Jump to content

User talk:The Banner/Archive09

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


In response to reverted edits on Baruipur

You recently reverted all my edits in this page. I want to know why you did this. Those are not false informations. I am a resident in this town. You are neither a resident nor you visited this town. So don't revert edits without knowing the truth. Just being an extended confirmed user, doesn't make you all right. I will reedit this page. Masum Reza (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It is far better when you look from a bit of a distance to a subject. You are clearly to much attached to it. What you added was not encyclopedic information, but promotion/advertising. As we build a neutral encyclopedia, the content also needs to be neutral and balanced. The Banner talk 17:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Brush up your spelling skills. It is "too" not "to". The name of schools are available here is not an advertisement or promotions at all. Masum Reza (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Instead of focusing on my spelling, you should focus on an article that is neutral in style and tone and has enough reliable, independent sources. The Banner talk 19:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Talk:Magic Kingdom Parade.
Message added 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IanDBeacon (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Shaun Rankin

Explain your edit summary here. How was this edit "unhelpful"? Do you run your separate BLP guidelines? Inappropriate edit summaries are unhelpful. Hitro talk 08:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you even try to find sources? The Banner talk 09:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Seriously? Read WP:GRAPEVINE. Read WP:BURDEN. These are basic guidelines and you have been editing for 10 years now. Hitro talk 13:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
So you did not even try. Clear. The Banner talk 20:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Excellent response!!! One thing is definitely clear that you have an awe-inspiring understandings of policies and guidelines. It's better for me to rest my case here as you are good at attracting disputes too. Regards. Hitro talk 14:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Sour grapes that the info has now two (2) sources? The Banner talk 14:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
LOL!!! Thing is that you never understood a single word of what me or policies said. Hitro talk 16:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Sweet dreams, my friend. You forgot that we are here to built an encyclopedia, instead of demolishing it by just sticking to the rulebook? Sometimes, the encyclopedia requires a wider look... The Banner talk 17:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

RFC rail station

Hiya, you might want to comment on the following RFC as it relates to notability of railway stations: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#RfC_India_railway_stations --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. The Banner talk 19:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Your recent TFD nominations

With regard to your recent Tfd nominations, what do you think of these and similar? {{KBS Historical Drama}} even had the corresponding article deleted. --woodensuperman 16:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Be my guest... The Banner talk 20:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Notability

Hello The Banner, you were involved in an AfD whose result presumed notability for all railway stations, just as we previously did for schools. You might be interested in this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapa Road railway station. There are currently 2,800 articles written about the 8,500 railway stations in India. Two thousand of those are stubs and several hundred are single-source sub-stubs. The inclusionists point to Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Stations as policy that mandates notability, but I don't read it that way. Rhadow (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It is interesting to see that Necrothesp is promoting the same baseless ramble as he did with schools. With any base in policy or guidelines, he is promoting an outcome into a policy. The Banner talk 17:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Second chapter

Hello The Banner, my request for a redirect for Sonasan railway station, the remedy suggested by Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Stations was ignored. Instead, another editor deleted the article under WP:G7. You are invited to improve a newly introduced Sonasan railway station and to look at Hapa Road railway station as an example of an article that others argue should stay. Rhadow (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I am utterly amazed by the stubbornness some people are employing to ignore the fact a) the claimed consensus is not as strong as they claim and b) that you can also use common sense. This seems to go the same way as with schools, where every reason, policy and guideline goes out of the door on AfD and the most shitty articles are kept, just because it is a school. The point of quality and reliability is bluntly ignored.
I have no interest in this misguided infighting that is just damaging Wikipedia. I withdraw from train stations until there is some reason. The Banner talk 14:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hiya, you might be interest to know this article was created as a "bait." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Third chapter

Hello The Banner, thank you for your thoughtful contributions to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hapa_Road_railway_station. While the result was no consensus, the back-and-forth exposed topics that deserve clarification in the essay Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Stations or in the form of an RfC similar to [on secondary school notability]. Rhadow (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Even that school RFC is regularly (and obsessively) ignored by the "keepers". Funny enough they label me as a deletionist, while my personal stance is that the article and its sources must prove the notability. To my opinion a common sense and guideline/policy-based approach. The Banner talk 12:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
It is the favorite tactic of zealots to pick the most extreme label for their opponents. Deletionist is a conscious choice on their part to vilify those who ask for substantial and verifiable sources for an article. What I would most like to understand is their religious zeal -- defined as based on faith rather than verification -- to support these thousands of unremarkable subjects. It cannot have to do with red-links, as two thirds of the railway stations in India have no article. Only ten percent of the stations in India have an article that is not stub class. Rhadow (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I once heard an argument in a school-AfD stating "If you can not find a source for a school, you did not search hard enough". I was baffled. The Banner talk 16:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
In fact, I got the nasty idea that the bloke was serious about that... The Banner talk 18:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

LJC

I'm new at this so not sure how to send a direct message. I am NOT promoting Loyola Jesuit College. Funding is central to how LJC began and is definitely worth including in its history. This information is no way promotional. Prospective parents seek information about school facilities in deciding were to send their kids which is why this has always been included in the wiki page. How is any of this material promotional. Promotional will be saying "2 spacious athletic fields" rather than 2 athletic fields. This information would then be deemed subjective. Subjective material is promotional, objective material is not because these are facts. Plus Cowbell competition is the biggest science/math competition in Nigeria (as good as WAEC and JAMB), yet you deleted information about the school's performance. How is funding promotional? You do not get to decide what is promotional and what is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernerd387 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You say it yourself why it is promotional: Prospective parents seek information about school facilities in deciding were to send their kids which is why this has always been included in the wiki page. You make clear that the intent of the information is to draw in new students. That makes it clear advertising. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising medium. The Banner talk 20:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you check Harvard's wiki page. 60 percent of the material there can be considered promotional. Scroll down to the "Campuses" section of the page. They clearly list their facilities, no different from what was done there. Do the same for princeton, stanford etc. "Harvard has emerged as the central cultural establishment for Boston elites". Making it the largest of any acadmeic institution. Any material can be considered promotional. The point is are these facts subjective? Does Harvard have the largest endowment fund? Yes it does, Does LJC have four classroom buildings? Yes it does. Mind you, I could have editied it as four "gigantic' classroom buildings, now THAT will be promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernerd387 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but with this answer you make even more clear that your purpose is advertising of your school. The Banner talk 20:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It is a catholic school. Owned by the catholic church, so it is not a privately owned institution. I'm saying if you consider the material included on LJC's page as promotional, then you better get to editing every other school's page on wiki. Start with Harvard. You have a lot of work for the next few years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernerd387 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that you start with reading what an encyclopedia is and what the difference is with an advertising medium. And please, read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Ow, and do not forget to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, as you sound like the school PR-employee. The Banner talk 20:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

My IP clearly shows I'm in the US. Don't you think I'd be in Nigeria if I was their PR employee. Including facilities or funding is NOT promotional and I also stated that almost every other notable school's page on wiki has some information about facilities and funding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernerd387 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System

Since your edits removing the inline external links at List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System introduced 20+ disambiguation links to the article, do you think you caould take a stab at cleaning those up? Cheers! bd2412 T 22:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Channel NewsAsia page

Hi - there are many inaccuracies on the page which I fix and you reverse the changes. Could I please ask why? Dianeleow (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New and expanded partners
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Mentioned

Hello The Banner. Please see WP:AN3#User:Hypernerd387 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: ), where your name has been mentioned by Hypernerd387. You can add your own comment if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikibreak

No, no conflicts or other negative stuff. Just a house move.

I assume that I will move way faster than my internet connection will do. So I have no clue when I am back online or even when my connection is cut.

Happy editing! The Banner talk 13:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Content Dispute on Magic Kingdom Parade. IanDBeacon (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you try to discuss the issue? I have not noticed anything of that... The Banner talk 00:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Gemma O'Doherty

@Banner: I would like to draw your attention to the use of Wiki by 2 editors, Bastun and editorrr, both of whom have been using Wiki to create a negative caricature of Gemma O'Doherty. They do this by selective extraction of out-of-context quotes. I, and others, have asked them to desist without success (see talk section of Gemma O'Doherty wiki page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.149.153.141 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Regent Palace Hotel

Re your reversions on this, please discuss on the talk page. Thanks. Ben Finn (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent school AfDs

I may be wrong, but I don't think simply being created by a blocked editor is sufficient reason for deletion. The three articles you nominated are treatment programs that offer education (as they must, because they are lockdowns). They are not schools and fail ORG. That definitely is a good reason. Just my 2c. John from Idegon (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I was in doubt about the need to add that. But I will do it now. The Banner talk 02:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect edits

I reverted changes to Loyola High School (Los Angeles) (changed infobox from school to university, put in "m" as value of many fields), done without explanation or edit summary. I saw you reverted several similar edits by the same user. It appears they have never responded to any message on their talk page ever. Are you monitoring all their changes? What a waste of time. Do you think it is time to escalate to ANI? This looks like a strange case to me as this editor has 5yrs/17k edits. I know I've come across "m"s before in infoboxes, must have been same editor. MB 05:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

A few days ago I have asked an administrator for advice: User talk:Drmies#What to do now?. And he came more or less to the same conclusion. You have my support when you bring it to AN/I. The Banner talk 07:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sander Jan Klerk; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Strictly not, but I heed to your appeal to step a bit away from this disruptive editor. The Banner talk 08:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

CSD requests

Hello! I saw your CSD requests of some archives of your talk page, such as User talk:The Banner/Archives/2012/January. However, I'm not sure if they can be deleted in this way. See WP:CSD#U1: User talk pages are not eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion. ST47 (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

An earlier series old archives were removed recently. The archives are replaced by Archive 2012. So, you surprise me. The Banner talk 12:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
See for example this: User talk:The Banner/Archives/2011/June. And please not that it are archives, not the actual talk page. The Banner talk 12:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have been looking at the wrong thing. I thought the archives to be deleted had been created by moving your talk page, but I must have been looking at the wrong page history. Will do. ST47 (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. The Banner talk 12:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing article

Hi the banner

My names Cathal and I'm a local historian in clonlea. I discovered a penal massrock and altar stone there and am in the middle of doing a book on penal times there.

I'd love If i could add in information on your article in clonlea which I have. I'd that okay ?

Yours Cathal Clonloum123 (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

As a historian, you should be able to handle sources and proper refer to them. The Banner talk 23:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Zoop (TV series)

Please name other TV series on Wiki that apply sub-titles in cast credits like on Zoop (TV series). HM Wilburt (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You are the one removing stuff without a valid reason, so you are the one to explain. The Banner talk 06:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Very constructive. HM Wilburt (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Picture edits on Church of Ireland page

I've put a lot of work into updating, expanding and adding citations on this article. I think pictures make articles more readable and attractive so I've added my own to make the article more relevant. That means more but smaller.

I've had a number of Thank Yous for this, none of whom suggested I was out of line for changing the pictures. Plus, some of the pictures you've reset on the grounds of User discretion are ones I added. So the size was selected by me.

You've made a total of 7 edits on this article, all of which are simply reversals. I say this politely but I think you need to pull back on this. And I know from experience the first response will be emotional - so give yourself a couple of days.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your change again. Please be aware that not everybody has a big screen. The thumbsize set by users or the standard thumbsize show a picture in the best size for the screen in use. Your picture sizes overrule the standard or personal settings and make is possible that pictures take over a complete screen, making the article unreadable. People are always able to doubleclick on a picture to get a bigger image. And it does not mater how many edits I have done on this article, wgat I have done on this article or how emotional you get, Wikipedia is simple better off with standard sizes. Thank you. The Banner talk 17:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

  • Partnerships
  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sega Sammy franchises

There is zero reason to be hostile, per this edit here. Namcokid47 (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

There is zero need to do a dodgy job. The correct link was there before your edit. The Banner talk 21:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I deleted the section and re-wrote it, so I missed the pipe link by mistake and forgot to fix it. It is not a "mess" like you implied in your summary. Namcokid47 (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
You stated earlier: "sick of this overbloated template" and I responded on that. With the true complaint that I am often cleaning up templates with links to disambiguation pages that were left by people not checking what they were doing. The Banner talk 21:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
You're a month late with that response. I've never encountered you before (not that I know of, anyway), so this came as surprising to me to find soembody lambasting my edit because I forgot to add a pipe link. Namcokid47 (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I have seen hundreds of these "mistakes" pass by at Templates with disambiguation links. Sometimes I snap... The Banner talk 22:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I simply forgot to add the pipe link to Daytona USA, there's no need to get worked up about it. It's been fixed, I'll move on. Namcokid47 (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Mind your links in the future! The Banner talk 15:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Don't get salty over pipe links in the future! Namcokid47 (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Add .mw-disambig { background-color:#AFEEEE; } to your personal CSS and links to disambiguation pages will show a light blue background. And then you can fix them. The Banner talk 16:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I will use this in the future. I appreciate it. Namcokid47 (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

House of Alpin

Hello, and sorry for whatever trouble I may have caused on the House of Alpin page. I should've searched for sources and then added them before reverting the edit for the first time, rather than reverting it and then reverting it again and so on. It wasn't very responsible of me. In the brief summary of my changes in the recent edit, in which I provided my sources, I sarcastically pointed out that none of the other royal titles needed citation. That was rude and unprofessional of me, and as you said, nowhere is the title mentioned in the article itself, so I should've realized that such an addition was therefore different. People rely on Wikipedia for free education, and we need to provide that to them, so I have a responsibility to act differently. I hope you understand that I had good intentions initially. When I believe strongly that I am correct, I tend to act stubborn instead of talking about the problem in order to solve it.

So many people out there rely on Wikipedia for free education, and so we are required to give them the best we can. Thank you for bringing to my attention that the title was not present in the article itself, and so it needed to be cited as a source. The article is better than it used to be because of it, and we can better give the reader the information that they have come to Wikipedia for in the first place.

--User:HistoricallyAccurate —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The same type of mistake you made in Dalcassians. Hope things will be better now. Thanks. The Banner talk 20:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring my response to your claims of ignoring

In the words of Alanis Morissette, isn’t it ironic that you claimed three times that I was ignoring or skipping your point, and each time you were in fact ignoring / skipping my preceding statements which directly addressed that same point.

Your claim of “deliberately ignore” failed to assume good faith, and in doing so has created a negative environment for discussion.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Why do you not accept Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere, as stated on WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY as a method of determining the primary topic? The Banner talk 21:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I do accept it. It was criteria number 1 in my comment here. It is the only criterion which supports Peninsula as the primary topic, whereas the others support Mount.
Do you believe the incoming links criteria to be more important than all other considerations?
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I do. But I think it is also a good idea to do a proposal for a requested move. The Banner talk 21:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Before we progress I would like to clear up the misunderstandings between us. Otherwise we will have a messy discussion.
Please could you explain why you repeatedly accused me of ignoring your incoming wikilinks point? Perhaps I misunderstood you or you misunderstood me?
And please could you explain the basis for your idea that this one criterion is more important than all others? If there is some policy I am unaware of I would like to know.
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Point is that you never seriously replied on it. You gave three, in my opinion less useful reasons, but never even mentioned that there was a fourth, as if you were hiding it.
But to be true, I close this discussion and await the discussion through Requested Moves. The Banner talk 22:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean I gave three but ignored the fourth? I made your point my number 1!
Please could you take the time to explain yourself properly? We have spent two days going in circles because I cannot understand you. After all this effort to try to figure out what you are saying I am still stuck. Please could you elaborate so that we can move forward.
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I close this discussion and await the discussion through Requested Moves. Thank you and bye. The Banner talk 23:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
You have wasted my time with your poor quality communication. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Swimming styles

Hi, The Banner. I see you removed scissor kick from the template without giving a reason. What's up with that? -- Xerxes (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

A link to a disambiguation page without a clear target. The Banner talk 19:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

List of car brand

Hello The banner  ! I have edited and monitored this wed page for many years, so I have a clear understanding of what to delete and what to leave please do not break our site. Duyminhhuynh (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Your site? This is not your site at all as this is a community project.
What I reverted where your links to disambiguation pages that you repeatedly reinstated. The Banner talk 12:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It would really surprise me when someone just registered in May 2019 would monitor this page for many years. Unless you have edited before under another account name. The Banner talk 12:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Glendalough/Ireland

Hello, The Banner. Thank you for your advice. I am sorry if my additions went too far and weren't helpful to the article. I'm also sorry if I didn't use my sandbox before to test them and for my error in replacing a photo depicting a wrong part of the lake.

My intention was to promote some valuable shots present in Commons, but definitely I have to refine my scope. I would like to do this harmonically and constructively, and since I think you have a broader experience than mine, I would like to ask you if these assumptions of mine are right: 1. I suppose that only one "Gallery" section is suitable for an article. 2. I suppose that it's best to use one thumbnail per topic/site instead of using galleries (exceptionally, two thumbnails might be used if they depict two different, relevant topics and they are not redundant).

I personally believe that it's possible to improve some depictions of the sites by substituting some photos. I suppose that some of these were not existent in Commons at the time the photos were chosen for the article.

I would like to propose some constructive changes, explaining the reasons why, in my opinion, the new photos are both useful and valuable from a photographer's perspective (and pointing out the flaws of the older ones). I'll choose only one photo per site, only if I think it's an improvement over the older one.

I could do this in my sandbox in the next days. If you have time, I would like to ask you if we can discuss these changes together so that we can share our opinions before publishing the new versions. I think this also would be useful to me to do more mindful edits in the future.

I don't live in Ireland, but I have visited it many times in the last years and it fascinated me. This is why I decided to work on these articles. Sorry for being verbose and I hope you will be able to help me. ram_art (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem
The case is that you serve an article best when you choose the pictures that supports the article best. Sometimes that is hard, when you have a multitude of high quality pictures. I have seen a guy who came with self made, rather blurry, high resolution photos, claiming that the high resolution made them better than sharp pictures with lower resolution (not). Or somebody who thought that a picture of a parking lot was good enough for a place, where there was also an aerial photo available. In short: it is a balancing act where more is not necessarily better. The Banner talk 14:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I fully agree with you and I understand your points. The first selection criterion is to find a coherent, suitable picture for the article content; amongst all the best descriptive pictures found, the most "aesthetically" virtuous can be chosen (picture composition, light, lens/sensor quality). Definitely, high resolution may be a virtue, but it's not a sufficient condition, as in your example. I'll try to find a good balance between these two criteria. Lion-hearted85 (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I'm back. If you have some time, I would like to review my overall revision of the pictures of the article. Please have a look to my sandbox (User:Lion-hearted85/sandbox) to see the whole page revised with some comments at the top. Tell me if it looks good to you or if you think it can be done better (or it's best to revert something). Lion-hearted85 (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I have carefully revised my edits and I have decided to publish them. I think this is a constructive edit, but please write me if you think something isn't right. Thank you! Lion-hearted85 (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Ariana Grande

I've started a discussion on whether to split Template:Ariana Grande into Template:Ariana Grande songs. Fan4Life (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Scots Gaelic / Gaeilge na hAlban / Gàidhlig terms on pages

I don't know why you deleted my adding the term "Gaeilge na hAlban" to some pages as "unhelpful".

Gaeilge na hAlban is Irish for Scots Gaelic. The pages I added the term to were all about the Irish language so I don't see the problem in having the Irish language version of Scots Gaelic included in the "See Also" sections taking into account as well that the Gàidhlig (what Scots Gaelic is called in Scots Gaelic) term is already included.

Darren J. Prior (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk)

I did not revert YOUR edits, but the edits from some IP. Beside that I did not revert all the edits of that IP, as someone else also reverted a few of the additions. And if these were your edits, please note that the article Scottish Gaelic does not mention the term. Please provide proof. The Banner talk 07:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

They were my edits anonymously. Anyway here is an example showing that the Irish for Scots Gaelic is Gaeilge na hAlban. I just readded the term to those pages. https://www.focloir.ie/en/dictionary/ei/Scots+Gaelic Darren J. Prior (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the article Scottish Gaelic does not mention the term. So it is just a matter of time before someone starts reverting it. The Banner talk 07:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Section Spam

Could you just add any other redirects for discussion to User talk:Bogger#Redirects for discussion. My talk page is beginning to fill up. Bogger (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please read WP:WTRMT. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed. The discussion has been dormant for a while and there is no support for the template. Either way, I'm just remaining you of the rules, if you want to keep it even though it is against the rules, I will not remove it again. But you should contact a third party or an admin to solve this issue and reach a solution. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard? The Banner talk 11:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I know about them, but as I told you, I'm not a paid contributor or have any conflict of interest. I have been editing Korean content for years now and many of the article I created and edited are not related to SBS. Just because I edited an SBS list and you disagree with my use of template:ill, doesn't mean I work for SBS, I have use the template is articles not related to SBS for years. You can report me in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, you have no proof and no reason, and this is plain Harassment. Please discuss the issue of the use of template:ill, instead or accusing me without any evidence. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Ow, more expensive accusations. I am so impressed (NOT). The Banner talk 08:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Irish DNA Atlas

I have started a discussion on Talk:Irish people about your trolling and reversions of my valid edits about the Irish DNA Atlas. Please respond in a timely manner, or your nonconstructive edits will be reverted. Regards. 142.116.202.86 (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

  • Wikimania
  • We're building something great, but..
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • A Wikibrarian's story
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edit warring at Gaels of Scotland

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

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

The Troubles

Both the reference I provided on the talk page and the original both support the statement Not sure why you tagged it, if you really think the article needs the reference then insert it -----Snowded TALK 13:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Advertising

What constitutes as advertising in Wikipedia? I can edit the article so that the additional content is suitable for the page - Victoria Junior College. Jeremyahp (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote already on your talkpage:

Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising medium. Wikipedia is not free webspace that Victoria Junior College can use to attract more students. And you should make a note on your user page that you have a Conflict of Interest, as you are clearly involved in the college and its advertisement efforts. The Banner talk 14:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Time zone

The Time Zone for Ireland is UTC+0. This time zone has (at least) two aliases, GMT and WET. (GMT is no longer a primary designation). So can you explain your reversion please, apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Red King (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I did some digging around in official sources, like the Statute Book and Parliamentary Debates. Not much was coming up: zero times Western Europe Time against two times GMT. So it looks that the official designation is GMT/UTC, not WET. Sorry. The Banner talk 22:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
And none for UTC either, I assume. That was then, this is now. (I don't expect a reply at this page). --Red King (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
It would be nice when you stop with your WP:IDONTLIKEIT as it looks more on WP:IREFUSETOHEARTHAT. I am still waiting for proof that WET is the official time designation. The Banner talk 17:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Ateneo Blue Eaglets

Draft:Ateneo Blue Eaglets, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ateneo Blue Eaglets and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Ateneo Blue Eaglets during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Diocese of Killaloe

Not every civil parish is an ecclesiastical parish. Some villages only form half of the church parish. Unless the two are coterminous then the article should not be in the category. A 1 line mention in a long article may not be sufficient to qualify for Category membership. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I know of your dislike of the Catholic Church, you have proven that often enough. I have reviewed the articles where you removed the link and in a few cases not restored it, as it was an article over a village in the parish. But in most cases the removal was incorrect. Beside that, "A 1 line mention" was often backed up by a template. The Banner talk 11:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
You know no such thing; you merely have assumptions. The main assumption that you should have here is Wikipedia:Assume good faith. For the record, I have no animosity for the Catholic Church. I made a deep reading of the articles. If there was even a decent paragraph about the parish, as opposed to the village / civil parish, I let the categorisation stand. Unless it is integral to the thrust of the article, it cannot be assumed to be synonymous with the Catholic Church. As I said earlier, I've been leniant on this rule; you've erred in being too loose with the rule. Just because St Charles Borromeo Church, Westminster is in the City of Westminster does not entitle you to categorise Category:City of Westminster as a child of Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster; Justin Welby might be surprised and a little annoyed at the development. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
You are funny. And maybe you should try some Wikipedia:Assume good faith instead of POV-pushing. The Banner talk 20:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
As a token of good faith on your part, would you consider looking again at the list and seeing some are really essentially about the Church parish as opposed to the civil parish or village? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
No need to have a second look as I already reviewed them. And I left your removals in place a few times. I have told you that earlier. The Banner talk 19:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Take a micrscope to Kinnity. Show me the place that mentions the RC Diocese of Killaloe. Yours in Good Faith, Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I wait until you have done that and noticed the template about the diocese present in the article. The Banner talk 09:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Can you say exactly what is the view that I am allegedly pushing? That some geographic areas are not always coterminous with the area of a RC parish? Is that a view? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Easter Rising

Can you please check my reply on the talk page? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Made another reply. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I added a source to the talk page that's used widely on Wikipedia (WW1 online encyclopedia). I'm not POV pushing, and this is not a fringe position. Please check the talk page. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
You are POV-pushing and editwarring on top of that. The Banner talk 09:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Banner/Archive09&oldid=1065298639"