User talk:The Banner/Archive10

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:The_Banner_reported_by_User:Belamp_(Result:_). Thank you. Andrej Shadura (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I have pointed out your behaviour (repeatedly removing a deletion template, personal attack) too. The Banner talk 11:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

WW1

You have been editing the WW1 casualties page, but your edit is erasing some of the chart for some reason. If you want to make an edit, which I'm not opposed to in this case cuz I'm assuming good faith, please figure out a way not to erase the total wounded number.98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Their was no mistake in the code| And I was not adding utter nonsense. The Banner talk 20:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Why are you lying? I never said you added nonsense. I reverted your edit only because it removed the total wounded number for some reason. If you're interested in making constructive edits to the page, including reverting some of my changes, be my guest. But just be competent enough not to mess up the chart. And if you want to revert, please also change the numbers that are affected by such a change, as well as the footnote and source at the bottom of the page. It takes like 2 minutes. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
LOL, you are right. You never said that. I said that you added nonsense by calling the victims of the 1917 Potato riots in Amsterdam, Netherlands (a neutral country) war victims. In fact, it was just civil unrest. The Banner talk 21:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Lol, it's ok. You make a good point. I don't oppose your edit, just make it thorough please. Cheers.98.221.136.220 (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Greetings

Nice to meet you ~
~ Thanks! ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bilderberg (hotel chain)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bilderberg (hotel chain) 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 a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

What are your arguments for this speedy deletion? Why not the normal deletion process? The Banner talk 11:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: Irish

The placename used should reflect common usage in reliable sources, you should not use any available anglicisation for a placename regardless of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DéiseGael (talk • contribs) 17:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

No, as this is the English language-Wikipedia, the names should be in English. The Banner talk 18:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is incorrect. WP:UE is clear enough on this question, the version most commonly used in reliable sources is the version that should be used. If an anglicisation is most commonly used, use the anglicisation, if not, don't. "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g. the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used because they predominate in English language reliable sources". Blindly using any available anglicisation regardless of what is most commonly used in reliable sources would be against established practice here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DéiseGael (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Ow, goody. Another Gaelic warrior dismissing the common rules and inventing his/her own "established practice". The Banner talk 18:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing anything, nor am I inventing anything. I did not make up WP:UE, the policy is clear and it says in black and white that you don't just use any available anglicisation regardless of sources. If you have a problem with it, take it up with those who wrote it. I am not going to lower myself to the level of calling others names. Clearly you don't take it well when people disagree with you. DéiseGael (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

You are a new editor, only registered today. And already you are waving with policies.
And it is not about disagreeing, it is about misrepresenting that said policy. The Banner talk 22:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

In what regard have I misrepresented the policy? Where does it say that any available anglicisation should be used regardless of what is found in reliable sources? I think you should reconsider your accusations, the facts don't support them. DéiseGael (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  1. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)
  2. The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g. the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used because they predominate in English language reliable sources, whereas for the same reason the anglicized title forms Nuremberg, Delicatessen, and Florence are used (as opposed to Nürnberg, Delikatessen, and Firenze, respectively). And as you probably know: An Rinn is NOT English.
  3. It is highly unlikely that a brand new editor already knows of the existence of these policies (or any policy at all). But still you use it with confidence, as if you are not a new editor... The Banner talk 23:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Søren Kierkegaard is not English either, but it is what is found in reliable sources and that is why it is the placename used here. As I said at the start, you don't just use any anglicisation that happens to be available regardless of what is used in reliable sources. Unless you are going to continue to dispute what the policy actually says, I think we can leave it there. DéiseGael (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I stick to the policy. I would be nice when you do that too. The Banner talk 23:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually the more relevant policy is WP:IMOS (and the point is moot, as it also essentially says "Use English", and that would certainly be the case for Ring, Co. Waterford). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:IMOS does not say "Use English". Instead it sets out a process for deciding which name to use which essentially boils down to what other policy's also say: use the name that is most commonly found in reliable sources. When it comes to placenames in Ireland, the most common name found in reliable sources is often but not always an anglicisation. When it is the case that reliable sources favor an Irish language placename over an English placename, you do not "Use English because this is the English Wikipedia", as has been clamed. The Irish language placename is used in such cases regardless of there being an anglicisation available. For example, that is why Dún Laoghaire is used, not Dunleary or Kingstown. It would be nice if experienced editors such as yourselves would stop this and accept what the policy actually says rather than trying to push a misleading and inaccurate shorthand like "Use English". DéiseGael (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  1. Where the English- and Irish-language names are the same or very nearly the same, but the spellings differ, use the English spelling
  2. Where the English- and Irish-language names are different: and the English name predominates in English, use the English name (Wicklow, not Cill Mhantáin); and the Irish name is the official name, but has not yet gained favour in English, use the English name (Newbridge, not Droichead Nua);
Only when the Irish name is better known than the English name, the Irish name should be used: and the Irish name is official and has gained favour in English, use the official Irish name
By and large, the English name should be used. The Banner talk 17:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
We are furiously agreeing with each other. The rule is not "Use English", it is: use the name most commonly found in reliable sources. Often that means using the English name, sometimes it does not. Glad to have settled the point. DéiseGael (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
No, it means: use the English name, except in the rare occasions that the Irish name is significantly different from the English name AND the Irish name is better known than the English name AND the Iris name is better sourced than the English name. Only in that case you can use the Irish name. Something that does not apply to Ring or Old Parish. The Banner talk 18:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Catholic University

Hello, the Banner, thank you for your comments, but I don't understand why adding an important historical document would be disruptive, this adds to the historical reality, thanks for your help. You decide there is no consensus, why? Thank you.--Viator (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Prior discussion on the talk page established consensus NOT to add the document. Adding and re-adding that document, against the consensus, is disruptive. And it is not my consensus. The Banner talk 18:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I understand.--Viator (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

English people

Why are they not germanic? Peperonnie (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Because not all people in England are from a germanic background. The Angles and Saxons did not wipe out and replaced the Ancient Britons. The Banner talk 17:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Bad Faith Edits

I am IP 98, by the way.

I see you are attempting to bait me to use offensive language by making bad faith edits so you can ban me. Interesting.

I'm frustrated with your persistent bad faith edits. My only problem with you, again, is the WW1 casualties page. You recently reverted my reversion back to an IP. I believe you thought that I had added losses from the Balkan Wars, which are not part of WW1. THAT IS NOT THE CASE, UNDERSTAND? The IP was adding numbers from the Balkan Wars, I was reverting his vandalism. You carelessly aided an IP that was adding fallacious information (Balkan Wars numbers) to the page. I suspect bad faith on your part. I will attempt to undo the damage you caused. Again, I was taking out the Balkan Wars numbers (we both agree that it is not part of WW1!), the IP was trying to add them. Is that clear?128.6.36.230 (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not baiting you. I am giving you an early warning of the AN/I-case that will follow soon. The Banner talk 19:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
And I may even add, that you weren't even thorough with your bad faith edit. As I've said to you before (this is getting tiresome, honestly), if you're going to change numbers in one part of the chart, make sure all the numbers that are affected are changed too. Thankfully, like the vandalizing IP you helped, you forgot this rule, and it was easier for me to remove the Balkan Wars numbers. 128.6.36.230 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It would be nice when you concentrate on the facts. Like the fact that the Balkan Wars were in 1912-1913, before the First World War. The Banner talk 19:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
And in the case of Ethiopia, I've kept your addition (assuming good faith here, hopefully) that it was neutral during the war, because that is true. I had first written what you wrote[1], but got rid of it when I added Liberia because I assumed people would know that Ethiopia was neutral in the war.[2] But I guess keeping the neutrality part make sense. I also added that total African civilian losses also doesn't include Liberia, which did suffer deaths from a German attack. 128.6.36.230 (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
And that is what I said about sticking to the facts. Liberia was only neutral for the first few years, but then joined the war. See: Liberia in World War I. The Banner talk 19:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The illogic is unprecedented, Banner. You do know that we both know (and frikking agreeing here, I don't understand why you're fighting me on this) that the Balkan Wars were before WW1, right? You do know you put Balkan Wars numbers in the page, even though the wars were before WW1, right? You do know that I reverted the IP to keep only WW1 losses for Serbia, right? I only wrote the above stuff because you made a careless, bad-faith mistake (which I'm willing to forgive) on the article.

And also, of course, you don't talk about the fact that your edit wasn't even thorough enough to change the entire chart to match the new (wrong, Balkan Wars-including) numbers you put in. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

And your lying is excellent, I must say. When did I ever argue that Liberia was neutral? I was the one that added Liberia to the article because I knew it joined the war at a late date. We agree on the Balkan Wars, as stated above. The Potato riots, I took out by your request because you made a good point. The Easter Rising thing, I've avoided for some time. Like seriously, check what I did before you throw false accusations at me. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
As you can see, your false claim is shot down by admins. The Banner talk 08:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
And about Liberia, you claimed that Liberia was neutral without any time restrictions. Your inaccuracies and mistakes are plain disturbing. The Banner talk 08:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_I_casualties&oldid=935287895#Footnotes
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_I_casualties&oldid=937739484

Warning

Information icon Hello, I'm 98.221.136.220. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to World War I casualties have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. I have reported your vandalism here [[1]]. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As you can see, your false claim is hot down by admins. The Banner talk 08:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Warning

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I have closed the above referenced ANI discussion which notice you may disregard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
As you can see, your false claim is hot down by admins. The Banner talk 08:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's Settle Differences

The Banner, I'm starting to think that our recent spat has been caused by a huge misunderstanding. Moreover, I'm tired of fighting you fruitlessly, ditto for you probably. You can disregard my above warnings. They were misapplied, I've been told. To start, we are in agreement with the Balkan Wars. I'll give you proof. The WW1-only Serbian losses were 300k and 450k. If the numbers that include the Balkan Wars, ie. the ones you were putting, are higher numbers, they including the Balkan Wars: 450k and 800k. The footnote for Serbia reads:

  • Sources for total Serbian and Montenegrin casualties amount to roughly 750,000 dead.[159]
  • A demographic study in 1927, put total the war dead for Serbia and Montenegro at 750,000 (300,000 military and 450,000 civilians). The overall population loss from 1912 to 1920, based on the pre-war level was 1,236,000 persons (including 750,000 in World War I; 150,000 killed in the Balkan Wars and a decline in the number of births of 336,000), in addition there were 47,000 war related deaths during 1914–1920, that are included with deaths by natural causes.[159]

Anything more than 750k includes the Balkan Wars. You happened to make an honest mistake. I think this should settle it. I was reverting vandalism by a pro-Serb IP, I believe.

And to extend an olive branch, because I would actually prefer working with you than fighting, I take back any perceived insults. Cheers.98.221.136.220 (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

After the recent insults and the false reporting on AN/I en AIV, I need more than an olive branch. More like an olive orchard. It would be a good start when you start with refraining from editing any article regarding the First World War and any uprising and riot (widely construed) in the time frame 1910-1920. The Banner talk 08:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Very well. I'm not asking to be friends. But you do understand my above point? We are agreeing on the Serbia numbers. As a note, Frederic La Moal is repeating Serb government numbers that include the Balkan Wars. That is why I have been reverting. 128.6.37.91 (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
As long as you keep introducing errors, we are going nowhere. The Banner talk 14:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
What is my error here? We both agree that the Balkan Wars aren't part of WW1. I'm simply trying to remove the vandalism from an IP. 128.6.37.91 (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Sooooo, you reverted but actually do not care about nor know what you reverted? The Banner talk 14:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Please no taunts. I reverted the IP's addition of another 500,000 deaths that didn't happen during WW1, but included the Balkan Wars and natural deaths. Once again, we are agreeing here. You made an honest mistake. 128.6.37.91 (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

So you have again restored mistakes. You really do not have a clue... The Banner talk 14:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
No taunts. What is your issue? 128.6.37.91 (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • information Administrator note Both of you need to sort this out w/o the snark. My close at the ANI referred only to the allegations of bad faith editing. It did not make any judgements regarding your content dispute. If you can't do that then there is a good chance other people are going to have to get involved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bilderberg (hotel chain)

Notice

The article Bilderberg (hotel chain) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence this company passes WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Aha, a second attempt to destroy an article after failing the first time. The Banner talk 17:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Bilderberg (hotel chain) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bilderberg (hotel chain) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilderberg (hotel chain) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You are predictable The Banner talk 21:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Heston

Heston previously was a shareholder of the restaurant and it was operated under a license in his name. It is mentioned as opening in the previous paragraph of the article which was already there, so it's not inaccurate to indicate that the restaurant has closed for a particular reason. There is no issue with the material being added, and it is not a violation of BLP (the issue has been covered in Australian media for several months). Bookscale (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I've added some (but not all) of the material back, but noted specifically that Blumenthal had not been a shareholder of the operating company for a decade at the time of closure. Hopefully that is a reasonable compromise - to leave the article as implying the restaurant is still open would be inaccurate. Bookscale (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
You said it yourself "previously was a shareholder". You are still putting the blame on him, as being guilty by association. I suggest that you start reading Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I will report this issue to the BLP notice board. The Banner talk 22:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Why don't you edit the article yourself if you're concerned about it? Bookscale (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I did edit the article, by removing the unfair accusation, conform WP:BLP. The Banner talk 23:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
You reverted my edits, without doing anything else. What I'm suggesting you could have done was fix up the wording yourself if you were concerned about it. Anyway, I've tightened the wording and added another source (quoting the owners of the company) that linked HB to the restaurant as chef patron and being "integral" to its operation. Bookscale (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Why should I add an unfair accusation and fall foul of WP:BLP???? The Banner talk 23:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
You could have checked other sources and tightened the wording (as I have now done). An easy fix. Bookscale (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I did check the given sources. That is why I removed it as an unfair accusation. The Banner talk 23:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for the unhelpful question (which has been removed). I'm not sure what Calton's issue is with me but his response was uncalled for. Bookscale (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it is your constant lack of proof that Blumenthal was actively involved... Renting out your name and intellectual property is no evidence of that. The Banner talk 11:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Whatever it is, it doesn't justify personal attacks and uncivility. The last edit he made at the BLP page was just horrible and rude. And I've cited at least 3 different sources that show (including in one of them, a quote from the company directors) a link between him and the restaurant. I'm very happy to put something in the article to the effect that HB wasn't involved in running the business at the time of closure (and that was my intention in adding the further material): my concern is that the article currently is inaccurate as it implies the restaurant is still open; it should refer to the business closing (and the reason why is more than made out). Bookscale (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I seem to remember that you were also less than cordial against me on the notice board... Beside that, what needs to be proven is his active involvement in the underpayment, not his relation with the restaurant. The Banner talk 12:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't want to add anything about his involvement with the underpayments. All I want to say is why the restaurant closed... Bookscale (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Then write an article about the restaurant and do not place unfair accusations in the article about the poster-boy of said restaurant. The Banner talk 12:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
It's already in the article about the restaurant. As I've said already, I want to update the one sentence in the Blumenthal article to say that the Melbourne restaurant has closed and why (as it's currently inaccurate). Bookscale (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Ehm, no. You have squeezed it into an article about a different restaurant. What I mean is write a separate article about the Melbourne restaurant. The Banner talk 12:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Again, it was already there (before I edited it), and it's a sister restaurant of the other one. Bookscale (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
That was incorrect and it should be split off. The Banner talk 12:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The block is for the Heston page. I have not breached the block. Bookscale (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I am still rather unfamiliar with partial blocks and did not notice this was one of them. The Banner talk 11:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Trolling

I would respect constructive edits, not useless, ignorant quips based on no evidence or support next time. Next disruptive edit you make I will report, sadly. And please stop stalking me, I've written nothing wrong or against consensus. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be a better idea when you stop harassing other editors and come up with facts and sources. The Banner talk 23:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
You are harassing me. I have made no allegedly "unconstructive" edits since the Easter Rising thing. Honestly confused. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, you asserted on the WW1 casualties talk page that Canadian civilians who died due to German U-boat attacks during WW1 are not even "remotely relevant" to WW1 casualties. Your ability to synthesize historical information really shined through right there. (Sarcasm) Do you really take yourself seriously when you say stuff like that? Please, next time, give an actual reason (More than a mindless one sentence quip) that my posts on a talk page -- not even edits on the article itself -- are wrong. That would be appreciated. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I like it how you cherry pick one item out of a list. And you altered just that one item after I had replied... The Banner talk 23:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
<one removed edit by IP>
I love to see a hasty retreat after your bluff is called. The Banner talk 23:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I honestly forgot about that edit; I deleted it because I realized my error and am not interested in making false statements. Would you rather I have kept it and lied?

And I love how you cowardly avoid answering my above question. Were Canadian losses due to U-boats not part of WW1? Was the Finnish Civil War (the article says it's part of WW1 kiddo) not part of WW1? Was the proxy Battle of Jarrab not part of WW1? I'm calling your ignorant bluff here. The only retreat I see is yours from historical facts.98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

And again, you are unable to communicate without insults. I have enough of your harassment. In the morning, I will file a report for AN/I. Have fun there, after your recent endeavour to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. The Banner talk 00:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
It is rather odd that you rarely answer my questions, thus I have to assume bad-faith in most of your quips. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Warning

Information icon Hello, I'm 92.184.100.76. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kedge Business School have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. —Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Your spam is loud and clear. Your false reporting and use of multiple IPs to avoid trouble too. The Banner talk 20:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

BEFORE

Moved to User_talk:Piotrus#CSD_and_PROD where it belongs. The Banner talk 10:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

re: Lucky and To Lucky

Moved to User_talk:Piotrus#Lucky_and_To_Lucky The Banner talk 10:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your threats

If you keep threatening me, you will end up at ANI for personal attacks. Through your lack of BEFORE is also a problem, you often deprod articles or cast keep votes without due diligence, following WP:GOOGLEHITS and like. In either case, please desist from any further threats on my talk page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not a threat, it is a promise. Please up your game. The Banner talk 17:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Inadequate lead

Template:Inadequate lead has been nominated for merging with Template:Lead too short. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"Borders of Norway (disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Borders of Norway (disambiguation) should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 22#Borders of Norway (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus

I am severely worried about the outrageous deletion efforts of User:Piotrus. The way he is acting is damaging the encyclopedia. Not too long ago, Piotrus was brought to AN/I because of his use of CSD (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1029#Piotrus_and_A7). Indeed, Piotrus stop using CSD but is now using PROD. And when a PROD got shot down, he aften follows up with an AfD or RfD.

His edits seem to be limited to deletion-requests only. An earlier attempt to discuss the matter here was perhaps overly sour from my side, but the reply from Piotrus was also less then cordial.

That is not okay. What to do now? The Banner talk 20:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi The Banner, I appreciate you attempt to improve the project (thank you for doing that), but you go about it in the extremely improper way. What you seem to be doing in the past week (actually almost a month) is WP:STALKING Piotrus. I have examined your edits and I think more than 50% of them are related to tracking him around, and frequently, instead of being constructive, you seem to be so "bitter" that it borders or outright crosses the no personal attacks policy. This is deeply problematic, as if you continue this line of action, you may find yourself blocked. What you should be doing is to assume good faith and try to discuss things constructively and politely. Also, it is incorrect to say that Piotrus is doing nothing but deletion. He does a lot of other things, including content expansion and creation. When was the last time you got an article to a "Good Article" class, a "Did You Know" main page feature, or just created a new one? The last article you added to this project as far as I can tell was in November, Piotrus has added 10 or so since that time, he got several main page features, and a "Good Article" or two written in that period. I strongly suggest you try to learn from him, rather than embracing the way that clearly appears to be stalking him.GizzyCatBella🍁 04:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Stalking, as in having User:Piotrus/PROD log on my watchlist? And what has content creation to do with misusing PROD? The Banner talk 04:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
How did you identify this one for example [2] or this one [3]? I don't see it on your User:Piotrus/PROD log list. What about your comments in the AfDs user User:Piotrus started? Such as here: [4],[5] or here [6]? Not on your list either, and your edit summary is just a copy/paste, from one to another. Do you see what I mean? Once again, I truly value your other work, but in this particular matter, it certainly looks like you are WP:STALKING Piotrus. Please explore ways to resolve your differences without needless tensions. GizzyCatBella🍁 08:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Ow, Piotrus is in need of protection against scrutiny. Clear. The Banner talk 09:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Look, assuming good faith is a basic policy on Wikipedia. I really don't appreciate your remark of me attempting to shield somebody from scrutiny. I'm disappointed with your indelicate response but I'm accepting the fact that everyone can make a mistake. I wish you all the best.GizzyCatBella🍁 18:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
You concentrated more on content creation than on the issue at hand. The Banner talk 19:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Please stop WP:HOUNDING me. You have crossed the boundary between constructive criticism and harassment. Please find other things to do than following my edits and criticizing them. Thank you. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
You have been told by several people to up your game. The Banner talk 19:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The Banner, please stop following Piotrus around — if you take issue with what they're doing deletion-wise, bring that up in the proper forum. By hounding Piotrus, you risk being sanctioned. So, please stop doing that. Incidentally, this is coming from someone who also took issue with Piotrus' approach. There may, indeed, be a larger conversation to be had (again) about their activity in the deletion realm overall, but you are going at it all wrong. El_C 14:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I will stay clear for a while. The Banner talk 15:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The Banner, how do you explain this edit? I'm afraid it does not inspire confidence per our conversation directly above... El_C 04:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Watchlist. And a quick check on the merits of the prod, so I decided to improve the article. The Banner talk 08:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Ow, and I just now noticed that it promptly went to AfD. The Banner talk 08:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
At your request, I stay away from that AfD. The Banner talk 08:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I made no such request. Since you started making objections, you may as well finish these with the AfD, if you so wish. But please see my comment below about the problematic nature of you attending to his deletion submissions directly, considering the history between you two. El_C 16:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
We had never quantified "for a while". So, to quantify that now: till 7 July 2020 a good suggestion? The Banner talk 09:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
How about indefinitely. Look, when he writes no referenced content to merge, redirect to Heineken goes against WP:R#ASTONISH, and you write valid merge-option available, it comes across as somewhat non-responsive. Again, if you take issue with his deletion submissions, please feel free to file a report, but otherwise, please stay away. Thank you. El_C 16:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I was ready to file a report about him, with his PRODs just 42.8% effective. But he reduced his campaign. The Banner talk 18:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Page protection ?

Do you think it needs it? Its starting to look like itDriverofknowledge (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_I_casualties&diff=952286642&oldid=952284320

I have already requested a protection. It is no surprise that he started editwarring. The Banner talk 13:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

  • New partnership
  • Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

It seems that you have a personal relationship with Atul Kochar that is probably clouding your judgement. I am not "blowing" any tweet out of proportion. I have just added it to a new section 'Controversy' where it rightly belongs. This is not an opinion but a fact which happened with multiple sources cited. If you do not stop reverting my edit , I will have to ask for page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atif siddiqui (talk • contribs) 18:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it seems you have a dubious opinion about Kochbar, banging around to make the tweet-riot a kind of major world war. You are POV-pushing in a way contrary to WP:BLP. Ow, and do not drop some text in the middle of other text. At the end is good enough. The Banner talk 18:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I thank you for your suggestion from your much greater experience. Since you have written on Food , it is clear you have strong opinions on Chefs and, therefore, seem to have a conflict of interest. I would suggest a neutral third party decide this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atif siddiqui (talk • contribs)

Wrong. I do write on food (or better: Michelin starred restaurants). But I will always do that in a neutral manner. Not is a accusatory way as you are doing. The Banner talk 21:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
As a compromise, I suggest that you turn to: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Noticeboards#Biographies of living_persons. The Banner talk 21:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


It would be considered defamatory if it were false/poorly source, unreferenced. None of these being the case, you clearly seem to have a biased view while I just want to put the information as it is out in the open. It is like saying Jeffery Dahmer "may" have killed all those people. Fact is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atif siddiqui (talk • contribs) 12:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Blowing a small incident up to the size of a world war makes it also defamatory. The Banner talk 13:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Atul Kochhar

You should probably stop reverting now. I've WP:EW warned the other person. I will probably partial block them. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 12:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but what he was doing was a violation of WP:BLP. The Banner talk 13:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Celtic Britons

Just wondering if you were happy with the IP's recent changes after seeing you revert the AD changes (I think there are far too many uses of AD, our MOS surely says one is enough). Doug Weller talk 09:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I try not to act grumpy.
I can understand the use of AD as it makes a difference visible between a year and a number. I am raised with the use of AD (Anno Dominum) and BC (Before Christ) and I am aware of its POV but I have difficulty adapting to CE/BCE. I am happy enough that I can read it now without stumbling over it.
Content wise I am rather cautious, as I am not a scholar in that field. Quite often I adapt the mantra: If in doubt, do not touch. The Banner talk 09:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Nah, my point wasn't about CE or BCE, just the overuse of AD. Doug Weller talk 11:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Basilicas

It looks like you are trying to subvert the agreement. See diff here]. Please stop or war will break out. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

ow, goody, I am shivering in my boots. (Not at all, to be true)
And I have no trouble with reverting your copyvio again. The Banner talk 18:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

  • Library Card Platform
  • New partnerships
    • ProQuest
    • Springer Nature
    • BioOne
    • CEEOL
    • IWA Publishing
    • ICE Publishing
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Leave me alone

Listen mate, I appreciate that you are a more experienced wikipedia editor and all, and you know what you are doing far better than me. But I am frankly sick of you constantly following me and monitoring my actions and edits on wikipedia.

I really am trying my best and trying to learn everything as I go along but its really frustrating to have my hard work reverted over the very smallest of mistakes. I respect your experience but please cut me some slack and take some time to read the wikipedia guidelines titled 'Dont bite the newcomer'. Iamdmonah (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No, your edits are often not properly sourced. Very often. Make sure your sourcing is up to standard and you will have no problem with me. But go on like this and for sure you will get hammered sooner or later. The Banner talk 08:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Then actually make an effort to explain what the problem is instead of just saying "fake sourcing". Then maybe, we wont have any more problems. OK? Iamdmonah (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you check these sources? The Banner talk 19:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

If you are referring www.libraryireland.com "Brian Boru- Irish Biography" then yes, I did check that source. Iamdmonah (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

And there was no problem with them, they said exactly what I had said on the wikipedia page. 

Iamdmonah (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I admit that I made a mistake with the libaryireland source. The Banner talk 19:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
But www.historyireland.com is not giving the info to be supported on the place you claim it should be. The Banner talk 20:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
As Mabuska stated earlier: there is a reason for the close scrutiny of your work. The Banner talk 20:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Well I appreciate you admitting to your mistake, and replacing the edits you incorrectly removed. I'll look into the problem with the other edit. I know you're trying to do what is right but please, dont assume I'm disruptively editing an article because you see the name 'Iamdmonah'. I could say that is Assuming bad faith in violation of Wikipedia guidelines? I can thank Mabuska for teaching me that one.

Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Relevance and Wikipedia:Competence is required are the important guidelines. And do not get negative ideas about others due to your own failings. The Banner talk 22:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to RedWarn

Hello, The Banner! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 80 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 18:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  1. I am a slow adaptor by nature.
  2. Marketing talk puts me off.
The Banner talk 19:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

SosaysPatrickMolloy

Hi, as I know you've run up against the dubious editing og User:SosaysPatrickMolloy and socks, including User:Patrick Mcdermott25, at Gaels amongst other places, I thought you'd like to know they are currently on the loose as User:51.37.251.152. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I will take a look. The Banner talk 21:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent AfDs

Hi The Banner,

I noticed that you have recently nominated some articles for deletion as AfDs, specfically:

I just wanted to thank you for nominating them for deletion, but I think they should have been nominated for speedy deletion since there was no credible claim of significance. I'd recommend retracting your nominations and then nominating them for speedy deletion.

Best, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I prefer a cautious approach. The Banner talk 17:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop contributing to the erasure of Irish culture

Her name is grainne not Grace. Calling her grace on her wiki page is highly offensive to Irish people and contributes to the erasure of Irish culture. I'm sure you will do the right thing and that you considering her real name to be vandalism to be a mistake. Seaniemcf2 (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Please note that this is the English-language Wikipedia. Here we use the English names for places and people. Not adhering to the fact that we use English, is highly offensive and vandalism. The Banner talk 21:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC) And the language issue has nothing to do with history or culture.

So I guess you'll be changing Micheál Martin to Michael? Seaniemcf2 (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sinéad O'Connor will be changed to Jennifer or Jane? Seaniemcf2 (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Seán keane will be changed to John or Shaun? Seaniemcf2 (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Mairéad Farrell is now Margaret Seaniemcf2 (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow there sure are a lot of names on Wikipedia not in English Seaniemcf2 (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of the name Grace O'malley is considered pretty offensive in this country as that was not her name Seaniemcf2 (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Lastly Grace isn't even a proper translation of Grainne, the proper translation is actually Granya Seaniemcf2 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid that your Wikipedia-career will be short. The Banner talk 21:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Literally everything I said is true. I'll gladly go down fighting for what I believe is right. Seaniemcf2 (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Truly, Seaniemcf2, there are great wrongs. -- Hoary (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
But I can see the humour in your idea that I am erasing Irish culture. Especially after writing the following articles: Nora Cleary - Elizabeth Crotty - Dan Furey - Nell Galvin - Kitty Hayes - Laichtín Naofa Céilí Band - Patrick Kelly (fiddler) - Tom Lenihan - Nonie Lynch - Muiris Ó Rócháin - Seán Óg - Gussie Russell - Packie Russell - Jimmy Ward (banjo player) - The Clare Festival of Traditional Singing.
How many articles about Irish subjects did you write? The Banner talk 22:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

That's great that you wrote those articles, but that doesn't take away from you still being in the wrong on this subject. You were proven wrong about names being exclusively in the English language on Wikipedia. But I guarantee that this will eventually be rectified eventually, so you might as well fix it now and save yourself the hassle of having to do it at a later date. Seaniemcf2 (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Warriors do not last long. The Banner talk 23:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure you realise how offensive it is for people to purposely say your name incorrectly. We are talking about one of the most famous people in Irish history and most of the world doesn't even know her actual name and you are helping to perpetuate that. Seaniemcf2 (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You have no idea how disruptive and useless your whining is. And finally read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles, Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names and Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_English. I hope that you finally understand that you try to fight a losing battle. The Banner talk 23:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh I see that Twitter has got a hold of this, good luck buddy Seaniemcf2 (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ow, you were complaining there too? How sad. The Banner talk 23:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If it's sad to care about this then I'll happily be called sad. Seaniemcf2 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"I hope that you finally understand that you try to fight a losing battle" Seaniemcf2 (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Crying - Don McLean. 12:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Roosevelt Station (LRT)

Please refer to Talk:Tutuban station#Requested move 12 May 2020 (settled on using "station" in lowercase instead of "railway station"), and Talk:Roosevelt station (LRT)#Requested move 29 May 2020 (settled on using "LRT"/"MRT" instead of "Line 1/2/3"). We just had a series of WP:RMs on this and we appreciate on having the articles sit on where they are unless there's good reason for them not to. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, you just restored a link to a disambiguation page. The Banner talk 20:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck: in fact 147 links, as the template is used 147 times, with each and everyone having the link to the disambiguation page. Great work... The Banner talk 20:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
What are you looking at? Roosevelt station (LRT) is not a disambiguation page. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Roosevelt Station is the disambiguation page, not Roosevelt station (LRT). Interestingly "station" is not capitalized in any of the articles linked in the dab page. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Just fix it in Template:SRTS... The Banner talk 21:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
You were absolutely helpful. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I have tried to fix a problem, that you have now completely reverted. With the problem still in place! The Banner talk 22:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Check it. It's been fixed even before exclaiming that it's still in place. I calmly ask you to take back what you said. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

St. Xavier's School, Behror

Hello User:The Banner .Regarding putting article St. Xavier's School, Behror for speedy deletion , You may need to reconsider the decision . Please find the refrences .This School is not a branch of either St. Xavier's School, Jaipur or St. Xavier's College, Jaipur but a separate institution equivalent to them under Delhi society of Jesus . Find English Language reference here - https://WWW.xaviersbehror.org , http://xaviersbehror.org/aboutschool.php and Footer Page of https://www.delhijesuits.org .In the older version of article the redirection was wrongly placed . It is separately registered with CBSE Find afffliation number here - 1730149. and check on cbseaff.nic.in. Could you please reconsider the decison based on above refrences. Check Co-ordinates as well ? राकेश5678 (talk) 17:39 , 11 July 2020 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by राकेश5678 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no. What the article needs are independent, reliable (no social media) sources. Your sources fail these criteria. The Banner talk 14:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

May I know the criteria through which you put above refrences in Social Media Category . I am amused . The page http://xaviersbehror.org/aboutschool.php provides legal information about school on the legal site of the school http://xaviersbehror.org . And the page https://www.delhijesuits.org provides information about The controlling institution of School . And for that matter if you require News sources , I have put them in Deletion review page , they are in Hindi you might require help.

And for that matter even this is not a social media page afffliation number here - 1730149. and check on cbseaff.nic.in. You might have to read more about CBSE Central Board Of Secondary Education ? राकेश5678 (talk 15:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

And also as analogy You might have to delete St. Xavier's School, Delhi , Since you might consider them as same institution from their name , there are 10s of School with St. Xavier 's Name regulated by Society Of Jesus but each is a separate institution, I am referencing here a list from Wikipedia article - List_of_Jesuit_educational_institutions You might find St. Xavier's Behror There as well as a separate institution Under Rajasthan Heading.

राकेश5678 (talk 15:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

So, you have no content-related arguments? The Banner talk 15:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for explanation

Hello. You recently left what appears to be a boilerplate introductory message on my talk page, after reverting an edit I provided for the Newsbeuter article. Please respond to the actual rationale I provided for the edit, quoted here for convenience:

Newsboat is not just "some other program" but the officially recognized continuation of Newsbeuter, per Newsbeuter's git repository.

Please explain how including updated links to the very subject of the article is considered "advertising" (per your message). Thank you. GJM (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Based on your history of editing Newsbeuter to several articles. It gives me the idea that you are promoting it. But a stand-alone well-sourced article could solve that (as it will be judged on notability). The Banner talk 13:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no need for hyperbole. I added Newsbeuter to a single article, not "several".

Newsboat and Newsbeuter are the same piece of software. It changed its name in 2017. Why would that deserve a stand-alone article?

GJM (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Fork (software development) = new program = article necessary. The Banner talk 23:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Please also address your "advertising" accusation, as the explanation you gave has been demonstrated invalid.

You have acknowledged Newsboat as a fork of Newsbeuter. Several (actual several) articles of software on the page you provided include links to their forks.[1][2][3][4] Please either provide an explanation for making a special case to delete such links from Newsbeuter or revert your changes.

GJM (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It sounds that you have a possible Conflict of Interest here... The Banner talk 17:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Please explain.

GJM (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Nah, figure it out yourself. The Banner talk 20:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ "OpenOffice.org". Retrieved 15 July 2020.
  2. ^ "XFree86". Retrieved 15 July 2020.
  3. ^ "MySQL". Retrieved 15 July 2020.
  4. ^ "GCC". Retrieved 15 July 2020.

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Troubles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

GirthSummit (blether) 18:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I know, I know. But to I see that the other party has two warnings already from recent months? The Banner talk 23:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
And is there a smaller size template availble? Now it is a bit dangling at the bottom of my page, leaving big white space... The Banner talk 23:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi The Banner, I do have a question for you regarding an article found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software please do message me at <hidden>. Thank you!AmirPasc (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no intimate knowledge of those programs nor will I send you private messages. The Banner talk 09:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies

I missed your side comment in small font, "And yes, you startled me with al the reverts", that you placed after your signature. I did realize before that you were only fixing links to disambiguation pages caused by the other person's bold move. Sorry your changes got caught in the middle of my undoing their move. I did consciously refer to your edits as "good faith edits" in the reverts' edit summaries,[7] though I understand none of us enjoys being reverted. Apologies again for the system flooding you with alerts. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I graciously forgive you. But still, be aware of the bias. The Banner talk 11:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
There are those who argue that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should just be removed altogther. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
That would be a good idea! Now it is the country with the most newspapers and readers that will always win in a quest for the primary topic. Even when the non-primary topic is in fact of more importance. The Banner talk 11:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Of course, importance is subject to systemic bias too. Best.—Bagumba (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
True, that is why subjects should be treated equal. The Banner talk 13:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
In the present system (for example) the head of government of the country Luxembourg can loose out as primary topic to an American Football player of the same name. That is mighty strange. The Banner talk 22:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

  • New partnerships
    • Al Manhal
    • Ancestry
    • RILM
  • #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
  • AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

tnx

thanks for you're help! Michiel043 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Van Ranst - et cetera

I can assure you they are n o t incorrect infos. You have been the subject of disinfo, by a kabale of Flemish nationalists. (Kabale being a very favorised modus operandi in the ideological battlefield that is Wiki.) They are extreme rightwing, and have a strong dislike for Marc Van Ranst. They obstinately describe the pork flu racistically as the "Mexican" even though this is completely erroneous and long refuted. As to the other subjects: these are subjects that I know more about then the majority of people I ever met/communicated with, in particular also on Wiki (altho this would be very easy). I do not contribute on subjects I have no specialised knowledge about. Btw - I am Dutch, not Belgian, you might like to know. Good day, Dönerwetter1965 (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your vandalism again. You clearly did not read the source provided. Evenb then, with the debate about the name, it is still not the "pork flu". The Banner talk 12:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Stop vandalize

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did today at [[8]]. We follow the sources, not your opinion --Emigré55 (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You never gave any proof that Couwenbergh is an art historian. As the sources do not prove that, is am just following the sources. The Banner talk 15:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
This article is not claiming he is an art historian. Read the sentence properly instead of following your own fantasies and accusing with false arguments. And it is in any case not a valid reason to cancel the whole information--Emigré55 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Marc_Couwenbergh. I have started a discussion there about the reliability of the two sources. The Banner talk 16:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wielding the Salmoninae?. Thank you. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Your choice of words is interesting. I had to look up what "goaded" means (English is not my first language) but it indeed describes properly how I feel. I decided to leave the article for a while now it is protected. Sadly, I expect a restart of the edits war after the protection expires. The Banner talk 18:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

WP Cleaner error

Hi, I've never used WP Cleaner, so I'm not sure how it works, but it appears to have been involved in an error in an edit you recently made. Here, you changed the DAB link DragCon to Drag Convention, a nonexistent page. I hope the tool isn't malfunctioning if it's suggesting redlinks. The right link would have been RuPaul's DragCon LA. Thanks, Armadillopteryx 21:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

There was no evidence in the article that the correct links was to the DragCon in Los Angeles. So I decided to remove the link to a disambiguation page by letting it link to "Drag Convention". But I will correct it. The Banner talk 08:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Ow, you had already figured out how to do it. Could you please check where you are linking at in the future? The Banner talk 08:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I didn't write that article or put the DAB link there myself, but yes, I'm careful when I link. Also be careful that if you create a page, the title should use sentence case (Drag convention), not WP:TITLECASE (Drag Convention).
Regarding this, what bot are we fooling, and why? Armadillopteryx 11:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
We are fooling dplbot, who produces maintenance list like Articles With Multiple Dablinks and Templates with disambiguation links. The last one is nearly empty, the first one contains more than 20,000 articles. Effect of this trick is that dplbot does not see a disambiguation page but a redirect, effectively removing the article out of the list. For the readers, it will have hardly any visible effect, as you end op at the desired disambiguation page (just an easy to overlook sentence under the title). For the maintenance volunteer, it means shorter lists resulting in better moral and more time for solving of real links to disambiguation pages. I hope you are willing to assist in this maintenance task. The Banner talk 12:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Makes sense. I was not familiar with DPL bot before. I wonder if there is a way to program the bot to know that a page is a DAB page even if its title doesn't contain "disambiguation"—there are many such pages, after all. Armadillopteryx 12:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
We are winning the battle, slowly but steady. The Banner talk 12:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Incidents#Inserting the word "notable" into a subject definition. The discussion is about your addition of the word "notable" to the definition of cheminformatic toolkits in the article Cheminformatics toolkits. Thank you. Eissink (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC).

You are predictable. The Banner talk 16:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Equally predictable. Sorry that took so long. The PA's were worthless and the entire thread was pointless. It could not have felt pleasant for you. I hope that this ends the disruption to you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I expect more misery when he starts appealing the block. When he will loose that, he will move to another Wiki to cause mayhem. But for now the mess is over and I am glad with that. The Banner talk 18:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
And about his creativity with the truth: he claimed that Cheminformatics toolkits was kept, while in fact Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits was closed as no consensus, what is something different. Enfin, I go back to hunting links to disambiguation pages. That is more fun... The Banner talk 18:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Emigré55. Thank you. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Some advice

Let them keep shooting themselves in the foot without your help. EEng 14:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no doubt that he is able to do that. I only replied there because he seems more and more to be prompted by the indef blocked user. The Banner talk 14:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
If you're not careful you'll play into the scenario that you're harassing them and gravedancing. You have the community's sympathy because of their tonedeaf, clueless behavior; keep it that way by not making unnecessary comments. EEng 14:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I know that walking away is a good measure for self-protection. So that is what I do. The Banner talk 14:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Grumblings of a disambig hunter

I would really appreciate it when it would be a wikiwide setting that links to a disambiguation page get a specific background colour (I use blue/#AFEEEE but other colours are also possible). With a bit of luck, other editors will get the hint and solve those links themselves. Still more than 13 000 articles to go to fix those incorrect links. The Banner talk 19:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Revert

What does your summary "revert, no links going to the mentioned products" mean for the disambiguation page? --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you follow the links you had added? The Banner talk 17:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion that makes it into a misleading disambiguation page, close to advertising.

You're welcome. The Banner talk 18:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: Thanks for the quick reply. I did follow the links and I tried to mirror what I found on the similar Novolin disambiguation page. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted that misleading dp too. The Banner talk 21:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Kosovo War

Why are you not publishing the massacres of Serbs against Albanians — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkupi Kumanova 1234 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

You are free to add it but in a neutral text. Not with disgusting pictures with dubious licences and highly one-sided texts. The Banner talk 15:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Hi, The Banner. You're an experienced editor; surely you know not to restore removed user talkpage comments, as you did here. If not, please see WP:REMOVED. Bishonen | tålk 13:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC).

I will adhere to that, but even I sometimes snap over his constant goading and harassing. This showed his double standards to the max. The Banner talk 18:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you are involved.
 The thread is here.
--Emigré55 (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I have already requested a boomerang block indef for your constant harassing. The Banner talk 11:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020

  • New partnership: Taxmann
  • WikiCite
  • 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Limerick

It's totally unsourced. The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide a source for it. Valenciano (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It is up to you to proof that the info is inaccurate. The Banner talk 19:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No it isn't. Read WP:BURDEN "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."
You provide a source, the material can go in. No source, no inclusion. That's how it works. Valenciano (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No, you give solid evidence of the issue at hand. Not some guesswork. The Banner talk 19:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
There is no guesswork. It is not up to me to prove a negative. Again, do you know how Wikipedia works? People who add material have to provide a source. The material is unsourced so doesn't go in. Have you read WP:BURDEN? Valenciano (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
So you start a story about "highly likely that Derry is bigger" without any proof and then start vandalising this article with the excuse WP:BURDEN? Are you kidding? The Banner talk 19:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Removing unsourced material is not vandalism. On the contrary, misrepresenting a section that starts "I'm going to remove this claim as it's unsourced" as anything other is borderline disruptive. If you believe the material to be true, you have a very simple solution, find a WP:RS that supports that claim. This back and forth arguing is achieving nothing. Find a source and it goes in. Simple. Valenciano (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
So, you have no evidence that Derry is more populous but of of spite for that, you vandalise another article. Strong move, strong move. The Banner talk 19:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't need to prove a negative. You want to add the material, find a source. Valenciano (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
You are just shouting a random claim, without any proof. Please, go away now. Someone else will probably revert your vandalism quite soon. The Banner talk 20:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
So you admit you've no source. Great. You could have just said that a while ago. Yep, we're done here. Valenciano (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I am still waiting for your proof that Derry more populous is. But I guess that will not be forthcoming any time soon. Your guesswork will be reverted, no worry about that. And again: please stay away here. I have enough of your disruptive, aggressive behaviour. I have better things to do. The Banner talk 20:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Will Rogers phenomenon

Hi The Banner,

Saw your message regarding the Solution section on the Will Rogers Phenomenon. What would be your proposal for having a section on resolving the phenomenon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markstander (talk • contribs) 13:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Independent sourcing, so a source not published by you or your companion. The Banner talk 13:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Makes sense. Would the following article be sufficient (http://blog.math-sciences.org/paper-accepted-in-the-biometrical-journal)? I think a link directly to the paper would also be useful. Markstander (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Markstander (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

No sorry. The Banner talk 19:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide any more information on what would be acceptable? The source given above is indepedant so meets the first criteria. Is it missing something else? Markstander (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that it still promotes your own work. From the viewpoint of the encyclopedia, you have a Conflict of Interest here. The Banner talk 22:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Indian martial arts. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.46.180.95 (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice try to deflect your actions. Won't work. The Banner talk 11:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Banner/Archive10"