User talk:BananaYesterday

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DawnDusk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DawnDusk. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: LowTierGod (November 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curbon7 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Per WP:ENTERTAINER.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:LowTierGod and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:LowTierGod, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curbon7 (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DawnDusk! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Curbon7 (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: LowTierGod has been accepted

LowTierGod, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Noah ^💬 19:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:LowTierGod.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:LowTierGod.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 19:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Woodroar (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for creation

Redirect created. You can find it at Carpal varus. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! ----JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LowTierGod

Dalauan Sparrow is not his real name but another online alias/nickname used by him and it should be clarified as such for people unfamiliar with the person in question, regarding PewDiePie article it uses his actual name through out the article and so does articles about e.g. JonTron, TotalBiscuit and VanossGaming. Halmstad (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Bussy

Hello, BananaYesterday. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bussy, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:DarksydePhil

Hello, BananaYesterday. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:DarksydePhil, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Response to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#Request

I'm not a troll, and I'm not "unhappy with the enforcement of BLP." I thank all of you gentlemen for these insults, and I thank you for framing the matter in a very one-sided manner that neglects mention of the fact that what I was actually unhappy with was the threat of banning with the false assertion that I was harassing others while doing nothing to abate bad faith behavior from the party involved. Check the record - I never insulted User:Shortscircuit nor called him a vandal, whereas he did both to me without a care in the world from you gentlemen (on top of cleverly using the "log out" button to leave a disgusting message on my talk page). Again, I sincerely thank you for attacking and assuming bad faith in me in this matter, and I look forward to being blocked for the crime of responding to it appropriately. --BananaYesterday (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to extending your vendetta against me to actual Wikipedia mainspace, friends! --BananaYesterday (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not ever post on my talk page again please, Drmies. The AfD had nothing to do with Cullen. The article in its current form fails WP:Entertainer, and that is a fact. You deleted the AfD solely out of spite, just as you spite follow me and revert my edits. Your behavior is disgusting. --BananaYesterday (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"problems--essentially Banana seems to have created a hate" That's a disgusting attack, lie, and assumption of bad faith. Must be nice to be an admin and not have to obey the rules you're threatening to block me for. BananaYesterday (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also love the hypocrisy re: my edit summary mentioning Woodroar. 1. I was correct on the grammatical matter (try to improve your own understanding before insulting mine, please) 2. Practically every edit summary you make is condescending and insulting. BananaYesterday (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I never thought the day would come when an admin would attack an editor acting in good faith via AfC by deeming it "creating an attack page," but when you make one step against the Boys' Club (how's that pool, my biased friend?) I suppose it's to be expected. --BananaYesterday (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you're editing in good faith, I'm not your friend, and I will block you if you keep this up. If the AfD had nothing to do with Cullen, then please explain who you were smearing in the now-closed AfD: that you have some leeway here to insult other editors, including administrators, does not mean you leave them powerless. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "I doubt you're editing in good faith" And there you have it. You admit your own bias, and you admit your own violation of Wikipedia policy (assuming good faith). Here's a question for you, my brilliant friend: if I were merely creating an attack page, why would I go through Articles for Creation for half a year? Withal, your admission shows you are a picture of what a Wikipedia administrator should be. "I'm not your friend" no kidding, Sherlock? It's called sarcasm. You outright admitted to being biased against me and all but admitted to targetting me. And what are you intending to block me for, by the way? For the crime of being bullied by you? --BananaYesterday (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BananaYesterday, from your comments above, and some other remarks you have made elsewhere, you seem to have some misunderstandings of how things work here. I'm going to set you straight on a few points.

First, it is not policy that editors should assume good faith of other contributors at all times. WP:AGF is a behavioural guideline, rather than a policy; the underlying policy is WP:CIV. More importantly, the guideline does not prohibit editors from questioning the good faith of contributors in all circumstances. The following quote comes from the first paragraph of WP:AGF's lead section: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Nor does assuming good faith prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such. When I look at your contributions history over the last few months, I see you repeatedly making snide and abusive comments towards people who are being perfectly civil to you, and I see you questioning the motivations of other editors such as Drmies, Cullen328 and Woodroar. It is not 'bias' to doubt the good faith of someone who so frequently insults other editors, it is a judgment call that needs to be made. I believe that most administrators, upon reviewing your contributions, would have their doubts about your good faith in this area, because you come across as being very hostile and quick to attack others.

Above, you said The article in its current form fails WP:Entertainer. That is a non sequitur: articles are not measured against notability guidelines, it is subjects that pass or fail them. If you believed the subject to be notable when you created the article, it's hard to understand why you now feel the subject no longer to be notable; I assume that you don't like the way the article is currently covering them, or the choice of sources being used to support the article: that is a matter to discuss on the article talk page, it's not a reason to delete.

Moving forward, I need there to be an end to your snark and sniping at people. You are entitled to request a review of an admin's actions, but that should be done in a civil manner, without expressing doubts about the other person's motivations. You can ask for an explanation of their actions at their talk page, or you can request formal review at WP:AN. If you doubt the good faith of an admin, the proper place for you to raise that concern is at WP:AN or WP:ANI, and your report needs to be clear, specific, and to be supported by diffs. If you make another accusation of bad faith on the part of another editor - including assertions that you have been attacked, targeted or bullied by them - at any location other than ANI, I will block your account for harassment. I hope that is clear. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So as it turns out you've been making rude and sometimes racist edits here for over a decade now. Girth Summit, I appreciate the note, but another admin alerted me to disgusting stuff like this, with the suspicion that this might be the same editor. Guess what, it was. Their abortive attempts to log in as User:BananaToday, an account blocked years ago by Nishkid64, led toward a set of other accounts--User:Arisedrew, User:Arisedrew Rises Again, User:Arisedrew returns. For more than a decade you've been involved in childish vandalism and attempts to needle especially administrators--I noticed you tried to screw with NeilN and The ed17, and even Jimbo Wales. Very sad. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, sheesh - yes, that edit was disgusting. Very sad indeed. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's literally not me, but you've proven now that you were willing to contrive any reason to block me because you felt I insulted your buddy. Nothing to do with WP policy, of course. Utter inanity. BananaYesterday (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And since you've free reign to insult me by calling me racist, sad, and childish (none of which I actually am, funnily enough), let me return the favor: you're a terribly biased admin, and ignoring rules in favor of turning the encyclopedia into a boys' club with admins you like is sad and pathetic. BananaYesterday (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BananaYesterday (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am literally not the person the administrator who blocked me (who has outright admitted to being biased against me) accuses me of being. It is accurate that JohnnyFiveHole and I share the same IP address - and you could thus find me guilty of WP:MEAT meatpuppetry, but it's reprehensible to ascribe actions I'm not responsible for to me solely because you don't like me. That's unbecoming of a moderator. It's also telling that this administrator blocked me while I was in the process of making a post at WP:ANI, suggesting that his (partial) motivation was in preventing me from doing so. BananaYesterday (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I guess your brother did it? This is not a credible unblock request. I note that you are once again questioning the motives of the admin who placed the block, so I am going to revoke talk page access as well. You can use UTRS to request unblock. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

wow, what a nasty piece of work mr. banana. I would suggest to admins that we rollback his edits and delete pages he created such as angular limb syndrome. --SallowDay (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Banana, I trust you don't mind that I use this talk page to drop a few messages to Girth Summit and The ed17: SallowDay wasn't so much an angular limb as just a jokey bad hand account, and I threw in the CU-confirmed User:Kellytrim and User:NorthInternationalGroupforGingerEqualRights. Please ask your brother to stop making accounts. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, the joys. The GingerEqualRights account reminded me of this story: if only all sock accounts would bod towards favourite stories of my childhood, it would make SPI clerking slightly more enjoyable. By the way, do you use WP:reply-link? The buttons seem to have changed colour, I'm now seeing the French flag every time I try to reply to someone... Girth Summit _(blether) 19:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Rose Christo

Hello, BananaYesterday. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rose Christo, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]