User talk:The Banner/Archive12

McDermot

I have reason to believe that 93.24.88.201 needs some attention. For some reason, he pushes my alarm button. The Banner talk 03:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The Banner's removal of link to disambig page in 1744 in Canada/Historical documents

With God on Our Side disambiguation page contains a reference to the biblical source of this phrase. The reference is above and separate from the disambiguation links. It makes a useful reference for the sermon cited in the Historical documents section of 1744 in Canada. Please explain why the link to the With God on Our Side disambiguation page should not be put back. Man1t0ba (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea where you are talking about. Could you please add a link to the disputed edit? The Banner talk 16:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"Independent sources"

Please tell us what "independent sources" you can quote in respect to Airport articles like this change of Heide–Büsum Airport made by you. Thanks. --Uli Elch (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It is a request for better sources. But for example newspaper articles will do (when not a clear press release). The Banner talk 13:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

So please be so kind and show me "newspaper articles" with airline schedules to a specific airport. You will probably have to recognize the fact that in almost all cases there are no such "independent sources". --Uli Elch (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I noticed that you have put in that "remark" in THOUSANDS of airport articles. This is a clear misuse of Wikipedia editing. --Uli Elch (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

You think that asking for better sources is misuse????? The Banner talk 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, as long as you appear to be neither willing nor able to provide valid examples of "independent sources" (see the repeated requests above) and instead flood countless articles with with "asking for better sources". --Uli Elch (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so you prefer the articles in a bad state instead of striving to improvement. Good to know that you do not care about the quality. The Banner talk 18:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

If you think they are in a bad state then tag them as such. Don't use hidden notes. You should be using something like {{More citations needed}}, {{Additional citation needed}} or {{Primary sources}}. Your hidden note does nothing to inform editors of the problem unless they open the article. Using a proper template ensures that the articles are categorised and editors can find them. I'm curious but do you think that Category:Travel ticket search engines these count as independent? Other than that the only sources you will find are the airlines and some airports and a very few newspaper articles. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I dislike template-hammering but if that is what you want, I will do it. The Banner talk 19:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I also came across {{Unreliable source?}}, {{Primary source inline}} and {{Better source needed}}. One of those might work. So you should go back and replace the hidden notes with one of the template that would be improving Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 09:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

One point of contention is that the WikiProjects Airports thinks that it is exempt from sourcing conform WP:RS by their own decision. Templating the articles will surely give more trouble than the disclaimers, as they are polite request to do better than allowed. But the idea of AfD-ing the worst articles would have led to no improvement, just me being escorted out in tar and feathers after some 500 AfDs. Not worth it. The Banner talk 10:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

And the hidden notes aren't worth anything. Anything the project comes up with is only a local consensus and does not override a site wide consensus. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I have already seen editwars because of this. Some else was placing "failed verification" and "better sources" templates and a few went absolutely bananas. Edit war, personal attacks, aspersions, sockpuppets, the whole works. That is why I have chosen for this low level approach. Conform the Dutch saying: "Met stroop vang je meer vliegen dan met azijn" ("With syrup you catch more flies than with vinegar"). The Banner talk 16:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@ The Banner: Above, I have asked you three times to quote any of your demanded "newspaper articles" with airline schedules to a specific airport as "independent sources". No reply - that says it all.

@ CambridgeBayWeather: Is that your current condition: 01007KT 12SM BKN030 M27/M30? If yes, I wish you GCLP: 16009KT 090V190 CAVOK 23/16 Q1018 NOSIG, but I wish you a happy and healthy New Year anyway! --Uli Elch (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You make unreasonable demands, Uli, that are not in the best interest of Wikipedia. It seems that you are unwilling to undertake any attempt to improve Wikipedia but strive to a full blown conflict. The Banner talk 17:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I am simply quoting your own exact words. You just gave the answer to who is making "unreasonable demands". And by still not giving any answer you are making it admirably clear that it is you who is unwilling to undertake any attempt to improve Wikipedia. Thank you for this clarification. --Uli Elch (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Funny how you dismiss my efforts to improve WP by friendly asking for better sources. And maybe you should take a look at Shannon Airport. The Banner talk 18:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The Banner: In Scotland we used "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar". I looked at Shannon. Reference #40 for Aer Lingus does not mention London and the article had the wrong date for New York. Reference #41 didn't work. Probably not a good source either as it's the travel company that is selling the trips Fixed 40 and 41. Reference #42 for Ryanair is the airline website. References #43 & #44 for Ryanair are independent media. Reference #45 for TUI Airways is the airline website. Reference #46 is OK as it is also independent media. Uli Elch: That 23 C is too hot. We rarely get that hot in summer. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Aha, that saying was a translation. Not strange that it slightly differs. The Banner talk 11:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Source 40 does not mention London? To quote: "Aer Lingus has confirmed it is to resume its transatlantic services and its Heathrow route from Shannon Airport next year." Without a start date, that is true. The Banner talk 12:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. I searched for London and forgot to search for Heathrow. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW most of the editors of airport articles are a sad bunch, not much different to your average train spotter - people who in fact make Dwyane Dibbley look like a lothario. Most are single purpose editors, there's an openly-tolerate sockpuppeteer, and nobody seems to think bare URL references are a bad idea. I really don't get why so much WP:OR and general wiki bad-behaviour is tolerated. Personally I'm done with airports and have now taken the majority off my watchlist. (Rant over...) --10mmsocket (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Understatement... The Banner talk 18:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

10mmsocket what sockpuppet? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Easter Rising

I'm puzzled why you reverted my correction of Talk:Easter Rising to put that lunatic post back at the top of the page. did you mean to delete it altogether? If so, go ahead and I won't object to you deleting my response. Scolaire (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

As I wrote on your talk page, I am not aware of any revert. I guess it was a mis-click. Sorry for that. The Banner talk 12:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is editing thousands of articles to enforce a rule that does not actually exist. Thank you. Mr Eat (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, I knew that already and participated in the discussion. The Banner talk 14:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about notability and schools

Hi. I started a discussion about schools and what guideline they have to follow or if there needs to be in-depth coverage of them over at the [[WP:Notability (organizations and companies) talk page. I thought you might interested in reading and participating in it since it's something I've seen you get in disagreements with people about. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

There are a few people who do not accept the 2017-RFC about schools... The Banner talk 23:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Himself

I'm not sure it is you-know-who but there has been some similar IP activity at Irish Americans that it might be worth making you aware of. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I started with requesting PC-protection. The Banner talk 22:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Now at User:64.43.14.21. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

...and now User:Lillyfordmen. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sequoia Capital History request

Hi User:The Banner. I just wanted to confirm that you saw my response to your History section proposal at the Sequoia Capital Talk page. To reiterate, I would prefer a few more details such as the memos from 2020/2021, but would nevertheless be comfortable moving forward with your version as it's a big improvement over the existing content. Please let me know what you think and if you're able to implement the revised material. Thank you again for taking the time to review and edit this page! VS for Sequoia Capital (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Continued discussion on airports.

Well, we both agree that the airport articles are a mess, and that there is a lack of sourcing for many of the articles, and especially in the destination sections.

I am wondering if it would be worthwhile making an RfC or something to give clear answers to the following:

What are the sourcing requirements for Airport and airline destination lists? The range of views here extends all the way from "no sources needed for current destinations" to "every destination must be individually, independently sourced to a source published within the last month" and just about everything possible in between. Obviously, if we took WP:Verifiability, not truth to the extreme, that would mean that everything had to have a citation, and there isn't really an issue if that source is from ten years ago, because it's verifiable! Also obviously, that would be ridiculous.

When is an Airport or airline a reliable source for destination information? Never, always, sometimes? What sort of qualities does the site need to become a reliable source? WP:PRIMARY does allow them to be used, to some extent, but I still have misgivings about allowing them to be used in all cases, as you pointed out, sometimes the airport and airline disagree on who flies where! I would consider Heathrow, Schiphol, Lufthansa or Air New Zealand's websites to be reliable as a few examples, but I don't know about others Susi air springs to mind immediately, but I can't really think of any other names right now. Sometimes you see things like "last updated July 2015" on the bottom of the page, which would suggest that it was probably accurate, once upon a time. This would be a question for WP:RSN. Has it ever been raised there? If so, it would have a massive scope, effectively determining the reliability of thousands of sources at once.

Any thoughts? Mako001 (C)  (T)  13:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I look into it at a later time, but at least the consensus should be wiki-wide, not limited to the Wikiprojects Airports and Airlines. An older source can be reliable for the "hardware" of an airport, as buildings and runways do not change that often. But for flights it is not accurate enough. The Banner talk 15:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

In principle, sourcing stuff based on info from the actors who have financial benefits from the connections (i.e. the airport and the airlines) is always a risky business. These are Self-published sources. With a dose of promotion added to the mix. The Banner talk 19:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

• Special report: WikiEd course leads to Twitter harassment

• News and notes: Feedback for Board of Trustees election

• Interview: CEO Maryana Iskander "four weeks in"

• Black History Month: What are you doing for Black History Month?

• Deletion report: Ringing in the new year: Subject notability guideline under discussion

• WikiProject report: The Forgotten Featured

• Arbitration report: New arbitrators look at new case and antediluvian sanctions

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2021

• Gallery: No Spanish municipality without a photograph

• Obituary: Twofingered Typist

• Op-Ed: Identifying and rooting out climate change denial

• Essay: The prime directive

• Opinion: Should the Wikimedia Foundation continue to accept cryptocurrency donations?

• In the media: Fuzzy-headed government editing

• Recent research: Articles with higher quality ratings have fewer "knowledge gaps"

• Serendipity: Pooh entered the Public Domain – but Tigger has to wait two more years

• Crossword: Cross swords with a crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Stonewalling from The Banner regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It confirm my idea that you are not willing to tone down your aggressive behaviour. The Banner talk 07:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your attention to edits by AlexRunh, who is very very likely to be a sockpuppet account of sad, childish, puppeteer Politialguru. Currently watching and will likely report to WP:SPI tomorrow. Thanks again. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting! The Banner talk 22:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

IP edit-warring

Hey, I've just re-blocked that IP (for a week this time) since they've immediately resumed their poor behavior. Let me know if they start back up once it expires again; I'll try to keep an eye on it, but I may not catch it immediately. Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

He really seems to not understand that you have to give some reliable sources for your edits. But I have two articles on my watchlist, hope that is enough. The Banner talk 15:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Help with name on Kilmichael article

Hi @The Banner: I was wondering if you could help me with something. A few months back, I was doing a few edits on the Kilmichael article when I discovered something. In the part that talks about the causalities, it states the name of the sole surviving auxiliary as H. F. Forde; however, when I looked this name up in a Google search, I came across this website which gives his name as Frederick Henry Forde. However, I've checked Google Books and have found that many of them give it as H. F. Forde (here's a few examples: 1, 2, 3). That being said, though, I don't dismiss the website entirely as it does seem to show documents and newspaper clippings that support his name being Frederick Forde, but because of the books I have mentioned I don't know if it would be enough to support it such a change as Wikipedians generally hold books higher regard, and so I am hesitant to make any change. I originally took this up with FDW777 but got no response, and because I have seen you make edit in articles about the Irish revolutionary period and have talked with you before I thought you might e able to help me with this. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the best and most simple would be to state something like "H.F. Forde (also mentioned as F.H. Forde)". The Banner talk 06:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Would it be okay if I wrote it as "Frederick Henry Forde (also referred to as H.F. Forde...". Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you can. The Banner talk 23:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

• From the team: Selection of a new Signpost Editor-in-Chief

• News and notes: Impacts of Russian invasion of Ukraine

• Opinion: Why student editors are good for Wikipedia

• Special report: A presidential candidate's team takes on Wikipedia

• In the media: Wiki-drama in the UK House of Commons

• Serendipity: War photographers: from Crimea (1850s) to the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022)

• Technology report: Community Wishlist Survey results

• WikiProject report: 10 years of tea

• Featured content: Featured Content returns

• Deletion report: The 10 most SHOCKING deletion discussions of February

• Recent research: How editors and readers may be emotionally affected by disasters and terrorist attacks

• Arbitration report: Parties remonstrate, arbs contemplate, skeptics coordinate

• By the numbers: Does birthplace affect the frequency of Wikipedia biography articles?

• Gallery: The vintage exhibit

• Traffic report: Euphoria, Pamela Anderson, lies and Netflix

• News from Diff: The Wikimania 2022 Core Organizing Team

• Crossword: A Crossword, featuring Featured Articles

• Humour: Notability of mailboxes

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Comparison of FTP server software packages

pyftpdlib is also without own article. -- 10:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Polluks ★ 10:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

And? The Banner talk 10:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't the same criteria be applied to everyone? Polluks ★ 15:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

If you read carefully, you can see it is not a program but a library. The Banner talk 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

So what? Please show me a reference for special treatment of libraries. Polluks ★ 19:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Sequoia Capital Notable investments request

Hi User:The Banner. I just wanted to confirm that you saw my response to your comment at the Sequoia Capital Talk page. I fixed the link to Stripe. Curious what you think of the list I've proposed. Again, my intention was to include a list of accurate investments (given the current list features some inaccuracies). Thanks! VS for Sequoia Capital (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Private Universities

They are commercial organisations so right criteria is WP:NCORP. Have I understood this correct? Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NSCHOOL is a redirects to the school-section of [[WP:NCORP. So they are identical. The Banner talk 15:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit reversions

Hello @The Banner:. As you'll see, I've reverted two American football-related edits where you blanked and redirected a 2-entry disambiguation page at a base name to one of the two entries. As you can probably understand, that's not good practice. Either there is a primary topic, in which case one of the two articles is at the base name; or there isn't, which requires a disambiguation page. I'm not stopping you reverting the page moves made by others that got us into this situation, and created several links to a disambiguation page, but your solution isn't right. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

As long as it does not give trouble elsewhere, it is fine to me. What I reverted, caused loads of links to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 15:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I expected this. Could you please solve the links to disambiguation pages at Template:RHE season, Template:NFLE Labelled Map and Template:WLAF labelled map. Thanks in advance. The Banner talk 18:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

With thanks to @Rodw:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

So, you reverting it was not a good practice... I am not a newbie, I have a reason why I do things. The Banner talk 21:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've no idea what you mean. @Rodw: is an expert disambiguation-link fixer and got there before me. I know you're not a newbie: neither am I. But us experienced editors don't always get everything right all the time. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)(disambiguation)

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

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

A tag has been placed on Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)(disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Do not forget to clean up the mess afterwards. The Banner talk 18:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: Could you please fix the 110 incoming links to Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) that are created by the removal of the redirect? The Banner talk 11:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I'm going to decline that opportunity. Deleting the (disambiguation) redirect did not create the incoming links. When I nominated the (disambiguation) redirect for speedy deletion on 14 Mar the page was an article, not a disambiguation page. It is a disambiguation page again now, so the WP:INTDAB link might be re-created but that wouldn't fix the incoming links. DPLbot first applied an incoming links template on 10 Feb. Perhaps @Pppery: has an interest here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The story here is that an IP moved some content from Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) to Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and then their edits to the former page were reverted by Vif12vf. I reverted their edits to the latter page for consistency and have no futher interest in the topic. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If that solves the problem, it is okay to me. The Banner talk 19:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

1896 Queensland colonial election

I am not sure I understand the changes you made (diff). These are not political parties (as we have them today) as we did not have them at that time in Queensland politics. Ministerialist and Opposition are looser terms for those who did or didn't support the Premier and his Ministers, reflected by generally how they voted in parliament (with or against the Premier). They were not organisations, there was not a formal membership, it could all be very fluid. Kerry (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Then please link them to the correct articles. When I changed them, they were linking to a disambiguation page, what in itself is incorrect. The Banner talk 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

After a massive search, I found another solution. The Banner talk 22:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

• From the Signpost team: How The Signpost is documenting the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

• News and notes: Of safety and anonymity

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Kharkiv, Ukraine: Countering Russian aggression with a camera

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Western Ukraine: Working with Wikipedia helps

• Disinformation report: The oligarchs' socks

• In the media: Ukraine, Russia, and even some other stuff

• Recent research: Top scholarly citers, lack of open access references, predicting editor departures

• Wikimedian perspective: My heroes from Russia, Ukraine & beyond

• Discussion report: Athletes are less notable now

• Technology report: 2022 Wikimedia Hackathon

• Arbitration report: Skeptics given heavenly judgement, whirlwind of Discord drama begins to spin for tropical cyclone editors

• Traffic report: War, what is it good for?

• Deletion report: Ukraine, werewolves, Ukraine, YouTube pundits, and Ukraine

• Gallery: "All we are saying is, give peace a chance..."

• From the archives: Burn, baby burn

• Essay: Yes, the sky is blue

• Tips and tricks: Become a keyboard ninja

• On the bright side: The bright side of news

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

• News and notes: Double trouble

• In the media: The battlegrounds outside and inside Wikipedia

• Special report: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (Part 2)

• Technology report: 8-year-old attribution issues in Media Viewer

• Featured content: Wikipedia's best content from March

• In focus: Editing difficulties on Russian Wikipedia

• Gallery: A voyage around the world with WLM winners

• Interview: On a war and a map

• Serendipity: Wikipedia loves photographs, but hates photographers

• Traffic report: Justice Jackson, the Smiths, and an invasion

• Recent research: Student edits as "civic engagement"; how Wikipedia readers interact with images

• News from the WMF: How Smart is the SMART Copyright Act?

• Essay: The problem with elegant variation

• Humour: Really huge message boxes

• From the archives: Wales resigned WMF board chair in 2006 reorganization

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Close MfD on the ludovico userpage

Hi,

I took a look at the page you listed at MfD and saw it met G3. I nominated it and it was speedily deleted. Is there any way you could close the MfD since it was speedy deleted?

(JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 16:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Is already closed. The Banner talk 00:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Lloyd's Register

Is Fram really saying that LR is not an independent and reliable source for information about ships? Because that is what is coming across, despite the denials. As far as I'm concerned, LR and similar are gold standard sources for such information. They take a little while to understand properly, but there is a wealth of information that can be found there. Mjroots (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think he really does. Is his way of acting his standard procedure? The Banner talk 18:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think so, yes. Fram and incivility are partners. Pretty sure he's been at ANI before now over it. Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

• From the team: A changing of the guard

• News and notes: 2022 Wikimedia Board elections

• Community view: Have your say in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board elections

• Opinion: The Wikimedia Endowment – a lack of transparency

• In the media: Putin, Jimbo, Musk and more

• Special report: Three stories of Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war

• In focus: Measuring gender diversity in Wikipedia articles

• Discussion report: Portals, April Fools, admin activity requirements and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19 revisited

• Technology report: A new video player for Wikimedia wikis

• Featured content: Featured content of April

• Interview: Wikipedia's pride

• Serendipity: Those thieving image farms

• Recent research: 35 million Twitter links analysed

• Tips and tricks: The reference desks of Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Strange highs and strange lows

• News from Diff: Winners of the Human rights and Environment special nomination by Wiki Loves Earth announced

• News from the WMF: The EU Digital Services Act: What’s the Deal with the Deal?

• Video: How the entire country of Qatar was blocked from editing

• Gallery: Diving under the sea for World Oceans Day

• From the archives: The Onion and Wikipedia

• Essay: How not to write a Wikipedia article

• Humour: A new crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Phoenix

See [2] and my edit summary. This has to be stopped. Doug Weller talk 20:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Also see my warning. Doug Weller talk 20:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

And I was wondering if I was not too harsh on him... The Banner talk 20:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm just not sure what to do about them. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Seeing that most of the pictures uploaded by Phoenix are removed due to copyvio, I think it might be a case of WP:CIR. The Banner talk 08:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Block? Doug Weller talk 08:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I am in doubt about a block OT. Maybe a shorter block will get the message across that he/she needs to improve the quality of its work? The accounts is still rather new (first edit I see is from April).The Banner talk 09:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. It would certainly be preventive, so that's ok. But how to get them to improve? I'm feeling pretty drained right now, chemo and maybe my Parkinson's. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I told him a few things. Let us give him another week to see how he is doing.

And being sick s**ks big time. I am still on my way up after surgery a year ago. I hope the chemo works and gives you another lease of life. Good luck. The Banner talk 10:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Not nice and at my age I'll never get back to normal probably, even normal for my age! Sorry to hear you've also had problems. I went out and walked for a milke (on sidewalks) and that helped. Doug Weller talk 11:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

1931 in Vatican City

Hello Banner, I wanted to discuss the recent changes you made to the article 1931 in Vatican City. I certainly do not want to get into an 'undoing battle' of any extent because I get where you are coming from, but I wanted to discuss it. A lot of Vatican City's early history was making basically diplomatic missions to other nations, kind of making a legitimacy for themselves. Papal legates are simply the Pope's representatives to other nations, which at first may not sound relevent or noteworthy, but these people are in essence ambassadors for the nation, as while the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, he also is the head of Vatican City. My reasoning behind including the events is because I feel when Vatican City sends an ambassador to Portugal, the events should be treated with the same importance as if Canada sends an ambassador to Portugal, and receive at least a mention in a 'year in' article, whose entire essence is to detail what is happening in the country of interest in that year, and I felt a diplomatic mission should be included. I see no reason the event could also not be used in the article 1931 in Portugal too, and I could add that if you would like, but it doesn't really make sense to have a diplomatic mission between two countries and only have it covered in one of them. I hope you understand what I am saying, and I really hope I didn't offend you in anyway by undoing your edit, as that is not at all what I meant to do. I want to add back the information to the article, but I will only do it if you also agree. Sorry for the long message 😅 Cheers! --Johnson524 (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

You have named the article "1931 in Vatican City", suggesting that is an article about events in Vatican City. Even when the Pope himself attended the St. Anthony-event, it is still not worthy for inclusion in this article as it did not happen in Vatican City. Sorry. The Banner talk 00:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The appointments of Papal Legates will happen in Vatican City. But their activities abroad is just outside the scope of the article, A scope that you have chosen yourself. The Banner talk 00:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. While I still don't fully agree, I do agree with you that the article is titled 1931 in Vatican City and not regarding Vatican City, which does make sense, so I'll keep it off the page. Thanks for responding and Cheers! -- Johnson524 (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou for nominating school articles for deletion

There was a decision back in 2017 that we would no longer accept as notable all high schools just because we could verify that they exist. This was a very wise decision. However there has been a strong resistence to actually applying this decision. I would like to thank you for starting the process of trying to actually apply this decision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. It is no surprise that some people are panicking over that. And that they try to circumvent that by adding sources over - for example - sports, buildings and alumni to disguise the lack of in-depth sources for the school itself. The Banner talk 18:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I am glad to interact with someone who appreciates what I have to say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no doubt in your capabilities. The Banner talk 13:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I back out of that theme for a while. It definitely shows a different treatment for US-school vs. non-US-schools. And the quality of the sources given to rescue a non-notable school is sinking like a stone. That favouritism is making me grumpy. The Banner talk 10:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Sequoia Capital requests

Hello The Banner. Just checking to see if you have further thoughts about my Senior leadership request on the Sequoia Capital Talk page. You had suggested deleting the section, which would be fine with me as I agree that it's unnecessary. I also posted a revised Introduction request based on your feedback that I'm hoping you can review as well. Thank you again for your help on this. VS for Sequoia Capital (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Cork airport

I’m physically in the building with little or no facilities open which I have stated is contrary to airport site information. What citation can I possibly give to show the site is incorrect when all you do is cite the site with bad information as being correct while I’m physically there looking at the contrary. GreenLizard998 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but what we need is published, reliable sources. Observations are not suitable as source. The Banner talk 17:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

• News and notes: WMF inks new rules on government-ordered takedowns, blasts Russian feds' censor demands, spends big bucks

• In the media: Editor given three-year sentence, big RfA makes news, Guy Standing takes it sitting down

• Special report: "Wikipedia's independence" or "Wikimedia's pile of dosh"?

• Discussion report: MoS rules on CCP name mulled, XRV axe plea nulled, BLPPROD drafting bid pulled

• Opinion: Picture of the Day – how Adam plans to ru(i)n it

• Featured content: Articles on Scots' clash, Yank's tux, Austrian's action flick deemed brilliant prose

• Essay: RfA trend line haruspicy: fact or fancy?

• Recent research: Wikipedia versus academia (again), tables' "immortality" probed

• Serendipity: Was she really a Swiss lesbian automobile racer?

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Enterprise signs first deals

• Traffic report: Top view counts for shows, movies, and celeb lawsuit that keeps on giving

• Gallery: Celebration of summer, winter

• Humour: Shortcuts, screwballers, Simon & Garfunkel

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Templates

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Useddenim's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Here's a list of pages that contain his non-Anglicized RDTs:

• Linha do Algarve
• Linha da Beira Alta
• Linha da Beira Baixa
• Ramal de Braga
• Linha de Cintura
• Linha do Douro
• Linha de Évora
• Ramal da Figueira da Foz

There may be more that I haven't noticed yet. You're more than welcome to have a go at them. Useddenim (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

5 articles checked for the grand total 0 (zero) links to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 23:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit history hunting

Please do not engage in edit history hunting and remove sourced content when you can simply change the wording to be more precise. You have already reverted content after misreading the edit and the source. Foorgood (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You are making up facts not backed up by the source and are inaccurate, And it looks to me that you are POV-pushing too. I am sorry that you do not like it when people are critical over your substandard work. The Banner talk 09:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you start jumping up and down when I correct/revert two articles, says a lot about you intent towards Wikipedia. The Banner talk 10:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Nope it was yourself that began by being all upset that religion was mentioned in an article that already spoke about it in different ways.Foorgood (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Aha, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. And no, I was not upset. It just made and makes no sense. The Banner talk 12:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Shannon Airport

Hi, I see you reverted my change to the Shannon Airport article. I would appreciate understanding why you're of the opinion that my edit removes clarity? The change to "Country Clare, Ireland" is the common format for addresses and is consistent with the reference to location in the opening paragraph of other articles. e.g. Ennis Cashew.wheel (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you going everybody who disagrees with your edits? In that case you are moving on slippery ice.

And no, your edit does not bring clarity. Not everybody in the world knows where County Clare is. A lot of people just know Shannon Airport, without even knowing what country it is in. (Yes, I did get questions about that.)

But now we are at it. Why did you change here a valid, unlinked mention of Ireland into a redirect. What on earth is the use of that? Could you please stop? The Banner talk 23:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes I will followup on reverts of my edits to understand why, consensus can only be built through good faith discussion. It is clear from my edit that Shannon is in the country of Ireland. It's the same as an edit for Schiphol changing from "Schiphol is in Amsterdam, Holland" to "Schiphol is in Amsterdam, Netherlands". The edit on the Burren College of Art does appear ham-fisted from the diff, especially given WP:OVERLINK, but there's a bug in the school infobox template that rewrites "Ireland" to "Republic Of Ireland". It's a protected template which I've opened a request to fix, therefore the redirect is a temporary workaround to the issue. Cashew.wheel (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The redirect is a sign that you apply rules without checking the consequences or the sensibility of it. What you are doing is useless, superfluous and sometimes disruptive. There is absolutely no need to change something that is already correct into something that is still correct but lacks clarity. The Banner talk 09:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

• From the editors: Rise of the machines, or something

• News and notes: Information considered harmful

• In the media: Censorship, medieval hoaxes, "pathetic supervillains", FB-WMF AI TL bid, dirty duchess deeds done dirt cheap

• Op-Ed: The "recession" affair

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (part 3)

• Election guide: The chosen six: 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections

• Community view: Youth culture and notability

• Opinion: Criminals among us

• Arbitration report: Winds of change blow for cyclone editors, deletion dustup draws toward denouement

• Deletion report: This is Gonzo Country

• Discussion report: Notability for train stations, notices for mobile editors, noticeboards for the rest of us

• Traffic report: US TV, JP ex-PM, outer space, and politics of IN, US, UK top charts for July

• Featured content: A little list with surprisingly few lists

• Tips and tricks: Cleaning up awful citations with Citation bot

• In focus: Wikidata insights from a handy little tool

• On the bright side: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war — three (more) stories

• Essay: How to research an image

• Recent research: A century of rulemaking on Wikipedia analyzed

• Serendipity: Don't cite Wikipedia

• Gallery: A backstage pass

• From the archives: 2012 Russian Wikipedia shutdown as it happened

• Humour: Why did the chicken cross the road?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question.

Hi The Banner, about the vandal that edited FC Steaua Bucuresti(that you reverted), do you think a SPI case is worth it? Seems to be the same mobile editing POV style.EditingMatthew (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks to me like a hit-and-run-IP. That is why I took no further action. But yes, I am convinced it is the LTA.The Banner talk 13:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

FC Bihor Oradea

I will fix them today. Rhinen

Thank you very much. The Banner talk 09:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022

Please sign your post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Use of Ireland and Republic of Ireland

I see you've reverted a number of my edits. The name of the country is Ireland, the manual of style states "Use 'Ireland' for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context. In such circumstances use 'Republic of Ireland'". In the articles you reverted Ireland was not being used in the same context as the island or Northern Ireland. If you disagree with WP:IRE-IRL feel free to make a proposal to change it at WT:IE as WP:CCC Cashew.wheel (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It is no surprise that you come here to complain about reverts. As far as I can see, you have done that with anybody who dared to disagree with you. Even when they offered valid arguments why your edits are bad, you keep pushing it. You even have been called an SPA by others for your pushing. But what you do is not sensible but damaging. It removes clarity and makes confusion possible. But you seem to fail to grasp that point. Or plain ignore that. The Banner talk 09:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Please note that there was already a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#linking_to_Ireland. I have now added a question there to see if it is an advice to be used sensible (as in improving clarity) or mandatory. A guideline is no policy. The Banner talk 09:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I reached out to you here on your talk page to be polite. WP:CIV

It's clear that your opinion is that referring to the country as Ireland is confusing, but that is the WP:COMMONNAME used internationally. Where it is clear from the context that a country/state is being referred to (such as here, here or here) there is no ambiguity when using Ireland.

If a reader unfamiliar with the political history of Ireland is confused as to the borders of Ireland, the addition of the description "the Republic Of" is unlikely to clarify things for them. Cashew.wheel (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

And again, you are just ignoring the arguments. But WP:IRE-IRL is still a guideline, so an advice. It is by no means mandatory. The Banner talk 15:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

You stated that using Ireland removes clarity and could lead to confusion, I explained with examples how in the correct context that would not be the case.

You're right, WP:IRE-IRL is a guideline, therefore it's also not mandatory to revert those edits. Cashew.wheel (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Trying to WP:BLUDGEON a discussion by shouting WP:CIV is also not a good idea. There have been plenty reverts of your actions (not only by me) and plenty of discussions (not only by me) why your edits are not a net positive for the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 15:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

• News and notes: Admins wanted on English Wikipedia, IP editors not wanted on Farsi Wiki, donations wanted everywhere

• Special report: Wikimania 2022: no show, no show up?

• In the media: Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth

• Discussion report: Boarding the Trustees

• News from Wiki Education: 18 years a Wikipedian: what it means to me

• In focus: Thinking inside the box

• Tips and tricks: The unexpected rabbit hole of typo fixing in citations...

• Technology report: Vector (2022) deployment discussions happening now

• Serendipity: Two photos of every library on earth

• Featured content: Our man drills are safe for work, but our Labia is Fausta.

• Recent research: The dollar value of "official" external links

• Traffic report: What dreams (and heavily trafficked articles) may come

• Essay: Delete the junk!

• Gallery: A Fringe Affair (but not the show by Edward W. Feery that was on this year)

• Humour: CommonsComix No. 1

• From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Your revert about KLayout

You have reverted my addition of KLayout to the Comparison of EDA software without any explanation. I assume good faith and will put it back. Please motivate with WP rules at hand a next time. Thank you, Goitseu (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

My mistake. I should have told you that the list is ONLY for packages/programs with their own Wikipedia article. So I have removed it again. The Banner talk 09:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this your own rule or a WP rule (if so, which one -I'm not aware of any)?

Here are a few examples of other comparison lists with plenty of entries without their own Wikipedia article: Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients,Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients, Comparison of time-tracking software. Thank you, Goitseu (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia-rule. To avoid spamming. But there is a simple method to avoid falling foul of this rule: write the article. The Banner talk 10:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but spam is one thing, while not having a Wikipedia article is a different one.

Anyhow, do you really consider KLayout a spamming entry? Do you have any experience in chip design, or have you made a quick online search of it? Goitseu (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Just write the article.. The Banner talk 11:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

You have not answered. Can you please try again?Goitseu (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Seeing how you are pushing it now, the answer is yes. The Banner talk 11:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Considering KLayout a spamming entry is ridiculous in my opinion. Let me ask you again: 1. do you have you any experience in chip design? and 2. have you made a quick online search about it? Goitseu (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Did you write the article already? Because that is what counts, not my personal experience. The Banner talk 11:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

No, in such a short time I have evidently not written a new article. But that does not matter. I am sorry but I have to conclude from this discussion and from the lack of arguments that your revert just reflects your personal WP:POV. I will do accordingly.

If you have concrete arguments about KLayout, please explain them now. Thank you, Goitseu (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

You have any ties with KLayout? The Banner talk 11:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

No, but I use it regularly, so as I use so many other chip design tools regularly. Goitseu (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I have checked the candidates but not one convinces me to use my vote, sorry. The Banner talk 08:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Niacin

Thank you for initiating this. I have been unhappy with this mess ever since the split, but could not figure out how to get back to the original article titles. David notMD (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

There were still 227 links to disambiguation pages due to this dp. Seeing the discussion, it was clear that there should be a lot of reshuffling and renaming but I am no admin (and do not want to be one) so don't have the rights. But it is clear the dp blocks the solutions. The Banner talk 16:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

If an EDA tool has not its own Wikipedia article it does not mean it is spam

Continuing the discussion which was prematurely archived here I wanted to add that:

Allowing only entries on Comparison of EDA software which have their own Wikipedia article is an arbitrary request which is not aligned with the Wikipedia policies. It may be a mitigating and temporary solution if there are no editors available who are experts in the field. However, your serial deletion is negatively impacting the value of said article. I invite you to be more cautious in the future. Thank you.Goitseu (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC) Goitseu (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a common policy. That edit-notice reflects the policy and the consensus that it has merit. Your removal of it, is plain vandalism. Please be more careful with your actions. The Banner talk 23:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

And no, it was not prematurely archived. I was archived conform MY archive-settings. Editing in archives is unwanted and can often go unnoticed. The Banner talk 10:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion hanging, questions awaiting an answer

You started a discussion here but you left it when it was becoming, in my opinion, most interesting. I am eager to know your answers to those questions. I assume you have just forgotten that discussion, hence this is simply a kind reminder. Thank you, Goitseu (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

After you turned the discussion on AN/I into a personal attack on me, I decided to leave you alone. I want an apology and a retraction of the accusations first. The Banner talk 13:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Unexplained changes to Si (disambiguation)

A recent change you made changed the redirection from Si (which is already a disambiguation page) to Si (surname), only remarking with lf. Since that a reasonable person would presume that the name of the page would lead to a general disambiguation (unless that all entries that could be disambiguated are people with such surname, which considering Si exists and points to things other than people having Si as their surname) I have to revert back your changes. - 2001:4453:54A:CA00:CDEE:D87F:3524:94D0 (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Your edit created a great number of links to a disambiguation page. Unless you are willing to solve each and every one of them, changing the redirect is the most efficient option. lf = link fix The Banner talk 00:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

• News and notes: Board vote results, bot's big GET, crat chat gives new mop, WMF seeks "sound logo" and "organizer lab"

• In focus: NPP: Still heaven or hell for new users – and for the reviewers

• In the media: A few complaints and mild disagreements

• Special report: Decentralized Fundraising, Centralized Distribution

• Discussion report: Much ado about Fox News

• Interview: ScottishFinnishRadish's Request for Adminship

• Opinion: Are we ever going to reach consensus?

• Serendipity: Removing watermarks, copyright signs and cigarettes from photos

• Recent research: How readers assess Wikipedia's trustworthiness, and how they could in the future

• Traffic report: Kings and queens and VIPs

• Featured content: Farm-fresh content

• Gallery: A Festival Descends on the City: The Edinburgh Fringe, Pt. 2

• CommonsComix: CommonsComix 2: Paulus Moreelse

• From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 Years ago: September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

My Talk Page

If someone asks me to do something, and I decide to ignore their request and not do it, you do not have the right to then tell me that something I haven't done isn't allowed. You are one editor, not Jimmy Wales, a wikipedia admin or the boss of every editor on wikipedia. Please treat editors with respect, instead of trying to control them. Pmbma (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Read your own message again and act accordingly. The Banner talk 22:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Liberland deletion (seconded)

Beste Banner,

Ik ben Michal en ik wil vragen waarom zou Liberland verwijderd moeten worden? Liberland heeft een levende communiteit, media presence en is tenminste een echte project. Ik heb de president gesproken, het is geen grap of troll. Het kan zijn een beetje ongebruikt om een nieuwe land te willen opstellen, maar Gornja Siga is terra nullius, dankzij de Badinter commissie. Ik zie er niks absurds, geen misbruik, in kort, geen reden om Liberland te verwijderen. Alvast bedankt! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.60.14.85 (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

What I see is promo for a non-populated area masking as a wannabee-micronation. The Banner talk 16:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Hi The Banner, I was just wondering if following "source" is valid? I mean it is literally a vacation booking site where the airline tail is displayed next to the info.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larnaca_International_Airport&type=revision&diff=1115656505&oldid=1115462217
"Reference": https://www.ving.no/bestill-flybillett-charter?QueryDepID=12661&QueryCtryID=4267&QueryDestID=12716&QueryDepDate=20230626&QueryDur=8&CategoryId=4&QueryRoomAges=%7C42,42&QueryUnits=0
I am really unsure about that. Very funny indeed that it was an IP-adress edit adding exactly the routes Wappy2008 added but got reverted from me because of not having any valid source.
Best regards,
Der HON (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Mwah, Ving seems to be a tour operator and not an aitline or airport. But personally, I would avoid that type of "sources". Strictly spoken allowed, but a better-template is advisable as the neutrality is dodgy. See also https://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ving_Norge The Banner talk 17:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is a vacation booking site / tour operator, though my point is that you have to make a booking for a charter flight and enter all the data to see the airline oeprating, so that someone then can assume they are flying a charter route.

Citing WP:REF: Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context.

As airline booking pages are not permitted, too, I have doubts that these holiday sites are any better.

Best regards,
Der HON (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. Avoid them when possible. The Banner talk 18:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a better source needed message next to it.
Der HON (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Reversion: Corfu International Airport

Hi

You reverted my edit that turned boldface entries into non-bold face.

I specifically included the link to MOS:BOLDFACE in my edit summary.

Can you tell me why you reverted it against MOS?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Because it is common use at airport articles to highlight the words "Seasonal" to make it clear which connections are year round and which was are seasonal. It improves readability. And I see nowhere in WP:BOLDFACE that it is not allowed. The Banner talk 12:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"When not to use boldface

MOS:NOBOLD

Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text."

I would also like to direct you to this: Talk:Perth_Airport#Formatting_of_"seasonal"_etc_in_"Airlines_and_destinations_-_Passenger"_table

While I appreciate something can become common, that does not make it right.Chaosdruid (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The same argument also works the other way round: the fact that you think it is not right, does not make it wrong. But with that other discussion, you just repeat your prior arguments. And those arguments sounds a bit like "I do not like it". The Banner talk 13:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The fact is it is against MOS. That is surely plain for you to see. If we want to degenerate the discussion into that sort of level, surely it is that you do not like that MOS says to not use boldface, when you are clearly doing it "because it is normal". Did you go and read the discussion? Chaosdruid (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

You are serious willing to sacrifice readability to enforce a mere guideline, in fact just an advice? Ever heard of WP:IAR? And did you notice that this was not in plain text but in a table? The Banner talk 13:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC

Of course I "noticed" it's in a table. The quote is "article text", which the table contains, text, in an article.
Readability is NOT just for the sighted amongst us, and I feel it is NOT more readable. I think it looks terrible, and is not necessary.
It does not add to the readability of whether it is seasonal or not - what does the boldface actually add to the article, that having it non-boldface would not achieve? Chaosdruid (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that it is just a personal opinion and not guideline (not a policy) based. But what it add is clarity between the year round flights and the seasonal flight, without have to read the whole list. A quick scan for boldface text is enough. It is not some much a problem with airlines that have only a few flights of one airport, but it is problematic at airlines that have ten or more flights for one airport. Then you have to read the entire list to finally find where the seasonals begin. The Banner talk 18:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I did not "admit" anything - you are talking nonsense. EVERY single entry has "seasonal" in boldface - whcih entirely proves it is not needed as it does not improve the readability, and adds NOTHING to the article. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yep, and that is to make it better readable and searchable. Sorry. The Banner talk 12:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

And clearly fails; as it does not make it clearer, nor more searchable. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

That is your private opinion. The Banner talk 16:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC

Please consider rewording your RfC question. Cashew.wheel has never said changing links is mandatory. Neither has he ever said that IRE-IRL is Wikipedia policy, although you keep putting those words in his mouth. The question should be one that users will take seriously, such as 'Should the Republic of Ireland be shown in articles as "Ireland", "Republic of Ireland" or "[[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]"". Scolaire (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The way he worked, suggested he took it as a mandatory policy with no room for other options. The Banner talk 17:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I have changed the first sentence of the RfC conform your suggestion. The Banner talk 17:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

To me, it only suggested he thought it was good practice and didn't like being reverted. Anyway, thanks for changing the question. Scolaire (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Independent sources

Hi,
we have really thoroughly discussed the need and importance of the word "independent" in regard to the sources in airport articles and the hidden message adjacent to the Airlines and Destinations tables.
I still do think that independent sources should only be promoted but never be an obligation but it is fine for me if you add the word "independent" to the standard phrase like in this widely spread proclaimer.

DO NOT ADD OR REMOVE ROUTES WITHOUT GIVING A VALID INDEPENDENT SOURCE. EXACT DATES ARE MANDATORY FOR NEW ROUTES TO BE ADDED HERE. ALSO ADD INLINE CITATIONS IF POSSIBLE.

Though I really think that it is absolutely not needed to have just two hidden messages right next to each other telling the same thing at the core.
You seem to have been backtracking my edits to check whether there is the hidden message with "Independent" in it or not. But I would therefore ask you to just add that small word into the already existing hidden message, as it would support readibility and be way easier to understand than two hidden messages with some kind of contradiction in themselves.

I hope you understand my point.

Best regards as always,
Der HON (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I just check al the airport articles that appear in my watchlist. And that are quite a few. The Banner talk 22:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if it was the other way round. My point is just that Wikipedia does not need two hidden messages with a contradiction in themselves. So I would propose that our consensus is:

DO NOT ADD OR REMOVE ROUTES WITHOUT GIVING A VALID INDEPENDENT SOURCE. EXACT DATES ARE MANDATORY FOR NEW ROUTES TO BE ADDED HERE. ALSO ADD INLINE CITATIONS IF POSSIBLE.

I hope that you'll be alright with that!

Best regards,
Der HON (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

As you are still actively deleting the word "independent" from the hidden message, I took another approach to the request for independent sources. The Banner talk 08:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not remove the word "independent" from already existing hidden messages like above. I just substitute the older hidden messages with the new ones. There it is a fifty fifty chance if there is the word independent in it, it depends on the message from the airport page I copied it from has "independent" in it or not.

Though to come back to my earlier point I don't see the need for two hidden messages with one saying independent is okay while the other one cleary forbids it.

Best regards,

Der HON (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Nothing useful

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you are involved by a Jim Crow pattern' in your acts. The thread is ‎Racism_against_a_200-articles-Mexican-editor .HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC) Thanks, but there is no discussion about me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. So this notification is invalid. The Banner talk 18:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC) Heads up, I've mentioned your recent conduct at AfD there. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_Banner_conduct. Feel free to participate or not as you wish. Star Mississippi 14:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC) I have responded and the angry mob became even angrier. Clearly, it is illegal to be critical about the quality of football articles. And the funny thing is is that they accuse me of all kind of evil actions, completely baseless. So now they are trying to kick me out. Was that not one of their complaints? The Banner talk 22:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC) "Completely baseless?" You've been asked to either back up your accusation of copyvios or withdraw it. You've done neither. You've been asked to explain why you didn't follow WP:BEFORE at the time of nominating those articles. You've declined to do so. You've been asked to explain why you nominated some highly notable articles for deletion in the first place. You've declined to do that either. Either you really are so oblivious as to call your competence as an editor into question, or you are running a con on us. The mob is angry for reasons, and it is almost never unanimously ranged against an editor with your edit count. That you're pulling "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" as your reaction speaks very loudly. Ravenswing 02:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC) Funny how you say accuse me of all kind of evil actions, completely baseless, when you accused Hugo of non-existent copyright violations. Don't you think? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 03:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC) Hugo himself said he had used RSSSF as source and they stated it was okay to copy as long as their website was mentioned as source. Only after my first few nominations he started adding RSSSF to make up for that. Copying without source is where I live copyvio. The Banner talk 07:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC) Reading the AfD's that is not true, HugoAcosta9 included the RSSSF ref through the 1st batch of articles you nominated long BEFORE the nomination itself 1994-95 Club Puebla season, 1994-95 C.D. Veracruz season, 1994-95 Correcaminos UAT season, 1994-95 Toros Neza season, 1994-95 Club América season, 1994-95 Club Universidad Nacional season, 1994-95 Santos Laguna season, 1994-95 Tecos F.C. season, 1994-95 Cruz Azul season all of them Mexican football teams NSEASONS. Then, you mentioned copyvio and after this, HugoAcosta9 himself explained to you that RSSSF allows the use of his page as refs. Now in the AfDs discussions, User:Giantsnowman believed in your false version of "unsourced and substandard articles" and vote to delete the first batch. It was the only vote lasting 10 days in the AfD span. That is quite different about the "quality version" of the 1st batch, therefore, you clearly lied about the first batch. JoTorres22 (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC) 18 articles nominated, 7 deleted with 4 still open. The Banner talk 22:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC) Seven that likely would never have been deleted had people been paying better attention, and which are likely to be restored given your chicanery. But that being said, what, you're proud that you were only voted wrong eleven out of eighteen times? That's terrible at AfD; proof positive that you are either profoundly out of touch with relevant notability criteria, or are deliberately disrupting the system. Ravenswing 02:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC) Lol, you are creative in the blame game. Are you guys that afraid of a critical look at football-articles? The Banner talk 07:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC) Actually, HugoAcosta9 mentioned to you the huge batch of articles wrote by User:Sakiv a batch which clearly don't pass the WP:NSEASONS requirements and you have never nominated. I guess that explains the second batch of your nominations included the 1989-90 Real Madrid CF season. JoTorres22 (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC) E.g. 2022–23 NEC Nijmegen season a clearly substandard article in comparison from those of HugoAcosta9 you deleted: zero prose, clearly not notable, not pass the WP:NSEASONS requirements, empty sections, 2 mere references and from the web page of the team itself, same pattern of THE WHOLE BATCH of articles User:Sakiv is writing every day. Can you define your "quality standards"?. I guess you don't have any contact with Sakiv BEFORE nominated HugoAcosta9, Right?. JoTorres22 (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC) You have a remarkable familiarity with this issue for a brand new editor. Star Mississippi 18:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC) You're pretending to have made a "critical look" at football articles? Really? Is that your tale? Riiiiiiiiiiiight. We're done here. Enjoy your permanent vacation from AfD. Ravenswing 19:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Swiss cut MUC

Swiss Intl. cut flights to Munich from GVA and ZRH this summer due to crew shortage; no current plans for GVA to be resumed, ZRH currently bookable from summer schedule 2023, but no officila announcement: https://aviation.direct/en/staff-shortage-swiss-has-to-cut-summer-flight-schedule-2022
It's the same story with ANA, or even clearer as there are not even codesharing flights bookable (all flights operated under LH designator).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qitchybooo (talk • contribs)

If you add sources, why don't you give them? The Banner talk 20:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

• From the team: A new goose on the roost

• News and notes: Wikipedians question Wikimedia fundraising ethics after "somewhat-viral" tweet

• News from the WMF: Governance updates from, and for, the Wikimedia Endowment

• In the media: Scribing, searching, soliciting, spying, and systemic bias

• Disinformation report: From Russia with WikiLove

• Recent research: Disinformatsiya: Much research, but what will actually help Wikipedia editors?

• Interview: Isabelle Belato on their Request for Adminship

• Featured content: Topics, lists, submarines and Gurl.com

• Serendipity: We all make mistakes – don’t we?

• Traffic report: Mama, they're in love with a criminal

• From the archives: Paid advocacy, a lawsuit over spelling mistakes, deleting Jimbo's article, and the death of Toolserver

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Venice airport

Hi, I saw that you reverted Venice airport page to a previous versione due to a potential vandalism by a non registered user. Which is such vandalism? afterwhile I made more edits that are now lost...
Riktetta (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I restored your edits but left the sources standing.

The (serial) IP is removing suspended connection as if they are cut. The Banner talk 09:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi

sorry I also tried to restored as I made several updates on Wizzair services that were also missing. As per my last edit everything should be updated. regards Riktetta (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

BTW this also happened in the past on Milan malpensa page, were all the routes from/to Russia and Ucraine were removed, even if "suspended" tag was already inserted. Riktetta (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the sources that you removed, per WP:VER. For the IP-hopper, see the section above. The Banner talk 09:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi again, in some airport pages there is still a continuous vandalistic activities aimed at removing arbitrarly destinations. Could you please help me in setting some kind of security levels (e.g. only registered user can edit) as it is done already in other pages? honestly I don't think I have the status to do so... regards
Riktetta (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the place to request protections. Usually I start with requesting a temporary semi-protection to slam the door in the face of the IP-hopper. If (s)he continues after this protection, I request a permanent "pending changes protection" where the edits have to be approved before being posted. Did makes it possible that genuine edits by IPs still can be posted. Going after the IP is extremely difficult as it changes every day and over multiple ranges. Closing those ranges will cause to much collateral damage. The Banner talk 10:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring / Vandalism

Please refrain from undoing constructive edits to an article, that is vandalism... especially only supported by personal opinion. See the Talk page. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

So you prefer to start editwarring based on your personal opinion? The Banner talk 23:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Restriction

As you may already be aware, I have closed an ANI discussion about you, in which clear consensus was found to restrict you from nominating articles at WP:AfD. The restriction has been logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. It may be appealed after 2 months, and remains in effect until appealed successfully. Please let me know if you have any questions about its scope. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It is clear to me that WikiProjects have too much power of Wikipedia. And that they are walking away grinning after a bullying campaign. Most of their arguments have nothing to do with the truth. But as scared and po as they are, even an appeal after six months is likely to fail. The Banner talk 07:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"Scared?" Oh, man, you really do flatter yourself. But with this degree of unrepentant denial after your bullying campaign against HugoAcosta, yes, one can reasonably expect that the community would not be likely to end your restriction, whether it be six months or six years down the road. Ravenswing 10:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

And with that, you confirm the bullying campaign. Sad that you guys are so afraid. But instead of continuing to harass me, you can do something useful like improving badly sourced articles and improving other low quality articles. That is what the encyclopedia needs: quality. The Banner talk 10:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Your reverts on Berlin Brandenburg Airport

Hello The Banner. You have recently reverted this edit, with an edit summary of "Revert vandalism". Since the edit seems perfectly constructive to me, and in line with the source[3] that SeanM1997 have cited, I'd like to ask why you chose to revert, and to remind you about WP:AGF. Renerpho (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Hello again, and apologies for the double-post and notification. I now see you have actually restored SeanM1997's version of the article, not reverted it. All I wrote in the previous paragraph is null and void. Looking at the previous entries on your talk page, I see multiple entries similar to this one. If you are indeed spending your time taking care of vandalism on airport articles then that is commendable, thank you. Please take valid criticism seriously, but ignore pointless comments like the now struck one that I made above. Renerpho (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Nobody is perfect. Apology accepted. The Banner talk 11:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Dal gCáis

Hi. I have been trying to add the sept of Mac Cochlain to the Dál gCáis page. The Mac Cochláins were the kings of Dealbhna Eathra. Dealbhna are recognised as part of the Dál gCáis by Geoffrey Keating and by the Annals of the Four Masters. Geoffrey Keating is used as a source in multiple other Irish pages. I don't understand why you won't accept this edit. 77.75.244.149 (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to offer proper proof of that. Up to now, you failed to do that. You must supply a source that specificly states that "Mac Cochlain" is a Dalcassian sept. The Banner talk 10:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Annals of the Four Masters

M1134.18

Aedh, grandson of Lochlainn Mac Cochlain, lord of Dealbhna-Eathra, died.

https://celt.ucc.ie/published/T100005B/text024.html

Source shows Mac Cochláin are the Kings of Dealbhna Eathra.

Dealbhna Eathra are a branch of the Dealbhna.

Dealbhna are a sept of the Dal gCais as they claim their origin from a son of Cas

Lugh Delbáeth- the son of Cas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugh_Delb%C3%A1eth

"Dealbhna.—There were seven tribes of this name seated in different parts of Ireland. They were of the Dalcassian race, and derived their patronymic name of Dealbhna, from their progenitor, Lughaidh Dealbh-aedh, the third son of Cas. The tribe alluded to in the text were generally called Dealbhna Nuadhat, and were seated in the present county of Roscommon, between the Rivers Suck and Shannon.—See O'Flaherty's , Part III. c. 82, and , at the year 816."

From The Tribes and Customs of Hy-Many, commonly called O'Kelly's Country (Author: Unknown), p.82 (section .2)

https://celt.ucc.ie/published/G105007/note217.html

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delbhna

The first line of the page.

Tál Cas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%A1l_Cas

13 Sons of Cas. Lugh Dealbhaoth

"Lughaidh/Dealbhaoth

na Dealbhna

Muinnter Chochláin"

Tadhg Ó Donnchadha,"An Leabhar Muimhneach", 1900, page 86, page 237, page 295, https://archive.org/details/leabharmuimhneac01odon/page/86/mode/2up, https://archive.org/details/leabharmuimhneac01odon/page/236/mode/2up, https://archive.org/details/leabharmuimhneac01odon/page/294/mode/2up

Irish Pedigrees or the Origin and Stem of the Irish Nation by John O'Hart 1892 Volume 1

See also https://www.libraryireland.com/Pedigrees1/Coghlan1Heber.php

Coghlans trace ancestry to Dealbhna son of Cas

https://www.libraryireland.com/Pedigrees1/MacCoghlanHeber.php

Mac Cochlans the same.

See Also Geoffrey Keating History of Ireland p.439 Dealbhna trace lineage to son of Cas.

This is more than enough sources to show that the Dealbhna are a sept of the Dál Cas. The etymology of the name Dealbhna shows it derives from the son of Cas Lugh Dealbhaoth. Multiple other sources show that the Dealbhna trace their geneology to Lugh Dealbhaoth and it is recognised in the annals multiple times that the Mac Cochláins are the Kings of Dealbhna Eathra.

This is more than enough sources. If these sources aren't sufficient half the pages on this site for Irish history and genealogy need to be deleted as they are used for multiple pages I have linked. MacCochláin (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

To be true, a lot of Irish history is poorly sourced or unsourced. But if you have a good source that says the Mac Cochlains are a sept of the Dalcassians, you are free to add it with the source. By now, it is still rather indirect. By the way: Wikipedia articles are not suitable as source. The Banner talk 12:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Its not indirect. Its very clear. MacCochlains are in the annals as Kings of Dealbhna and Dealbhna are clearly recognised as sons of Cas in multiple sources and through the etymology of their name. The Irish Pedigrees or the Origin and Stem of the Irish Nation by John O'Hart 1892 states this in one source of this is believed to be a suitable source. I dont see where you will find a non indirect source for any family tree in Ireland if thats the level of sourcing required. The rigor you are applying to sourcing any family origin in ireland would fail as it is impossible to find primary sources that have everything you want in one source. It must be indirect but each connection is a solid source. 89.101.71.58 (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not asking for a primary source, I am asking for a source that states specific that the Mac Cochlain are a Dalcassian sept. Nothing more, nothing less. The Banner talk 12:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes like I said: https://www.libraryireland.com/Pedigrees1/MacCoghlanHeber.php This source says the maccochlans trace their ancestry to Dealbhna son of Cas. MacCochláin (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

No, as it does not state that they are a sept of the Dalcassians. The Banner talk 13:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

See also Lugh Dealbhaoth son of cas- footnote Muintir Cochláin.

"Lughaidh/Dealbhaoth na Dealbhna Muinnter Chochláin"

Tadhg Ó Donnchadha,"An Leabhar Muimhneach", 1900, page 237 https://archive.org/details/leabharmuimhneac01odon/page/236/mode/2up

MacCochláin (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, you start to repeat yourself. The Banner talk 13:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does. It lists the ancestor of the MacCochlan as the son of Cas. The sons of Cas are the Dalcassians.

MacCochláin (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want a source that specific. Why not accept that the maccochlains are Dealbhna and the Dealbhna are Dal Cas. Each is clearly proven by a source. MacCochláin (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:VER. The source must be specific in saying what is claimed and needs proof. The Banner talk 13:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The source does have proof. The Mac Cochláins are listed as descended from a son of Cas which makes them Dalcassian by definition. The Dalcassians are the descendents of Cas. It's all right there. Stated both here :https://archive.org/details/leabharmuimhneac01odon/page/236/mode/2up in Irish which I speak. And here in English https://www.libraryireland.com/Pedigrees1/MacCoghlanHeber.php MacCochláin (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep, still indirect. The Banner talk 14:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. I have checked other pages for familial Irish names and most of them are not only simply sources to websites but also indirect. Why are you being so rigourous. It is clear that the MacCochláins are a sept of the Dál Cais with the sources I have posted which are superior to most sources used for these Wikipedia pages. Why are you gatekeeping this MacCochláin (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Because other pages are bad, there is no need to make more pages bad. The Banner talk 14:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The page isn't being made bad. You're being ridiculously obstinate. I have shown you plenty of evidence to show the Mac Cochláins are of the Dal Cais. Primary sources and secondary sources state it. The etymology of their name states it. The location of their kingdom is upper Munster where the Dal Cas were.

I have shown sources that the MacCochláins are descended from a son of cas. I have shown evidence the Mac Cochláins are kings of Dealbhna Eathra. I have shown evidence that the Dealbhna who are the wider group of the maccochlain kin group are considered Dal Cas. you refuse to accept it for some reason. MacCochláin (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

And still you fail in giving a source that specificly states that they are a sept of the Dalcassians. You keep hammering on indirect stuff. The Banner talk 14:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.libraryireland.com/Pedigrees1/Coghlan1Heber.php

https://www.libraryireland.com/Pedigrees1/MacCoghlanHeber.php

Both of these state the MacCochláins are Dal Cais. You are refusing to read it. MacCochláin (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I did read it but it does not support your claim. Sorry. The Banner talk 14:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does. It states that the Cochláins are of the Dealbhna and they descend from the son of Cas, brother of the primogenitor of the O Brien (Thomond) which are the most famous Dal Cais. This clearly states that they are therefore dalcassian. Along with this which clearly states the Dealbhna are Dalcassian "Dealbhna.—There were seven tribes of this name seated in different parts of Ireland. They were of the Dalcassian race, and derived their patronymic name of Dealbhna, from their progenitor, Lughaidh Dealbh-aedh, the third son of Cas. The tribe alluded to in the text were generally called Dealbhna Nuadhat, and were seated in the present county of Roscommon, between the Rivers Suck and Shannon.—See O'Flaherty's , Part III. c. 82, and , at the year 816." From The Tribes and Customs of Hy-Many, commonly called O'Kelly's Country (Author: Unknown), p.82 (section .2) https://celt.ucc.ie/published/G105007/note217.html

I don't see how those aren't sufficient sources. MacCochláin (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Also show me the ban on 'indirect sourcing'. If it is sourced that the Mac Cochláins are descended form Cas and another source says being descended from cas makes you dalcassian then what? you can't add it to Wikipedia unless you find a source that says both at once?

MacCochláin (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

From WP:VER: Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.[11] The Banner talk 15:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still contend that as my sources show the MacCochláins are descended from Cas and it references they are descended from the brother that the most famous Dalcassian tribe OBrien takes descent from then they are clearly dalcassian. This coupled with all the other sources agreeing should be enough to add the Mac Cochláin to the Dalcassian page. MacCochláin (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that these sources are indirect. https://www.libraryireland.com/Pedigrees1/Coghlan1Heber.php This clearly shows descent from Cas which means they are Dalcassian. Understanding that descended from cas means Dalcassian isn't indirectness. It is just knowing the meaning. MacCochláin (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It is no surprise that you disagree with that as it does not support your point of view. Maybe it is also a good idea to read Wikipedia:No original research (Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. ) and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. The Banner talk 15:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand that you cannot combine sources. But as the source states the Mac cochláin are descended from Tál Cas. That makes them Dalcassian. Therefore making it a direct source. It doesn't require combination with another source. It just requires knowledge that Dalcassian means descended from Dal Cas. Which it does mean. MacCochláin (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It just requires knowledge that Dalcassian means descended from Dal Cas. What means: combining info from multiple sources, including prior knowledge. Sorry. The Banner talk 16:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

That means every source requires knowledge from the bloody dictionary and is invalid. Are we trying to argue knowing the meaning of words is combining sources?. Dalcassian means of Dal Cas. A meaning of a word is not combining sources. MacCochláin (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

No, we just need a source that states that the Mac Cochlain are a sept of the Dál gCáis. That is enough. But you seem to be unable to provide that requested source. You came with all kinds of original research and combined and/or indirect sources but never with the requested source. Don't blame me for sources you can not provide.The Banner talk 16:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I have a source that say the MacCochláins are Dalcassians which makes then a sept of Dál Cas if you understand the meaning of the word Dalcassian. I cannot locate a source that states it even more clearly because there are limited sources on ancient Irish history of minor clans and I think the source I posted is more than clear. Dalcassian means sept of Dál Cas. That is more than clear. MacCochláin (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Why are you being so difficult? Arguing that a source is indirect because it doesn't say Dalcassian means Dal Cas in the source itself? Does every source need to have a dictionary beside every term to make it valid for Wikipedia? I think you are being far too strict. MacCochláin (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not difficult, I have told you multiple times what is needed. But you fail to provide that. Or maybe you think that it is not needed for your family because you know it. That is not how it works. The Banner talk 16:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

No I have provided a source that states the family is Dalcassian which you refuse to accept because it doesn't explain what Dalcassian means in the source itself. Which I think is being difficult. Especially when compared to the Wikipedia articles of any other Irish family tree. MacCochláin (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

You came with original research and indirect proof. Nowhere near by what is needed for a reliable article. I think you just know that the requested sources do not exist but out of family-pride you keep on hammering. Not going to work. The Banner talk 16:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Out of family pride and out of wanting to make wikipedia better.

https://www.libraryireland.com/Pedigrees1/Coghlan1Heber.php

This source states the family descends from cas. Which makes them a sept of the Dal Cas. I maintain that's a direct source not indirect. I cited sources originally that have been used on multiple Wikipedia pages for Irish families but you rejected them as being unreliable so I resorted to proving it with this manner. MacCochláin (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I am clearly wasting my time here because you do not have the sources requested. The Banner talk 17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Vietnamese Army

If you're going to blank and redirect valid disambiguation pages like you did at Vietnamese Army then I think you ought to at least put a hatnote at the new target. People's Army of Vietnam may well be the primary topic, but I think "Vietnamese Army" is still ambiguous, isn't it? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

That depends on the number of links to disambiguation pages created. But I have no trouble with a revert when you solve the links to disambiguation pages too. The Banner talk 23:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Greek airport vandal (investigation running)

Removes links to other Greek airports even when referenced. Removes maintenance templates (source requests) from Thessaloniki Airport and from links to this airport. Also removes random links from other Greek airports. Has the opinion that suspended routes to Russian airports are cut.

Incarnation 1: 46

• 46.176.69.25
• 46.177.222.145
• 46.176.78.200
• XB12345 ??? (blocked)
• 46.176.75.107
• 46.177.47.120
• 46.177.60.36
• 46.177.47.127
• 46.176.84.102
• 46.176.85.205
• 46.177.206.58
• 46.177.207.194
• 46.176.65.242
• 79.166.217.248
• 46.177.210.142
• 46.177.213.79

The Banner talk 08:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi The Banner, this is now at ANI ([4]) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a welcome surprise! Thank you very much! The Banner talk 11:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Did anything happen? I am not aware of that. The Banner talk 12:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

And again:

• 46.176.64.157

The Banner talk 12:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

High suspicion that this vandal is connected to the others:

77.69.72.136

Der HON (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Not unlikely. The Banner talk 19:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• 46.177.36.35
• 46.177.47.195
• 46.176.74.176
• 46.177.33.22
• 46.177.46.185
• 46.177.211.202

10:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Greek Airport vandal 2: 79.166

Same issues as the first one.

• 79.166.196.193
• 79.166.202.78
• 79.166.194.252

The Banner talk 19:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Greek Airport vandal 3: 5.55

Looks like the vandal has now moved to a new range

• 5.55.238.190
• 5.55.232.99
• 5.55.179.168
• 5.55.243.182
• 5.55.248.76
• 5.55.250.39
• 5.55.249.26
• 5.55.188.82
• 5.55.253.62
• 5.55.251.130

   15:46, 20 November 2022 Ad Orientem talk contribs blocked 5.55.192.0/18 talk with an expiration time of 1 month (anon. only, account creation blocked) (WP:DE)

The Banner talk 15:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• 5.55.174.90

The Banner talk 09:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Incarnation 4: 89.210

• 89.210.154.86
• 89.210.214.120
• 89.210.207.148

The Banner talk 09:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Incarnation 5: 141.255

• 141.255.62.40
• 141.255.61.4

The Banner talk 11:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Incarnation 6: 77.69

• 77.69.76.56
• 77.69.75.20

The Banner talk 08:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

• News and notes: English Wikipedia editors: "We don't need no stinking banners"

• In the media: "The most beautiful story on the Internet"

• Interview: Lisa Seitz-Gruwell on WMF fundraising in the wake of big banner ad RfC

• Opinion: Privacy on Wikipedia in the cyberpunk future

• Disinformation report: Missed and Dissed

• Op-Ed: Diminishing returns for article quality

• Book review: Writing the Revolution

• Technology report: Galactic dreams, encyclopedic reality

• Essay: The Six Million FP Man

• Tips and tricks: (Wiki)break stuff

• Recent research: Study deems COVID-19 editors smart and cool, questions of clarity and utility for WMF's proposed "Knowledge Integrity Risk Observatory"

• Featured content: A great month for featured articles

• Obituary: A tribute to Michael Gäbler

• Concept: The relevance of legal certainty to the English Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Musical deaths, murders, Princess Di's nominative determinism, and sports

• From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago

• CommonsComix: Joker's trick

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

MICHELIN Guide re: place for bags

Good morning, Appreciate and echo your passion for MICHELIN restaurants... consistency is an interesting one that I like to explore. I recently posted an add to your comments on other ratings on the MICHELIN Guide page regarding a "place for bags". I referenced a review from a restaurant in France and recent publication in a restaurant publication on ai / ml research. Im an AI/ML specialist by trade/training. At a recent restaurant meeting it was discussed MICHELIN ratings give consideration if a place for bags, via a bag chair or bag rack, is available. I thought this would be valuable to add. Could I post or something you can place and post? Please let me know how to proceed. Thank you. James aka JEM2100 on wikipedia.

Add:

• A note indicating the restaurant provides a place for a diner's handbag, purse or bag such as a small side table [5] or a stand alone mobile bag rack or purse rack.

JEM2100 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The given source did not explicitly support your claim (at least, I did not find it). So if you can provide a direct source to support your claim, I have no problems with it. Beside that, reviews are in most case not good sources, as they are often biased. The Banner talk 15:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

Possibly the way I sourced was not showing in what I published.

Can you review the following sources and advise how I can source or reference?

Thank you for your help.

See page 5 of AI ML Research: https://trnusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/TRN-1122.pdf

See "In addition to the new location, new touches were made to the service. If a female diner had a handbag, a small side table was placed beside her so that she did not need to place the bag on the floor. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Restaurant_Marco_Pierre_White

Recent research by Florida International University referenced MICHELIN Guide star consideration to have a place for diner's bag; https://hospitality.fiu.edu/faculty/profiles/connors-brian-ms-che-csw.html JEM2100 (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

None of your source proves that Michelin takes note of bag stands whatsoever. Trnusa.com and the biography do not mention Michelin at all. The article about White mentioned the bag but not in relation to Michelin. Sorry. The Banner talk 18:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback.

Would have or suggest where there is a source to support MICHELIN Guide takes note of bag stands?

I discussed this fact with a few MICHELIN restaurants and the sources I provided?

It is an interesting point that its an assumed need of restaurants interested in achieving a MICHELIN star and would be great to share.

I have seen the need for bag racks mentioned in articles or reviews.

Please let me know if you have a source and Ill do the same. JEM2100 (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea. I have never heard before that Michelin is interested in these stands. But Wikipedia is not a website to promote new developments but following. So what we need are sources that describe - with so many words - that Michelin is interested in bag stands and that they have a value in the reward-giving processes. And because you wanted to add it, it is up to you to provide those sources. The Banner talk 19:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way, is the article in Trnusa.com from your hand? The Banner talk 20:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Gort

I take it you got a copy of Grey & McNamara (2000) then? Is it any good (as a matter of interest)? Guliolopez (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I borrowed it from the library. First I used it to check the sources, second I will just read it to learn about the next town over. The Banner talk 16:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Arthur Griffith—Antisemitism

I'm failing to understand how you think his writing flagrantly antisemitic material, and publishing it in his own popular newspaper, should be called a "claim" of antisemitism. The body of the section itself starts with quotes of the most vile and harmful sorts of antisemitism taken directly from the editorial pages of his newspaper, most written by Griffith himself. It continues with a factual statement. *"The powerful antisemitism found in the pages of the United Irishman during Griffth's editorial tenure has been credited with..."*

How could this be construed as some sort of controversy about whether antisemitism was present? What could possibly be less unambiguously antisemitic?

Granted, he seems to have changed his views around 1904. That's not relevant to calling the section "claims", although you could call it "Antisemitism (range-of-dates)" if you want to emphasize that.

It is you who is not hewing to a neutral POV here. Barak~enwiki (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of the term "neutrality"? What you do is blatantly accusing him of being an antisemitic, without factoring in the later chance of heart and without realising what was the public opinion in those days. Keep the article neutral please. The Banner talk 12:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You seem emotional about this. He wrote and published editorials with clear antisemitic material. That's not in dispute: it's a plain fact. The section header could, in a neutral POV, be "antisemitic writings" or "antisemitic editorials" or even just "antisemitism". It's not a "claim" because that implies there is some dispute about either what he wrote, or whether that material was antisemitic. There is no such dispute.

If you have evidence that he later had a change of heart and regretted those writings, you should document this. But that is beside the point. Sure, he had Jewish friends many years later. That is beside the point.

It seems to me that you are not engaging in good faith here on the issue. The word "claims" is not appropriate or neutral for this section header. Barak~enwiki (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I am completely rational. And so far, you are blatantly accusing Griffith of being a fully fledged antisemitic, without providing proper sources for that. Two newspaper articles from his hand, four years apart, is not enough. You are ignoring my earlier arguments. So, I will be waiting to you to provide a source that directly states that Griffith is an antisemitic. The Banner talk 13:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

A Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements entry has been filed. Barak~enwiki (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

So, I will be waiting to you to provide a source that directly states that Griffith is an antisemitic. The fact that you go shopping elsewhere for support, means to me that you are unable to provide such a source. I guess third parties want to see that evidence too. The Banner talk 10:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Barak~enwiki, User:The Banner - The issue of Griffith and anti-semitism has been discussed at length on and off for years on the talk page at Talk:Arthur Griffith by other editors also, so is not a topic for Third Opinion. Discuss it on the article talk page, and maybe a fourth or sixth opinion may be offered. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I hope can present the source I am asking for. For now, a quote from the article Limerick boycott: A critic of the Limerick boycott was Arthur Griffith who founded the Sinn Féin party the following year, saying "If Jews —as Jews— were boycotted, it would be outrageously unjust". I have already ordered that book from my library but I have to wait till 2023. The Banner talk 08:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm actually hoping for a third opinion on something much narrower: whether the section title should read "claims of ..." or "antisemitic writings". There's no factual dispute that he *did* write and publish antisemitic material.

If that's still out of scope, please let us know. Barak~enwiki (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

But there is a dispute if he was actually an antisemitic. In your choice of words, that dispute will be hidden effectively branding his as a antisemitic. But as I said before: So, I will be waiting to you to provide a source that directly states that Griffith is an antisemitic. The Banner talk 18:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Milan Malpensa destination

Hi

in order to get to a point regarding the references in Milan malpensa passenger destination list (as you can see there are more users that are use to remove a ref when a service starts), I come out with a draft (below, based on actual version) of a model already used in other airport pages (i.e. Leonardo da Vinci–Fiumicino Airport) in which a third column is provided in which move ref.s once a specific service begins. The 3rd column can be also used to include generic companies reference about the network from/to the specific airport.
Usually, in this type of table, reference are placed as:

• SERVICE TO STARTS/ENDS : next to the destination and related date, in 2nd column
• SERVICE STARTED: third column
• CHARTER: 3rd column (unless it is a service to start, in this case 2nd column)
• COMPANY NETRWORK:3rd column
• OTHERS REF.S: 3rd column

If you think that is ok, I will also modify in the page. Riktetta (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Airlines	Destinations	Refs
Aegean Airlines	Athens, Thessaloniki
Aer Lingus	Seasonal: Dublin
Aeroitalia	Seasonal charter: Marsa Alam, Sharm El Sheikh,
Air Albania	Tirana
Air Algérie	Algiers
Air Cairo	Cairo, Sharm El Sheikh Seasonal: Hurghada (begins 27 March 2023), Luxor (begins 27 March 2023),
Air Canada	Montreal–Trudeau, Toronto–Pearson
Air China	Beijing–Capital, Shanghai–Pudong, Wenzhou
Air Dolomiti	Frankfurt, Munich
Air Europa	Madrid
Air France	Paris–Charles de Gaulle
Air Horizont	Seasonal charter: Olbia
Air India	Delhi (resumes 1 February 2023)
Air Moldova	Chisinau
Air Senegal	Dakar–Diass
Air Serbia	Belgrade
airBaltic	Riga
AlbaStar	Seasonal: Catania, Lampedusa Seasonal charter: Marsa Alam, Palma de Mallorca, Sharm El Sheikh
Albawings	Tirana
American Airlines	New York–JFK
Austrian Airlines	Vienna
Azerbaijan Airlines	Baku
British Airways	London–Heathrow Seasonal: London–Gatwick
Brussels Airlines	Brussels
Cathay Pacific	Hong Kong
Croatia Airlines	Seasonal: Split
Delta Air Lines	New York–JFK Seasonal: Atlanta
easyJet	Amsterdam, Athens, Barcelona, Bari, Bordeaux, Brindisi, Bristol, Cagliari, Catania, Copenhagen, Edinburgh, Faro, Fuerteventura, Lamezia Terme, Lanzarote, Larnaca, Lisbon, London–Gatwick, London–Luton, Luxembourg, Málaga, Manchester, Marrakech, Marsa Alam, Nantes, Naples, Olbia, Palermo, Palma de Mallorca, Paris–Charles de Gaulle, Porto, Prague, Sharm El Sheikh, Stockholm–Arlanda, Tel Aviv, Tenerife–South Seasonal: Alghero, Beauvais (begins 27 March 2023), Bilbao, Birmingham (begins 26 June 2023), Chania, Corfu, Funchal, Heraklion, Hurghada, Ibiza, Kefalonia, Kos, Lampedusa, Lourdes (begins 31 March 2023), Malta, Menorca, Mykonos, Preveza/Lefkada, Reykjavík–Keflavík, Rhodes, Rovaniemi, Santorini, Skiathos, Split, Zadar, Zakynthos
EgyptAir	Cairo
El Al	Tel Aviv
Emirates	Dubai–International, New York–JFK
Ethiopian Airlines	Addis Ababa, Zürich
Etihad Airways	Abu Dhabi
EVA Air	Taipei–Taoyuan
Eurowings	Cologne/Bonn, Düsseldorf, Hamburg, Stuttgart
Finnair	Helsinki
FlyOne	Chisinau (begins 27 March 2023)
FlyOne Armenia	Yerevan (begins 15 December 2022)
Gulf Air	Bahrain
Iberia	Madrid
Icelandair	Seasonal: Reykjavík–Keflavík
Iran Air	Tehran–Imam Khomeini
ITA Airways	New York–JFK
KLM	Amsterdam
Korean Air	Seoul–Incheon
Kuwait Airways	Kuwait City
La Compagnie	Newark
LATAM Brasil	São Paulo–Guarulhos
LOT Polish Airlines	Warsaw–Chopin
Lufthansa	Frankfurt, Munich
Lumiwings	Foggia
Luxair	Luxembourg
Middle East Airlines	Beirut
Neos	Almaty, Cairo, Cancún, Colombo, Dakar–Diass, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Havana, Holguín, La Romana, Malé, Marsa Alam, Mombasa, Nanjing, New York–JFK, Sal, Sharm El Sheikh, Tenerife–South Seasonal: Amman–Queen Alia, Boa Vista, Brindisi, Cagliari, Catania, Cayo Largo, Djerba, Heraklion, Ibiza, Karpathos, Kos, Lamezia Terme, Lanzarote, Luxor, Male, Mauritius (resumes 20 December 2022), Menorca, Monastir, Montego Bay, Mykonos, Nosy Bé, Olbia, Palermo, Palma de Mallorca, Rhodes, Rovaniemi, Samos, Santorini, Skiathos, Tianjin, Varadero, Zanzibar Seasonal charter: Amritsar, Hamburg, Lahore, Sialkot, Tbilisi
Norwegian Air Shuttle	Oslo
Nouvelair	Seasonal charter: Djerba
Oman Air	Muscat
Qatar Airways	Doha
Royal Air Maroc	Casablanca, Marrakech
Royal Jordanian	Amman–Queen Alia
Ryanair	Aarhus, Alghero, Alicante, Barcelona, Bari, Berlin, Brindisi, Brussels, Bucharest, Cagliari, Catania, Comiso, Dublin, Gran Canaria, Lamezia Terme, London–Stansted, Madrid, Málaga, Malta, Manchester, Naples, Palermo, Porto, Seville, Tenerife–South, Valencia, Vienna Seasonal: Corfu, Heraklion, Kalamata, Palma de Mallorca, Santorini, Zadar (begins 4 June 2023), Zakynthos
Saudia	Jeddah Seasonal: Medina
Scandinavian Airlines	Copenhagen, Oslo Seasonal: Bergen (resumes 1 July 2023), Stavanger, Stockholm–Arlanda
Singapore Airlines	Barcelona, Singapore
Sky Express	Athens
SunExpress	Izmir
Swiss International Air Lines	Zürich
TAP Air Portugal	Lisbon
TUI fly Belgium	Seasonal: Casablanca
Tunisair	Tunis
Turkish Airlines	Istanbul
Twin Jet	Lyon, Marseille
United Airlines	Newark Seasonal: Chicago–O'Hare
Uzbekistan Airways	Seasonal: Tashkent
Vueling	Barcelona, Paris–Orly Seasonal: Alicante, Bilbao, Ibiza
Wizz Air	Alexandria, Amman–Queen Alia, Athens, Brindisi, Budapest, Cardiff, Catania, Jeddah, Kraków, Kutaisi, Lamezia Terme, London–Gatwick, Marrakesh, Marsa Alam (begins 9 January 2023), Naples, Palermo, Podgorica, Prague, Pristina, Reykjavik–Keflavík, Riyadh (begins 3 May 2023), Sharm El Sheikh, Skopje, Tallinn, Tel Aviv, Tenerife–South, Tirana, Vilnius, Yerevan Seasonal: Corfu, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Heraklion, Lampedusa, Olbia, Porto, Skiathos, Zakynthos

Discussion

To be honest, I do not see the benefits of that. Ideally, every route should be source individually so the third column only adds confusion (and is as far as I know not the preferred option and being phased out). The point is, when a route starts, only the start date has to be removed, not the accompanying source. The Banner talk 10:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@The Banner: Actually I think that sourcing every single route will add confusion and bring no benefit, especially when we have some cumulative references already embedding different routes. Anyway...
Please be informed that one of the references you recently re-added in the page (referring to Wizz-air to Yerevan) is taken from website "Italiavola.com". As this is a user-based site (comparable to a forum) it may not be considered acceptable. I rememeber that, in the past, all the references pointing to such a website were removed and related rules to user-based sites were shown in order to justify the removal. Not sure what to do with that.
Riktetta (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Italiavola, I don't know the context of the revert but it is quite possible. I do not know every website. I mainly check on the obvious airline and airport websites. Checking them takes enough effort. But if you have a bnetter independent website, feel free to exchange it. The Banner talk 14:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

And to be true, I am also unhappy with a source called "exyuaviation.com". That is a blog. The Banner talk 15:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion Airline destination edits

Hi The Banner.

First of all, I want to apologize for my ugly language to you, but I got ANGRY because I have changed things several times on the Danish wikipedia and have also been criticized, and my things have been taken down....... I'm sorry it shouldn't happen to you.

Enough about that. You say you require sources so that destinations can be changed on new routes?? Ehhhhhh You know that most information can be found through booking systems. AND there's also the fact that the companies take a LONG TIME to make a press release after the routes have been posted in the booking systems.

You can then learn to look in the booking systems instead of "requiring a source" That way you can proofread whether the facts are facts! Erobran (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Press releases and booking websites are not reliable sources as they are not independent. And that is what Wikipedia needs: reliable, independent, in-depth sources. Always and everywhere. The Banner talk 15:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It is still allowed as per our guidelines to use airline press releases as primary sources, secondary or independed sources are to be preferred but removing entries which use a valid primary source as you recently did is not in accordance with our policies. Best regards.

Yes, there are more local CABALS who decide to ignore valid wiki-wide policies. The Banner talk 19:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Just check Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources (a policy) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (a guideline). The Banner talk 19:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Serienfan555 : Statplus Upcoming serial

there are start date and evidence for. There must be a policy discussion on wikipedia. But you can't just make massive changes by individuals like you did with the Amazon listing. many people have worked on it. Either we remove all upcoming projects (Netflix, amazon......) from the wiki or none. It's already competition consumption of wikipedia

greeting series fan555 Serienfan555 (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you ever read WP:NOTVGUIDE? That starts with: An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, (...)". A program-to-be-broadcasted is clearly an "upcoming event". The Banner talk 20:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thats what I meant! But then the Upcoming Productions sections of Netflix and Amazon and others must also be removed! Serienfan555 (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

So because other articles are bad, you think it is okay to make more articles bad? I am a volunteer too, with limited time. It is not my duty to police every TV-CHANNEL on Wikipedia to see if people are spamming and ignoring WP:NOTTVGUIDE. The Banner talk 20:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Stop reverting to an invalid reference.

You're edit warring (or something) on the Shannon page. Stop it. The reference you keep putting back does not say what you claim it says. And by now you know it. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You are claiming that the source and the section don't even exist, what is clearly incorrect. You are not the first warrior on that article taking offence of the sheer existence of the British Isles. But editwarren over that is useless. The Banner talk 18:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I have pointed you - repeatedly - to the fact that the link does not say what you're claiming it says. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kKo1psZQmjzwgGsc3_c0f4_Pr0NiqTOa/view?usp=sharing

You keep putting it back. Stop that. Follow policy.

And what you're going on shannon is not relevant to British Isles. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Follow policy and stop editwarren en POV-pushen. With the personal attacks, you run the risk of loosing your editing privileges. The Banner talk 18:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

If you'd stop reverting to a link that does not say what you claim it does, there'd be no need to do anything. And I'm not personally attacking. I'm saying that you're reverting to a text that is not supported by the link you give. And have given you evidence. I also have a version of the reference that does not have the section at all, which I'll upload and share. Meantime, you're reverting to an unsupported text, and you know it. Stop. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

And you are edit warring on two articles because you dislike the term British Isles. That is POV-pushing. But the British Isles is an undeniable geographical entity. The Banner talk 18:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm neither edit warring nor POV pushing. I'm insisting on and using accurate references. You just don't like them. Again, I point out to you that the reference and text you kept using were not accurate. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Then why are you using non-reliable sources? Try to discuss your proposed changes on the relevant talk pages first and stop edit warring. You had already a block for edit warring, do not do that again. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. And things are done by cooperation, discussion and consensus. The Banner talk 14:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

And now you have a second block... The Banner talk 16:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)