User talk:The Banner/Archive13

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation ousts, bans quarter of Arabic Wikipedia admins

• In the media: Odd bedfellows, Elon and Jimbo, reliable sources for divorces, and more

• Interview: ComplexRational's RfA debrief

• Technology report: Wikimedia Foundation's Abstract Wikipedia project "at substantial risk of failure"

• Essay: Mobile editing

• Arbitration report: Arbitration Committee Election 2022

• Recent research: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement in talk page disputes

• Serendipity: Wikipedia about FIFA World Cup 2022: quick, factual and critical

• Featured content: Would you like to swing on a star?

• Traffic report: Football, football, football! Wikipedia Football Club!

• CommonsComix: #4: The Course of WikiEmpire

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

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, The Banner!

Happy New Year!

The Banner,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Iberia (Regional)

Morning,

Looking at article pages like Madrid Airport and Frankfurt Airport I noticed that multiple entries regarding Iberia and its subsidiary are nothing but duplicate. There is no sense in listing them apart as they operate as just one entity, under one AOC and the same flight numbers. Furthermore it is quite confusing as a normal person wouldn't get the difference when looking at the Frankfurt Airport page and seeing Iberia to Madrid and just one further down Iberia Regional to Madrid. He'd ask himself were the difference was, even though there is none. Regarding Iberia Express, we should keep them apart though, as it has its own AOC and operated as a Premium LCC Brand for Iberia.
But all in all, we do not differentiate between Lufthansa and Lufthansa Cityline, KLM and KLM Cityhopper or TAP and TAP Express. As this though is still a slightly bigger change, I wanted to ask for your opinion first.

Best regards,
Der HON (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Merging the entries with an extensive explanation underwater? The Banner talk 10:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea, will do it that way. Thanks.

Best regards,
Der HON (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Zee Bangla SPA

Hello The Banner. Could you please provide some help or advice regarding Nilpriyo? Back in October, you posted a COI request on their Talk Page [1], but this has been ignored (along with my requests before and after).

They still seem to be using Wikipedia to promote articles for this TV network, so what can be done here please? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

To be true, I am hesitant to act. To my opinion, there is a whole collection of editors showing the same channel-promotion COI. Often breaching WP:NOTVGUIDE and repeatedly adding upcoming broadcasts/spamming. I was too busy the last period to start digging into it but I think an sockpuppet investigation is warranted here. The Banner talk 10:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I'm happy to do the digging to launch an SPI, do you have any tips for identifying the sockpuppet accounts?

Also, what do you think please about taking it to AN/I based on WP:NOTHERE? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I think an SPI is an better choice. Looking at Zee Bangla (and there are more Zee-channels with the same problems) I note the following editors that are likely: Siddhartha sengupta2001, Its.com85, Devjit1234 and Standlin. The Banner talk 11:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, I will look into an SPI for those accounts. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: It is no surprise that is was Nilpriyo who removed the prod from List of programmes broadcast by Zee Bangla. The Banner talk 09:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Feel free to email me, but I prefer to not say much more in public (because I am a paid editor for a rival TV network) :p Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

"interlanguage link in a disambiguation page is not a good idea"

Why not? If somebody wants to fix the redlink, why shouldn't they know there is a French page? Srnec (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 17:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see it. I believe the interlanguage link was in the spirit of MOS:DABRED, which says that red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information. Srnec (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

A red link is clearly not an article. Beside that, what you quote here is about a second link for an item. One red and one blue. Not about an interlanguage link. But I have no objection about a link underwater to another wikipedia. The Banner talk 19:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

County template reports at RFPP

AIV is a better venue for issues with single users. I did partial-block that IP from editing templates for 1 month. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I only noticed the last two edits with the comments of the IP. But the comments made clear that there was a serious problem. Even then I would have settled for a protection of max three day. (not much IPs will return after even one day) The Banner talk 22:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing "future programming" as a part of WP:NOTTVGUIDE rule.

I saw your edits last December 2022 and I thought it was a good idea to follow that simple "Not TV Guide" rule, so I also did removed the "Upcoming programs" sections of other channels' programming lists. Thanks and I appreciate it, keep up the good work. -Gino March (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi

As there seems to b a clear consensus at Template talk:Manly Warringah Sea Eagles current squad and no response from the other party, can their changes now be reverted? Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggest not to hurry and wait another day before removing the flags. The Banner talk 10:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

• From the team: We heard zoomers liked fortnights: the biweekly Signpost rides again

• Special report: Coverage of 2022 bans reveals editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

• News and notes: Revised Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines up for vote, WMF counsel departs, generative models under discussion

• In the media: Court orders user data in libel case, Saudi Wikipedia in the crosshairs, Larry Sanger at it again

• Technology report: View it! A new tool for image discovery

• In focus: Busting into Grand Central

• Serendipity: How I bought part of Wikipedia – for less than $100

• Gallery: What is our responsibility when it comes to images?

• Humour: New geologically speedy deletion criteria introduced

• Opinion: Good old days, in which fifth-symbol-lacking lipograms roam'd our librarious litany

• Featured content: Flip your lid

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2022

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

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Restaurant articles

You seem to be targeting articles I've worked on, which is making my editing experience frustrating. Examples:

• Talk:Bluehour#Notability_/_Advertising (which has since been promoted to Good article status)
• Bailey's Taproom
• Talk:Yonder (restaurant)
• Acadia
• Zefiro
• Ya Hala
• Wong's King
• Zuckercreme
• Zach's Shack

We clearly have different understanding of which claims and sources are appropriate for Wikipedia. That's fine, but you are clearly trying to place obstacles in front of me and I'm kindly asking you to please stop. Putting this request on User:Liz's (who's been following some related drama lately) radar. Thanks ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have already started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources about the sources. By now, I did not act against your overly aggressive way of protecting your articles. But when you go over the line, I will certainly act. The Banner talk 18:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I'm being overly aggressive by asking you to explain your content removals and tag additions. Your comments at Bluehour and Bailey's Taproom felt like they were said only to make things harder for me, so I've come here to try to understand how we can move forward. I'm glad you started the discussion at the reliable sources page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Those comments were not to make things harder for you, but to make the encyclopedia better and more reliable. And that is why I started the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. The Banner talk 18:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

My point is you made your opinions known at Bluehour and Bailey's Taproom, yet the entries were still promoted to Good article status because the reviewers did not agree with you. So, I'm continuing to edit Wikipedia using the same practices, and you're still trying to interfere. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

For a strange reason notability is not a factor in the GA-process... The Banner talk 18:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Then start a discussion somewhere about notability and the GA process. (?) But the way you're tagging and removing content from articles I've worked on makes me feel like you're targeting me. I very much welcome discussions at appropriate spaces to address your concerns, but we're not going to accomplish much by battling it out at one article after another. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

There is already a discussion about that theme: Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Propose to add notability to GA criteria. The Banner talk 19:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Great! Again, I have no problem with having these discussions at the proper venues. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Even when both discussions are not going your way? The Banner talk 19:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Which discussions aren't going my way? And yes, even if discussions aren't going my way. I'd rather there be agreed upon system-wide changes then back and forth edit wars on individual articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Both are still running both do not look promising for your point of view. The Banner talk 19:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

So what? I'm not here to "win". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but you are surely here to protect your articles against the policies, guidelines and standing consensus. The Banner talk 19:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

How so? What rule(s) am I breaking? I've promoted a lot of restaurant articles to Good status, so I can't help but think I'm following policies, guidelines and consensus. Tell me what I'm doing wrong. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

To keep it short: making basic mistakes like thinking that GA-status automatically means that an subject is notable (it is based on ticking of checkboxes, not a critical evaluation of the quality and merits of the subject.) and thinking that adding many references improve the quality and notability of a subject. Many non RS-sources does nothing for quality, reliability and notability. How many times did I tell you that already? WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT comes to mind. The Banner talk 20:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I've never said GA status = notable. You're always welcome to flag unreliable sources on an article's talk page. I've asked you to do this on the Yonder talk page. I guess it doesn't matter at this point, we'll see how the reliable sources discussion goes... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If any the article of yours that is similar to the donut stand article in quality, that reached Afd'd, reaches the GA review, I will sending it to Afd immediately. You can absolutely sure of that. scope_creep^Talk 19:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit war at Larnaca International Airport

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Wappy2008 (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022 on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 54

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 54, November – December 2022

• New collections:
  • British Newspaper Archive
  • Findmypast
  • University of Michigan Press
  • ACLS
  • Duke University Press
• 1Lib1Ref 2023
• Spotlight: EDS Refine Results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Larnaca International Airport

You have been blocked from editing Larnaca International Airport for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair. I have to admit that I lost my cool. The Banner talk 22:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you recognise that. Look, you should know by now that accusing someone of vandalism is a personal attack if you don't have strong evidence, and it is very clear indeed that Wappy2008 is not a vandal. They may be editing against policy, or convention, or without consensus, but they are definitely not a vandal. Instead of going to another user's talk page shouting at them (which is how I view issuing overblown templated warnings), just post on the article talk page and explain why you reverted. It's a lot less stressful, and it's a lot more effective. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I did try to reason with him on his talk page but that had no result. Seemed to make him only more angry. He was asking for sources for the suspension, so I provided them. And a few days later he removed everything again. The Banner talk 15:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I wish we could close this case, but seeing the comment on his talk page, more misery is coming. The Banner talk 20:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit war at Larnaca International Airport

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Wappy2008 (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Zee Bangla Channel

Don't you know this is a channel page? Here Zee Bangla current, past programs are given. You are destroying the page by unfairly removing channel programs.Please do not vandalize the page without knowing it. Nilpriyo (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not destroying the page, I am removing unsourced or improperly source promo. This article is not a promo vehicle to promote the programs of Zee Bangla but an encyclopedic article. And I request it again: what is your tie with Zee Bangla? The Banner talk 21:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I create what I know best on Wikipedia. I do not add any kind of false information to Wikipedia. And Zee Bangla has nothing to do with me. I have told you this before. I have created and edited many other pages besides Zee Bangla. Not only Zee Bangla, I have a good idea about the programs of Star Jalsha, Sun Bangla, Colors Bangla, Star Plus, Zee TV, Colors TV, Sony Entertainment channels. Besides, I also provide accurate information about various actors and actresses. When I see that someone has added wrong information to these pages, I remove these wrong information from that page.

Nilpriyo (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but the way you are editing makes me think of the marketing department. The Banner talk 19:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop

Once again, I'm going to ask you to please leave me alone. You are clearly following me and my work and attempting to interfere with articles I've worked on. Please stop. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

You are NOT the owner of the articles you wrote. The quality of your articles is poor and spammy, with loads of unsuitable sources (listings, reviews, passing mentions etc.) and irrelevant details. It would be far better that you start to learn what is relevant and what is not relevant. That you think that everything with a source is relevant is a grave mistake. I have only a few of your articles on my watchlist and they stay there. WP:CIR comes to mind. The Banner talk 16:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to ask you to leave me alone again. If you continue to disrupt, I am going to escalate this discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Please note that you are visiting MY talk page and are harassing me/trying to chase me away. You are not the owner of the articles you have written, contrary to what you seem to believe. Try to learn to distinguish between what information is relevant and what is not relevant. You seem to have a problem with that.

Ow, and I have requested protection to prevent you ending up in a full blown edit war. Just to protect you. The Banner talk 16:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Asking to be left alone is not harassment. Also, you know I've been clear about not intending to edit war, so don't try to paint the picture differently. There are many other parts of Wikipedia to improve, you don't need to follow me around making retaliatory edits. I'm asking for the last time, please leave me alone, and if you're truly here to build an encyclopedia you will respect my request. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Trying to chase me away certainly is harassing. So, do me a favour and stay away from my talk page and do not restore the spammy content. And learn the difference between irrelevant and relevant info, to be able to make a reliable, neutral encyclopedia. The Banner talk 17:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

• From the editor: New for the Signpost: Author pages, tag pages, and a decent article search function

• News and notes: Foundation update on fundraising, new page patrol, Tides, and Wikipedia blocked in Pakistan

• Section 230: Twenty-six words that created the internet, and the future of an encyclopedia

• Disinformation report: Wikipedia on Santos

• Special report: Legal status of Wikimedia projects "unclear" under potential European legislation

• In the media: Furor over new Wikipedia skin, followup on Saudi bans, and legislative debate

• Op-Ed: Estonian businessman and political donor brings lawsuit against head of national Wikimedia chapter

• Opinion: Study examines cultural leanings of Wikimedia projects' visual art coverage

• Recent research: Wikipedia's "moderate yet systematic" liberal citation bias

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Organized Labour

• Tips and tricks: XTools: Data analytics for your list of created articles

• Featured content: 20,000 Featureds under the Sea

• Traffic report: Films, deaths and ChatGPT

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hammarskjöld plane crash

I did not include citations because frankly they would have taken pages. All of these are things you COULD have look up yourself. They are not opinions these are official reports. The UN conducted three in addition to the official crash report by the Rhodesian Commission of Inquiry which was the body in charge of aircrash investigations. The BBC is NOT a more authoritative source. https://search.archives.un.org/reports-master-of-a-5069-report-of-the-commission-4;isad?sf_culture=en https://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/dag/docs/s4940ad5ef.pdf or if you want their most recent one https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2015-07-06/statement-attributable-spokesman-secretary-general-report

Or if you want some more Air Disaster Volume 4 ISBN 1-875671-48-X or Mayday Season 15 EP 5 "deadly Mission" Lucinator (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Long-term pattern of hounding and disruptive editing by User:The Banner. Thank you. — SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Bump (so ClueBot does not archive). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

• News and notes: Terms of Use update, Steward elections, and Wikipedia back in Pakistan

• In the media: Arbitrators open case after article alleges Wikipedia "intentionally distorts" Holocaust coverage

• Disinformation report: The "largest con in corporate history"?

• Essay: Machine-written articles: a new challenge for Wikipedia

• Tips and tricks: All about writing at DYK

• Featured content: Eden, lost.

• Gallery: Love is in the air

• Traffic report: Superbowl? Pfft. Give me some Bollywood! Yours sincerely, the world

• From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago: Let's (not) delete the Main Page!

• Cobwebs: Editorial: The loss of the moral high ground

• Humour: The RfA Candidate's Song

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

• News and notes: What's going on with the Wikimedia Endowment?

• Technology report: Second flight of the Soviet space bears: Testing ChatGPT's accuracy

• In the media: What should Wikipedia do? Publish Russian propaganda? Be less woke? Cover the Holocaust in Poland differently?

• Featured content: In which over two-thirds of the featured articles section needs to be copied over to WikiProject Military History's newsletter

• Recent research: "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the Holocaust" in Poland and "self-focus bias" in coverage of global events

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

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Aylesbury Music Centre Dance Band

Way back in 2015, @The Banner suggested deleting the Wikipedia entry for this ensemble with the comment 'Doubtful if it passes WP:GNG. Not many Google hits (effectively 54) and no independent sourcing in the article'. @SwisterTwister agreed; and @MBisanz made the deletion.

I discovered this deletion history because I recently tried to create an article for this band.

I can see why the article was deleted, but with reference to newspaper reporting it's easy to show that that the band meets several of criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (music):

• "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians": Mark Armstrong, and Jules Buckley.)
• "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition". The most obvious example is the BBC National Big Band Competition (junior category: 1992, 1995, 1998), an annual award characterised by The Guardian as "a fixture in the station's schedules" from 1975 to 2006.

I'm less sure of the customary usage of this criterion but:

• "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network": the band performed on BBC radio several times, not least in broadcasts relating to the aforementioned Big Band Competition; and also numerous times on the BBC TV series Blue Peter. I haven't bothered citing sources for these points, but I could.

I hope, then, that you will all be happy for me to re-create this entry, but this time with proper citations? Alarichall (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

• News and notes: Wikimania submissions deadline looms, Russian government after our lucky charms, AI woes nix CNET from RS slate

• Eyewitness: Three more stories from Ukrainian Wikimedians

• In the media: Paid editing, plagiarism payouts, proponents of a ploy, and people peeved at perceived preferences

• Featured content: Way too many featured articles

• Interview: 228/2/1: the inside scoop on Aoidh's RfA

• Traffic report: Who died? Who won? Who lost?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

• From the editor: Some long-overdue retractions

• News and notes: Sounding out, a universal code of conduct, and dealing with AI

• In the media: Twiddling Wikipedia during an online contest, and other news

• Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" case is ongoing

• Featured content: Hail, poetry! Thou heav'n-born maid

• Recent research: Language bias: Wikipedia captures at least the "silhouette of the elephant", unlike ChatGPT

• From the archives: April Fools' through the ages

• Disinformation report: Sus socks support suits, seems systemic

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2023

• News and notes: Staff departures at Wikimedia Foundation, Jimbo hands in the bits, and graphs' zeppelin burns

• In the media: Contested truth claims in Wikipedia

• Obituary: Remembering David "DGG" Goodman

• Arbitration report: Holocaust in Poland, Jimbo in the hot seat, and a desysopping

• Opinion: What Jimbo's question revealed about scamming

• Op-Ed: Wikipedia as an anchor of truth

• Special report: Signpost statistics between years 2005 and 2022

• News from the WMF: Collective planning with the Wikimedia Foundation

• Featured content: In which we described the featured articles in rhyme again

• From the archives: April Fools' through the ages, part two

• Humour: The law of hats

• Traffic report: Long live machine, the future supreme

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

• News and notes: New legal "deVLOPments" in the EU

• In the media: Vivek's smelly socks, online safety, and politics

• Recent research: Gender, race and notability in deletion discussions

• Featured content: I wrote a poem for each article, I found rhymes for all the lists; My first featured picture of this year now finally exists!

• Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" approaches conclusion

• News from the WMF: Planning together with the Wikimedia Foundation

• Special report: There Shall Be Seasons Refreshing – Stories from WikiConference India 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

• News and notes: Golden parachutes: Record severance payments at Wikimedia Foundation

• In the media: History, propaganda and censorship

• Arbitration report: Final decision in "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland"

• Recent research: Create or curate, cooperate or compete? Game theory for Wikipedia editors

• Featured content: A very musical week for featured articles

• Traffic report: Coronation, chatbot, celebs

• WikiProject report: Wikipedians Convene for Queering Wikipedia 2023: The First International LGBT+ Wikipedia Conference

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

• News and notes: WMRU director forks new 'pedia, birds flap in top '22 piccy, WMF weighs in on Indian gov's map axe plea

• In the media: Section 230 stands tall, WP vs. UK bill, Miss Information dissed again

• Featured content: Poetry under pressure

• Traffic report: Celebs, controversies and a chatbot in the public eye

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

• News and notes: WMF Terms of Use now in force, new Creative Commons licensing

• In the media: English WP editor glocked after BLP row on Italian 'pedia

• Featured content: Content, featured

• Recent research: Hoaxers prefer currently-popular topics

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hosanna, I am back

What a nightmare a hard-disk crash is. Bit by bit I am recovering from it. Genealogical research is back, e-mail is back and now Wikipedia. The Banner talk 02:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

• News and notes: Online Safety Bill: Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK launch open letter

• Disinformation report: Imploded submersible outfit foiled trying to sing own praises on Wikipedia

• In the media: Journo proposes mass Wiki dox, sponsored articles on Fandom, Section 230 discussed

• Featured content: Incensed

• Traffic report: Are you afraid of spiders? Arnold? The Idol? ChatGPT?

• Humour: United Nations dispatches peacekeeping force to Wikipedia policy discussions

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Re.:Cold War

I've seen some stuff about the new Cold War on the news on TV, heard this on the radio, seen this in some print media repeatedly since Russia invaded The Ukraine, China started making moves towards Tiawan, and BOTH allegedly made threats to NUKE the US and/or allies, China allegedly sent a balloon to spy on the US, which got shot down. There are other incidents of this sort mentioned repeatedly, and THAT may still be going on. Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

• News and notes: Big bux hidden beneath wine-dark sea as we wait for the Tides to go out?

• In the media: Tentacles of Emirates plot attempt to ensnare Wikipedia

• Obituary: David Thomsen (Dthomsen8) and Ingo Koll (Kipala)

• News from the WMF: ABC for Fundraising: Advancing Banner Collaboration for fundraising campaigns

• In focus: Are the children of celebrities over-represented in French cinema?

• Tips and tricks: What automation can do for you (and your WikiProject)

• Recent research: Wikipedia-grounded chatbot "outperforms all baselines" on factual accuracy

• Humour: New fringe theories to be introduced

• Cobwebs: If you're reading this, you're probably on a desktop

• Featured content: Scrollin', scrollin', scrollin', keep those readers scrollin', got to keep on scrollin', Rawhide!

• Traffic report: The Idol becomes the Master

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands navigational boxes has been nominated for renaming

Category:Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands navigational boxes has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You've made a mistake

,,If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page." Ok. Yes, you made a mistake. Read the article on FC Steaua and understand that it's about TWO teams. Two teams claim the identity of Steaua: CSA Steaua and Fotbal Club FCSB. The club templates of BOTH teams should be present. Dante4786 (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I am well aware of your history of disruptive editing, edit warring and POV-pushing. You had a point when you added two templates but you removed one template in favour of two other. That is not a neutral change. The Banner talk 10:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

False accusations and irrelevant to the subject. I didn't remove ANYTHING. You are not paying the slightest attention. Look again. IT'S THE SAME TEMPLATE. I only renamed one to their present name and added the template of the other team, which was wrongfully removed a few days ago. It wasn't even my idea to put the templates in. But if they are in, the templates of both teams should be present. Dante4786 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Dante4786: the classic accusation made by desperate men. The Banner talk 11:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

• News and notes: City officials attempt to doxx Wikipedians, Ruwiki founder banned, WMF launches Mastodon server

• In the media: Truth, AI, bull from politicians, and climate change

• Disinformation report: Hot climate, hot hit, hot money, hot news hot off the presses!

• Obituary: Donald Cram, Peter McCawley, and Eagleash

• Tips and tricks: Citation tools for dummies!

• Humour: Does Wikipedia present neutral perspectives?

• In focus: Journals cited by Wikipedia

• Opinion: Are global bans the last step?

• Featured content: Featured Content, 1 to 15 July

• Traffic report: Come on Oppie, let's go party

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Stop reverting edits for no reason

A hyphen is correct in this instance because it's a Comma splice.

Do yourself a favour and look at MOS:LISTS. They ALL use hyphens between the list item and the description.

You used very specific examples of pages to "prove" your point. All you've done is follow a confirmation bias; these pages have far fewer edits than my examples and the manual of style, so your examples are more likely to be wrong. Panamitsu (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, MOS:LISTS does not back up your claim. The Banner talk 00:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You are right in that it does not mention using a hyphen. However, all the bulleted lists within the MOS use a hyphen instead of a comma. Panamitsu (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

No, they do not. Sorry to disrupt your personal hobby. And I like to warn you for edit warring. The Banner talk 11:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:LISTOFWORKS which describes using the format for works as ```Title (label, year) – notes```

(see the hyphen?), which is applicable to alumni.

And yes, most of the examples do actually use hyphens in their bullet lists. For example, WP:LISTTYPES uses them, and they are found throughout the MOS.

And for edit warring, I had no idea about its existence, so thanks for teaching me about that. Panamitsu (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You are now con fusing people with works?

I wish you good luck with changing tens of thousands of articles to your personal hobby. I have no doubt that that attempt won't last long. The Banner talk 10:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Those are en dashes, not hyphens. Important distinction there. (See also MOS:ENDASH.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the edit history, it looks like en dashes are being used in these edits, so that's not a problem. However, I would recommend actually getting consensus for this change – minor changes like this on a wide scale are generally frowned upon if not solidly backed by policy. I can't really see how MOS:LISTOFWORKS applies here (people are not works, and that page goes over nothing outside of creative works, so this is out of scope), and MOS:LISTS doesn't seem to really cover lists of a style like this (it does have a couple bulleted lists with descriptions that use en dashes, but that says nothing about whether a comma is an acceptable alternative method or not). There might be an MOS page somewhere out there that covers this, but I don't know of it (I'm not too familiar with various MOS niches). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I am new to editing and it can be quite difficult to follow correct protocols when people do not provide adequate explanations. Panamitsu (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

So I do not provide adequate explanation while you base your opinion on a non-existing MOS??? The Banner talk 23:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol invitation

Hello, The Banner. The new pages patrol team is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help. I believe that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines. Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions. If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here. Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

• News and notes: Dude, Where's My Donations? Wikimedia Foundation announces another million in grants for non-Wikimedia-related projects

• In the media: An accusation of bias from Brazil, a lawsuit from Portugal, plagiarism from Florida

• In focus: 2023 Good Article Nomination drive is underway: get your barnstars here!

• Special report: Thirteen years later, why are most administrators still from 2005?

• Tips and tricks: How to find images for your articles, check their copyright, upload them, and restore them

• Cobwebs: Getting serious about writing

• Opinion: Copyright trolls, or the last beautiful free souls on this planet?

• Serendipity: Why I stopped taking photographs almost altogether

• Featured content: Barbenheimer confirmed

• Humour: Arbitration Committee to accept case against Right Honorable Frimbley Cantingham, 15th Viscount Bellington-upon-Porkshire

• Traffic report: 'Cause today it just goes with the fashion

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Good to have you back

I am not that active on enwiki, but I noticed that you were absent a few months and just saw that you are back active. I am glad to see you back. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I had a crash of my hard disk earlier this year and I am still recovering from that. The Banner talk 09:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Need help with vandalism

I'm not sure where I am supposed to report this so I thought I'd try here. The article 0 has a strange problem which you can only see on the android mobile app. You can not see it on the web, and it is not in the source. Above the lede, it says "I like when my coom spreads into my daddys face", and has been like that for atleast an entire day. Panamitsu (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the answer is both yes and no. No, I do not use the mobile version so I can not reproduce or solve the vandalism reported. But the answer is also yes, as I gave a shout for help at a trusted admin here. Hopefully he or one of his friends can help. Thanks for reporting it to me. The Banner talk 13:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328, you're on Android, right? I can't see anything on my iPhone. Banner, this is likely some fuckery in a template, and it may have been taken care of already, but like you I don't see anything either. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Drmies, I usually edit on an Android phone using desktop. I switched to mobile and do not see the vandalism. Since the article was last edited four days ago, that supports the theory that it was template vandalism, since reverted. Are you still seeing the problem, Panamitsu? Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not use the Android mobile app, though. Cullen328 (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It appears to have been resolved now. Panamitsu (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Britain - "bypass redirects"

Hi,

Could you explain your reasoning for this reversion at Battle of Britain? My edit follows the advice at MOS:NOPIPE and WP:NOPIPE, for example, "avoid making links longer than necessary", "it is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects", "do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text", etc.

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

PS Also here, here, and here. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

A direct link is always better than a redirect. Changing correct links into redirects is disruptive and superfluous. The Banner talk 09:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you square that opinion with the advice at MOS:NOPIPE and WP:NOPIPE? For example, why is "British [[Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs|Foreign Secretary]], [[E. F. L. Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax|Lord Halifax]]" preferable to "British [[Foreign Secretary]], [[Lord Halifax]]"? And what is disruptive about changing the former to the latter?Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

To give a few more examples, at "Zapp (album)", I changed "[[funk music|funk]]" to "[[funk]]", "[[United Sound Systems|United Sound Studios]]" to "[[United Sound Systems]] studios", and "certified [[Gold certification|gold]]" to "[[certified gold]]", avoiding redirects in the first two cases, and changing a redirect to a more concise one in the third, yet you reverted all three. Could you explain? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Why are you changing correct links? The Banner talk 11:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Generally, to make the wikitext more concise and readable, and therefore simpler to edit. Could you address the points I made above? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

What you do is utterly useless for our readers. And so it is superfluous and disruptive. You think you are improving Wikipedia by removing correct links, what in fact is absolutely not improving Wikipida. See WP:NOTBROKEN. The Banner talk 15:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I've already read WP:NOTBROKEN. What it says, in a nutshell, is "don't use a piped link when a redirect will do". To repeat my example from above, this means that "British [[Foreign Secretary]], [[Lord Halifax]]" is preferable to "British [[Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs|Foreign Secretary]], [[E. F. L. Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax|Lord Halifax]]", as WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE also make clear. WP:NOTBROKEN does have a list of "good reasons to bypass redirects", but none of them apply to my edits as far as I can tell.

You say that these edits are useless for the reader. In fact my aim is that they should be - as far as possible - invisible to the reader, as a form of behind-the-scenes tidying that serves the reader indirectly by helping the editor. I understand that you don't approve, but I'm following Wikipedia guidelines (MOS:NOPIPE,WP:NOPIPE,WP:NOTBROKEN) and you're not. Furthermore, you still haven't explained to me how my edits are disruptive. What would have been disrupted if you hadn't reverted them? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I gave the wrong link: Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And what you do is trying to repair something that is not broken based on a misinterpretation. I repeat: what you are doing is useless and disruptive. The Banner talk 16:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you read as far as the second paragraph? "... if something is slightly broken in a way that you care about, and fixing it improves the encyclopedia a little, then feel free to fix it." That's all I'm doing: making small, unobtrusive, behind-the-scenes improvements. You say that my actions are based on a misinterpretation, but your edit summary "bypass redirects" seems to contradict all the advice given at the pages I've cited. You can repeat the word "disruptive" as often as you like, but repetition without explanation isn't helpful. What have I disrupted? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

So, what is actually broken that needs to be fixed? Those so claimed broken issues, are those detrimental to the experience of our readers? The Banner talk 16:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't use the word "needs". Clumsy wording is still readable, and clumsy wikitext can still be edited. These edits are small changes I choose to make to improve wikitext in agreement with Wikipedia guidelines, as explained above. You still haven't explained to me what you think I'm disrupting, or where you got the idea that we should "bypass redirects". Could you do so? For example, my edits at "Zapp (album)" - what did they disrupt? Why is "[[funk music|funk]]" better than "[[funk]]" when both present the same text and the same link target to the reader? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing clumsy in correct direct wikilinks. The Banner talk 16:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Then why did you revert "[[funk]]" (a correct, concise, direct link) to "[[funk music|funk]]"? Did you even bother to check? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Direct links (piped as needed) are objectively better than redirects for our readers, for a number of pretty obvious reasons. Just three of them, and there are probably more: 1) They reduce the "surprise" level of using the site (redirs are not "invisible" to the reader, and can even be confusing, especially if the material at the very top of the target doesn't use the exact same name/term that the person clicked on). 2) When you look at where the link is pointing (mouse-hover over the link, in most browsers), it tells you the full path of the link to page you'll end up at (or think you'll end up at); when this is correct instead of a redirect the user doesn't expect, then it again reduces surprise/confusion. 3) People change redirect targets all the time, often without cleaning up afterward; usually they are constructive changes, e.g. to a new article instead of to a section, or to a better section at article A than the section at article B that the redirect originally pointed to; but with a zillion editors, there will always be unhelpful instances.

All that said, yes, we do have a worthwhile underlying principle here: making redir-bypassing changes as the sole reason to make an edit, and doing a lot of that, is apt to be taken as WP:MEATBOT behavior, and annoys watchlisters. Do it as part of a more constructive edit (fix some typos, impove some citations, etc.). While if it were not often permissible to bypass redirects, the very phrase "bypass redirect" would not be stock WP terminology; on the flip side, if it were always, for every imaginable reason and case, okay to bypass redirects, then NOTBROKEN would not have been written (even in a better, less "my way or the highway" version). The main reason for that guideline is, basically, "don't fight about it". But here yous are fighting about it. [sigh]. Anyway, I will raise a revision proposal about WP:NOTBROKEN, which someone has injected full of their personal opinion, in a blowhard "prescriptivist" style as if it's some iron-clad policy, when the community very clearly does not accept it as such.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This is interesting. You seem to be saying that "bypass redirects" is a convention that's widely understood within the community, but as far as I can tell, its only expression in WP guidelines is at WP:BYPASSREDIRECT, which refers to a set of specific cases that are not relevant to this situation. What that means is that those of us who learn to edit by reading guidelines will come into conflict with experienced editors who are following conventions that are not expressed in those guidelines. If "bypass redirects" is a convention that's widely understood, it should be expressed in a guideline, so that newer editors will know what's expected of them. As you say, guidelines exist to avoid conflict, but this situation has come about because a convention that doesn't seem to be expressed in any guideline ("bypass redirects") is at odds with the advice of WP:NOPIPE, MOS:NOPIPE, WP:NOTBROKEN, etc. So according to the convention you describe (and for the reasons you explain), "British [[Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs|Foreign Secretary]], [[E. F. L. Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax|Lord Halifax]]" is clearly preferable to "British [[Foreign Secretary]], [[Lord Halifax]]", while according to WP:NOPIPE, MOS:NOPIPE, WP:NOTBROKEN, etc. the reverse is true.

I'm not completely convinced that the principle of "bypass redirects" is as widely accepted as you suggest, though. A series of edits I made recently at "Winston Churchill" were accepted without complaint (at least, none so far), and led to the incidental improvement of a reference that contained errors of quotation. Also, would you mind taking a look at "Zapp_(album)" while you're here? I'm at a loss to understand the objection to my contribution there.

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

In fact, only because there was more editing done on the Churchill-article after you edited it and I wanted to await this discussion first. Conform WP:BRD. The Banner talk 11:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, noted. However, "Winston Churchill" is a high-traffic page with many active editors. If "bypass redirects" is a widely accepted convention, it's surprising that nobody else intervened. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Not everybody is willing to fix the superfluous edits you made, as your changes did nothing for the readers. The Banner talk 12:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

With respect, that doesn't make any sense. We know that nobody (not, "not everybody") reverted those edits, but we can only guess why that is. In your case it's because other edits had been made before you saw them, but that's unlikely to be true for everybody. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

As I said, not everybody will start reverted useless edits as most readers will not see them. The Banner talk 12:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

But again, you're failing to make the valid distinction between "not everybody" and "nobody". Attributing motives to people who haven't made edits is pure guesswork. You know why you didn't revert those edits, but you can't possibly know why nobody did.

I'm taking a break from this now. I'll be around this evening though (British Summer Time). Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

And you are failing to make the distinction between "edits useful for our readers" and "edits useless to our readers". The Banner talk 12:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

By the way, replacing red links by interlanguage links is not illegal but also not constructive. A red link is an invitation to write an article. an interlanguage link is pushing someone to a different language. Not everybody is able to read those foreign language articles, so effectively useless in most cases. So please revert those cases, like here. The Banner talk 13:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Those aren't interlanguage links. A properly-constructed interlanguage link maintains the red link but redirects to a foreign language article until the page the red link points to is created (See H:FOREIGNLINK). The changes I made at "Franz Von Papen" etc. are mostly updating italicised text with a "{{lang|de|...}}" template, as recommended at MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, and I won't be reverting them. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, you love to make superfluous edits. And can I advice the use of the option "preview" before saving an edit? The Banner talk 09:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I might advise you to take your own advice!

But seriously, why should I follow your suggestions when you can't even distinguish between "{ill|de}" and "{lang|de}"? You were simply complaining for the sake of complaining, without taking a moment to understand the edits I'd made.

I think this conversation has become repetitive, so I intend to take another break from it. The consensus at WT:REDIR seems to support my understanding that my edits are correct, so unless you can provide better justifications for reverting them than you have so far, I'll probably reinstate them and continue to make similar edits in the future. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it has become repetitive. Because you want to play your own game based on misinterpretations of the MOS. And if you want to start edit wars, that will be entirely on your head. The Banner talk 09:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you can probably just ignore my input above (other than "don't editwar about it"). My attempt to get the language at NOTBROKEN adjusted to better reflect editorial reality appears to be going nowhere: Wikipedia talk:Redirect#NOTBROKEN needs to be moderated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Liscannor ref

Hi. Apologies for the ping, but in the context of this ref you added, I'm having a hard time finding the mention of the visitor centre in that podcast. Do you know when (at what time stamp?) the mention occurs? Guliolopez (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Ow, that is some time ago. I take a look at it. The Banner talk 14:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm looking for a reliable/verifiable ref to support the opening date text. Otherwise, seemingly, the only source available is a Facebook post. Which is far from ideal. Otherwise we might just simply remove the date from that sentence and rely on another reliable/verifiable ref to confirm the visitor centre's existence... Guliolopez (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

At 26:50, but I think a better source should be welcome. I will take a look at that. The Banner talk 14:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That is quite a fleeting mention. But it does appear to support the date. I will update the ref to reflect. Much appreciated! Guliolopez (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I will visit the local library soon to find a better source. It is in the back of my mind that it had a bit of a rough start and changed name along the way. But the newspaper archives would give a better view on that. Classic on paper, as for now. The Banner talk 14:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

• From the editor: Beta version of signpost.news now online

• News and notes: You like RecentChanges?

• In the media: Taking it sleazy

• Recent research: The five barriers that impede "stitching" collaboration between Commons and Wikipedia

• Draftspace: Bad Jokes and Other Draftspace Novelties

• Humour: The Dehumourification Plan

• Traffic report: Raise your drinking glass, here's to yesterday

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Jack Kevorkian Revert

I noticed you reverted my edit on Jack Kevorkian (diff here). However, all I did was reformat a previous edit (diff of their edit here). In addition to reformatting the edit, I went on the web and verified the existence of the cited song and added a citation (I had actually doubted the song existed and was looking to see if it was a vandal edit, so I was surprised the song was real).

Can you please tell me why you reverted my edit? If the formatting or citation was wrong, I'd like to correct it. If, on the other hand, you feel the song shouldn't be on the list at all, I'm fine with that. But in that case we should delete the song entirely from the list instead of just restoring the improperly formatted original edit.

Please let me know how you'd like to proceed. Thanks! KNHaw ^(talk) 05:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

You are right, partly. The source you added is a wikipedia-clone and so unsuitable. I have now finished the job and removed the unsourced addition altogether. The Banner talk 09:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. KNHaw ^(talk) 04:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

William Bird Herapath

William Bird Herapath lived in the C19th. The Red Maids' School merged with Redland High in the C21st, so the name of the school in Herapath's day was The Red Maids' School, not Redmaids' High School. Also, "bypass redirects" is not a valid reason to make that change, as explained at WP:NOTBROKEN. Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

PS Also, your edit restored an incorrect page reference in a source. Please check carefully before reverting (see WP:REVERT). Best wishes, J-d-N

LOL, you just do not see how your edits are superfluous and hide behind some other shortcuts. No, I do not take that seriously. But I do think that superfluous edits are disruptive and unproductive. The Banner talk 12:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

• News and notes: Wikimedia power sharing – just an advisory role for the volunteer community?

• In the media: "Just flirting", going Dutch and Shapps for the defence?

• Obituary: Nosebagbear

• Serendipity: Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no paywall, for thou, Wikipedia Library, art with me

• Featured content: Catching up

• Concept: Strange portal opened by CERN researchers brings Wikipedia articles from "other worlds"

• Traffic report: Some of it's magic, some of it's tragic

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Promotional(?) edit

How on earth was this edit promotional? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Because it was. You give no evidence at all and is in fact double with Ateneo_Blue_Eagles_men's_basketball#Championships, besides the parts where there was no success. The Banner talk 19:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not double because there's an "except". This is standard fare in sports teams article, where it has season-by-season records, and a separate section for "honors"; some have an overly long season list and are in fact in a separate daughter article altogether. I know you WP:OWN the article, but I'd seek WP:3O here. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggest to continue with the discussion at Talk:Ateneo Blue Eagles men's basketball#How is a season-by-season record promotional?. Thanks. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Straight away aspersions? sad. The Banner talk 20:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

UK

Hi @User:The BannerThe Banner,
first of all, glad to see you back.
I would kindly ask you to have a watch on the UK airport pages. There is one IP-editor, normally using "2A00:"-adresses which constantly keeps vandalizing content on mostly UK airport pages by completing totally unsourced edits or removing sources without any argumentation.
Afterwards, he tends to call the editors that revert his edits, because they are more than clearly against the guidelines, vandals. See the latest edits at Manchester Airport for reference.

Best regards,
Der HON (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I will keep an eye out. The Banner talk 13:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The way the IP acts, looks a lot like the Greek Airport Vandal. I have the range added to my "watchlist", as I have seen the IP before. The Banner talk 13:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much.
It definitely acts a lot like the Greek vandal, though it does use the edit summaries quite often. Most evident similarity is the persistent and blatant removal of sources (Really don't know why they hate sources that much) and a bunch of specific routes.
Der HON (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Can I ask you to keep an eye on Amsterdam Airport Schiphol? Editor Hhl95 is adding there a lot of flags and unsourced information. I fear it can descend into a slow edit war. The Banner talk 11:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

• News and notes: Wikimedia Endowment financial statement published

• In the media: History is written by whoever can harness the most editors

• Recent research: Readers prefer ChatGPT over Wikipedia; concerns about limiting "anyone can edit" principle "may be overstated"

• Featured content: By your logic,

• Concept: Wikipedia policies from other worlds: WP:NOANTLERS

• Poetry: "The Sight"

• Traffic report: There shall be no slaves in the land of lands, it's a Bollywood jam

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Ena Dubnoff page

I note that you have now removed a considerable amount of edits from an article about my neighbor. Ena previously taught at USC where she believes a member of the faculty created a page for her. She asked me to update this page and remove some personal details - and yet you have removed relevant information about her early life? Baffled at this point as to why you are removing facts with citations that were requested on this page? Caraghm (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

So you admit that you have a Conflict of Interest. Minor detail: the info about her father is not removed, but move to the end of the article. For the rest it were mainly unsuitable sources. And sloppy work (dumping a source inside a word). The Banner talk 03:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia" however in this instance I am removing personal information such as an address and adding actual relevant detail. "Mainly unsuitable sources" Please define unsuitable sources? And "sloppy work".....just feels like a personal insult at this point, something I understood was "discouraged"! If there is an article on Clare that you feel is a particularly good example of your contributions please do share....given I am from Ireland I would really like to review as a better example of how to approach these edits. Caraghm (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Airport IP hopper

Hi! Are you keeping a list of all the IPs they've used? I've blocked quite a few of them and whack-a-mole might be all we can do but some pattern analysis might be worthwhile. If, of course, there is a pattern! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a full list (only blocked), because that list will be looooong. I have the overview of the identified ranges on the top of this page. Some IPs can be found here: User_talk:The_Banner/Archives/2023/February#Greek airport vandal (investigation running). I think an SPI is rather useless, as CUs are not allowed to do something with IP-info (at least not visible to me). The Banner talk 12:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Ow, and I will start making a list of their main target articles. The Banner talk 12:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw the top of your talk page. :) If it's not more effort than it's worth, can you try to keep track of all the IPs you report to AIV at least? If we can narrow down ranges, we can look at targeted blocks or potentially ask the WMF to make a complaint to their ISP, and if we can narrow down targets or a pattern of edits, semi-protection and edit filters might be possible. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Usually the edits come early in the morning (for my time zone at least). I will start recording the IPs again. ISP is "Vodafone-Panafon Hellenic Telecommunications Company SA" according to the geolocator and "Hellas on Line" according to Whois. Location of the IP is often Thessalonica or Athens, sometimes it gives other locations in Greek-Macedonia. The Banner talk 12:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson Template

Hi, I saw you rolled by my recent edit on Template:Woodrow Wilson. From your edit summary, it sounds like direct links to disambiguation pages should be avoided even if that's where you want to link to. I was curious why this is a problem, I know you mentioned maintenance bots, but was just wondering about the specifics of why it's good to avoid this. I'd rather not make an incorrect edit twice if it can be helped. Thanks! - OdinintheNorth (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that maintenance bots see that as a disambiguation page and flag that as a problem that needs to be solved. By using the redirect, the maintenance bot see it as a normal redirect and do not recognize it as linking to a disambiguation page. Ergo, no problem that needs to be solved.

Linking to a disambiguation page should not be done. Standard is linking to a subject, in this case to a specific school. But here you get an endless list of schools, so linking to the disambiguation page keeps the length of the template at bay. The Banner talk 22:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

IP steadily removing sources

Good Morning,
Maybe you could have a look at Zagreb Airport as there is an IP-range that is steadily removing sources and undoing correct edits. In my opinion it looks more like a local enthusiast who thinks that he is above Wikipedia guidelines, but there could be a connection to the greek vandal.

The british IP editor vandalizing UK pages has seemingly expanded his range as he has now also edited via 86.30.110.239 IP-address.

Best regards,
Der HON (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the IP is Serbian, not Greek/Greek-Macedonian. But its edits are not okay. The Banner talk 13:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"Global Mission" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Global Mission has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § Global Mission until a consensus is reached. older ≠ wiser 15:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Reverting my edit

Hi , you reverted my edit on the page John Felix Raj and St. Xaviers University, Kolkata

There was a controversy some times back. But it went upto the Supreme Court of India and the court verdict was on behalf of St. Xaviers University. I have proof of it. Please refer to the link below:

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-refuses-to-entertain-plea-of-professor-dismissed-from-stxaviers-university-over-instagram-picture-232384

Even after Supreme Court (the highest judicial authority in India) has proven the allegation completely wrong, then why are you people spreading this wrong news across internet and trying to defame the concerned person and the university.

I can contact the concerned authority in the university and can even upload the supreme court verdict here if needed for proof. Please let me what documents of proof are needed to remove these wrong allegations. I will do the needful.

Thanks in advance

Wiki orb2 (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Even so, there is/was a controversy. And that controversy is properly sourced. So no need to whitewash that. Sorry. The Banner talk 08:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

89.210.192.0/20

Hey Banner, I've just blocked that range for six months. Let me know if they pop up on any other 89.210 IPs because I deliberately kept it narrow to avoid collateral damage. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I will keep monitoring the airports, so I can see when the vandal switches to another range. But thanks for this intervention, much appreciated. The Banner talk 13:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Irish/Icelandic ethnicity

Would you care to explain your revert of my edit on Irish people? How is it my 'personal opinion' to remove an assertion of Icelandic-Irish ethnic relation? The JSTOR source is one source; i.e. one person, making a dubious assertion of DNA relations. Whether or not English and Ulster-Scots relation remain in the infobox is debatable, granted, but again, that it is neither an 'opinion' nor 'personal'. To be honest, I'm not sure what exactly the Related ethnic groups is referring to (i.e. actual Ethnic-relation, cultural, or geographic etc.), so if you could enlighten me, I would be grateful. Still, next time you disagree with my edit, why not take it to the talk page, or at least write something sensical/fair in your undo-explanation. Thanks. Gaelicbow (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You give again a personal opinion. Nothing based on sources. I do not mind when you go to the talk page to complain about me reverting your personal opinions. Perhaps the discussion brings more sources in the picture. The Banner talk 09:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Surname transclusions

Canvassing you about WT:WPDIS#Surname transclusions, because I noticed it via a Templates with disambiguation links entry for {{Peter-surname}} and you're usually the first to fix such things. Certes (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Noticed your edit already. I did not understand where the link was coming from when looking at it yesterday. :-) I hope your trick will solve the problem and that I have another tool to fix this type of issues. The Banner talk 10:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Revert

Please explain why this revert is in the "best interest of the article". Why is a single refimprove banner at the top of the article inferior to plastering the article with 4 section banners. Also, why do you think the article should ignore the MOS? Kindly revert your edit. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Request denied. Take it to the talk page. The Banner talk 16:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

How collegial. Parsecboy (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Your welcome. The Banner talk 16:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

• News and notes: Where have all the administrators gone?

• In the media: Thirst traps, the fastest loading sites on the web, and the original collaborative writing

• Gallery: Before and After: Why you don't need to know how to restore images to make massive improvements

• Featured content: Yo, ho! Blow the man down!

• Traffic report: The calm and the storm

• News from Diff: Sawtpedia: Giving a Voice to Wikipedia Using QR Codes

• Humour: New citation template introduced for divine revelations, drug use, and really thinking about it

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Airports

mate i'm not being funny but you keep cutting "unsourced edits" when the facts are plain obvious.

stop please, it's bloody annoying 86.133.151.169 (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It is indeed very annoying to see people add things with proper sourcing. A reliable encyclopedia needs sourced information. Not "the opbious". Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. The Banner talk 23:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Maungapohatu (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

• Arbitration report: Admin bewilderingly unmasks self as sockpuppet of other admin who was extremely banned in 2015

• In the media: UK shadow chancellor accused of ripping off WP articles for book, Wikipedians accused of being dicks by a rich man

• News and notes: Board candidacy process posted, editors protest WMF privacy measure, sweet meetups

• Opinion: An open letter to Elon Musk

• WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2023

• News from Wiki Ed: Equity lists on Wikipedia

• Recent research: How English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades

• Featured content: Like putting a golf course in a historic site.

• Wikidata: Evaluating qualitative systemic bias in large article sets on Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Cricket jumpscare

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Page editing policy

I get that you want Wikipedia to be reliable... but rolling back lots of minor changes because there is no source you deem to be independent seems a little strict. Are you sure there is a need to be so strict ? I worry that by being very strict and requiring everyone to meet your standards, you are maybe discouraging potential new editors from adding or updating information to Wikipedia.Pmbma (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I use the same line for everyone. No exceptions.

And with multiple airport-vandal IP-sockfarms active there is not much room for leniency. And the same applies to some registered accounts who seem to be deadly afraid for sources, especially independent sources. The Banner talk 16:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Please note that SeanM is now accusing me of vandalism because he is unable to give independent sources. And I take this request as a claim for mercy, so when I think the addition is genuine, I will add source requests instead of removing the unsourced info. The Banner talk 19:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

SeanM is probably annoyed with you for reverting his changes in the past.... but I do not fully agree with his stance either. Perhaps you could take more of a risk-assessed approach rather than a no-exceptions approach ? Pmbma (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Like a COI-based approach? The Banner talk 20:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

What does COI mean ? Not trying to be snarky... just never heard of COI Pmbma (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. The Banner talk 20:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You are right to be suspicious... but even with a potential conflict of interest, a person under suspicion can sometimes still be in the right. If a person manages their conflicts of interest well on a regular basis and in apparent good faith, then maybe we (yes, that includes me) have to act accordingly. Pmbma (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

True, that is why I am asking for independent sources. The Banner talk 20:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

US casualties in the Pacific War

Good evening, yesterday we discussed American losses in the Pacific Ocean. Tell me, did my arguments yesterday seem convincing to you? Do you also think that the American losses in the article are clearly underestimated? Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You are the same as the IP?

But I did not find the numbers really convincing. The Banner talk 17:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was my IP. Okay, not convincing, not convincing, everyone has their own truth. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Even with conflicting sources we can make progress. Because then we can give a range, with sources for the lower estimates and the higher estimates. But first must be clear what we count: only killed in action or also non-battle deaths. The Banner talk 18:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that I adore the English-language article about the Pacific Front, it is written almost perfectly. The only thing that confuses me is that the article lists all Japanese losses (combat and non-combat), while the US suffered only combat losses. And I don’t quite understand why dividing losses into combat or non-combat, a soldier died from a bayonet or an illness, what difference does it make? In any case, he died in the war. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

When you are talking about the Pacific theatre, there are more countries involved then the USA and Japan. Think for instance Battle of the Java Sea (with Dutch and Australian participation) and HMS Prince of Wales (53) (British). The Banner talk 19:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn’t understand why you said this. I say that the only thing that confuses me in the article is that only US combat losses are indicated, and not all losses like everyone else. It's a funny tautology. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

• In the media: Propaganda and photos, lunatics and a lunar backup

• News and notes: Update on Wikimedia's financial health

• Traffic report: If it bleeds, it leads

• Recent research: Canceling disputes as the real function of ArbCom

• Wikimania: Wikimania 2024 scholarships

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Hhl95 (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Funny. But you are the one going for a slow editwar to push unsourced information and decorations in. But if you want to get blocked, just go on and it will surely happen. The Banner talk 22:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary. I always source the information I add and you are the one removing sourced information. So I advise you to stop this edit war and restore the version with the sourced information included. Or else, as you know, it might result in you getting blocked. Hhl95 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Your latest edit on Amsterdam Airport Schiphol was completely unsourced, so certainly not always. The Banner talk 22:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

My latest edit was restoring the sourced information that you removed. The source is mentioned in the title of the table. Hhl95 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

That link does not contain the info you added. The Banner talk 16:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely does. Hhl95 (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it does not. It goes to a kind of start page, it does not offer the info you added. The Banner talk 23:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Subpages have the same hyperlink, I can't help that. No need to be petty here. The information is sourced with the right source and I'm sure you've already found it. Hhl95 (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

If you give a link to "A", the info must be available on "A", not on "B", "C" or somewhere else. I am sorry, but that is your problem. The Banner talk 17:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Guangzhou Baiyun Airport

China Southern DOES NOT fly to Chennai. Please stop undoing my edits. I removed it because the addition was unsourced by another IP (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guangzhou_Baiyun_International_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1187010115). 14:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC) 72.251.152.227 (talk)

As long as you do not give any evidence or reasoning of your claims. But I restored your last edit, where you added a source request to Chennai. That is perfectly acceptable. The Banner talk 16:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Ow, and please use the "show preview" option before saving an edit. That give you the option to see how your edits look like, instead of making 7 edits... The Banner talk 16:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Mountmellick Gaa

Could you please refrain from removing my edits which were updating information on Mountmellick Gaa stop removing my information on underage amalgamations without having sources for doing so I am from the area and was updating what the current amalgamations are but U keep removing these and saying that the current amalgamations are ones that are no longer in existence Budisgood (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Stop removing information that has references and sources proving it's legitimacy Budisgood (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You need to add independent, reliable, prior published sources. Just "I know that it is true because I am a local" is not enough. And try to write better English. The Banner talk 19:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

and where are your sources cause you definitely aren't local and are rewriting information on a club you know nothing about Budisgood (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

All the information you removed from the page that you claim had no sources where referenced and citations attached to them that showed the source of information Budisgood (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Competence is Required. Try to write in proper English first. Half of what you write is complete gibberish. The Banner talk 22:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Gibberish I just use common phrases that are used by Irish people

There is no official version of Irish English but it differs slightly from English in the way we have our own phrases that we use Budisgood (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem is, is that your English is that bad that the actual text that you produce is often totally unclear and/or unreadable. Not to mention lack of sources. (Google Maps is no useable source). The Banner talk 20:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

i do provide sources the Google maps links are to show where the areas I'm referring to are situated.The places I'm referring to cannot be referenced to an online link as they are past pitches of a local club and there are no online articles about them only books and physical newspapers and word of mouth. My English is not bad I preview all my edits by sending them to another person to review whether they are understandable Budisgood (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

A map is not a source of what was there in the past. Try to find (preferably online) a newspaper article. The description of the club colours is useless, seeing the description in the infobox. And your English is still bad. You just revert, without any improvements. The Banner talk 00:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

and I am sorry to say, but you made it clear that you are not interested in improving Wikipedia with info that is sourced by sources that are reliable and independent and prior published. The Banner talk 00:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

• News and notes: Beeblebrox ejected from Arbitration Committee following posts on Wikipediocracy

• In the media: Turmoil on Hebrew Wikipedia, grave dancing, Olga's impact and inspiring Bhutanese nuns

• Disinformation report: "Wikipedia and the assault on history"

• In focus: Tens of thousands of freely available sources flagged

• Comix: Bold comics for a new age

• Essay: I am going to die

• Featured content: Real gangsters move in silence

• Traffic report: And it's hard to watch some cricket, in the cold November Rain

• Humour: Mandy Rice-Davies Applies

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Luxembourg rebellion merger

Hi The Banner, I just came across Talk:Luxembourg rebellion#Merge proposal which you opened. Are you looking for it to be formally closed? CMD (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please. The Banner talk 12:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Boru

I've welcomed the new user, but went through their other contributions, and, well, it's not good. Essentially adding a scan of McLysaght's book as a bare-url reference to support badly-worded/spelled/punctuated/capitalised run-on sentences. Hopefully they take on the advice. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

To be true, I think that the IP and the account are one and the same user. And I get nasty ideas related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Patrick Mcdermott25/Archive. The Banner talk 16:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"📗" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 📗 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 7 § 📗 until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Oops

Hi! I can see you are on some horrible complex anti-vandal thing ... aaargh, well done and good luck to you! I just wanted to alert you to the fact that this edit also removed two legitimate edits from an editor who is not a vandal and whom I really love and respect as a true Wikipedia intellectual and terribly nice bloke, good egg, craggily handsome, kind to old people, small dogs etc etc ... er, me. I promise my fussy little edits were not vandalism! Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

And I apologize if I have messed up your Talk page layout! I just clicked "+" and hoped for the best! :) DBaK (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If they love dogs, they can not be a good person. Only cat lovers are. The Banner talk 10:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC) And yes, I did find a litter on my couch. Two have left now but the last one cornered me and forced me on gunpoint to adopt her. I did not stand a chance...

I did say small dogs ... do they not get an allowance for that? It's like a cuteness-boost. And well done with the adoption! :) DBaK (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Steaua

So lets discuss here, how is that article separated from history section and why it has short description of "football club", which is wrong; You cant avoid as more users are notified as well as more languages covering same topic. 93.143.52.223 (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of your POV and canvassing. The Banner talk 20:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCSB

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSA_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_(football)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.89.189 (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I have reported you for block evasion. The Banner talk 11:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Still you cant reply why 3 links dont prove there is no "fc steaua"... such shame 93.143.89.189 (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Btw not evasion if dynamic ip is provided, prove. 93.143.89.189 (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It is block evasion, as you use a new IP to circumvent the IP blocked last night. The Banner talk 11:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Better lock this as always will have ways until provide reply on third fc steaua source. What will you do when its redirected?! 😁 93.143.89.189 (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You better accept that all mentioned entities are notable, just because of the row and the sourcing provided. Going on with edit warring, POV-pushing and personal attacks will not help at all, contrary. The Banner talk 11:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok please give one source, why page has no infobox/logo/league if team exists...thats all and simple quest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.89.189 (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

No, sorry. You claim that some entities do not exist, so per WP:ONUS it is up to you to prove that they never existed. The Banner talk 12:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

personal attacks

Hi Banner,

I know we have got off on the wrong foot on the talkpage of Black and Tans, but could you try to take some heat out of your comments? There are several places on the talkpage where you are straying into the territory of personal attacks. I know you feel frustrated that I do not feel that your opinion on the sources is valid according to our policies, but if you look at my edits you will see a consistent effort to compromise and achieve a consensus without RfC. An RfC will just burn up both our own and everybody else's time.

Anyway, sorry that some of my own posts there came over as excessively confrontational, I hope we can go forward in a more relaxed vein.

All the best Boynamedsue (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I have requested several books from the library. Sources should be able to solve the dispute, conform WP:V. But yes, your legalese approach did turn the heat on. Just as your refusal to take my concerns serious. The Banner talk 21:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for FC Steaua București

An article that you have been involved in editing—FC Steaua București—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Dublin Airport new EI destinations

I see you reverted my edit to Dublin Airport because the source I cited wasn't "independent". I don't know how you can argue that an airline's website isn't a reliable source on a new route they are launching. News sites or other independent sources are much more likely to get the details wrong (they're getting the information from the airline's press relase anyway). It would be different for example, in the case of a company reporting on corporate strategy or public relations. They would of course not be impartial and therefore not a very reliable source. But this is just a new route launching - simple factual information. Secondary sources are less reliable in this case and likely to get details wrong. Let's have some common sense here. This is completely counterproductive. VG31 19:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the company website is reliable, but it is not an independent source. Reverting that is not counter productive. Just try to source it with independent sources. The Banner talk 22:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

• Special report: Did the Chinese Communist Party send astroturfers to sabotage a hacktivist's Wikipedia article?

• News and notes: The Italian Public Domain wars continue, Wikimedia RU set to dissolve, and a recap of WLM 2023

• In the media: Consider the humble fork

• Discussion report: Arabic Wikipedia blackout; Wikimedians discuss SpongeBob, copyrights, and AI

• In focus: Liquidation of Wikimedia RU

• Technology report: Dark mode is coming

• Recent research: "LLMs Know More, Hallucinate Less" with Wikidata

• Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols

• Comix: Lollus lmaois 200C tincture

• Crossword: when the crossword is sus

• Traffic report: What's the big deal? I'm an animal!

• From the editor: A piccy iz worth OVAR 9000!!!11oneone! wordz ^_^

• Apocrypha: Local editor discovered 1,380 lost subheadings in ancient Signpost scrolls. And what he found was shocking.

• Humour: Guess the joke contest

• BJAODN: Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Suicide

I want to point out MOS:SUICIDE which states that there are many acceptable ways to describe the act of suicide. That means that your changes are somewhat misguided. Sjö (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:EUPHEMISM The Banner talk 12:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

And as MOS:SUICIDE states: The phrase committed suicide is not banned on the English Wikipedia but that is exactly what the prior editor is doing. The Banner talk 12:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Died by suicide is not a euphemism. Please read the link which says, among other thngs "Avoid metaphorical and euphemistic language like lost her battle with depression." Now, if any of your changes removed that kind of text, that is good, but pleas do not change to "committed". Sjö (talk) 12:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

With the summery replaced "commited suicide", which suggests that suicide is a crime or societal offense makes clear that that editor sees it as an euphemism, at least in my opinion. The Banner talk 13:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

That is your opinion, which you are entitled to, but I do not share it. Also, no single editor has the power to ban a word or expression on Wikipedia. As I see it, "comitted" suicide is an outdated phrase and the changes that replaced it are editorial decisions that most likely improved the articles (though I did not check every one). Sjö (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

Ask indefinite protection of your fc and stadium, to show true intentions. Thanks

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1192403499

And if follow your principles, will be notified in case this example ever changes. As well as other slightest "steaua" named topics, will be checked to find whats it all to your massive interest. 🔎🫵

93.140.186.196 (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, insults to mask your lack of content-arguments. That is a very old trick. The Banner talk 10:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Airport disruption IP

Hi Banner, can I suggest that you create an WP:LTA page for this person? Will probably be an easier, central location to track them and for other ediors to refer to (and admins to link to in a block). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

How do I do that? The Banner talk 10:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

There are instructions at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Filing instructions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)