Jump to content

User talk:The Banner/Archive11

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


Jinotepe Nicaragua

For me is seems as about both the city and the municipality because the population of the minicipality is in the infobox not the metropopulation as it seems. Jinotepe is not a metropolitan area. There is only one metropolitan area in Nicaragua and it's Managua. Dampbarn (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The article starts with The city of Jinotega. The second paragraph start with "The city is located (...)". What makes you think then that it is about a municipality?
So, sorry, but I again reverted your incorrect edit. The Banner talk 13:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Beside that, the article is about Jinotega, not Jinotepe.

What are "maintenance pages"?

Hi. I don't know what you mean. Arminden (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Even Wikipedia has maintenance work done. Part of that maintenance is correcting links to disambiguation pages, like mentioned on Articles With Multiple Dablinks. Those pages are maintained by a robot. I am working on cleaning up those links to disambiguation pages but sometimes you have to use a trick to tell that robot that the link is valid, although it is pointing to a disambiguation page. What I was doing was adding that trick. The Banner talk 14:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I see. And I don't. Aren't [ro]bots administered by real people, those who write the code and improve it? Talking of maintenance :) This approach is a bit kafkaesque, you might find out that the castle door has always been open, but you figured out how to create counterintuitive tricks from outside, rather than ask the guard to allow you to go in (or ask him to go & fix it). WP is all a work in progress, done by people with user accounts, at least that's what I understood. So? Cheers, Arminden (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I hope you won't mind if I place this question also at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Arminden (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not surprised that you get there the same answer as I gave you. I hope you believe me know. The Banner talk 10:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Neo-fascism

Hi there, I'm not vandalizing Template:Neo-fascism, Operation Condor and the Guatemalan coup had nothing to do with Neo-fascism, so I removed them, I also added the 1981 coup attempt in Spain, because, unlike the previous two, it was actually Neo-fascist, that's all. -- 138.122.83.20 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I have removed your vandalism again. The Banner talk 21:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Again, there was no vandalism in my edits. -- 138.122.83.20 (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Stub

Please add {{Clare-geo-stub}} to your "in progress" Noughaval, County Clare, for the sake of those of us who like to see Category:Stubs empty. Thanks. PamD 13:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

PS There's also a missing "a" in your ref 1 "Dtabase". I'd have just fixed it but for your "in progress" template. PamD 13:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done The Banner talk 13:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. El_C 23:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That was not wise

I don't find this productive. It was not me who started to count edits, I've just picked the first reasonable version that was not made by that ostensibly "problematic" user. Keeping in mind that the article may be fully protected at any moment due to an ongoing edit war, this your revert (which might be quite legitimate in other circumstances) just adds more drama. I would be grateful if you found some way to resolve all that nonsense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Your edit was also unwise. And I did not start the drama, that were one Paul Siebert and Whizz40. I am not interested in your games. The Banner talk 01:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020

  • New EBSCO collections now available
  • 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
  • Library Card input requested
  • Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Verzoek

Kunt u alstublieft vermijden mij sjablonen met verwijderwaarschuwingen te sturen? Het is zeer overdreven en ik heb ermee ingestemd. Dank u.† Encyclopædius 10:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to spam your page but it is a technical issue. And beside that, it is mandatory for me to let you know that an item is nominated for deletion. On the other end, at the end of this series there will be more templates left then we originally anticipated. The Banner talk 10:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Veluwemeer Aqueduct

So I just created this, but I am having trouble finding more sources to show notability :> Maybe you can find something in Dutch? Also it is a shame we don't have a nice drone picture from the top... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Bedankt voor het oplossen van de Birma sjabloon puinhoop!

Een klus die al jaren gedaan moest worden! † Encyclopædius 10:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The Banner talk 12:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Bealaclugga Bridge

What's the best thing to do with this nice pic? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Spanish Point, County Clare?? The Banner talk 14:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Excellent idea. Shall I leave it to you to make the positive improvement then (as opposed to just making negative reversions even though the obvious solution is in front of you)? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
No, I do not want to rob you from your moment of glory. The Banner talk 12:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
So much for goodfaith then. Your primary motivation was spite, not making a better encyclopedia. Sad. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Nice motivation for dumping a picture at the wrong place and placing it at a better place. The Banner talk 16:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Cheshire Lines Committee at Nationalisation

Why did you remove all the station links for the connecting lines on this diagram? AlgaeGraphix (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Because the links were al wrong and leading to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 09:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Why are you reverting my edits

I've noticed that you're undoing my changes on the Vuze wikipedia page, hm.

SPAM. The Banner talk 17:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminship term length on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear Metro RDT

Hello, I noticed your recent edit to Template:TWM Yellow line RDT broke some links. I wasn't sure why you made the edit so thought I should leave you a message, rather than reverting. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

At the moment I changed them, they were all links to disambiguation pages. If you revert, please check the links to be correct. The Banner talk 21:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah okay, I'm not sure what happened but the links all appear to be working in the older revision now, so I've reverted your edit. Thanks NemesisAT (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
My guess is that someone else noticed the links to the disambiguation pages and repaired the underlying templates/modules without noticing that I had already solved the problem in an alternative way, thus creating new problems. The Banner talk 23:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

  • New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
  • 1Lib1Ref
  • Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Hi. I came across now archived Village pump#MEDRS talk and wanted to let you know that I too faced instanced of misapplication of WP:MEDRS guideline but I haven't a chance to comment on. I suggest you to take a look at this ANI#Canvassing_in_Malassezia request and visit the Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Primary_sources_usage. I suggest you to put the latter on your watch list and leave no comment. Thanks!

Beaulieu

Dear The Banner. I don't understand your reason to change the profession my father held at restaurant Beaulieu. From 1963 to 1970 he was RESTAURATEUR of restaurant Beaulieu at Castle Doorwerth. Chef at the time was Albert Emke who became restaurateur after my father left in 1970.

You claim sources my father was Chef. Please show that source. The Michelin links only mention the restaurant name.

But more important... I am his son. I should know.

So please leave his profession at RESTAURATEUR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenn (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:OR. The knowledge of a son is unfortunately not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. I should be published somewhere, by a third party. Sorry.The Banner talk 20:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
All good, but where does it say he was the Chef? That source is nowhere to be found.Brenn (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
You are right, I found confirmation that Albert Enke was the chef and that your father was the leaseholder. But if you disagree with that, I am willing to remove the whole Brenninkmeijer connection.The Banner talk 13:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Back again

User:109.77.93.171. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Who, what, where? The Banner talk 10:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, the late User:Patrick Mcdermott25. They also popped up later as User:109.76.188.252. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah, sugar... The Banner talk 11:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I have added a few of his target articles to my watchlist. Is it useful to block the IPs? The Banner talk 11:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Not sure. They seem to have the ability to pop up on a new IP at will but that's not something I'm knowledgeable about, or as to whether this is an active strategy or something that they are unaware of and only benefitting by accident. I've seen this IP-hopping with the most apparently incompetent socks. I suppose it might establish a record of their activity and an IP range if range-blocking is desirable but, again, not something I am knowledgeable about. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Now at User:109.76.175.36. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe another sockpuppet investigation? Perhaps they can then give a range block. The Banner talk 10:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be good if they did. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Now at User:64.43.14.151. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Verdis

Hello, I understand you dislike the topic of that Verdis article but please leave it alone. It was approved for redirect and has obtained more sources than RTL, VentsMagazine, LikaKlub and more. That sockpuppet user hasn't been around for a while.

If Verdis has to go then Molossia and Sealand would have to go too. I suggest just leaving it alone. That's my point of view.

Acc013 (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem, I will start a sockpuppet investigation against you. The Banner talk 09:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
For your information: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SwedenAviator. The Banner talk 10:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
How much of a child are you? Why do you hate this subject so much? And I am not a sockpuppet but alright. I do live in Australia though Acc013 (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I do not hate the subject. But as a good Wikipedian, I clean Wikipedia from non-notable subjects. The Banner talk 11:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Understandable, but with all the other sources out there that micronation is on, how does it make it non-notable when the redirect was approved etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acc013 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Bucause most sources are trivial or related to the subject. The Banner talk 08:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

VSN Wiki

Your opinion on Wikipedia seems to me to be crystal clear. Diederickdan (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you Conflict of Interest and personal need to start spamming too. Please keep Wikipedia neutral. The Banner talk 13:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Terra nullius shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acc013 (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, retaliating because you do not like it that your editwarringen and POV-pushing is called out. The Banner talk 10:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Grow up, you called a large independent source 'micronation owned' lol - and i dont understand what you mean by editwarringen and pov-pushing, but you must understand those sources are independent, and the article was peacefully left alone until you decided to remove such items. i just did the favours of adding it back for people, which you continued to undo. If you think it has such little importance, you may as well remove the 'Enclava' mention in that too which only has one site source. Acc013 (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah, and because you lack the proper arguments you now start with personal attacks? But you better try reading WP:COI and Reliable sources. The Banner talk 10:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Those are reliable sources, and I'm only getting personal because I've had to repeat the same thing to you multiple times. Those sources are reliably independent. Stop switching up the story. Before you even said they were 'owned' by the 'micronation'. I looked into POV-Pushing and thats clearly what you're trying to do. You seem to not agree with that micronations views. I don't entirely agree with all of their views either but I still remain neutral.
Related sources like their own websites are not reliable sources to determine notability. I really must suggest that you read those pages mentioned before. The Banner talk 11:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
They have been read. They don't display anything stating that its 'self-sourced'. its all independently written on independent sites. I don't know what you're going on about.Acc013 (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
You amaze me with your selective reading, POV-pushing and editwarring. Your own micronation? The Banner talk 11:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
It's clearly not my own as we spoke about in that sockpuppet investigation. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth. Acc013 (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Then why did you write articles about this non-notable microstate at so many other wikis? That is called cross-wiki promotion. The Banner talk 12:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

RSS Guard

Hello Banner, I created page for RSS Guard to make it "notable", can you please bring at back to Comparison_of_feed_aggregators? Thanks.

Nice try, but by now nominated for speedy deletion as explicit advertising. Not by me, by the way. The Banner talk 09:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

canvassing

I followed the guidelines carefully regarding notice of the whisky RfC on effects of whisky. There has been no canvassing.sbelknap (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)sbelknap (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Your announcements are done under a misleading title in a non-neutral way. That makes it canvassing. The Banner talk 23:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Which announcement was done under a misleading title? How was this done in a non-neutral way? sbelknap (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Stop playing games. The Banner talk 08:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
You've made a serious allegation. If I've made a mistake, please show me. I am not canvassing. What was the misleading title? How was it non-neutral? What are you referring to? sbelknap (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Alcohol and health#Hyperlinks to this article, Talk:Short-term_effects_of_alcohol_consumption#Hyperlinks_to_this_article, Talk:Alcohol_intoxication#Hyperlinks_to_this_article, Talk:Long-term_effects_of_alcohol#Hyperlinks_to_this_article and maybe more. This is not a title you should expect with a RfC-announcement. Nor is the text neutral. The Banner talk 12:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Please explain how this title is inappropriate. Please explain how the text is not neutral. I don't get it.sbelknap (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
You do not understand anything that comes in the way of your POV. I expect that you will keep bashing that even when your RfC is rejected. I am not spending any more time on you, as that proved to be useless. The Banner talk 08:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hoogholtje

With regard to your contribution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoogholtje bridge, ) if believe the article should be kept (as it appears you do), would you please be so kind as to indicate so, by adding: *Keep before your comments. Makes it clearer to closer of the AfD. Thanks (also for page name correction) Djflem (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have stated a keep-vote with my edits of 21:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC). The Banner talk 20:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 43

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021

  • New Library Card designs
  • 1Lib1Ref May

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Marc Van Ranst) for a period of 24 hours for edit warring over a semicolon on Marc Van Ranst. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
So, aggressive behaviour and editwarring is rewarded? The Banner talk 15:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
No, its finally being very mildly addressed... You’ve gotten away with a lot vis-a-vis misplaced aggression and edit warring, don’t cry foul now that your hand has been slapped. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Still hurt? The Banner talk 19:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.92.24.246.11 (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The folks at ANI are content that the current situation is sufficient in terms of admin involvement. Therefore, by way of an olive branch, I've opened a talk page section on Talk:Marc Van Ranst to give you an opportunity to explain what exactly bugs you so much about the change and to see if we can come to some agreement on it. I look forward to hearing from you there. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
You just continue with your aggressive behaviour... The Banner talk 18:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
All I ask is that you engage with other editors on the talk page and explain the issue you have with the disputed edit. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I've just spent 15 minutes going through this, and to cut a long story short - 92.24.246.11 is right and you are wrong, especially since they started a talk page section that was focused entirely on the content. While the complaint that "good grief, they're arguing over a semicolon?" is fair, the IP was the one who actually took the constructive action to get the issue resolved, instead of falsely accusing a good faith editor of vandalism and responding to their comments about article content with personal attacks. Please do not do that again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

You should take a look on the many templates he slapped on my talk page. I am guilty, I know. But you need two to tango. The Banner talk 14:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
As I acknowledged at the short-lived ANI thread, my efforts to educate you as to policy were rather clumsy. Still, they were genuine efforts and I really do advise you to read all the policies I linked you to as well as WP:CIVIL. ("Avoid editing while you're in a bad mood. It does spill over," is excellent advice.) 92.24.246.11 (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe try to read them yourself. What you did had nothing to do with being civil, but everything with WP:BATTLEGROUND. And now you still are poking up the fire. My advice: do something else and stay away from me. The Banner talk 18:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Very well, the issue seems to be resolved, but do please remember this incident when dealing with future editors. I really do not want another spat as silly as this to escalate again, for either of us. I don't intend to comment here again, so I shall take this opportunity to state I bear you no ill will and genuinely wish you the best. Farewell. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Some self reflection would do you no harm. The Banner talk 18:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Article verification

Can you help me in getting this Draft Published. The Subject is a professional football coach from india. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Muzamil_Mahmood# Dar zubair 05:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, out of my interest sphere. The Banner talk 15:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding editing of Ateneo de Manila University

Hello, I'd like to have a discussion on the many edits that you've done to the article. I do agree that some of the wording is superfluous in the article however a lot of what was removed has no proper basis for removal. For example, you removed the section in the introduction discussing about notable alumni. In editing this article, I was basing the format and the way it was written according to other articles such as Harvard University, Georgetown University, Yale University etc. You described the edit as 'promo' when other articles are doing it. If other articles were written that way, then by your logic, a lot of these articles that indicate their notable alumni on the introduction should all be heavily edited or removed. There has yet to be edits and discussions on improving the article and I would like to suggest that you discuss them on the talk page of the article prior to making huge edits. Thank you. Codayoda (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Codayoda;

It is not my responsibility to check if other articles make the same promotional stuff and act upon that. I have seen too many sockpuppets/marketeers/fans edits on Ateneo-related articles to have many qualms about radical editing in that field.
About the alumni, at best it belongs to the section about the alumni, not in the lead. And even then it should be sourced. The Banner talk 10:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
And yes, I noticed that you are (nearly) only editing ateneo-articles, making you a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. The Banner talk 10:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to inform you that I'm a new user and have yet to edit other articles, forgive me as I'm using Ateneo as an article I can practice my editing on. I'm not a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account like what you claim. It does not still answer the fact that your removal does not have basis. You're saying "It's not my responsibility" WHILE not acting the same way on other articles. The treatment and attitude towards it is unfair. I understand that there are too many marketeer/fan edits on Ateneo-related articles and I agree on that part. This is why there is a talk discussion that was opened to discuss and suggest edits on the article. But to enforce such a "rule" should then also be enforced on other articles. Why then aren't you making edits on the articles I've cited? Why does it have to be specifically this school? Not to mention, the University of the Philippines also does the same edit. Why don't you do that towards that article as well? What's the point of editing when you remove big chunks of content and don't replace/rewrite it? Codayoda (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Just as you, I am a volunteer and I have no "duty" to edit articles outside my sight. The Banner talk 10:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, I'd also like to say that I agree with some of your edits. There were parts were it was necessary to remove as a lot of the info were copied from the primary source. Codayoda (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Small car shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Polyamorph (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

A short thank you

I just wanted to say thank you for the many important, but overlooked, edits you have made over the years to help make Wikipedia readable! If you see that I have made any mistakes in my editing, please let me know as I’m quite rusty on many areas. But I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate what you have done on the project. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Interaction ban

On 13th of June you made an edit at Anna van Egmont which was a violation of your interaction ban. If I see anything similar again I shall block your account for a significant time, even if, as on this occasion, I become aware of the infringement only some time later. JBW (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

It was only after I posted the message above that I saw you had already posted a query to me about it. The fact that you asked about it does put what you did in a different light. However, you must have known that the edit you made was altering text posted by an editor with whom you had an interaction ban. The edit was, frankly, too trivial to be worth bothering about either way, which contributed to my negative view of the complaint about it, but it also must raise doubts about your motivation in making the change. It would certainly be possible to view it as a deliberate act of defiance, or, to use the wording another editor has used, "poking" the other person involved. Please stay 1000 miles away from anything that anyone might possibly regard as relating to the interaction ban. In view of previous incidents, the very fact that an infringing edit appears trivial is likely to increase any doubts any editors may have that it was done in good faith. Pushing close to the edge would be very unwise. JBW (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, fair. But to me his request looks like a breach in itself (plus a personal attack and harassment). The Banner talk 12:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree. At least 90% of the fault is from that editor, but you should still try to avoid contributing the other few percent. JBW (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Next time he comes with such a joke, I will bring him to AN/I, even when it costs me a block too. The Banner talk 08:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Familiar?

Seem familiar? Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

As in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Patrick Mcdermott25/Archive? The Banner talk 11:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Could well be. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 45

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021

  • Library design improvements continue
  • New partnerships
  • 1Lib1Ref update

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Chevrolet Spark potential edit warring

The recent edits in this article have devolved rapidly into what is, as far as I can tell, something too close to edit warring, for me to be comfortable. Could you take a look, and see what you think -- and keep an eye on it for the time being? It can help to have the eyeballs of a third party. Thanks, 842U (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is my explanation. Andra Febrian (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?

You have made highly questionable edits to Box (disambiguation) which did not have any discussion nor consensus. You have not responded to my request for explanation on the Talk page. Here are a couple of examples:

  • Penalty box had been in two locations on the Disambiguation Page. I removed one of them thinking this was an obvious improvement. No need for a double listing. You reverted my improvement. Now, again, Penalty Box is listed twice. What is your logic for this double listing?
  • The People section correctly lists a link to Box (surname) but then also includes a separate listing of Henry Box Brown. Since Henry is listed on the Box (surname) page, I had removed it from the Disambiguation page. You put Henry back. Why is it so important for Henry to be included separately on the Disambiguation page?
  • I had added a link to Juice box on the Box Disambiguation Page. This seemed obvious and not at all controversial. You removed this link without any discussion. Please tell me why you insist that Juice box not be listed on the Box Disambiguation page.

I could easily make these and other improvements again but you would likely revert any of my edits again; I do not want to get into an Edit War. I am asking you to repair the damage you have done to the Box Disambiguation Page. Of course you are welcome to make constructive edits to improve it beyond my efforts. Please respond to the questions on the Talk page and keep your edits positive. Pkgx (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

What I see is a poorly thought off proposal what was rushed through without proper discussion. And I see a very rude, condescending remark like "Welcome to the party but it is over." Clearly, you are not intending to start a serious discussion. I hope it is not your intention to start an editwar and recreate 200+ links to disambiguation pages as you did before. So, do not engage in disruptive editing. The Banner talk 16:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
And I have no problems with you improving the disambiguation page. I do however have a problem with the nearly undiscussed merger and the tragic side effects of that merger. Certainly when people object to the merger. The Banner talk 16:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Stefan Matz revert

Hello! So, you reverted an edit I made for this particular page, and you said the information I removed was not redundant because the subject's establishment earned a Michelin star while he was there. I am trying to understand how this isn't redundant. Is the subject still at Ashford Castle or not? The sentence related to the Erriseak House, is word-for-word the same, with the same references. Please let me know what you think.

"Stefan Matz is a German head chef of Ashford Castle and The g Hotel. He was, together with his brother, owner of the Michelin starred restaurant and hotel Erriseask House in Ballyconneely in County Galway, Ireland.[1][2][3]

"Previously of Ashford Castle and The g Hotel. He was, together with his brother, owner of the Michelin starred restaurant and hotel Erriseask House in Ballyconneely in County Galway, Ireland.[1][2][3]" Kirby777 (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

In so far you were right, that I have reverted the vandalism dating back to 2015 and that I even have missed in 2018. The Banner talk 20:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Latest incarnation?

Reckon User:2001:BB6:2F87:BD58:AC1F:BB76:B94E:5E9E is User:Patrick Mcdermott25's latest incarnation? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Seeing his cherry-picking sourcing, more than likely. The Banner talk 23:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Now at User:93.107.16.245. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you think about this article

Could you check on the Murder of Ertuğrul Dursun Önkuzu. Is this article about a notable event? I mean a death is a lamentable event, but the Authority control brings up a book about the Turkish very far right/Grey Wolves martyrs. I tend to nominate it for deletion, but would like to have a more experienced opinion before. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no knowledge of the Turkish language so I am unable to check the sources. The Banner talk 09:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

RE:Steaua București

I've been working on Romanian football articles for eight years, how can you revert my edit for vandalism? I moved the info from FC Steaua București, which I transformed into a redirect and I summarized it. It was meant to separate the two football clubs which claim to have the same history. I ask again, how can you revert it for vandalism?!?!8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Because it was. The Banner talk 11:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Information icon Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you.46.208.152.48 (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hope you overcome your grief shortly. The Banner talk 07:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I apologize for putting you down as a vandal. But you exposed yourself as a LTA, what came to light due to your own attack on me. The Banner talk 13:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 46.208.152.48 (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Advice

Hi - the IP was an LTA, but not a vandal - that individual doesn't vandalise, their issues are more around collaboration. They were correct on the matter of substance though - you've got to stop reverting edits that might be good faith as if they are obvious vandalism. And if someone comes to your talk page to complain about being reverted, I'd expect to see an apology, or at least an explanation, rather than your response above. I appreciate that you've said you're trying to improve - please keep trying. Thanks Girth Summit (blether) 13:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

If have put his case-file on my watchlist. Next time I will not revert but report straight away, saving the community another dance. And I hope to see some apologies too for (and I am now paraphrasing) "seeing sockpuppets every where" as I was right about that. The Banner talk 13:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The thing is, not all IPs who seem experienced belong to LTAs. Some long-term productive editors have static IPs, and you become familiar with them. There are also experienced editors who have dynamic IPs however - whether they've had an account in the past and just edit anonymously nowadays (which is permitted, provided the account isn't blocked), or they just never felt like creating an account. You can't assume that an IP who is obviously familiar with how things work is evading a block (although, in this case, a quick look at their overall contribs made it clear who they were).
I see further up that you were dismissive towards 8Dodo8 as well, doubling down on your accusation of vandalism when they've come to your talk to discuss the edits. You can't keep treating people like that - they might be misguided, but unless they're obviously trying to screw things up, don't call them vandals. Girth Summit (blether) 13:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
True, that was not a good idea. I only later learned that it had to do with politics, court cases and personal preferences. But also with disregard for the MOS. So I backed out of there.The Banner talk 14:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
You backed out, but did you apologise? I don't know, maybe you did somewhere else, but the thread above looks like you just washed your hands of it after insulting someone.
Look, I'm not trying to browbeat you here, but folk over at ANI had legitimate concerns about you being too free with the rollback tool and vandalism warnings. I think it would help if you'd just say that you recognise that you have been sometimes been treating people badly, and agree to try to treat them better. Girth Summit (blether) 14:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
It were good faith edits from my side, but I will act less tough against dubious (in my eyes) edits. The Banner talk 16:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I know you were acting in good faith, that was never in any doubt - it's just about recognising that dubious editing is not always vandalism. Only revert without an edit summary if an edit is unambiguous vandalism; otherwise, leave an edit summary and, if you're going to give them a template, use one that is relevant to the problem. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 16:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

And I hope to see some apologies too for (and I am now paraphrasing) "seeing sockpuppets every where" - Wow. When User:Bilorv said that, they were bending over backwards to find a charitable explanation for your bad behaviour. You should read it again because you clearly did not understand what they said. And you expect them to apologise to you, while showing zero understanding of how problematic your behaviour is? I suspect you will be back at ANI before very long. 217.150.156.11 (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who this IP is or why they're trying to stir up trouble (am I supposed to believe that they're not Best known for IP?) but they're not going to get a rise out of me. — Bilorv (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Same here. The Banner talk 22:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
IP is blocked. The Banner talk 07:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Meligalas

Could you be so kind as to see the talk page of the article? Thank you Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Gaels reversion

Hi, I noticed that your reversion at Gaels of edits presumably by User:Patrick Mcdermott25 was partial and wanted to check if this was intentional before doing a full rv of their work. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Corrected now. The Banner talk 08:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
And as expected, a new IP is now editing. The Banner talk 09:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Since User:109.76.217.40? Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
And as User:Snoopdoggydawg at Plantations of Ireland. The Banner talk 09:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 46

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021

  • Library design improvements deployed
  • New collections available in English and German
  • Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Andaman and Nicobar Islands revert

Hi, can you explain this revert? I've been replacing these fragile section links with redirects. The wikicode is more conciese and the links are less likely to be broken if a target section is renamed. ~Kvng (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

As I stated in the summary: "bypass redirect". Instead of a redirect, the direct link is used. The Banner talk 17:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I know what you did. I am trying to understand why you did it. Is there something wrong or inferior with using a redirect here? ~Kvng (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Why would you use a redirect when a direct link is sufficient? The Banner talk 19:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
It's a direct link with a section specification (Data-rate units#Gigabit per second). If someone changes the section name in the Data-rate units article, the link will be broken. We don't have tools to efficiently find and repair these problems. A redirect provides a central place where updates like this can be accommodated. Also, using the redirect makes the wikicode in Andaman and Nicobar Islands less cluttered: [[Gbit/s]] vs. [[Data-rate units#Gigabit per second|Gbit/s]] ~Kvng (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
The same will happen with your redirect. The Banner talk 21:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we're going to agree about this. Small issue. Carry on. ~Kvng (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Mcdermott25

User:Oneunderoath has a distinct air of the User:Patrick Mcdermott25 about them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree. SPI? Or just the blockhammer? The Banner talk 21:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
SPI seems appropriate. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to multiple wikipedia pages regarding Airports

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to bulk remove content and use WP:RS out of context, as you did at Cork Airport, Dublin Airport, Shannon Airport, Zurich Airport amongst others you may be blocked from editing. EireAviation (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It is rather amusing to see you complaining about disruptive editing, because that is just what you are doing. Just start adding independent sources, it does not harm you. The Banner talk 13:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Allies of WWII

You need to undo your changes, as the ones prior reflected the truth of what occurred, and not the simplistic pro-USA narrative your changes have now reinstated, after being corrected in the first place. Whether or not this reflects you personal views, the wording of the sections you have changed are not historically or factually correct. This is also an arbitrary change by you as far as I am concerned and likely warrants a violation POV rules. Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 02:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Denied. It is months ago that I edited that article. And do you have reliable sources for your claim? The Banner talk 07:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and I have been updating our FSCC page to make the information accurate. The comment written prior was that it had been written like an essay so I am reworking it so it is just the facts. You marked COI, and yes I am a sister, but I have the history of our order and so that is why I am trying to update the information on the page. Are you saying I need to give the information to a friend to update the page? Just trying to understand the rules. Also I am curious why placing our mission statement, which is the foundation of our Order, is seen as promotional? I noticed you had deleted this for this reason. So a question in trying to understand is that I see on the US Army page, for example, that it states "As a branch of the armed forces, the mission of the U.S. Army is "to fight and win our Nation's wars, by providing prompt, sustained land dominance, across the full range of military operations and the spectrum of conflict, in support of combatant commanders". I am curious why this is approved but our mission is deleted? Again just trying to understand. Any feedback is appreciated as I am learning. Many Blessings to you on this day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CloganFSCC (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

At least you have to write the article in a neutral style and tone. And it is recommended to provide independent (not in any way related to the subject), reliable sources. I suggest that you try to back up the information with that type of sourcing. Note: non-local newspaper are allowed. The Banner talk 20:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Language Census 2011 of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India

According to the official census of 2011 of India, Hindi is the 2nd most spoken language of the island. Earlier the article on Wikipedia indicated the same. But someone changed it 1 month ago.

Please check it since anyone visiting the page should not have any misconception. 182.74.211.62 (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Please check the given sources, as I did before reverting. The Banner talk 19:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

ARS Public School (3rd nomination)

You were a participant in the just closed 2nd nomination for deletion.
"She breaches." Captain Ahab and his White Whale. 'They pull you back in.' – Michael Corleone 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

There's an Article Rescue Squadron Public School in India??? EEng 06:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Nah, I think it is more the Article Drama Squadron: make loads of noise, do nothing and obstruct the process. The Banner talk 09:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 47

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021

  • On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
  • Search tool deployed
  • New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Michelin_Guide#Stars

Hello, I'm Aclub.biz. I noticed that you reverted my change to an article Michelin_Guide#Stars, with a comment "removed double info". Perhaps this what I added is a double info, however, in the specific section "2.1 Stars" a Wiki-user should read about stars, what it is and for what purpose. This is not the case at this moment. In bigger articles, table of contents is provided, so that a Wiki-user can jump into information of interest without a need of reading all the article. The current content about "reviewers" and "The French chef Paul Bocuse" is not saying anything about Start (name of the subsection); it firts to "Methods and layout" (section) but not "Stars" (subsection); only the last sentence fits to "Stars" at this moment... Cleaning and putting content in order is needed here. Aclub.biz (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2021 (CET)

Already in the second sentence it states: The Guide awards up to three Michelin stars for excellence to a select few establishments. So what you added was adding information already stated before. The same info, but now with pictures and more in-depth, is mentioned under the header "History".The Banner talk 14:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This part (1-2-3 stars) - I can agree, but the content of "Stars" subsection is still not OK in my opinion, as described above. Aclub.biz (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2021 (CET)
I advice you to read the article a bit better. Especially the heading of chapter 2, what states that it is about the method used. The Banner talk 18:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

apologies

Hi The Banner - I'm new here, so apologies. I'm just a rookie. Conrad has opened up two new restaurants. here in St Francis Bay. I was just adding to the list. I still don't see the new restaurants listed anywhere but I don't obviously know what I am doing Ekodek (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

See: Conrad_Gallagher#Port_Elizabeth,_South_Africa. The Banner talk 15:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Meelick GAA Deletion

Yes it is very very frustrating. Clearly these experts are just picking and choosing their guidelines. I actually created five seperate Clare club pages on the same day. They decided to completely delete my Meelick GAA page. They also moved both Broadford GAA (Clare) & Bodyke GAA to drafts with no pending decison. But Tubber GAA (Clare) & Parteen St. Nicholas' GAA (Clare) were accepted with no issue. Jesus wept! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muggins91 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you know the book "Clare GAA. The Club Scene 1887-2010" by Seamus O'Reilly? Theyc an not wave that away as a run of the mill source. And if they do, you can use the book to smack them. The Banner talk 15:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Flag template edits

Hi, Banner, I came to ask you a question concerning my edits. On your edit summaries you said, "at the time of the ambush the republic was not yet there", which confuses me because I'm pretty sure there was an Irish Republic from 1919 to 1922. Now is my understanding flawed? If so, can you please explain where I went wrong? Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

They made it very confusing but to my knowledge the Irish Republic was more a claim then a fully blown state. That came only with the recognised Provisional Government of Ireland (1922). The Banner talk 09:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I see. I personally think the flag templates can still be added, though. Because when a revolutionary person/organisation fights for a specific country to be established, their allegiance is still to that country regardless of whether or not it was more than a claim. So even though it may have just been a claim, it doesn't change the fact that the IRA still fought for the Irish Republic, as they did serve as its "official" army. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
To my opinion that is a breach of WP:NPOV. The Banner talk 23:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
How so? Did I give off the wrong impression in my reply? If so then that is my mistake. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Because we offer facts. And the "Irish Republic" was not ruling the country. The English did (sort off). It would be different when you gave flaglinks to the IRA as they de facto were in control in large areas. The Banner talk 21:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
But the IRA did swear an oath of allegiance to Dáil Éireann. I fail to see how adding flaglinks to the IRA would be different as they were on the same side. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Because the IRA was in control, not the politicians. The Banner talk 22:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
But weren't the IRA and the Dáil both fighting to establish the Irish Republic? Surely it wouldn't matter who had the most control or not? Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
At least to my opinion it does matter. As stated before, it is about the facts. The IRA was in control. But officially the English were in control and ruling the country (in fact hanging on on their fingernails and just ruling by a reign of terror). I suggest you ask the WikiProject Ireland for more opinion. The Banner talk 07:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I might also consult WikiProject Irish republicanism because of the subject matter. Sorry if I came off as annoying during our exchanges. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
No problem. As a Dutchman in Ireland I do not have the common emotions with the subject, so I hope I have a more neutral look. The Banner talk 22:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Airport / airline refs

I have had a run in with this guy before for sockpuppetry (although not intentional just ignorance of protocol). This edit is typical of dozens and should be reverted. Fancy a pop a some of them (and yes I'm happy to help)? 10mmsocket (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I have seen him quite often but do not have the knowledge to check his edits. Although I do think he should provide independent source. Sorry to disappoint you. The Banner talk 20:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Also worth noting he edits as both SeanMoulton1997 and SeanM1997 despite having been warned about this.
TBH all I'm asking is that you keep an eye on those edits and when they're added revert them as not reliable sources. I'll remove those that I spot. No specialist knowledge - a reliable source WP:RS isn't being given --10mmsocket (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I keep an eye out. The Banner talk 21:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
That's all you can do. Thank you very much. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I have actively removed several entries today that were referenced only to the airline's front page (and often just a bare URL, not even a properly formatted reference. I expect some pushback. Any extra eyes will be welcome, and in the meantime keep tagging those articles! 10mmsocket (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

About the sockpuppet investigation

Hi! Mate, you are a bit confused :) The user Goalandgoal/Giegiewik is writing the OPPOSITE of what I am writing. I literallly undid one of his edit on 1 December. No harm done but please pay more attention :) Dante4786 (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

You or me?

So are you going to revert the dozen or more airline frontpage URL cites, or am I? Sigh... 10mmsocket (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Great Britain Olympic football team

Hi - I see that you and I are in danger of getting into an edit war about this, which neither of us want. The change of this page from a redirect to a disambiguation page was discussed and agreed (by the few who participated) at WP:Football (see here). As you will see, your concern about the large number of articles that were linked to this page was also discussed, and user: GiantSnowman has redirected the links to Great Britain men's Olympic football team. Unfortunately, there seems to be some technical glitch whereby the old links still appear when you click on "What links here" on the left-hand toolbar. Despite this, as far as I can see, the links do actually point to the men's article. For example, if you look at the edit history of the first two articles that appear on "What links here", Football at the 1920 Summer Olympics and Scotland national football team, you will see user: GiantSnowman's edits. Checking the articles themselves, you will see that neither article now includes a link to the Great Britain Olympic football team article. I don't know how the cache on here gets cleared - I thought this was automatic, but hopefully this will get sorted and the page can revert back to what it should be, a disambiguation page. Best wishes and season's greetings. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

For your interest, the edit is again reverted, and not by me. Please solve the problem instead of dumping the mess on other peoples plate. The Banner talk 09:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing on airport articles

I noticed you added a comment "Please use only independent sources. The airport and airlines itself are not independent sources." to Baikal International Airport without an edit summary. What policy or guideline supports this claim, and what discussion led you to believe that you should add this disclaimer in a bot-like fashion to thousands of articles? After some digging, I have come across Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Archive_21#Passenger routes, which I don't think demonstrates consensus for your edits. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

That discussion was more about removing source requests by a now blocked user.
By the way, all edits are manual as the quality of airport-articles is too dodgy to use a bot (that I do not have anyway). That poor quality of articles is why I do this and it is backed up by WP:RS. The Banner talk 09:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not satisfied. I don't know what blocked user you are concerned about, and I also don't care. You have added a disclaimer to over 1000 articles. I would hope that you would wait for an affirmative demonstration of consensus before embarking on a quest that large. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
You point to another discussion, then it would be a good idea to research the whole story around that discussion and not just one symptom. The Banner talk 09:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I fully support your actions as sourcing of routes and airlines in airport articles is atrocious quality and inconsistent in its application. Good job on the disclaimers and the other changes you have made. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Mcdermott25 IP sock

FYI: User:64.43.186.64. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Today's sock: User:93.107.83.149. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Again? The Banner talk 11:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
'Fraid so. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I have two target articles put up for semi-protection. I wish we had better tools in the shed to hammer him. The Banner talk 12:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Ow, that did not work. Someone else was quicker with the requests. The Banner talk 12:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Nice to know there are others on the case. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Lurking :) 10mmsocket (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Clonbony GAA

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 Clonbony GAA requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clonbony GAA. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Onel5969 TT me 12:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Banner/Archive11&oldid=1133758088"