of Polish Descent"?

Can I ask you to this article a few things,please (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)--

Shoring up List of bagpipes

The main bits we're missing right now are the Polish and German pipes. I can tackle the Polish stuff sometime later this month, as there are two pl. articles for the white and black pipes. If you're feeling ambitious with Google Translate, this German wiki has some great stuff to be mined:

Found another pipe on ast:Gaita_cabreiresa and bringing it over to Gaita cabreiresa soon. Honestly, most Iberian pipes are a much of a muchness in constrcution, but do represent distinct cultural and historical movements over time, so personally I'm not seeing a problem with a bunch of Iberian articles (ditto France) so long as there's either a difference in the construction or the history/repertoire/development/revival/etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


I'm curious about your view of Alcapurria. I wasn't sure if you would see this on the talk page, so feel free to move it there if you like. When I read the article, I see mostly a recipe, which tells me to add a {{Copy to Wikibooks Cookbook}} template. Isn't this standard procedure? In other words, do you think recipes should appear in articles or should they be moved to Wikibooks? Viriditas (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Badagnani. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


You may want to comment or merely observe silently as the thread unfolds at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attack page. --Tenmei (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chaozhou xianshi

I'm extremely disappointed to find you edit warring over at Chaozhou xianshi[10] while you are simultaneously the subject of an RFC[11] and a current AN/I report.[12] If you are trying to tell the community that you want to be blocked for an extended period of time, I'm sure someone can fulfill that request. Otherwise, I suggest confining yourself to 1RR from here on out. Any deviation from that course could result in serious ramifications. I'm telling you this as a favor, and I do not mean any disrespect. Please feel free to contact me with your thoughts. Note: It does not matter who is right or wrong, the community does not support edit warring. While I think the community picks and chooses who to block in such cases (and I think they protect some editors from ever being blocked for this behavior when they should have been blocked a long time ago for repeatedly edit warring) your behavior is under very close scrutiny right now. I'm not sure why you are testing the administration, but I can tell you that there are some very itchy blocking fingers hovering over your user name. If you do feel the need to deviate from 1RR in the near future, don't be surprised if you find yourself blocked for a very long time. Stick to the talk page, and ask other users to help you. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 24h for edit warring on Chaozhou xianshi. You have completely failed to engage in discussion there, instead blindly repeating your edit comment [13]. It won't do, especially in light of the above William M. Connolley (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Premadasa Hegoda

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Premadasa Hegoda, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:TEACHER

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hekerui (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is now at AfD. Also Vikash Maharaj and Vijay Kangutkar are hanging out there also. May you find rhythm with the beat of the mighty tabla. Ta ta tiki tiki ta ta. Or something... ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Leigh Landy

I thought this article might be of interest to you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Abu Zubaydah

Hey Badagnani,

On April 28, 2009 I posted this to the Abu Zubaydah discussion page under the headline "Major Edit":

Hello, I have been researching Abu Zubaydah for quite some time and have compiled a mass of information which conflicts with several portions of his wikipedia page. I have rewritten the wikipedia page in Microsoft Word and was hoping to effectuate a major edit. Before I did so I wanted to discuss with anyone who has been following this page what I plan to edit. I am not looking to ruin anyone else's work or create a poorly cited diatribe of my thoughts. But, I think there are factual inaccuracies and a general lack of citations for several points. For instance, the page starts off with an uncited statement that he has been close with al-Qaeda since their beginning and has run a popular al-Qaeda training camp. This actually is incorrect. He was at odds with al-Qaeda until 9/11, and the Khalden Camp was not affiliated with al-Qaeda. It was actually shut down by the Taliban at al-Qaeda's request. My rewrite is extensively cited to news articles (from legitimate news organizations), books, CSRT and other government documents, and other sources. In some places I cite six or more sources for a given point. I have been working on compiling information about him for school and was hoping to update his page accordingly. Please e-mail me directly through my wikipedia ID if you have any questions or comments.

I waited five days until I changed the page. I felt that this was a substantial enough time to allow people to share with me their questions or comments. As you can see from what I have changed I removed mostly uncited or poorly cited material and replaced it with heavily cited material. The page is the result of a year long research project compiling more than 250 sources. If there was something in particular that you feel should be added, please do so. Otherwise, I would like to ask that you don't revert this page back to the more poorly cited version it was before. What I have written is more accurate based on news accounts, government documents, books, and other sources. If you have any questions please let me know. I will check your talk page frequently in the coming days and look forward to discussing this with you.

I also posted this above message to your talk page on May 4, but inadvertently posted it to the beginning of this page. Another wikipedia user told me that you might not realize I had posted on here since new messages show up at the bottom, not the top. Sorry for any inconvenience this has caused.

Thank You, ArthurThomas24 (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC) ArthurThomas24 (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Political music in China

Welcome back

Hi and welcome back. I hope you had a relaxing five days of rest. I'm looking at your contributions right now, and it seems like you don't understand the concept of WP:DR, although it's possible I'm mistaken. So, let me ask you: Have you ever followed the process outlined here? I'm looking at the edits you've made since you've returned from your break, and the path you are choosing to go down has a dead end. If you want to be blocked again, please ignore what I'm saying, but if you want to actually get results, try to follow the steps outlined in the link above. If you need my help to make this happen, don't hesitate to ask. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

On that at least we agree. Back in March I asked Badagani, as did Ronz, to take any behavioural complaints - particularly those about hounding (note that WP:STALK is viewed as inflammatory these days) - to formal dispute resolution procedures: [14][15]. Follow WP:DR procedures - Viriditas will help - and you'll either be vindicated or (as is always the risk) not. But constant open bad faith and personal attacks on other editors' motives will also have a dead end. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

ca:Llista de cornamuses

Dig it, our good work has inspired our Catalan friends to translate the entire dang list to ca:Llista de cornamuses. I might see if I can do the same into Spanish and maybe Portuguese, though I lack some of the technical musical vocab. Worst/worst I translate as I can and let a native copyedit it. What's the Wikipedia word for someone who throws up a rough article and a bunch of tags just to get the content out there, as opposed to sandboxing it for months until it looks nice? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Manual of Style for Chinese subjects and WikiProject China

I think you need to take the article move and wikitionary matter to WT:Naming conventions (Chinese) and WT:Manual of Style (use of Chinese language), and WT:WikiProject China. --Caspian blue 17:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Update; I raise the matter to WT:WikiProject China#Naming convention for Chinese foods and usages of Wikitionary.--Caspian blue 18:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Please join that discussion before more time is wasted on these reverts. Benjwong (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
If you continue reverting people's edit silently like this, there will be a time when other editors simply revert all of your edits, oppose your ideas or ,in the worst circumstance, request ARBCOM to stop you from editing Wikipedia. Mr. B, please try another way to work in Wikipedia because the current one is not good at all and only bring you and other editors tetchiness. And I, personally, would be very sad if you got banned.
P/S: I won't do anything on your edits because I don't want to make the current situation more dramatic.--Amore Mio (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alley Cat Allies

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Alley Cat Allies requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Greedyhalibut (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Created Category:Bagpipes in five more languages


Will check out the minor Latin languages later and see if I can find any Wikis that have at least two or three bagpipe articles to categorise. I imagine Catalan and Galician might at least. I can't really read Breton but might be able to pick them out by name, etc. Ditto for Polish. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Got a bunch more, but for now Polish doesn't have enough material. I checked around, but a glance didn't show any other languages with more than two pipe articles, at least in languages I can semi-comprehend. Here are four more though:


MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Four more.

fi:Luokka:Säkkipilli sv:Kategori:Säckpipor tr:Kategori:Gaydalar uk:Категорія:Волинки MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Banh it

It looks more like bánh ú, aka bánh tro. DHN (talk) 04:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The article you cited described a specific kind of confection made by a specific family in Hoi An. All the banh it I know are log-shaped (cylindrical). The pyramidal ones are called "banh u". DHN (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Chua Bo De

In light of your request, let me make my point clear before we erupt into an edit war.

I moved it into Bo De Pagoda but then I realized almost all English language source referred this temple as "Chua Bo De" or "Chua Bo De Buddhist Temple"[16][17](look at the photoes) and I reverted MY EDIT back. But why did you demand me "Please use "Discussion" prior to engaging in a page move of this type"?. I think this title totally conform to WP:COMMONNAME.

Mr. Badagnani, (sorry if my following words are offensive) I'm bored of this kind of request from you because it sound like an order instead of a request from a friendly Wikipedian, and I feel that you never think and read an article carefully before you do anything.

Yours respectfully

Amore Mio (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Please could you stop these hostile edit summaries ("Why was the region whence this species is indigenous removed summarily, prior to any discussion? Please don't do that again").

JBsupreme rightly removed the section about native regions for wolfberry because it was challenged unsourced text at the time [18]. You've now restored a different version, properly sourced, which is fine [19]. But there is no blame to be attached to removing the original unsourced version: JBsupreme was not obliged to run the change past you, or anyone. The implication in your edit summary that the original deletion referred to your new version is also misleading. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Some of your recent edits are being discussed here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Badagnani__reported_by_User:Ronz_.28Result:_.29 --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Philippine musical instrument

Thought you might be interested. Seems like a mess, but I'm not sure if the contents are covered elsewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, did you know there's an Inuit bowed zither?

Ran across this randomly somehow, got a good basic article going. No PD pic, but the U of Montreal link has a good one. This looks a lot like a fidla or gue: Tautirut. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Benton Flippen

Sorry about messing the article up. What does "centering on Surry County, North Carolina" mean? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting my removal of that content. I made a mistake in thinking it was the same source as before. My bad. Sorry about that. I have apologized to the editor and will note my mistake on the talk page. Thanks for catching it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I had posted the entire bit on the article talk page already. And it looked like the same addition, perhaps because the new cite doesn't have a link so it's short and I only saw the old link. Anyway, I'll try to have a look tomorrow. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


peer review for Sylhet created for Good article, please contribute thanks Wikipedia:Peer review/Sylhet/archive1. Bangali71 (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


I answered some of your concerns. If you can copyedit one section, that would be already helpful ! Yug (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks a lot ! I noticed your edits some clics after the previous message ;) that's great ! big thanks ! Yug (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking photos

Why are you interested in bacon vodka? Are you ready to give up your ascetic ways for some fleshy alcoholic elixirs? Tempting isn't it. :) I got some new Banh photos. But I got in trouble with the store owner. Usually I'm there on the weekend so he isn't there. It was pretty classic. But I think we worked it all out in the end. Have you ever had green cake (Banh Da Leu +accent marks)? The photos would be better if I bought the stuff and unwrapped it, but some of it is too sweet for me. Anyway, have a good weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try to upload them soon. Some people don't like it when you take photos. What can I say? I'm putting my life on the line for Wikipedia every time I go out there... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Could you further explain reasoning for your recent move? The comment you left was "Not necessary to move," but this contradicts the fact that an explanation for the previous move was already given (by me) in the comment: "move non-primary definition in order to make room for disambig." —Tokek (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to jump in, but could you explain your reasoning for thinking the musical instrument is not the primary topic? According to the instrument gets twice as many hits as the lake, and ten times as many as the trout; the fruit is named after the instrument, and it is not an common English name for the fruit. Secondly, all of the first few google results are concerning the instrument. Thirdly, the lake is usually prefixed with the term "lake", and not referred to as just "Biwa". Hence, I believe the instrument is the primary topic. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes. And any move should have been discussed thoroughly prior to engaging in it. Badagnani (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. WP:BOLD action is still encouraged most of the time, or when there is no doubt. Though in this case, where it is less clear-cut, engaging in discussion first might have been the prudent course of action. That's why we have WP:BRD. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I think your traffic analysis is not comprehensive, because you are biased in favor of your higher traffic argument. Even if the musical instrument received higher traffic, it doesn't make it a primary definition. Biwa should default to disambiguation first, then by argument the musical instrument could potentially take place of primary definition. After that, it may be decided that the location of the primary definition should be the url Biwa. The burden of proof should not be placed on the one that is preferring a default course of action. The talk page, which I checked before move, lacked any of said discussion, so I took course w/ WP:BOLD. It just seemed the move comment "Not necessary to move" seemed to lack reasoning.
I was personally searching for "biwa," (Eriobotrya japonica) the fruit, which receives 4.7 times higher traffic than "biwa," the musical instrument, even though people who are searching for "biwa" will automatically be counted as traffic for the musical instrument because of its placement. Also, the traffic for Lake Biwa is not insignificant in comparison. I think presenting a disambiguation would be more friendlier. As such, I think having Biwa redirect to Biwa (musical instrument) for the time being, as a preliminary step prior to potentially making a switch to disambiguation first, meaningful. —Tokek (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Well reasoned. I'm inclined to agree now, that the primary page should be the disambig. (perhaps this thread should be moved/copied to Talk:Biwa...). Do you have any unmentioned input, Badagnani? -- Quiddity (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I have not seen any evidence that the musical instrument is not the primary usage of this term in English-language sources. Lake Biwa is always called with "Lake" before Biwa, and it's "Biwa" capitalized, while the fruit is always called "loquat" in English, as this is the English Wikipedia. Certainly, in this light, the primary usage of "biwa" in English is the musical instrument. Badagnani (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It was the fruit I was unsure about - I didn't have enough background to know whether this case was more analogous to Zucchini/Courgette, or to Apple/Pomme. I've done some searching, and the vast majority of references and reference-works don't specifically mention the word "biwa". It's commonly pointed out that it is sometimes called the "Japanese plum" or "Japanese medlar", but Biwa is not a common name for it in English. Hence, I agree with Badagnani that the word Biwa refers overwhelmingly-primarily to the musical instrument, in the English language.
Sorry for any confusion I might have caused earlier. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Help with Talk:Xeremia

Some fellows on a quest to add accent marks to everything think that Xeremia should have an accent, whilst, since it's Catalan, it shouldn't. I'd appreciate it if you could weigh in. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi

Just an FYI, I did merge it, however there is at least one editor is who planning on taking this AFD result to DRV. Although they reverted the merge itself as premature, they didn't revert the redirect to it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gopchang jeongol

Updated DYK query On June 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gopchang jeongol, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you like launeddas...

Reclam de xeremies, just brought it over from the Catalan. I hid one paragraph I wasn't quite comfortable translating, some technical stuff about technique. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi Badagnani, how do you get your name to show after you make an edit? I'm new to wikipedia. Thank you in advance. Keith Beltham (my user name is KeithBeltham). —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithBeltham (talkcontribs) 06:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Badagnani, thanks for your answer. What's four tildes? Keith —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithBeltham (talkcontribs) 07:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Badagnani, ok now I see that! Thanks for helping. KeithBeltham (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Badagnani, I just found out that I'll be moving out of state for a new job. Unfortunately I won't have time in the foreseeable future for Wikipedia, although I really liked it. How can I close my account? Thanks. KeithBeltham (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Korean cuisine

Melonbarblaster has begun a discussion about the inclusion of dog meat in the article, please feel free to discuss on the talk page. --Jeremy (blah blah) 02:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

fooian American articles

You might want to look at all the 'fooian American' articles that Bulldog123 has been editing in the last few days and see if you can make any sense out of them. From what I can see, he refuses to accept the underlying bio article reference and wants references inserted for each image in the 'fooian American' articles. Further, he refuses to accept citations that a person's parents or grandparents are 'fooian American' as prima facie evidence that the person him/herself is 'fooian American' and demands explicit references for the person. I know of no such WP rules as he demands, but I more often work on categories than articles and their reference citations. Thanks Hmains (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cat move

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_4#Category:New_York_City_musicians. Rich Farmbrough, 07:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC).


I noticed that you reverted my edits on List of capsicum cultivars. Please modify others' edits as you see fit, but avoid simply reverting them. See WP:Reversion for more information. ENeville (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

category rename

May not be worth pursuing. The categories were not deleted--good. The subcats do not mention race as far as I can see. So having all the cats named just with 'ethnic' instead of 'race and ethnic' is probably no big loss. There are bigger things to look at Hmains (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bánh bò

Is there another editor who understands Vietnamese that we can get to weigh in on the disputed edits on this page? I have confidence in your edits, of course :), but I think a third opinion with expertise would be helpful in ending the reverts. I hope all is well with you and you're enjoying your summer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ukulele musicians (and Highland bagpipe stuff)

I don't have a stance on most of the cat titles there, but Ukulele musicians is the only cat with musician in the title instead of player. I have no reason to believe that ukulele player is somehow inaccurate (and I am one myself), so I figure might as well follow the standard for 80% of the cat. Sounds better the "ukulelist" or whatnot. Oh, minor sidenote, I'm trying to clean up Great Highland Bagpipe. It was pretty hideous for organisation and had about zero history, so I added a tiny bit of history from GoogleBooks just to cut off any "it's an ancient instrument dating back thousands of years in the Scottish Clans" sort of Sir Walter R. Scott romantic nationalist nonsense. If you have any input that'd be appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


FYI. A bit difficult to make out, but maybe you can make sense of it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

History of dried cherries

Weren't you working on cherry related subject a while back? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Arilang say Hi

You have mail at Talk:2008 Guizhou riot Arilang talk 16:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Meyer (2nd nomination)

So I better understand the process, if the article already had an AfD consensus to redirect, shouldn't it still redirect, or do we need a new consensus? CTJF83Talk 17:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


It is jiǔniàng. --ran (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Gao ruou

"Gao" is uncooked rice, while "com" is cooked rice. I've never heard of it before, but it's conceivable that it exists. On the other hand, if it's a translation from a foreign term, the translator might not be aware that there are many different terms for rice and just chose the first word they found. DHN (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The first result was written in Chinese. The text in other languages were generated using machine translation. DHN (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Surnames by Country

The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Kamora

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Kamora, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamora. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Little Professor (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Names for Vietnam

Why did you put the chinese next to Van Lang in this article?Sea888 (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of International Tuba Euphonium Association

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article International Tuba Euphonium Association, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Notability not asserted, no references, long untouched stub.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi. The sentence you restored to this article, here, was removed because, as indicated in edit summary, it was pasted entirely from the book [20]. This is against Wikipedia's copyright policy. You are welcome to use the information that is given in the sentence in your own words. You may also incorporate it into a quote in accordance with non-free content policies. But we can't use the sentence as it is. Please do not restore it in that form. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. Given your "length of time in service", I realize that you're probably quite familiar with the policy. I presume you most likely didn't see the edit summary that accompanied the removal of the text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC))
It was my mistake. I had been attempting to undo edits by an earlier editor. Badagnani (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Understandable. :) Inadvertent restoration is the downside of removing rather than deleting, but when it's a small passage it just doesn't seem worth the collateral damage to delete. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Krishna Bhatt

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Krishna Bhatt, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:


All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Working on Wikipedia requires communication between editors

Working on Wikipedia requires communication between editors. Your user talk page is the primary forum for communicating with you. If you have a problem with communications on your user talk page, it is best to let make it clear specifically what within the communication is problematic and how one would go about resolving the problem. --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you need to communicate here that can't be communicated on the article discussion page? Posting on an editor's talk page when it's clear you're not welcome will only inflame the dispute. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Talk#User_talk_pages. --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


Could you please respond to the discussion at this article. I have also raised the matter at AN/I (link available in the article discussion already provided). Manning (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Steven Dale Green

Edits like this are not appropriate. If you disagree with a XfD close, you should approach the closer and discuss it, and use WP:DRV is necessary. But you should not do what you did here, which you did twice. (I've no illusions that you will refrain from probably removing this edit as one that you deem to be "threatening", as you have done in the past, but I, like most editors, do like to try to engage with you rather than just blocking you as a first resort ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute: Thirteenth

With User: I'm citing sources, anonymous is not and is accusing me of making invalid contributions and describing those as incivility. Also chord-scale system. Hyacinth (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

None of his sources back up his specific voicing, which I know is wrong. What I was describing as incivil were repeated reverts with empty edit summaries and ignoring my pleads for discussion. Moreover, Hyacinth is wp:canvassing this issue to at least two more users. (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Why are these posts on my discussion page? Badagnani (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


Early instrument: [21]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting! But not the world's oldest musical instrument. Badagnani (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


Do you think this musician is notable George Li? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A precocious youngster, I presume. Does he meet our notability guidelines? Badagnani (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merges for Food and Drink

Based on your recent participation in several Food and Drink related merge discussions, I would like to point out several open discussions that might interest you:

--Jeremy (blah blah) 05:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese musical instruments

Hello Badagnani! Here a German dissertation (with some minor errors but with many fresh insights): Zeng Jinshou: Chinas Musik und Musikerziehung im kulturellen Austausch mit den Nachbarländern und dem Westen. Bremen 2003 (Diss.) (Online) --Reiner Stoppok (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC) PS: And with many instruments which are not in the list!

WP:AN/EW for July 15, 2009

User:Badagnani reported by User:William Allen Simpson
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


There is a discussion regarding you at WQA. → ROUX  07:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


I've blocked you for edit warring at Category:English-language surnames and per the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Badagnani. You're just not being good, and you must be William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/I for July 18, 2009

Hello, Badagnani. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it'd make sense to switch to the simpler versions of the template, without the second parameter, instead? It's common and helpful for categories to have a bit of text explaining their intended use at the top. Cheers! lifebaka++ 20:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this

I honestly have no clue what you're trying to do. I come back after a quiet wikibreak, and notice you change back to a revision with numerous grammatical errors and a POV statement (fleeing the victorious communists, ???). I also notice that you've been the subject of a recent block (again). Unlike before, you don't even try to discuss with me anymore and instead just revert every edit I make for whatever reason (not going into detail as I'd rather assume good faith). My patience is wearing, however, and I'd like it if we can actually come to a proper conclusion about this. GraYoshi2x►talk 20:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Category talk:Korean-language surnames

Please stop the canvassing at the category talk page. Either fix the article(s) yourself, or seek advice at WikiProject Korea or another appropriate page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Once again, please stop the canvassing. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, please don't arbitrarily remove {{Surnames by language}} from category pages; if you disagree with the phrasing, seek consensus at an appropriate place (in this case it would probably be WikiProject Languages). (I don't fully agree with the final sentence, either.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions! I look forward to editing together with you in a positive manner. For now, let's encourage editors who damage our category system to fix said system rather than asking rank-and-file editors without access to bots to clean up their damage by hand. Badagnani (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing you're dropping all pretenses of assuming good faith? "Damage our category system"? Really? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, really. Category:Korean-language surnames had two surnames in it for weeks, while Category:Chinese-language surnames was swiftly repopulated from Category:Chinese surnames. Leaving the former category with only two surnames undermines the credibility of our encyclopedia and ruined navigation for our users, for weeks, because the editor insisting on the recategorization could not be bothered to fix it for our users. As this is all clearly stated in earlier discussion, I assume you did not bother to read it before commenting on my discussion page (please do so), or that you are one of those WP editors who do not care about keeping our encyclopedia credible and useful for our users. Whatever the case, you are not welcome to post here again after your last, highly threatening message. Badagnani (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Badagnani, some editors have taken issue with your use of "highly threatening" comment. I wonder if you'd be willing to just describe assertive comments as unhelpful? Enjoy your Sunday. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


Please stop referring to comments by other people as 'threatening'. Nobody is threatening you with anything. People are asking you politely to stop behaving in certain ways. There is no threat. Please stop accusing other editors of threatening you. This is not a threat in any way. It is a polite request to stop treating other editors poorly. → ROUX  19:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your friendly comment. It is accepted as such. Badagnani (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Then why was this your very next edit? Please stop accusing other people of threatening you. → ROUX  21:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Vegaswikian accused Badagnani of "vandalizing Wikipedia".--Caspian blue 21:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
What would you call taking the close notices off a CFD if it's not vandalism? Throwing teddy out of pram?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Could be called "disruptive editing" though, not "vandalism" with a "malicious intention". Besides, you seem like a British, but please remind of WP:Civility if you want your word to sound legitimate.--Caspian blue 22:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Admins are bound by our project's rules just as non-admins are. Closing an active discussion one day after it had been opened, on a category that had consistently been voted on as "keep," despite continued disruption over a period of years to our categories related to Jewish-related subjects (see Category talk:Jewish inventors) is highly inappropriate and it was thus necessary to allow discussion to continue, as our project's rules stipulate. Badagnani (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting) apologies for flippance, CaspianBlue is right, I am English, and we can use humour at inappropriate moments. However, Badagnani seems to have overlooked the original CFD close (took me a few minutes to track it down). So when Vegaswikian speedy closed the second discussion, it was because the first one had been closed 3 weeks before and not actioned. Hence the second nomination was not appropriate. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


I'm currently expanding the Gejang article, so I'm aiming for WP:GA. However, as you know, I need proofreading by native English speaker. Since you have been working with me on the article and you're very much interested in "what I'm editing" to Korean cuisine, your cooperation would be helpful.--Caspian blue 21:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Jewish Inventors

What exactly is inappropriate about this close? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Badagnani_reopening_CFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Admins are bound by our project's rules just as non-admins are. Closing an active discussion one day after it had been opened, on a category that had consistently been voted on as "keep," despite continued disruption over a period of years to our categories related to Jewish-related subjects (see Category talk:Jewish inventors) is highly inappropriate and it was thus necessary to allow discussion to continue, as our project's rules stipulate. Badagnani (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
See this. Reverting an official admin-closure is considered disruptive editing. Additionally, your bad faith assumptions and attacks directed toward users (and especially an administrator at that) should stop, unless you feel like being blocked yet again by an administrator. GraYoshi2x►talk 22:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not an admin. If you want the right to close discussions how you see fit, run for adminship and win. Even then, you would be wheel-warring if you were an admin reverting someone else's close. Go to DRV if you have an issue about the process. Do that sort of thing again and I'll block you for a week. You've been on a craze the last few days. I'd suggest you take a break before you find yourself in more trouble. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of the words

Hi. I'd like to implore, beg, beseech, and request, that you not use the words "highly threatening" or "threats". You seem to mean something different with the words, from the way everyone else intuits them, which is not helping understanding to come about. The general implication of the phrase to us, is something akin to "he was waving a loaded gun, literally, towards my head". If you use the phrase for something as mundane as a verbal disagreement, or sarcasm (as above), then you are (from our perspective) grossly-exaggerating, or using extreme hyperbole. This makes further communication much more difficult, because your words cannot be taken at face value.

To put it bluntly/concisely/simply: If someone uses emotional language constantly, they are less-likely to be taken seriously.

I'd recommend trying to find alternative words that are less emotional and hyperbolic. Try to completely avoid the words "threat" and "troll" and "vandal" and similar, unless you're referring to actual and literal threats (read the 4 types detailed in that link), or clear instances of vandalism (whilst keeping in mind that: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism.")

Does that all make sense? Feel free to ask for clarifications. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions. I am a long-time editor who edits always with a mind to enhancing our encyclopedia for our users. Some editors don't seem to share this view but edit more with a mind toward being "enforcers," and, as such edit in a highly aggressive manner. When they show up at a talk page right off the bat stating that they will block, they will ban, they will retaliate, they will attack, etc., such messages are indeed threatening in nature and not exhibiting the proper decorum necessary to preserve a collegial, collaborative environment to which we should aspire. As such I am entitled to remove such comments as I see fit. Badagnani (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Now that you've decided to award yourself the role of lord and protector the encyclopedia, do you plan on letting the views of others matter at all or are you going to continue on your current path? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
A good example of hyperbole. Not helpful though. That kind of comment only results in destroying the possibility of dialogue. Go have some tea. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand that this is how you are using the word, but it is not the way everyone else here is using it. I'll copy the list here, in case you didn't actually read the link. There are 4 types of promised-action that could be considered "threats":
  • Threats of legal action
  • Threats of violence or other off-wiki action (particularly death threats)
  • Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages.
  • Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery.
None of these have ever been leveled at you (asfarasIhaveseen), hence, when you state/claim that someone is "threatening" you, it isn't being taken seriously.
If someone says they are going to report or block you for 3RR (etc), that could never be considered a "threat" in wiki-jargon, it is simply a statement of fact. It could be considered an aggressive statement, but it is not a "threat" (from the perspective of other wiki-editors).
Does that discrepancy make sense? We need to share a common vocabulary, and a common set-of-definitions for that vocabulary. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again for your opinions. A statement of intent to ban someone from editing an encyclopedia in which they have invested tens of thousands of hours and always edited in good faith (very serious indeed!) is indeed perceived as threatening, or as a threat. Badagnani (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Badagnani's explanation makes sense to me. I'm not aware of any policy that says he can't express himself and his opinions that good faith collaboration does not and should not involve threats and intimidation. Seems perfectly reasoanble to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The question then, is how is one to raise the issue of 3RR and other disagreements, if all disagreements are interpreted as "threats and intimidation"? -- Quiddity (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Badagnani. Your explanation makes sense in a general context, in a general use of the word "threat".
But, at Wikipedia, the word "threat" has a more restricted/refined/exact usage. Similarly, the way "Consensus" and "Notability" and "Block" have a more exact Wikipedia-usage than their plain dictionary-definition, and "Block" means something completely different from "Ban". If someone were to consistently misuse a word, with their own definition, then they would keep on being "corrected".
Secondly, If you only used the word "threatening" when someone was, literally, threatening to get you banned, then it would be understandable and it wouldn't be an issue. But you've used the word in edit summaries around 30 times this year, on this page alone. eg July so far: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]
I'll ask a final time: Do you understand how this difference in interpretation of the meaning ascribed to the word "threat" has been causing misunderstandings? Do you understand why some editors feel you have been using the word far too frequently and freely?
I've been trying to defend you for months now, in various discussions, and I'd like to continue doing so (or even to no longer have to), because I think you are a valuable content editor. But if you insist on using words in a way that you (now?) know are being badly interpreted every single time, then I don't know how to help. I could only understand it as willful stubbornness, or lack of language-comprehension, neither of which I can do anything about.
I agree with many of your content decisions and opinions, but if your behaviour (which here on wiki means "choice of language decisions") is to be confrontational to so many editors, especially admins, then I don't know how to help.
Please! Throw us a crumb of acknowledgment! Some of us are trying our damndest to give you a chance to be clearer. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I feel as though the two of you are talking past each other a little bit. Badabnani, please understand that even if you consider such statements threatening, most of the community does not. Would it not be just as easy to simply leave the word "threat" out of the edit summaries when you remove the statements, to avoid having people (like me) lecture you about it? Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 05:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
If editors post at my discussion page in a collegial manner, I will of course respond to them in the same manner. I reserve the right, as do all WP editors, to remove unnecessarily inflammatory and highly provocative posts, which are against our project's fundamentally collaborative ethos. Badagnani (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Please, Badagnani. I spent over an hour writing the above to you, and you replied in under 2 minutes. I'm hurt, and found that quite rude. Could you give a complete response, to any of my questions and statements and explanations? Please? -- Quiddity (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you be more clear as to why you feel hurt, and be more specific as to what it is you wish to know from me? I do appreciate that you did not issue severe threats to block, ban, etc., which were the essence of the several comments I had earlier removed, and which it should be clear now are not welcome here. Badagnani (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Specifically, I would like you to answer the 2 questions in my most recent (05:24) long post. Any additional response regarding the things I tried to explain my perspective of, might be helpful.
Thirdly, I'd request that you read through this entire page: meta:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies, and come to the understanding that every perspective described there, exists in large numbers here. You've got to learn to get along better with editors that you disagree with. It's a core part of any community. I think reading through that page (one of my favourites) might help you understand the diversity of perspectives that are welcomed here at Wikipedia.
So, 2 questions, and 1 request to read a page. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Please? I've even added bold highlighting to my questions, though you do need to read the whole post for context. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just a bit curious...

As to why you seem to believe administrators have bot powers (you've mentioned it a few times, most recently here). Most of us admins don't have bots, regardless of how much we might wish more of our tasks could be automated. I believe this to be a misconception, and would like to help clear it up. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The editors who damaged the surname navigation demonstrate the ability to undo such damage by repopulating categories in a selective manner, either by using AWB, bots of their own, or by seeking the assistance of bot operators. As I have observed over a period of several years, the admins insisting on wrecking category navigation are never inclined to undo such damage themselves but instead always ask rank-and-file editors without such bot acceess to do so by hand. Please take a look at the edit history of the surname categories and what has become of them before commenting further. Badagnani (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of the situation, and I agree that renaming the categories would have been a better choice, to avoid pushing work onto others. But you are asking the same, that others do work you don't wish to. Given time, this will all work out just fine. If you feel strongly about it, I believe a simpler solution would be to approach bot operators yourself, and ask that a bot do the work or be written to do the work. You may make such a request here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Chinese-language surnames was swiftly repopulated, while others such as Category:Polish-language surnames were not (being left with one, two, or three surnames total), while the two editors most vocal in insisting on the deletion of the Category:Polish surnames category simply moved on to other editing tasks they presumably found less tedious or more interesting (even after having been asked to repair the damage as had been done with Category:Chinese-language surnames, allowing our millions of users around the world to deal, for weeks, with broken categories. This situation is in. This situation is wrong and must be rectified immediately, lest our encyclopedia's credibility be undermined. Our users must be foremost in our minds with every edit we make, with enormous category deletions being of particular concern. In this case, the justification is "it's not a big deal, others will get to it later." The onus really is, in this case, on the editors who insisted on the destruction of the former categorization system. Add to this the element of WP:OR: that nowhere in the considerable literature on surnames are "Russian-language surnames," for example, referred to, while "Russian surnames" are treated in many reliable print sources. Badagnani (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that by worrying about "our encyclopedia's credibility be[ing] undermined" you are ascribing it far too much credibility to begin with, but I suppose that's not entirely a bad thing. But anyway... The categorization system, in general, is not a major part of Wikipedia's public face. Categories are useful for going between related (and sometimes unrelated) articles and for maintenance purposes, but few people use them except those fairly familiar with Wikipedia. Which means, generally, that editors use categories, and not casual readers. So, the deletion of a large section of categories might be inconvenient for us, yes, but probably won't impact the readers very much. I do not say this to justify actions, but rather to assure you that haste is not necessary. Now, as I feel I have used up too much of your time already, I will be going to bed. Cheers, and happy editing. lifebaka++ 05:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I don't agree. Our encyclopedia is of great value and allowing categories such as Category:Polish-language surnames to contain three or four surnames while Category:Chinese-language surnames are speedily repopulated while the editors responsible for the deletion of the former categories move on to other tasks (even after being asked to correct the situation over 20 times) is inexcusable. Regarding haste, it was similarly hasty, and represented WP:OR to impose categories such as "Russian-language surnames" (a term not to be found in the literature), while "Russian surnames" is a well-understood topic documented thoroughly in dozens if not hundreds of reputable print sources. Destroying a system of categorization without undoing the damage caused displays a lack of care which must characterize all editors of our encyclopedia, admins doubly (if not tenfold) so. Badagnani (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


I thought I'd let you know that the discussion here has evolved since you were first notified of the issue. I thought it could be helpful if you weighed in. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)