User talk:The Banner/Archives/2024/February

Seasonality

Good Morning,
There is a user claiming (And calling me a vandal ?!) on Belgrade Airport and other airport sites that routes that are operated for only 9 months of the year are year-round. His argumentation is that as they do operate partly in winter season, they should be year-round. But I thought that these flights should always be marked seasonal as they indeed do not operate from January until March. As per Oxford, year-round significates "during the whole of the year", which is not the case here.
I would be happy to hear your opinion.
Best regards, Der HON (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Reverted and protection requested. The Banner talk 13:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Strange enough I have more or less the same issue at hand. In this case a connection with a summer season and winter season being declared year round. The Banner talk 13:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. But in your case, it's not the same editor, is it? And which route is he targeting? Der HON (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

A English IP targetting Manchester Airport and Verona Villafranca Airport. Unlikely to be the same editor, just a strange coincidence. The Banner talk 21:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 60

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023

• Three new partners
• Google Scholar integration
• How to track partner suggestions

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (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. 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!

Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Denied by the volunteers there. This is not much more than POV-pushing and misusing the system. The Banner talk 09:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You are not explaining yourself

You are ignoring my questions. You are undoing my edits without giving valid reasons or any reasons whatsoever. You are pushing point of view and you encourage intellectual property infringement. If you keep this up, I will have to report you. Dante4786 (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

True. You are not giving valid reasons for your edits, so why should I explain why I revert you in detail? The Banner talk 19:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dante4786 (talk)

Thank you. I have replied. The Banner talk 20:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring on 'Comparison of EM simulation software' page

You've reverted some of my edits, and so I went to the history pages. You have reverted a lot of edits from others, often stating they need to write their own article on a piece of software, to be included in that list. Wikipedia has a definition of 'Notability in the English Wikipedia'. It does not require that an article exist on Wikipedia, in order for something to be included in a list.

Your reverting of others articles may have been due to an honest misunderstanding. However, it is edit warring, as you are pushing your own definition of what should or should not be continuously.

For this reason, I have submitted this for arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Re34646 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

So sad that you waste your time over this. Please read WP:CSC. The Banner talk 00:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification: Feedback request service is down

Hello, The Banner/Archives/2024

You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

• News and notes: Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail

• Opinion: Until it happens to you

• Disinformation report: How paid editors squeeze you dry

• In the media: Katherine Maher new NPR CEO, go check Wikipedia, race in the race

• In focus: The long road of a featured article candidate, part 2

• Recent research: Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic openness and rules constraining [admins]"

• Comix: We've all got to start somewhere

• Traffic report: DJ, gonna burn this goddamn house right down

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger Notice

Please move your comment in the Margaret Sanger talk page above the reference/note box, because it is currently below it and not directly after the current conversation. DocZach (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I know. Request denied. The Banner talk 13:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Irish Civil War infobox

Hi Banner, hope you're doing well after your short break.

I was planning on making a tweak to the infobox on the ICW page; it's a small edit, but I thought I'd discuss it first.

I was thinking of removing the brackets in the commanders and leaders section (i.e (until X month X year)) and just having markers. For instance, Collins and Lynch just have the daggers next to their names with a hashtag placed next to Griffiths' to signify that he died from natural causes. I noticed other conflict articles do this (Hundred Years' War, Great Northern War, Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604), First Barons' War) and I thought it might would work for the ICW as well.

Let me know what you think of it and if I should do something else instead. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I did not fully understand what you wanted to do but noticed that changes today.I have no objection against these changes. The Banner talk 12:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

• News and notes: Wikimedia Russia director declared "foreign agent" by Russian gov; EU prepares to pile on the papers

• Disinformation report: How low can the scammers go?

• Gallery: Before and After: Why you don't need to touch grass to dramatically improve images of flora and fauna

• In the media: Speaking in tongues, toeing the line, and dressing the part

• Serendipity: Is this guy the same as the one who was a Nazi?

• Traffic report: Griselda, Nikki, Carl, Jannik and two types of football

• Crossword: Our crossword to bear

• Comix: Strongly

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

NOPIPE discussion at WT:MOS

Hi, The Banner. I know you are well aware of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Mandatory, since you started it, but there's increasingly a behavioral angle to it, which therefore belongs here and not there. The discussion started off being more or less about the level of forcing in a Guideline vs. a Policy, notably in the case of the MOS guideline, and in particular, whether WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE are mandatory or not (and what that even means). Thanks for raising that; it's a discussion worth having.

At some indefinable point, the discussion seemed to shift away from MOS content or questions about the level of enforcement in a guideline, and became more about your conduct and whether you were going off on a lone-wolf path with piped links despite the views of pretty much everyone else on the page, and whether you might continue your previous pattern even in the face of mounting, and universal opposition.

I would say that at that point, that discussion has crossed the line into being more about your behavioral issues with respect to WP:CONSENSUS regarding the use of such links, along with possibly a whiff of disruption, as well, given the large amount of virtual ink spilled on that page already. My intention here is not at all to duplicate that discussion (that would cause undesirable fragmentation) but rather this discussion serves both as a pointer to that one (since sooner or later, the MOS discussion will be archived) as well as an attempt to tease apart the behavioral issue that rightly belongs here, from the content issue it began with that properly belongs there. That's a bit like unscrambling the omelet, so a messy process at best, but still worth the attempt. The consensus there appears to be that several editors wish you would stop your pattern of violations of WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE, even if it is only a guideline, and with the understanding that you don't agree with the guideline and don't feel that it is mandatory to follow it. I'm asking if you would please follow it, anyway, in the spirit of collaboration. Would you? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, for some reason I have become a threat to the cosy world of useless, invisible edits related to NOPIPE. And contrary to Jean, I am not following people around to be able to complain and harass them. It is noteworthy in this case that I did take a short wikibreak to prevent me loosing my cool. I am not interested in another editor bullying me. And I am not running around or use automated processes to find as many redirects as possible. I edit, see a redirect and when possible I replace the redirect with a direct link. In my opinion, that is improving Wikipedia. And also in my opinion, replacing a direct but piped link by a redirect is not improving Wikipedia, that is time wasting. It is the behaviour of Jean that needs a reality check. Wikipedia is big enough that we can co-exist. The Banner talk 10:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

A quick summary. In August, you reverted four of my edits with the edit summary "bypass redirects". After long discussion here and here, in which there was a clear consensus that WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN are good guidelines, and a number of editors said they didn't understand your objection to my edits, I walked away, and I've never edited those four pages again. You then appeared at a very low-traffic page that I'd previously edited, made a series of unhelpful miscorrections, accused me of edit warring when I reverted you, and said I was "becoming historical" when I outed your bad behaviour. I discussed the original issue with another editor here in October. After the discussion had concluded, you appeared with this edit, claiming you'd found the page accidentally, saying that you found my concerns amusing, and that you intended to leave me in peace. I didn't respond. In December, you appeared on the Talk page of an IP editor - a page we'd both edited previously - urging them to ignore my advice, and calling me a "busy-body thingy that adds nothing". I walked away. Following the discussion here with Andy Dingley in October, I became interested in the activities of a long-term block evader, Harry the house, whose favourite game is adding unnecessary pipework to thousands of pages. His activities were causing strife between a number of editors who had different ideas about the best way to address his behaviour. While I was trying to resolve that disagreement, you appeared on my Talk page looking for trouble. I put your comments aside and ignored them. At that point I had the idea for a JavaScript tool that could be used to selectively revert Harry's edits. I began using the tool cautiously after a helpful editor came up with a prototype. I discussed the tool here with Surtsicna. You then began a disagreement with Surtsicna over the WP:NOPIPE issue on another page. When that disagreement had concluded, you made more edits with the edit summary "bypass redirects" in direct contravention of the advice at WP:NOTBROKEN that also introduced errors of spelling and logic. Another editor reverted them. You then appeared last night at another page that I'd edited 36 minutes previously, making more edits of the same sort, with the same edit summary, "bypass redirects". When I looked at your recent edit history, I noticed a number of similar edits and raised the matter here. I think there are clear patterns. You follow me. I walk away. I'm becoming less inclined to keep walking away. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "I edit, see a redirect and when possible I replace the redirect with a direct link. In my opinion, that is improving Wikipedia. And also in my opinion, replacing a direct but piped link by a redirect is not improving Wikipedia, that is time wasting." But the problem is that that isn't what the guidelines say you should do. And you're persistently undoing the work of other editors who are following the guidelines. And that's disruptive. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC) You still have no evidence given that what you do is beneficial or mandatory. Still you attack and bully me over it. It would be very nice when you stop following me around. I am not interested in your antics. The Banner talk 12:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Two points. First, I don't see my edits as mandatory, as I explained here. The advantages of redirects were explained in some detail previously. Generally though, I prefer to follow the guidelines I mentioned because they are the guidelines that exist. If other guidelines existed, I would follow those. Guidelines exist to promote a uniformity of approach and avoid conflict, so that we can all work together in a piecemeal fashion without treading on one another's toes too often. I was discussing this with a friend recently. Imagine a large room in which many boxes are scattered. You can have a rule that says "Pick up a random box and stack it against wall A. The job is finished when all boxes are stacked against wall A". You can have a rule that says "Pick up a random box and stack it against wall B. The job is finished when all boxes are stacked against wall B". What you can't have is a rule that says "Pick up a random box and put it where you like", because that job has no end, and one group of workers will be constantly undoing the work of another. You could have a rule that says "Move no boxes", but a rule of that sort can make no progress, and that isn't the rule that we have here. Second, examine your language honestly in the light of the behaviour I described above. Am I attacking you? Am I bullying you? Am I following you? Am I "whining"? Am I "upset" or "jumping up and down"? Am I "becoming historical"? On the contrary, I've walked away from most of your provocations, I've left it to others to correct your bad edits, and I've done what I can to avoid conflict while remaining fairly calm in a deeply frustrating situation. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Your actions contradict your words. You try to stop me from improving Wikipedia because it does not fit your interpretation of how to act upon NOPIPE. As far as I know, there is nothing in the way of replacing a redirect by a direct link. Why you want to replaced a direct but piped link by a redirect is still a mystery to me. Why not replace that by a direct link? That gives more clarity to the readers. So far, the only reasoning I have heard for your edits its: "it is allowed by the MOS". Nothing to benefit the readers. The Banner talk 17:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Taken together, WP:NOPIPE, MOS:NOPIPE, and WP:NOTBROKEN are a very clear and coherent set of guidelines. They're not hard to interpret. WP:NOPIPE: It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects: N [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]] Y [[Mozart]] MOS:NOPIPE: As per WP:NOTBROKEN and § Link specificity above, do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text. WP:NOTBROKEN: There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. However, changing to a piped link is beneficial only in a few cases. Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. "As far as I know, there is nothing in the way of replacing a redirect by a direct link." WP:NOTBROKEN says: That is, editors should not change, for instance, [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] or [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]] just to "fix a redirect". However, it is perfectly acceptable to change it to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] if for some reason it is preferred that "Franklin D. Roosevelt" actually appear in the visible text. So the advice is quite clear: the choice of link should be driven by the choice of text. If a direct link corresponds to the best text, use a direct link. If a redirect works better, use that. Pipe the link only if necessary. The problem is that by making "bypass redirects" your motto, you often make the displayed text worse by distorting it to jam in an unsuitable direct link. I'll give you some examples. At "The Who Sell Out" (again, a page that you edited for the first time just after I'd edited it) you made some unhelpful alterations to the displayed text in order to cram in direct links that didn't really fit. First, you changed [[De Lane Lea]] to [[De Lane Lea Studios]] in a compact list of studios in the infobox, where the other items had been piped to remove the redundant word "studios". Changing to a direct link made the text redundant and less compact. Next, you changed [[station ID]] to [[Station identification]]. The capital "S" is incorrect, and the terms are synonymous, "ID" being a very common abbreviation. Your edit made the prose bulkier, and incorrectly capitalised. Next, you changed [[Marine Broadcasting Offences Act]] to [[Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967]]. The latter version is the correct title of the act, but the odd wording and punctuation, and the redundant appended date make it a poor choice in written prose, which is why we have alternative, shorter versions. This link was actually the reason I edited the page. It was edited here last November, by an odd, block-evading sockpuppet, and I was cleaning up some of the mess he'd left on dozens of pages. At "Pictish language" you made a number of similarly poor choices, just to cram direct links into contexts where they didn't really work. an [[Insular Celtic language]] → one of the [[Insular Celtic languages]] an [[insular Celtic language]] allied to the [[P-Celtic]] language → one of the [[Insular Celtic languages]] allied to the [[P-Celtic and Q-Celtic languages]] the ancestor of modern [[Scottish Gaelic]] → the ancestor of modern [[Scottish Gaelic language]] The Picts were steadily [[gaelicised]] → The Picts were steadily in the proc3ess of [[gaelicisationd]] As a non-native speaker, perhaps you're not aware of how clumsy some of those constructions are. All those bad changes were quickly reverted by a third party, and rightly so. The changes you made at "John Gummer" were relatively benign. The first is clearly contrary to WP:NOPIPE: N [[List of members of the House of Lords|member of the House of Lords]] Y [[member of the House of Lords]] The other two changes were, I think, fairly inoffensive. The name "Committee on Climate Change" was changed to "Climate Change Committee" in 2020, but since Gummer chaired the committee from 2012 to 2023, the more modern title is acceptable in the context. I hope you checked before making that edit. What bothers me more is that you popped up at that page - a page you'd never edited before - just 36 minutes after I'd edited it, and following the discussion here. You then insist that I'm following you. I think it must be quite clear to you by now that your edits contravene several guidelines and are increasingly against consensus. Please do yourself a favour: go back and reread the discussions here and here, and the three guidelines WP:NOPIPE, MOS:NOPIPE, and WP:NOTBROKEN, not with the intention of finding loopholes that will let you keep on imposing your preference, but with a view to understanding what those guidelines are saying and why, and what other editors are telling you. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC) Yes, I know that you get upset when people have a different opinion about your useless, invisible edits. NOPIPE is by no means mandatory, despite your bashing and harassing. So I request that you stay away from me. The Banner talk 13:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC) I'd be happy to. Will you respond to the question that Mathglot put to you above: "... several editors wish you would stop your pattern of violations of WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE, even if it is only a guideline, and with the understanding that you don't agree with the guideline and don't feel that it is mandatory to follow it. I'm asking if you would please follow it, anyway, in the spirit of collaboration. Would you?" Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC) I want you to stop harassing me first. There is no need at all for your behaviour towards me. The Banner talk 15:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC) I'm not going to accept your mischaracterisation of my behaviour as harassment. I suggest you examine your own behaviour critically, and stop playing the victim. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Everybody please chill, and go back to your corners; this is becoming disruptive, and this thread is not going to result in any improvement. Let's just let it die. Mathglot (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will not revert any edits of Jean because by now I know that it massively upsets him. And that is as far as I go. The Banner talk 23:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:TIES

Hi, the WP:TIES policy relates to English-speaking countries, not the whole of Europe. Neither British or American English tag should be used on this article as neither TIES nor MOS:RETAIN applies. AusLondonder (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Please give evidence that American English is consistently used on articles about Hungarian subjects. Did you address the other editor too? The one that added the tag of American English? The Banner talk 17:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Why would I give evidence American English is "consistently used" on Hungarian articles? My entire point is MOS:TIES does not apply to Hungarian articles. TIES does not apply to non-English speaking countries. As to the other editor, if you see someone make an inappropriate edit, revert it rather than make another inappropriate edit. AusLondonder (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, it was an improvement. And why complain now, after nearly three weeks? The Banner talk 22:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trenkwalder. Thank you. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Your edits seem vandalism to disrupt the AfD. The Banner talk 17:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It's YOU who disrupted the AfD. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

LOL. It is 23 February, not 1 April. The Banner talk 17:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Trenkwalder 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; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I can return the favour after your last revert. The Banner talk 17:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Hubert Trenkwalder

Hello The Banner, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Hubert Trenkwalder, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubert Trenkwalder.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Chris troutman}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Chris Troutman (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

As expected. The Banner talk 22:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)