User talk:The Banner/Archive07

Richmond and Petersburg Railroad

Content moved to Talk:Richmond and Petersburg Railroad 19:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverting all my changes regarding census of 2016

Hello The Banner.

I see that you reverted all my changes regarding the latest census. While I accept that in many cases I did not give the source (http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cpr/censusofpopulation2016-preliminary results/geochan/) and in other cases Wikipedia (once I saw that these where based on the above), I would have prefered if you had asked me to state the source so I could include it. Now all these articles state outdated results. If you think that is better then my changes, then let it be.

You may see that I changed some articles regarding local and Dail elections too; you should revert them as well as I did not state the source there either.

Looking through articles, I saw some contain outdated data; I intented to change some in the future. But I will stop trying to improve articles in the English Wikipedia; trying to improve the German Wkipedia a little is effort enough. --Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I really wonder why in the Leitrim article in the main text the new value of 2016 is accepted (although with the notation that a better source is needed) and my changes in the infobox are reverted because "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" while the Population Rank in the next line points exactly to this Wikipedia source of 2016 - with the population given as of 2011! I am really surprised that you think that your reversement made this article any better!

I am not bothered to check all the other articles, but I am sure that there are more discrepancies like this.--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Because it is still better than your unsourced version. On ENWP, things have to be sourced conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 22:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I could give you more examples of unsourced and wrong statements. Then you can revert them all. As I said in my 2nd statement: there are some inconsistencies in the Leitrim article: do you really think that one is better now after you reverted it? And I have changed many articles concerning the results of the last elections without stating the source. Go on and revert them too.

It would have been okay if you had asked for the sources; I would have tried to include them! Thanks for your help to "improve" Wikipedia.--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You can improve Wikipedia by adding Reliable Source when you add info. But what you did was removing sources or even naming other Wikipedia-articles as source. That is not how it works. The Banner talk 22:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

First: I only removed sources that where no longer relevant (census 2011 and even older) when I gave the results of the 2016 census. The WP-article I named gives as the source "Population data for counties in the Republic of Ireland is based on preliminary data from census 2016." although not the actual link (I wonder if you will remove this as well now - and all my "unsourced" changes regarding elections). And why do you not give an answer about the inconsistencies mentioned above? Or why do you not have told me on the "talk-page " that you want "proper" sources. But as I said: I am finished with the English WP - thanks to you.--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

But you never gave evidence of the 2016 figures. That is the problem. The Banner talk 23:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

And you never give an answer to my other questions. And I gave evidence, although quoting WP. As I said, I would have stated the sources, if I was made aware that the English WP is so strict (if you are interested, look at the German WP (articles Portal Tomb and Poulnabrone and the Talk-Page). There it seems to be the other way round - of which I do not approve as you might see). --Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Learn the rules... and you are not a newbie! The Banner talk 01:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Five pillars: Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, .... . Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others.Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, ... . Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. .... Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages,....

From Category:Wikipedia behavioral guidelines:

Assume good faith: Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.

From Wikipedia:Rollback - When to use rollback: Rollback may be used:

   To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear
   To revert edits in your own user pages
   To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made)
   To revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban (but be prepared to   explain this use of rollback when asked to)
   To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page[1]

Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning.

--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Competence is required. The Banner talk 12:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Outdated templates for riders and teams

In regards to the merger of the templates – I could theoretically get them turned around before the day is done, and they can be speedied (hopefully?). Shall report back once complete. I've had worse shocks, trust me! ;) Craig(talk) 18:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The Banner talk 18:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

All templates from 2013 to 2016 have now been merged over. There are currently three showing for 2017, but I can quickly knock together a 2017 page akin to the previous years to get those ones clear also. Craig(talk) 22:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I see sense for the 2017 ones. A year page might be handy, but not urgent. The Banner talk 22:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on Götz Kubitschek

Thank you for fixing the disambiguation links on that article! You wrote that there is still one to be fixed (referring to Blackshirts_(disambiguation)). I deliberately abstained from linking Kubitschek's public appearance in a black shirt to any particular group because there seems not to have been a reference to any specific group in that event. Rather, black shirts seem to be quite a widespread feature of fascist/militaristic groups (as can be seen in the disambiguation), so I wanted the link to a dismabiguation page to show the multiple possibilites for interpretation or reference. Best regards, --Ubel (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Ehm, no. It was Twinkle who said that there was still to be fixed, not me. I recognized the intentional link to a disambiguation page and that was why I did nothing with it.

The whole story about the NPD is superfluous, as you can read the story on the article about the NPD. In this article it turned it POV. The Banner talk 16:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh sorry, this wasn't meant to sound aggressive :) I didn't know. I'm quite new to wikipedia.

And yes, I see your point with the NPD thing. I just inserted it as further support for that statement because someone deleted that passage altogether before. --Ubel (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

My comments were supposed to be of an explaining tone, not aggressive. If that was the case: sorry, I apologize. The Banner talk 10:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Siege of Tobruk

Hello
I've changed the link we were arguing about here, again. I'd left it with you to decide which remedy to use, but there'd been no change, so I've decided for you. If you are unhappy about that, I've outlined the remedy at the talk page. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. So the Libyan city of Tobruk is now in the Egyptian desert? The Banner talk 23:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I've clarified your edit here, because it was incomplete as it stood.

And to answer your question: No, of course not, and the article doesn't say that; what it says is that the Libyan port of Tobruk was in an area referred to in the 1940's as the "Western Desert", and had a link to the explanation of why. Read it for yourself, it isn't hard... Moonraker12 (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting is that you fail to give the correct link. it isn't hard...

But is Western Desert a typical British name or have, let us say, the Italians and Germans a similar name for the area? The Banner talk 23:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The Library of Congress is one of the two sources provided there. I do not think that the Library of Congress is British.

The Germans called their forces the "Afrika Korps" (in German), and for the Italians, areas would be referred to under the province names as allocated under the rather short-lived Italian Empire. None of these terms are very useful to describe an entire theatre of operations in an English language encyclopedia. MPS1992 (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, clear. You have no real arguments to choose an English name but still wants it that way. Have fun with that one sided view. The Banner talk 00:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We do need to write in the English language on this project, yes. MPS1992 (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We need to write neutral and do not take a pro-English language POV. The Banner talk 01:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but writing neutrally requires a proper consideration of the sources. MPS1992 (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

But the method you use looks like cherry-picking. The Banner talk 12:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No, actually I have never edited the article at all. Ever. You would know this if you had looked at the article history instead of reacting angrily to a perceived slight. Unfortunately, you became confused. I suggest that you go back to the article talk page and discuss your concerns there, if you have independent reliable sources to support them. Otherwise, I suggest you leave it. Aggression and accusations like this are really rather unwelcome. MPS1992 (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

To take this up again (belatedly), explain to me; "failed to give the correct link"? If the correct link to explain the name “Western Desert” isn't the Name section of the Western Desert article, what, in your opinion, is?

And what exactly is your objection in all this? It seems on the face of it that you object to the English language WP being written in English; in which case you should prepare yourself for a shock, because it goes on everywhere; the German WP is written in German, and the Italian WP is in Italian. You'll find the Dutch WP uses Dutch language, idiom, terms, and expressions, uses predominantly Dutch sources and contains articles of interest to a predominantly Dutch audience. However, what you won't find on the Dutch WP is me railing against a Dutch POV, and a lack of neutrality by Dutch editors because of it, so it would be nice to have the same courtesy here, no? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for making it perfectly clear that you are not here to create a neutral encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 22:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

• From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost

• News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?

• Interview: What is it like to edit Wikipedia when you're blind?

• In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more

• Featured content: One year ends, and another begins

• Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases

• Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new

• Technology report: Tech present, past, and future

• Recent research: Female Wikipedians aren't more likely to edit women biographies; Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

• Partner resource expansions
• New search tool for finding TWL resources
• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC of interest

Given your prior edits such as this you may be interested inWikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Request_for_comment:_Use_of_interlanguage_links_in_Wikipedia_templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Dagar etc

It's not obvious to me (or to any other non-admin who can't see the deleted article) that Dagur clan was identical to the current Dagar, so that the latter can be speedied. Could we please have an AfD for Dagar, the clan article, to settle the matter clearly once and for all? I note that it has been to AfD twice already, once no consensus, then kept, one procedural close and one no consensus. Thanks. PamD 12:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've taken it to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagar (2nd nomination). Removing your db tag seemed unavoidable during the process (with Twinkle) so I hope you don't disagree. PamD 12:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I do disagree, as it was a recreation of another article removed after a normal AfD-procedure. But you were in such a hurry that you failed to wait for my reply. The Banner talk 12:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

(and PamD) The two articles are absolutely identical. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minami Itahashi

Just a note that I withdrew and closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minami Itahashi. Normally I would not do that as your delete vote was still active, but given the great improvement of the article, which now demonstrates notability beyond a doubt, I decided to be WP:BOLD and go ahead and close it, particularly as snow consensus for keep also existed. Safiel (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with that. The Banner talk 10:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cities in Azerbaijan

Greetings.

Now that I have seen, that all the cities and towns in {{Cities in Azerbaijan}} are indeed listed in {{Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan}} which I have overlooked, you can redirect this template to that template or delete it - whichever method the administrators see fit to choose. --Sondrion (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

• Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy

• Special report: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

• News and notes: Official WMF rebuke to Trump policy; WMF secures restricted funds

• In focus: WMF strategy consultant brings background in crisis reputation management; Team behind popular WMF software put "on pause"

• WikiProject report: For the birds!

• Op-ed: How to make editing workshops useful, even if participants don't stick around

• In the media: Presidential politics, periodic table, and our periodic roundup of updates

• Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes

• Traffic report: Cool It Now

• Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles

• Forum: Productive collaboration around coordinated protest marches; Media and political personalities comment on Wikipedia at its 16th birthday celebration

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert Devereux, 18th Viscount Hereford

I've just reviewed the article Robert Devereux, 18th Viscount Hereford which seems fine but I note that you've been in "discussions" with the author on the matter of Viscount Hereford. If you feel I should have dealt with it other than giving it a pass at New Page Patrol, please let me know. Cabayi (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Rollback abuse in List of Dreamcast games

It isn't smart of you to simply revert changes done by number of editors including myself in List of Dreamcast games. In addition it's supposed to follow other game lists like List of Wii U software, List of Nintendo Switch games, etc but there are some that failed to follow this standard, like List of Nintendo 64 games. Most also contain overlinking you claimed in your edit summary. You should open discussion regarding this in Talk:List of Dreamcast games rather than getting us into edit war. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 02:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you start looking at what you are doing yourself. With your last revert to have reintroduced 47 links to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 08:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

While we're at it, it's still in need of a good cleanup. Reverting is really unconstructive if not used against changes that's already unconstructive. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 09:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Introducing 47 links to disambiguation pages is unconstructive and damaging the article. The Banner talk 18:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Baltic states were occupied. Articles about someone born in France 1940 don't use Deutsches Reich as birthplace. Template:Infobox person Place of birth: city, administrative region, sovereign state. Soviet union never had sovereignty over Baltic states. Occupation of the Baltic states. People born in France 1940–1944 are not listed as born in German Reich – Claude Miller, Christian Boltanski, Catherine Deneuve, Bérangère Vattier, Frank Alamo, Jean-Claude Dassier.

Take a minute and read this: Occupation of the Baltic states. Especially this part: "The Baltic states, the United States and its courts of law, the European Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Council have all stated that these three countries were invaded, occupied and illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union under provisions of the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, first by the Soviet Union, then by Nazi Germany from 1941 to 1944, and again by the Soviet Union from 1944 to 1991. This policy of non-recognition has given rise to the principle of legal continuity, which holds that de jure, or as a matter of law, the Baltic states had remained independent states under illegal occupation throughout the period from 1940 to 1991." There are miles of discussions about this [1], [2], [3]. etc. Ans so until anybody can prove otherwise BLP of Baltic states do not use Soviet Union as Birthplace --Klõps (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

We describe facts, not historical anger. The Banner talk 22:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not angry, just gave you some facts. Sorry if they seem angry. --Klõps (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay I get the message. It is not about facts, it is about emotions. And I just wandered into a minefield like the Balkan-relations. The Banner talk 22:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Why such a personal attack? I gave You historical background. I'd say that You are the emotional one here. Baltic states were occupied. There's difference on De facto and de jure belonging to Soviet Union... and so on. I gave the articles, You can continue reading there. If You want to change birthplaces to SU then please gave Your factual explanation, and don't be so snooty. Klõps (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I just told you why I disengage: too much emotions. And you have just proven that point. The Banner talk 00:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I gave You facts... You can't deny it. --Klõps (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You act on emotions. Just let me disengage, will you? The Banner talk 10:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:OWN and WP:TIES

WP:TIES states "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation". In this edit you have removed the "Use Irish English" tag from an article that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation with the edit summary "no need for some POV pushing on the language". Can I ask you to explain what you mean by this and why you have done this? Secondly, in a series of edits, here, here and here you have removed the "Use Irish English" and instead added a "Use British English" tags to resturants in Dublin and Galway. Your rationale said "see WP:NONSENSE and WP:POVPUSHING". WP:NONSENSE is a content guideline and a speedy deletion category. WP:POVPUSHING states "POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas. Calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously". Can I ask your rationale for the restaurant edits as well and the reason you left that edit summary? In your first edit removing the Irish English tag you stated "I am unable to use a language that I do not master. I have learned British English at school. That is why I have chosen that variety" which seems to suggest that since you created the article you have some claim to ownership over it and the variety of English it uses which trumps WP:TIES. Are you making such a claim? AusLondonder (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not interested in your POV-pushing. As you state on your own user page: I also believe that while the systemic bias on Wikipedia favours the United Kingdom to some extent as well (...). Usually it is the original author who sets the language that is used and others respect that. And I do not claim ownership of the articles, when you have something useful to change in the articles you will see not objection. The Banner talk 11:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ow, and I was surprised that WP:NONSENSE was an existing link. The Banner talk 11:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting someone with London in their name is an anti-British pov-pusher is not only highly uncivil but bordering on the insane. Thanks for taking my comment about systemic bias absolutely out of context. Please take the time to actually read the sentence - it says "coverage of the United States is far superior and bias is manifested towards UK and European topics in some deletion nominations". You are wrong that the original author sets the language. If I created the Pearl Harbor as Pearl Harbour using Australian English spelling throughout, it would be changed to American English. This is the whole point of WP:TIES. Take just a minute to read the policy. Do you seriously think British English should be used at the Irish Republican Army article? At the Dublin and Galway articles? Will you seriously seek to defend that position if I seek a second opinion? Re the WP:NONSENSE page, which you actually linked, I am quite aware that you are "surprised" by the existence of an awful lot of our policies. AusLondonder (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice when you stop pushing your POV so aggressively. That is not helping any discussion.

The use of British English on the Irish Republican Army article is definitely not incorrect , as you stated. The IRA is founded in a time when Ireland was still part of the United Kingdom. The "Old IRA", as it sometimes is referred to nowadays, was also active in what is now Northern-Ireland, still part of the United Kingdom.

I can understand that you do everything to break down what you state as I also believe that while the systemic bias on Wikipedia favours the United Kingdom to some extent as well (...) but you have already fallen into of pushing too hard to do that. The Banner talk 11:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You're literally not making sense any more. Are you willing, per WP:TIES, to allow the Irish English tags to be reinstated at the IRA and Irish restaurant articles? Or do I need to seek another opinion? AusLondonder (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That is entirely your problem, my friend. A little bit respect for other would help you a lot, far better than pushing and crying. The Banner talk 00:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh the irony of someone who smeared another editor as a "nationalistic POVPUSHER" for enforcing well-established conventions demanding respect. You get what you give buddy. The fact you thought it worth fighting about whether we should use Irish English spelling for restaurants in the Irish capital is alarming and points to a non-constructive approach to editing and engaging with other editors in my opinion. If you don't like WP:TIES propose a change through a consultative community process. If you don't like the Use Irish English template nominate it for deletion. Simple really. AusLondonder (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No, the irony is that you have to start reading the MOS. Especially the beginning what states This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. And WP:TIES itself, that states An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. Nowhere in the manual of style is stated that following the manual of style is mandatory but that is what you are trying to do: brutally enforcing a rule that is not mandatory. The Banner talk 18:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

At least we're getting somewhere other than plain abuse now. As you say MOS:TIES states that "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation" while MOS:RETAIN states "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties". However, I am more than happy to discuss with you what exceptions you believe apply with the IRA article and the Irish restaurant articles. AusLondonder (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

''This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. What means as much: do not start to harass people who do not agree with you. Use common sense and leave the dead donkey. The Banner talk 22:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

• From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed

• Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education

• Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app

• In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia

• Gallery: A Met montage

• Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers

• Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer

• Featured content: The dominance of articles continues

• Traffic report: Love, football, and politics

• Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Dutch letter. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

DRN case closed

This message template was placed here by Yashovardhan Dhanania, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:Dutch letter#Banket". The case is now closed: no party objects to resolution If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Yashovardhan (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Additional comments by volunteer: a new move request has been made by original filer as recommended.

April 2017

Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion on the article Bucher aircraft tractor but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. Remember to let Twinkle finish all of its tasks before closing the tab or window. ansh666 18:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not know what I am doing wrong, but I fail to get it right. The page is now created, but still not in order. The Banner talk 20:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems like it's all good now. ansh666 00:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 21

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikipedia Library User Group
• Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
• Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:HOUND

Dear Banner, it seems to me very obviously that you focus a bit too much on all the articles of FFA P-16. All your recent deletion requests very only on articles of FFA P-16. I kindly ask you to stop that, especially in cases like the article of Bernhard Müller (Officer) which is a Divisional general and obviously relevant for Wikipedia. Kind regards. --MBurch (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

And you seem a bit too obvious in a silly protection mode. It would be better that you advice FFA P-16 to up his game, getting a better idea of what is notable and what is not notable. And especially: you can advice him to take a course in written English, as his stuff is often unreadable. The Banner talk 19:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

And it is not the first time you act on FFA's behalf. People have been frowning on that... The Banner talk 20:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That's no reason to suggest his articles for deletion but simply improve them. Frowning was more your wired Sockpuppet investigations. --MBurch (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That sockpuppet investigation made loud and clear that you and friends were called in for assistance. But at that time, you did you cross the line. So, take your own advice and start improving those articles. I am not a wild dog, I can appreciate a well prepared steak/article. Good luck. The Banner talk 20:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Which line did I cross?

Enjoy your steak! --MBurch (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, you should read that as "But at that time, you did not cross the line.". But what you are doing now, gives me nasty ideas of bullying to protect a friend. The Banner talk 08:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Michelin Guide

...I have blocked the IP for personal attacks, being aware that he is hopping. I also revdeled the attack...but I must admit I kind of like their choice of words..this quaint frenchie "victime" etc. Anyway, enjoy Loam (sounds fabulous). If you ever pop down to Kenmare, try to get a table at Packie's, or, on a fine day, drive out to the the Boathouse Bistro in Dromquinna. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Will add Kenmare to my bucket list. have to admit that I did not see more of Kerry than the horse fair in Listowel. And thanks for the intervention, hope it stays calm now. The Banner talk 10:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Stop Wikihounding me!

Stop immediately wikihoundig /stalking me! This was a NON Public page! It is not your business what I do there. Don't try not to withewash you. I can listen up all what you have done to me, its my one business. Don't touch my page! LEAVE ME ALONE! Bye!FFA P-16 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

making attack pages can get you blocked, my friend. And getting other to do your dirty work is also not good for your reputation. So you better stop with your silly accusations or face the consequences. The Banner talk 08:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

STOP, you are doing it right now, stop! Wikipedia is big enough you can do 1000 things and i am not interested in your restaurands, beauticontest articel what ever you do I don't care. Just stop follow me and stop threaten me. You acting aggressiv against me but if just listen up a tiny pice what you are doing you react very thin skined. I told you also,many times to stay a way from my talkpage. Ther is only one smale thing you have to do and everything is fine:LEAVE ME ALONE! FFA P-16 (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

My friend, even you have to adhere to the rules and regulations about notability. This is not a playground where you can dump articles about every Swiss machine, person and company. Article-subjects need to be notable, information added to articles needs to be relevant and your written English needs to be readable. Is that so difficult to understand? It is the quality of your work that is my concern, not your passport. The Banner talk 17:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Friend, is probably inappropriate. A friend supports, helps and respects and is also compromise-ready. Only your word choice against people who do not share your view is extremely aggressive. Incorrect English is not a reason, there are many who improve this, unasked and without complaint. No, you are not about notability, that's just an excuse from you to justify your actions. Do I really have to list up everything again? By some articles it was ok to put them in question, but only some. ,The only UAV article you wanted to delete was from me /swiss, , the same with the military task force ALBA, or the military museum, only those articles of mine / switzerland you have deleted, no comparable from other authors / states. The same with the aircraft tug.. you tored it again to a delete discussion even though it has references and you put the notability in question .. if you would go about it, you would have also put MB-2 tow tractor and U- 30 Tow Tractor in question. But you bend the rules in your advantage. Also you put the Divisional general and next air force commander in for an deletion requested .. sorry but so your point about notability is lacking any credibility. I am not interested in restaurands and beauty contests or whatever you do, I don’t care, but that is no reason for me to harm you somehow. But you obviously lack this necessity , I know of users who have made valuable work for Wikipedia and have left only because of you. I do not want to spend much time in wikipedia, but with every action you do against me, I have to be active here and spend more time on wikipedia. Suggestions to improve articels Proactive cooperation is good . Violent barring and absolute uncompromisingness do not work in wikipedia in the long run. I do not want a conflict with you I just want my peace.FFA P-16 (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not harm you, absolutely not. But I am very critical about the quality of your work. You could improve your understanding of notability and reliable sources. That would already help a big lot to get me on a bigger distance. And that is what I am t6elling you all the time: your sourcing and the notability of your subjects is below the common standards. raise your own standards and you will have no difficulty with me.

But instead of taking the advice, you start accusing, shouting and roaring. Very unhelpful. The Banner talk 08:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ow, and I am not the only one critical about the quality of your work. User:YSSYguy frequently rips apart your arguments. But still you blame me for everything evil. And you need User:MBurch to protect you. Sad. Just improve the quality of your work. The Banner talk 09:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's about the quality why don't you improve it? But the way you treat and follow FFA P-16 is indeed annoying (not to mention your Sockpuppet investigations), so please just stop it, ok? --MBurch (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no influence on the lack of notability of the subjects he chooses. Nor do I have any influence of his sourcing. The Banner talk 06:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Stop this missuse of nomination for deletions! This all has nothing to do with wikipedia GNG , its only your dammed witchhunt against me! Your behaving is a destructiv for wikipieda.FFA P-16 (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Stop crying and check the notability of your subjects yourself. Please be aware that personal attacks are not allowed. The Banner talk 19:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

They are notable You are just missusing "notability" to cover your stalking of me and destroying of my work. If it would be about notability you would have take care about MB-2 tow tractor and U-30 Tow Tractor and not about the Bcher Flugzeugschlepper or a swiss Divisonal General or now this two air surveilance systems!FFA P-16 (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It is up to the administrators to decide of the subject is notable or not and properly sourced with reliable, independent sources. The Banner talk 19:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

But its not the admins who starts the AfD's its yu, and you are following one single line who give the clear picture tha your only goal is to kick me out of wikipedia and delet step by step articels i had writhen.. it is so easy to see.. but you even lack the "cojones" to stay to this.20:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)~

LOL. No my general idea is to get you to do do three things:

1. Get a clear idea of what the community regards notable
2. Get a clear idea of what the community regards as proper sourcing according to WP:RS
3. Get a clear idea that it is worthwhile to make an effort to improve your English

I have no intention to get you out, banned, blocked or whatsoever. But I would like it when you stopped with your baseless accusations and personal attacks. The Banner talk 20:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Just lies to cover your true intenion. If it would be about what the community regards notable you would have never ever nominadet Dübendorf AFB, Bernhard Müller and so one for AfD! If it would be about what the community regards as proper sourcing according to WP:RS you don't would follow me like this because ther is much more worser out ther in wikipeda.. and even if you give the hint you dosent pick up articels with ZERO sources! Your actions show loud an clear that your attacks again me and my work have nothing to do wthi the spirit/idea of wikipeda and notability. Just "talking sweet" now can not cover you manshunt. And this mans hunt against me is the real personal attack.FFA P-16 (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Stop your personal attacks, my friend. The Banner talk 20:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Same to you, and if you call me "my friend" you should act like a friend (because then we would both have an much nicer live). Good night (I have to get up early).FFA P-16 (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Do not blame the world (or me) for your own failings. I have advised you repeatedly how you can make your own life easier. But you have to make the effort to improve. The Banner talk 21:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• TB, I think it might actually be a good idea for you to reply on the ANI thread. I started by assuming good faith on both your part and those of your accusers, and have become increasingly sceptical of their claims the more they refuse to provide evidence, and the thread was already TLDR before I commented, so you're not actually at risk of getting sanctioned, but (believe me!) the more threads you let them open without being formally shut down, the easier it will be for future people to say "The Banner's disruptive behaviour has been discussed on ANI before". If MBurch doesn't retract his comments I'm strongly considering opening a BOOMERANG subthread, but your weighing in as well would also be appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:HOUND

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.--MBurch (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

LOL. The Banner talk 12:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks like it is going to backfire, mr. MBurch. Both for you and mr. FFA. The Banner talk 07:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

World War II in Yugoslavia Repeat Vandelism

User 178.222.116.11 has for the 5th time made the same unsourced deletion in article World War II in Yugoslavia despite your warning. 108.54.93.183 (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

• From the editors: Signpost status: On reserve power, help wanted!

• News and notes: Global Elections

• Arbitration report: Cases closed in the Pacific and with Magioladitis

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's lead sentence problem

• Featured content: Three months in the land of the featured

• In the media: Did Wikipedia just assume Garfield's gender?

• Recent research: Wikipedia bot wars capture the imagination of the popular press

• Technology report: Tech news catch-up

• Traffic report: Film on Top: Sampling the weekly top 10

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverted contribution from Emoji page

Hello Can you explain me please why did you remove my contribution about controversial emojis? I think it was relevant and interesting for the page. Don't you think so? AnasBARAKAT TPT (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The Banner talk 22:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't present only the minority points of views. This is the point of avoiding undue weight. The principal objective of this measure is neutrality as it is said in WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. You can find other arguments to my response in the emoji Talk page AnasBARAKAT TPT (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You blow a minor issue way out of proportion. The Banner talk 12:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 22

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

• New and expanded research accounts
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

• News and notes: Departments reorganized at Wikimedia Foundation, and a month without new RfAs (so far)

• In the media: Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill

• Op-ed: Facto Post: a fresh take

• Featured content: Will there ever be a break? The slew of featured content continues

• Traffic report: Wonder Woman beats Batman, The Mummy, Darth Vader and the Earth

• Recent research: Utopian bubbles: Can Wikipedians create value outside of the capitalist system?

• Technology report: Improved search, and WMF data scientist tells all

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The Banner talk 09:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Your IP stalker

I've blocked but I don't have OS so if you still want the material oversighted you'd best email oversight. GoldenRing (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

speedy deletion Ashish Bisht

(Ashih is film Actor His movie Shab is going to release on 14th July he is Main Lead Actor With Raveena Tandon [1] ) --Jinnun (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnun (talk • contribs)

The last four times that it was nominated for deletion, the movie Shab was always to be launched soon after. But without any proof. The Banner talk 17:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

We do not censor

Hi, we actually do. Wikipedia allows for blanking of non-productive and inflammatory forum style posts on talk pages. Particularly those which simply detract from wp policies and have no intention of improving articles. You can restore the deleted content if you like, but you'll actually be causing a detriment to the discussion. Edaham (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

for what it's worth, I've moved the borderline forum style posts to the talk page of the person who begun the non article related complaint. Edaham (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ow, I know that there is a lot of censorship, but most of the time that is hidden behind WP:MEDRS. But this was a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Banner talk 18:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

the policies you are referring to apply to articles not talk pages. If someone is making completely unrelated posts (again pointing out that the persons post was a complaint about Wikipedia, not a suggestion for article improvement) it is not uncommon for their rantings to be removed, moved or their threads closed. I chose the former because there's and active discussion associated with that thread at the moment and I don't want to close it. Edaham (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Plain avoiding critics and their critical comments... The Banner talk 23:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

you are entitled to your opinion. I've directed the person to the appropriate place for complaints on their talk page. Do try to keep discussion on article talk pages confined to the subject of article improvement. Thanks. Edaham (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact that guy was discussing article improvement. The article is way off balance due to the stranglehold of the MEDRS-guys and the alternative-is-always-bad-fake-and-ineffective-guys. You have warriors walking around there that bludgeon everything what is positive! The Banner talk 04:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position on the subject of alternative medicine. If you are supportive of this subject to the point of buttressing other editors who wish to discredit the encyclopedia on the grounds of an article's content, it is probably best not to edit those kinds of articles, or at least to make sure that POV doesn't cloud your ability to vet sources, and genuine suggestions for introducing content. I have now left the comment there and hopefully it will not throw the conversation off onto another tangent. (See closed thread above). Edaham (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice way to state your own point of view. But your stance will not fix the off-balance article. The Banner talk 10:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

correct. Fixing the article will fix the article - as opposed to restoring inflammatory comments on talk pages. Edaham (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Than do something about this flawed, biased, unbalanced article and take away the reason why mister Loudmouth is shouting at you. The Banner talk 00:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrator election on Dutch Wikinews

Hi, The Banner.

I appreciate that you opposed the approval of that project. But the project was approved, and elections were held according to rules the community established (and which closely resemble the rules at nlwiki, if I am not mistaken).

There is no possible way the stewards will grant immediate permanent admin status to any of them—that's not the way things work. Stewards do decide whether the project is big enough for admins to be permanent, or for 'crats to be appointed, but believe me: that's not the case here. But normally the choice of administrators is up to the project itself, and stewards only handle the magisterial role of (a) checking that the election was done by the local rules and (b) flipping the switch on admin status.

If you want to object to the election of any of the individuals as sysop, your only real option is to get involved in the project and then oppose the candidates. And at that, if you are trying to undermine the project, your !vote will probably be discounted, and rightly so.

At this point I'd encourage you to give the members of the Dutch Wikinews community the chance to sink or swim on their own. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

There will be no need from outside activity to blow up that project. They are perfectly capable of doing that themselves. I will be surprised when it makes the end of the year.

Still, I like your bad faith assumption when I am just asking for a clarification. The Banner talk 21:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason I made the comment here was to put a little space between my comment and the instant discussion. Still, you are quite right about my not having assumed good faith, and I apologize for that.

I hope my answer over on Meta was satisfactory for the time being. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Rather unclear, but for now it will do. The Banner talk 22:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no clearer answer for now. Basically, the stewards will give them 3–6 months right now. If the project never gets much bigger (in terms of contributors), the term may lengthen to about a year at a time, but it will remain a temporary administratorship, and could stay that way indefinitely. If the project attracts a larger group of editors, the term could be extended to two years, or eventually even be converted to a permanent adminship. But that's going to be at minimum a couple of years down the road, possibly longer, and maybe never, depending on what happens. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

• News and notes: French chapter woes, new affiliates and more WMF team changes

• Featured content: Spectacular animals, Pine Trees screens, and more

• In the media: Concern about access and fairness, Foundation expenditures, and relationship to real-world politics and commerce

• Recent research: The chilling effect of surveillance on Wikipedia readers

• Op-ed: Why Task Forces are Dying in 2017

• Gallery: A mix of patterns

• Humour: The Infobox Game

• Traffic report: Film, television and Internet phenomena reign with some room left over for America's birthday

• Technology report: New features in development; more breaking changes for scripts

• Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 3 wrap-up

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible block looming

You are now the subject of a discussion at WP:ANI here regarding possible disciplinary action for edit warring at Peacock Alley (restaurant). Akld guy (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The classic case of trying to block when you have run out of arguments. The Banner talk 02:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI

The Banner, see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Peacock_Alley_.28restaurant.29. Marrakech (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You are forumhopping and following me around. Stop this nonsense. The Banner talk 21:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee referral for violation of The Troubles 1RR restriction

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#The_Banner. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Via WP:AE

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding The Troubles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. I will keep it in mind. Thanks for the warning. The Banner talk 14:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Your user page

As you requested:

I am a Dutchman but since a couple of years living in County Clare, Ireland, Ireland.

• I am a Dutchman who has been living for a couple of years...
• I am a Dutchman living, since 2016, in...
• I am a Dutchman but have been living, since 2016, in... Done

It is remarkable that Wikipedia is claiming not to be a site for advertising and promotion, but on the other hand it is extremely difficult to remove spammy articles.

• I'm having trouble with this sentence. I'm not sure you understand the definition of spam. As it stands, the text contains two statements which aren't really related. The claim in the first part can't be tied to the difficulty described in the second, so linking them just seems wrong. Done

This is due to the many editors claiming that normal editing should do the trick but fail to improve the spammy articles they say that can be improved. This is seriously undermining Wikipedia's stance against advertising and promotion.

• The same difficulty applies to the concept; but for grammar:
• This is due to many editors claiming...
• This is due to the many editors who claim...

(There's a subtle difference: the first just states there are many editors; the second implies an indication of what "many" means has already been discussed.)

• ...they say can be improved. This seriously undermines...  Done

I treat everybody exactly the same.

• Arguably should be "I treat everybody in exactly the same way.", but some might consider the criticism pedantic. Not done

...no matter how important somebody is (or thinks to be)

• ...no matter how important somebody is (or thinks they are) Done

...detrimental for the encyclopaedia

• ...detrimental to the encyclopaedia Done

You can find load of pictures in...

• You can find loads of pictures in... Done

...how do I find coordinates for an article. Coordinates tool is very handy for this.

• ...how do I find coordinates for an article? The Coordinates tool is very handy for this. Done

...sometimes you want to know what articles you have created. Just check that here.

• ...sometimes you want to know what articles you have created. Simply check here. Done

Bazza (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Except for one thing, I have done everything. The part of the criticism is supposed to be harsh and critical. When you call it "pedantic", I have found the right note. The Banner talk 08:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have written that more clearly. I was referring to my own pedantic criticism of your sentence. Better would have been "...but some might consider my criticism pedantic.". I have not offered any opinion on the views you have expressed, simply your English grammar and style. Happy to help. Bazza (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC))

1RR on Troubles article violations

You know the restrictions imposed on Trouble related articles and you seem intent on violating them in your edit-war with Melbguy05. I have notified them of these restrictions. What is your reason for ignoring them considering you are versed in it going by your direct quote of it, which shows you have read it? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You think I remember something out of 2015? But I apologies for my indiscretion to make two different edits. The Banner talk 21:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Three reverts in less than 12 hours never mind 24 actually. And with your block history it is something you should be remembering. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I remember your bad faith attitude... The Banner talk 21:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you may claim, I have not violated the Troubles restriction... Mabuska ^(talk) 21:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No, only a load of bad faith. Why did you point to my block log? To tarnish my name? You could see that my last block is nearly two years ago. And yes, my behaviour was influenced by my depressions, something I know now, but not during the depression. But if it makes you happy to get me blocked, so be it. The Banner talk 23:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Why? Because the Enforcement submit a request form states to add any possibly relevant prior blocks. They also seemed to correlate to your bad faith labelling towards Melbguy05. So on that basis I stated them that is all. Admins are the ones who judge for themselves whether they are relevant or not, and in this case not so. The enforcement is there for a reason: to deter disruptive behaviour and sanction those who violate it. You violated those restrictions as did Melbguy05 which I noted at AE and you got off on a technicality. Regardless the intent was not to get you blocked but to ensure that such disruption will be less likely to happen again and I doubt it now will and that is what makes me happy :-) Mabuska ^(talk) 23:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

So stating an opinion is immediately "bad faith labelling". I hope you have noticed that your block attempt has failed massively with none of your arguments upheld. (The edit warring was true.) The Banner talk 09:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi, as suggested by user KDS4444 I opened a request for comment. Feel free to add your statement explaining your point of view. Marrakech (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It does not surprise me that you refuse to give up and go on with your forum hopping. The Banner talk 16:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

• News and notes: Non-English special edition! 99% no news about English-based wiki communities!

• Recent research: Wikipedia can increase local tourism by +9%; predicting article quality with deep learning; recent behavior predicts quality

• WikiProject report: Comic relief

• In the media: Wikipedia used to judge death penalty, arms smuggling, Indonesian governance, and HOTTEST celebrity

• Traffic report: Swedish countess tops the list

• Blog: Canadian Supreme Court rules against Google in favor of worldwide court orders

• Special report: Sharing Wikipedia offline medical information in the Dominican Republic

• Featured content: Everywhere in the lead

• Technology report: Introducing TechCom

• Humour: WWASOHs and ETCSSs

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 23

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

• Library card
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
• Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

General note false allegation

Please stop hiding a legitimate complaint about a false allegation and a one-sided 3RR warning.Keith-264 (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Just a reminder that I'm quite willing to address any concerns you have. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Then start with removing the personal attack. The Banner talk 14:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no personal attack to remove; if you want to continue, contact me on my talk page or the article talk page. Regards and regrets.Keith-264 (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Second request: remove that personal attack or I bring you to AN/I. The Banner talk 16:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Spam

See this. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The Banner talk 23:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

• From the editors: What happened at Wikimania?

• News and notes: Basselpedia; WMF Board of Trustees appointments

• Featured content: Warfighters and their tools or trees and butterflies

• Traffic report: A fortnight of conflicts

• Special report: Biomedical content, and some thoughts on its future

• Recent research: Discussion summarization; Twitter bots tracking government edits; extracting trivia from Wikipedia

• In the media: Google's Ideological Echo Chamber; What makes someone successful?

• WikiProject report: WikiProject YouTube

• Technology report: Latest tech news

• Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 4 wrap-up

• Humour: Bots

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Jack Kevorkian lead

I explained that my edit was based on MOS:BLPLEAD and therefore was not "delibarate [sic] destruction of valid info" as you claimed. However, to avoid starting an edit war over this, instead of reverting your edit again, I started a discussion on the talk page. Feel free to join in on it. JDDJS (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Euthanasia in the Netherlands

You removed my revision to this page with the comment "This is so blatant untrue that I regard it as vandalism."

Here are some links that back up my point.

How can you justify saying this is blatant untrue??????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morganwnz (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

If you have to rely on the Daily Mail, a newspaper banned from Wikipedia as source due to its unreliability...

For the rest, you are cherry picking. The Banner talk 21:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from one of your own references that proves my point " In the Chabot-case (1994), the Court decided that suffering that has a non-somatic origin (such as a severe and refractory depression) can also be a justification for euthanasia; in the Brongersma-case (2002) this was further specified in the sense that suffering should originate from a medically classifiable disease, either somatic or psychiatric (Griffiths et al. 2008)."

Are you denying your own references???

Morganwnz (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No, but the way you were writing it, you made it seem that it had become an epidemic (it is slightly more than one percent of all cases). And that is an falsification. The Banner talk 12:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You say "(the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs"

This is clearly untrue as proven by your own source. Are you interested in truth our just sugar coating the issue?

And it is increasing. 1% is still more than none as you imply.

 Morganwnz (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do you continue to propagate a falsehood on your article that is disproven by one of your own references and you yourself have stated that psychiatric illness is the justification on 1% of cases? Morganwnz (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The way you wrote it down, it was a complete epidemic. And in your text it gave the idea that physicians were handing out euthanasia like cookies. In fact, it is a very regulated, careful, cross checked, prolonged process. People still need to have the full use of their mind and have to prove to the physicians that their suffering is prolonged and unbearable. The Banner talk 08:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Banner, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns (though I'm not quite clear on what they are) with my actions rather than my words. Cheers, ansh666 23:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

• News and notes: Chapter updates; ACTRIAL

• In the media: Monkey settlement; Wikipedia used to give AI context clues

• Humour: Chickenz

• Recent research: Wikipedia articles vs. concepts; Wikipedia usage in Europe

• Technology report: Flow restarted; Wikidata connection notifications

• Gallery: Chicken mania

• Special report: Two steps forward, one step backward: The Sustainability Initiative

• Traffic report: Fights and frights

• Featured content: Flying high

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Content Translation pop-up

Hi,

About your comment at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-09-25/Technology_report: Which pop-up are you referring to? Can you reproduce it now? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The last time the pop up showed up here. It is the pop up of Content Translation, asking me if I want to try it. And the answer is always no, so I have not ticked the box in my (Dutch or English) preferences/beta functions. The Banner talk 16:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

When did it happen?

Does it happen now if you go to here? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it happened again with that article. But it seems not to happen with no existing articles that were removed before. The Banner talk 09:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, and does it happen now if you go to here? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The pop-up was there again. The Banner talk 17:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you close it with "Nee, bedankt"? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do that every time that banner shows up. I am thoroughly sick of it. The Banner talk 08:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Strange, sounds like a bug. It's not supposed to be shown again after you click "Nee, bedankt". Sounds like a bug. Some more questions to try debugging: Which browser do you use? And do you have cookies enabled? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have cookies enabled (and cleaned out recently to avoid misleading cookies). I use Firefox 56.0 on Windows 10. The Banner talk 14:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, and it isn't in private mode by any chance?

Can you please do the following:

• Open the JavaScript console (F12, and make sure to click the "console" tab is selected in the panel that will open)
• Go to https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bla_bla_bla_blaaaaa_no_such_article_one&action=edit&redlink=1
• If the pop-up opens, click "Nee, bedankt"
• Check whether there is any new output in the console.
• In the same browser tab, go to https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bla_bla_bla_blaaaaa_no_such_article_two&action=edit&redlink=1
• Check whether there is any new output in the console.

If there's any output in the console at any point, please paste it here.

Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Hayal12

Hello, The Banner. Why did you rollback this edit at Ryan’s Daughter? That edit by User:Hayal12 does not even approach vandalism — but rather it is factually correct. If you have a disagreement about the content of the edit, than please voice it on the article talk page. It would be appreciated if you removed the inappropriate vandalism template that you dropped on their talk page and addressed the editor directly. Thanks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Are there any sources that proves that it is an English film? Are there any sources that state that Dingle is in the United Kingdom? The Banner talk 18:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are. And you seem to be under a misconception about the Template:Infobox film. You will find that "country" in the infobox does not mean the location, but the country of production as defined by reliable sources such as BFI, Variety magazine, etc. As those sources state, the country of production is United Kingdom. And that does make it a British film (not English, by the way). Information about the shooting location and David Lean's building of an entire village in the Dingle, Ireland could be included in the Production section. (See WP:MOSFILMS.) So how does an editor's addition of "British" and United Kingdom" rate as vandalism? — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no proof in the article about the film being British. The Banner talk 09:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thus confirming that this was nothing more than a content dispute about the use of the word "British". Which returns us to my first comment -- that you failed proper dispute resolution, misused rollback and misapplied a vandalism template. And now, despite your error, you still have not self-corrected. I'm undoing your edit and issuing an apology on your behalf. If you have a problem, please use the talk page. And I'll reiterate User:Drmies advice from last January: strongly urging you to seek better ways of addressing problems. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you please read your own words and act upon that? Thank you. The Banner talk 21:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• I had advice? Banner, I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of nation speak, but the rollback for that edit is unwarranted--please use an edit summary, at the very least. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To me it looked vandalism and I acted upon that. The uncivil attacks from CactusWriter makes this a bigger show than it is. The Banner talk 21:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You lost, i won

You'll never make it,give up.😁 💩178.197.231.36 (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16 The Banner talk 19:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

In fact, FFA is now WMF-Banned. So he lost big time. The Banner talk 17:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 24

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
• Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
• Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

• News and notes: Money! WMF fundraising, Wikimedia strategy, WMF new office!

• Featured content: Don, Marcel, Emily, Jessica and other notables

• Humour: Guys named Ralph

• In focus: Offline Wikipedia developed at OFF.NETWORK Content Hackathon

• Blog: The future of offline access to Wikipedia: The Kiwix example

• In the media: Facebook and poetry

• Special report: Working with GLAMs in the UK

• Traffic report: Death, disaster, and entertainment

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

STOP IT NOW and vor ever!! STOP STALKING ME

Stop stalking me! Hör auf mich zu Stalken. Es ist kein Zufall das Du nur ein paar Stunden nachdem jemand was auf meiner Disk über ein Artikel schreibt du genau den Artikel zum löschen nominierst! Hinterhältig und verlogener geht nicht mehr. Du schades wikipedia unglaublich. Feige nütz du hier die ie anonymität des internets aus, du musst im echten leben ja voll eine pfeiffe sein! Versteck dich schön hinter deinem Computer, ich hoffe das irgendwann jemand die Scheisse aus dir rausprügelt für deine miesen machenschaften! FFA P-16 (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

And now again, but then in English please. The Banner talk 23:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Nein in Englisch ist nicht nötig.Du hast ganz genau versanden was ich dir gesagt habe du hinterhältiger Globi. Du behauptest ja auf deiner Benutzerseite :de-2 Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse. ... FFA P-16 (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Doch, in Englisch ist nötig, FFA P-16. This is the English Wikipedia, and other English-speaking editors are supposed to be able to follow conversations on public talkpages; it doesn't make any difference that The Banner has a fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse userbox on their page. Also, if you think insults and threats won't be noticed because they're in German, you're mistaken. If you attack a user again, you'll be blocked from editing. Bishonen | talk 00:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC).

My friend, the article I nominated for deletion was not from your hand. As a recreation of an earlier removed article, it was eligible for speedy deletion, so the AfD is already a courtesy. Even so, you start jumping around an accusing me of hounding and stalking. Maybe it is a good idea that you cool down and start reading WP:AGF. And please be aware that I have a broad interest, the fact that I live in Ireland does not mean that my interest stops there... The Banner talk 08:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I am NOT your friend! You harass me since many years, no one is harassing a friend. I dont jump around. and it does no mather if you in ireland or not. Fact is that you are following and hounding me since years with the goal to get deleted as much work from me as possible. This here is now a 100% proofe of your mean wikihounding.. This Article is existing since more than a half year 26. August 2017.. in all this time you dident cared abaut it (09.Nov 2017).. but 4 h after someone named tis article on MY talkpage you nominated it for deletion. 6Months vers 4h... FFA P-16 (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Your six months is in fact just ten weeks or so. But the nomination has absolutely nothing to do with you, so stop your accusations. The Banner talk 09:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not accusing something it is fact that you are harassing me since many years, it is an fact that you are wikihounding me 4h after steelpillow droped the name of the page on MY talkpage you nominated it for deletion. this shows clearly your malignancy and evil intentions.So stop buging me and stop follow me.FFA P-16 (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Good luck with those ideas. But do me a favour and read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. The Banner talk 18:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Ow, and read Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear. The Banner talk 18:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Well WP:AGF there is no AGF such mean behaving stalking shows that you absolutely are acting against the spirit of Wikipedia.. and you knew it very well. Ow, and Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear, good example also to you with your atemp do destroy everything what is in any relation mit my work. So just shout up and STOP STALKINGME!FFA P-16 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FFA P-16, when somebody suddenly becomes aware that an article previously deleted at AfD has been recreated by the same article creator under a different page title in a transparent attempt to dodge somebody noticing "hey, this was deleted before", then of course they're going to send it to AfD. And when somebody has the history of failure, through inability or refusal, to follow Wikipedia policies, then people are going to keep an eye on your contributions, with good reason to do so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@The Bushranger, It is not that way he is following me since years and (luckly) he did not get to get every work I had done deletet even if he fightet strongly to reach the deletion of it. This is not the first time that he missuse my talkpage or messages people live there for me. He is not playing on the subiect he is hounting for the persons.FFA P-16 (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

For your information: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16. Too much poking of the bear...The Banner talk 20:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I still believe the topic is notable but I will not condone such underhand and dishonest methods - it has to stand on its own two feet or not at all. When I stumbled across the clone, I felt that noting it on my user subpage could harm only those who had something to hide. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

As you can see, the article was nominated for being just a tool for firefighting and as a recreation of an earlier removed article. I was polite enough to use AfD. It was the screaming of FFA P-16 that alerted me on underlying issues. But for now, the issues stated by the original nomination still stand so the article can be judged on that. The Banner talk 20:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I concur that the article has to stand on its own feet. No matter how badly a person believes he has been treated, using another account to avoid scrutiny is a blockable offense. He (or, to AGF, another on the same computer, which is meatpuppetry, and also not allowed) used the sock/meat account to recreate an AFDed article, which is also against policy. All this is more the result of an inability to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia than outright malice, but is still not allowed. - BilCat (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

FFA is now WMF-banned. The Banner talk 17:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

• News and notes: Cons, cons, cons

• Arbitration report: Administrator desysoped; How to deal with crosswiki issues; Mister Wiki case likely

• Technology report: Searching and surveying

• Interview: A featured article centurion

• WikiProject report: Recommendations for WikiProjects

• In the media: Open knowledge platform as a media institution

• Traffic report: Strange and inappropriate

• Featured content: We will remember them

• Recent research: Who wrote this? New dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text

• Humour: Good faith (but still incomprehensible)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Not useful

Not everything you dont understand has to bei deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.136.114.244 (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion, FFA P-16. A block is requested. The Banner talk 17:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Women chefs with Michelin stars

Heya, I was wondering if I could get some advice. I'm thinking of creating a list of female chefs who have held Michelin stars (I've been doing quite a few of them over the last month as part of the Women in Red contest). I know for example that there are relatively few with three (Anne Sophie Pic was only the fourth for example, and in certain areas I've seen the first women in regions to have won one (i.e. Titti Qvarnström was the first Nordic woman to hold any stars). The difficult part I imagine will be working out the French women who held one and two stars during most of the 20th century. Bit I figure that'll get worked out after we get started. The more immediate issue is that I can't work out what to name the article. Would "List of Michelin starred female chefs" or "List of Michelin starred women chefs" be right, rather than "List of Women who held Michelin stars"? What do you think? Miyagawa (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I've started putting something together in my sandbox here: User:Miyagawa/sandbox. Right now I'm mostly putting in those chefs with stars from the Women chefs category. I've also got a vague idea for some sort of symbol key to show if certain chefs were the first of their nationality, the first in their edition of the guide, and also if they inherited the stars from the previous chef or earned them on their own. I may also switch back to showing 1, 2 and 3 stars for each with a year for each achieved rather than just showing the highest number of stars per chef. Miyagawa (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

(Sorry, was busy) The chosen title seems okay to me. I would suggest the addition of a few Dutch chefs: Maartje Boudeling (2 stars before retirement) and Margo Reuten (2 stars). Female chefs without own article: Ida Kleijnen (Lindenhorst), Anita Boerenkamp (Spandershoeve), Tineke Nieuwenhuizen (De Vergulde Wagen). Other chefs I like to suggest are Kei Pilz and Danni Barry. The Banner talk 12:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 25

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

• OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, The Banner. AS one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. ~~~~

Thank you, Insertcleverphrasehere for the invitation but I have to decline. I sincerely disagree with the idea that sources are not mandatory, especially as an excuse to do nothing. I also disagree strongly with advertising and the fallacy called WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (keeping schools because they are schools, irrespective of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:V). I know that will influence my judgement. But thank you for your confidence in me. The Banner talk 11:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, to each his own. I'll point out that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES was overturned a while back by RfC, though some people still try to use it as an argument anyway, sigh. Advertising is actually one of our biggest issues at the moment actually, I and most at NPP share your views. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

To be true, I have a lot of stuff over my head in this time (major surgery coming soon). Maybe you should try to persuade me again in May or so. The Banner talk 12:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

• Special report: Women in Red World Contest wrap-up

• Blog: Close encounters of the Wikipedia kind

• Featured content: Featured content to finish 2017

• In the media: Stolen seagulls, public domain primates and more

• Arbitration report: Last case of 2017: Mister Wiki editors

• Gallery: Wiki loving

• Interview: Interview with Charlesjsharp, regular contributor of Wikipedia's Featured Pictures

• Recent research: French medical articles have "high rate of veracity"

• Technology report: Your wish lists and more Wikimedia tech

• Traffic report: Notable heroes and bad guys

• Humour: On their way to the WMF Incubator

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Promo-campaign

Hello, this is Skyelyrics. I appreciate the work you've done for Wikipedia, but would like to ask whether you have truly read all my contributions to Victoria Junior College. Undoing them completely does not solve the problem. I have added many useful citations which were missing originally, and updated the list of notable alumni, for example. This helps users who want to know more updated information about the college. I am not intending to promote the college, and have no reason to. You on the other hand, with no knowledge whatsoever of the school, are not even taking the time to filter which contributions may be promotional and which are not, and are simply hindering efforts to update information. Skyelyrics (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You make it loud and clear that you have a Conflict of Interest. And I am indeed hindering your effort to turn the article in an advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on independent sources, not an advertising medium. The Banner talk 16:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply to: December 2017

I assumed good faith at first, until you completely reverted an entire edit twice in a short period of time. That to me is considered edit warring. The administrator seems to think so, since he approved the page protection. Right now, you don't think it's edit-warring, only because you think you are right in doing so. I quote Wikipedia: "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." I don't shy away from the fact that I was participating in the edit warring too. It takes two hands to clap.

• I'm an extremely busy person who is not gaining anything from editing this page, so I had no time to examine each edit I'd made to see what could be improved.
• Besides, you did not tell me which specific edits were considered promotional etc until yesterday, so I had no way of knowing which parts could be done better.
• Now that you've actually bothered to tell me, I'll consider each change carefully when I actually have time to edit the page again, and I'll list the changes on the talk page.

• • I have removed your advertising twice, one month apart. That is by no means an edit war.
  • And if you consider each edit carefully, please also consider the rules and regulations, like WP:COI and WP:RS. The school website is by no means an independent source. And yes, I considered WP:AGF but when you replaced all the advertising without any independent source, it was clear that you wehere here yto promote the school. The Banner talk 16:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply to: Managing a conflict of interest

• I'm sorry, but if COI is defined as "external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about", then just to clarify, I have no external relationship with the organisation. It is not my organisation and I have no relationship with it. I have graduated some time back and you could say there used to be a relationship, but now there is no more relationship. You may call it a grey area, but it is not immediately justifiable as a conflict of interest.
• Again, I have no motivation to edit the page, and will receive no monetary compensation from this, and I will declare this on the talk page. I only edited because I saw that the page was extremely outdated, and noticed that there was a banner saying that the article lacked sources.
• Information was also skewed, for e.g. under "Performing Arts", only the choir and chorale were mentioned. So, I added information about two other co-curricular activities.
• Yes, I know the sources I cited were substandard. However, that's an improvement from NO sources at all. I have no choice in some cases, because there is a limited amount of information on the net. The edits you reverted to had no citations for the statements made. Do you prefer that to having at least some social media sources stated? At least, until better sources can be found. Furthermore, I never ever cited the school website, which is http://www.vjc.moe.edu.sg/ for your information. [Edit: my bad, it's http://victoriajc.moe.edu.sg/] Skyelyrics (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Many previous edits were made by students or ex-students, if you've read the talk page. So, are you going to undo all those edits too? I know it doesn't sit well with you, but not all Wiki pages are the same and you can't use the same lenses to view every problem. It's a small school in a small country, so the number of people who understand it enough to edit the page are few and far between. Please address INDIVIDUAL CHANGES rather than the PERSON editing the page.
• Example: I added notable alumni like Jasmine Sim, who has her own Wikipedia page. (I admit there's a problem with lack of citation, but I have one from a news website which I can insert.) Is it promotional to add this piece of information? Nope, it just lets people find out this information more easily, and they may come to the inference that many school alumni went into the arts scene. On its own, it is an objective and verifiable fact. So, why did you revert the edit?

Can you see why I am doubtful that you actually bothered to read the edits?

If you were to revert individual edits, I would be happy for you to let me know why you did so on the article's talk page, so I can improve the wording or the citations. But indiscriminately reverting is not the way to go.

Lastly, I sure hope Wikipedia pays you, because I really can't imagine spending so much time on a thankless job editing pages I know nothing about and have no interest in. Skyelyrics (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• You sound like a marketeer who got a hammering of the boss. The Banner talk 16:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually a med student, but thanks very much for bothering to look at individual edits, this was the kind of constructive improvement I was asking for. When I have time, I'll search for better, neutral sources for the content. Skyelyrics (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply to your comments on my Talk page

Hello! First off, can I check with you whether I'm able to reply you on my own talk page (will you receive notifications)? Or do I always have to post on your own talk page?

Anyway, regarding the press releases, I'm genuinely confused as to why they do not constitute independent sources. They are not press releases by the school, but by the government (Ministry of Education), which oversees all the schools in Singapore. They were prior published, but have since been archived under our National Archives. The speeches likewise are both Singapore Government Press Releases. Are all governmental sources not considered independent? :O

Next, please accept my sincere apologies for the deletion on the article Talk page. I mistakenly thought that once the issue was resolved, it could be deleted especially in preparation for impending clutter on the Talk page. (I don't remember editing anyone's spelling/grammar, but thanks for letting me know in advance as I'll have to intentionally restrain myself from that) Skyelyrics (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A press release is not suitable as a source as its sheer existence is to promote/bring to the attention something. Therefore it is not neutral. The Banner talk 18:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, okay I see. However, can an exception be made in this case? For the reshuffling of school principals, the press release is the mode of factual information release from the Ministry, informing of the changes. The newspapers also refer to/directly quote the press release. So, I would think that its authority & position as the primary source is the overriding factor here? Skyelyrics (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign off again)