User talk:The Banner

I try to the best of my knowledge and belief to contribute to the small red block of the image

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Archives (Index)

2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July 2024/August 2024/September 2024/October 2024/November

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Template TV Network

Hey, I edited Template:Network 18 to include what I believe was useful info but it was reverted as being "superfluous". Other similar TV network templates do already carry such info (for example Template:Turner Broadcasting System, Template:NBC). Can you tell me why it was removed exactly. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that other templates are substandard should not be a reason to make more templates substandard. A navigation template should only act voor navigation, it is not an article. The Banner talk 07:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanks for clarifying. I was just following of what I believed to be standard practice. Gotitbro (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD

I don't really care about your mission against pools.. What will happen one day however, my friend, is that someone will simply slam you with yet another a block for your persistent incivility, personal attacks, and battleground mentality. And it won't need to go to ANI, and it won't need to be me. And it will be longer next time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Getting desperate that your arguments do not hold sway? It is getting a nice tradition of accusing some one to have a battlefield mentality when you run out of polkicy/guidelined-based arguments. The Banner talk 11:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

removed program without article, deemed not notable

I noticed that on the page Comparison of SSH servers you had removed a couple "programs" ("libraries" would probably be a better term) due to them lacking their own articles. If they had their own articles, would it be more acceptable if they were included on that page?

Alternatively, I noticed that some of the libraries listed on other technical articles comparing protocol implementations do not have their own articles but instead link back to the parent company's article. An example is the "Tectia" library, which has a link back to their company SSH Communications Security instead of a standalone article for the library. Would this be an acceptable way to add libraries to the Comparison of SSH servers page?

--Alex Abrahamson (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The standard is: no article, no mention.

I will check the other articles. The Banner talk 22:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

• From the editor: If only if

• Op-ed: The last leg of the Admin Ship's current cruise

• Opinion: Wrestling with Wikipedia reality

• News and notes: Another newspaper for Wikipedia; Wikimania 2018 ends; changes at NPR

• In the media: Blackouts in Europe; Wikipedia and capitalists; WMF Jet Set

• Discussion report: Wikipedias take action against EU copyright proposal, plus new user right proposals

• Featured content: Wikipedia's best content in images and prose

• Arbitration report: Status quo processes retained in two disputes

• Traffic report: Soccer, football, call it what you like – that and summer movies leave room for little else

• Technology report: New bots, new prefs

• Gallery: Independence days, national holidays, and football – all in July

• Blog: Motivation of two editors

• Recent research: Different Wikipedias use different images; editing contests more successful than edit-a-thons

• Humour: It's all the same

• Essay: Wikipedia does not need you

• From the archives: The pending changes fiasco: how an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

re: RFC religion in infoboxes

First of all, you do understand that the religion parameter no longer works in the 'INFOBOX PERSON' template. That information recorded using that parameter is NOT visible in the article and has not been visble for a year and a half. You understand that my edit did not remove it from the article and that an UNDO of the edit will not make it reappear in the article. You understand that when that parameter was made inoperable (a year and a half ago), that it creates an error in the system which can be viewed in the article by clicking on the edit tab and then the show preview button. Those errors ultimately make their way to this report: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Infobox_person_using_religion.

As far as 'Destroying' information is concerned, as an experienced editor i'm sure that you realize that every version of the life cycle of an article is retained. Including everyone of the 150,000+ edits that you have made.

Are you really fighting to retain information that generates an error, and has not been visible in the article for ( a year and a half)? Gene Wilson (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand the effect of your removals. You are coldly removing info (albeit not visible any more) without rescuing the info elsewhere in the article. What I want is that you do not axe it out, but move the info to the article body where necessary. The Banner talk 17:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

To the contrary, I make a great effort not to as you say 'Coldly Axe Out' this unviewable information. Let's restate that - unviewable part. Many of the listings of the persons religion use citations to verify their statements. That citation relates to that specific fact in the INFOBOX. In many other cases, a named citation <ref name="xxxxx"> is defined in the INFOBOX and called upon in other locations in the article using <rêf name="xxxxx"/>. I move these citations to the body of the article and make sure they are working properly before I delete the information from the infobox. Try as you may, I am confident that I am not demonstrating some kind of reckless disregard for these articles. Gene Wilson (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep on dreaming. The Banner talk 09:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of Crayola crayons

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of Crayola crayons. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj COI discussion

I've opened a discussion about the {{COI}} tag you inserted at Talk:St. Xavier's Higher Secondary School, Thoothukudi. I've also listed the discussion at WP:COIN — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Project namespace

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Project namespace. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Davitt

Stop your edit warring on Michael Davitt and gain a consensus for deletion.80.111.16.75 (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop your edit warring on Michael Davitt and gain a consensus for your excessive quotation! The Banner talk 13:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

As you well know the onus is one those challenging the stable version to gain a consensus.80.111.16.75 (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I see no attempt from you to gain consensus on the talkpage. What I do see is an IP in breach of WP:3RR and clearly editwarring. The Banner talk 13:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And that gives you an excuse to ignore WP;BRD?80.111.16.75 (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)