User talk:The Banner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

Syrian war map links[edit]

Hi, when you go about tinkering with disambiguating things at Template:Syrian civil war detailed map, take care to leave brackets on the labels. Otherwise, the letters in the names "pile up" in an unsightly fashion (example). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be better when you create valid links instead of links to disambiguation pages. If you do that, I don't have to do anything with that map. smile The Banner talk 20:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to NET. may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • NET. Playground was aired on daily with six cartoon programmes for children:{[fact}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

UE Boom[edit]

Hello, you have nominated my article for deletion. I was quite shocked because I have spent two weeks writing it and would like to develop it towards GA. I made sure that I have included all negative aspects in the "Critique" section and didn't exaggerate the good aspects, but summarized what I have found in the reliable sources. Could you please compare it with HTC One (GA) after which I have modeled UE Boom? There wasn't really much bad to write about UE Boom, as it got "Excellent" rating from PC Magazine and iF 'Gold award'. I believe I have maintained NPOV throughout the article. I have included a number of attributed quotes too. I felt that I have actually over-criticized UE Boom by including all mentions of negative aspects. I understand that the article may look as advertisement to some, but if you will compare it with HTC One, it will just look as much. Dmatteng (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing is useless. The Banner talk 17:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:Otherstuffexists, sure. But lets take a view at the guidelines WP:Guide to deletion:
"Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." Dmatteng (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not buy that. Especially not after canvassing. The article is still advertising and not a neutral description. The Banner talk 01:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
If you think the article is advertisement, could you please:
  • a) Provide instances (words/sentences)?
  • b) Why would I intentionally mention the least number of hours of battery life that undermines the manufacturer's claim? And place it next to it? (If my desire is to advertise?)
  • c) Let's assume for the purpose of our discussion that you are absolutely right, and it is an advertisement. Why wouldn't you follow the guidelines that is designed for that specific case: WP:Guide to deletion? The article would fall exactly into: "Before nominating a recently created article.. sharing your reservations with the article creator ..instead of bringing the article to AfD." Dmatteng (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Kansas)[edit]

Hello The Banner. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Kansas), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I've corrected the redirect to the page it is meant to go to. Thank you. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You have replaced the loop by another loop. There is just no article about the Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas and the dab-page should contain a red link. The Banner talk 12:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Refusal to accept consensus. I have asked for community views on this activity. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


You know the drill, please sort out your differences on the talk page. Oh, and please don't use Twinkle to edit-war; if you must edit-war, do it the old-fashioned way. And please don't template the regulars—you've been around long enough that that's the last thing that's going to de-escalate the situation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Where did I use Twinkle to edit war? I only used it to warn Blofeld for deliberately introducing factual errors. The Banner talk 10:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
[1]. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]


Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of a week for refusal to adhere to consensus, edit-warring, and an astonishing refusal to accept that your conduct is problematic, despite this being pointed out to you by multiple editors in good standing; if this continues, you will be heading towards an indefinite block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant, I get a block for trying to keep Wikipedia correct while the two dudes who are knowingly introducing factual errors walk away free. The Banner talk 12:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't give a shot about the content at hand. Your belligerence, not the accuracy or otherwise of anyone's edits, is what's got you a week off. Perhaps take the opportunity to regain some perspective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Just another case where the high status messer is protected against the guy who is factual right. The Banner talk 12:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The Banner (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

This is a conflict with two sides where only one side is blocked. In fact, the conflict is about introducing factual errors, mainly by stating that a village/town is equal to a civil parish. It is load and clear, also to Blofeld and Atmatt2, that this is not the case. Still they keep adding it. There is consensus that Wikipedia should be factual correct, so I feel obliged to correct those errors. The consensus I seem to have broken is a consensus between Blofeld and friends, not a consensus from the wider community. The Banner talk 7:45 am, 29 March 2014, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

This unblock request primarily seeks to establish justification for edit warring. However, per WP:Edit warring, being convinced of the factual correctness of one's edits (rightly or not) is not supplied as a justification under the list of exceptions. A review of WP:NOTTHEM, if unfamiliar, might also be illuminating. - Vianello (Talk) 06:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

The reviewing admin may wish to review The Banner's recent edits, and his demeanour in general, in light of this discussion at WikiProject Ireland. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Banner, if we're wrong, why it is every member of WP:Ireland aside from yourself agree on the same thing and you're the only one who says we're introducing errors into articles? Civil parishes do exist whether or not they have any real substance and use today and the article we have on them explains that although not abolished they're largely not used but they still exist and the sources reflect this whether or not you agree with it. I'm quite open to wording which treats them as more historical rather than a solid present unit, but you continue to assume a belligerent stance on this and attacking the work of others rather than joining in a constructive conversation. At least half a dozen people at WP:Ireland agree on civil parish and village in one article. Do you really think that everybody is wrong and you're right?

I'll be honest. At times I see light in what you say, and I appreciate some of the work you do here, and with those photos you kindly took. But why can't you remain like that and discuss things with editors rather than treating everything like a battle? Just when I start to think you might be half decent after all you start templating, reverting and acting in a fashion which comes across as hostile and disruptive. Sure you disagree, but there is a way to go about it which is more constructive and respectful of others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

But you are quite often stating that villages/towns are equal to civil parishes, what is clearly not the case. That is the mistake that you and Aymatt2 make all the time. That is also why I complimented Aymatt2 with his edit on Killimer. I agree that you only should make articles about parishes that are useful. I have not found any info about a real Church of Ireland parish Kilmurry Ibrickane, so I will not make an article about it. I will write an article about the Church of Ireland parish Kilfarboy, as I have useful info for that (cemetery still there, Church built in 1802 (IIRC), burnt down in 1922, removed 1970s, new church on glebe-lands outside Milltown Malbay, still there, parish amalgamated into Drumcliffe). It is an absolute mystery to me why you removed the sourced information on Doora to introduce the same old mistake (village = civil parish) once again, only to change the wording later according to the information that I provided. (The present solution with split paragraphs for the civil parish and for the Roman Catholic parish looks rather odd, as you mention the RC parish already under the civil parish. It would be sensible to merge them.)
About being respectful. Do you really think that this rant was respectful towards me? You are acting as a plain bully there, and gave me the idea of a toddler who had just dropped his ice-cream. Sorry, but I have absolutely no respect for that type of behaviour. Nor will I be that historical that I remember edits done half a year ago, something you clearly do with your referral to The Dorchester. What is the use of that? I know that my behaviour is called "curt", but your behaviour has its failing too. I am not the King of Wikipedia, and nor are you. So don't behave like that. The Banner talk 19:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
No. I walked out because I'd have said something to you which would have got me blocked that's why. We were trying to have a conversation and you went and nominated Kilmoon for AFD as we were talking. I was fuming that you did that and took the sensible option of walking away in disgust. What fair minded rational individual with good intent would nominate this for AFD during a discussion? The only person who's coming across childlike in discussions is yourself. Neither Aymatth or myself are claiming "villages are equal to parishes", we're simply saying something of a given name is a village and civil parish which it is and we have sources to back it up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
But a village is not equal to a civil parish. That is factually wrong. But still you have restored it in Doora. You are introducing factual errors. And you are introducing those errors deliberately. Do you really not understand that a village is something else than a parish? Even after all the times that I have tried to explain that to you? The Banner talk 20:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
We didn't say a village is equal to a civil parish. We're saying that there is a village and a civil parish of that same name around it. A big difference. You're impossible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
In [this edit] you state that Doora is a village and civil parish. Not a word about just having the same name. You just suggest that it is the same. That is why I prefer [the edit of Aymatth2 on Killimer], where he states that Killimer is a village in a civil parish of the same name. That is a totally different meaning. And the difference between wrong (Doora) and right (Killimer). The Banner talk 21:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It is sad to see how a congsi undermines the reliability of the encyclopaedia... I accept defeat now Wikipedia is defeated and sacrificed. The Banner talk 21:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The ancient Greeks, after sacrificing an animal to the gods, would avoid wasting the best meats on the animal by... eating them in a great feast at which all would rejoice. (In the rather different case of a libation, the offering was sometimes consumed later, but also sometimes poured directly onto the ground, which made it rather difficult to consume the offering - though I'm sure they kept some spare in the back room for later.) If Wikipedia has now been sacrificed, can I eat the best parts? (Starting with chicken vindaloo.) Thanks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
You will have a week to feast on the spoils of Wikipedia. Maybe more, because with this congsi it will be very difficult to create a reliable encyclopaedia. And with administrators looking just to one side of the show, it is sure that I will have to sit out the week for repairing deliberate introduced factual errors. Sad times. The Banner talk 22:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! What is a "congsi", please?
Note: User:The Banner changed the heading for this section before, which I'm not entirely sure is legitimate. I've re-changed it to some Dire Straits thing; please be aware this is not The Banner's fault. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Could you please restore the original header, Demiurge? I did not change that header, I have put it in to seperate the topic from the section from The Signpost. And altering the edits of some else is, at least, frowned upon. The Banner talk 10:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I've put a neutral one in. Feel free to furtle it as necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong! - Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
There's a protest singer, he's singing a protest song! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not Jezus, as I make occasionally mistakes. But still, a village/town is not identical to a civil parish. The Banner talk 10:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I think if you will agree with me on a few things, it would be beneficial:
  • a) Wikipedia is working on a principle of a consensus on what is correct, not on what is actually correct. That means, if out of 10 interested editors who are working on a certain article, 9 are wrong and 1 is factually right, the position of the 9 editors will be represented in the main space.
The 1 editor may like it or not, but this is how the things are working here, from my observation. If the editor who is factually right, starts to fight with the other 9 editors, especially edit warring, he is on the way to be indefinitely blocked.
What the 1 editor can do in such situation? He may politely approach the interested editors on the proper talk page and explain his points. If they are not accepted, either move on or politely file DRN.
Note, that even though the 1 editor may have the best of intentions and sincerely believes that he is actually correct, he might be actually wrong.
  • b) If you are nominating a certain article towards AfD, you should actually read the guidelines and follow them in a proper manner.
If an article is not NPOV in your opinion, be bold and edit, or use a cleanup template. If an article is not NPOV, it is not a ground for a nomination on AfD.
Please let me know if you would be interested to follow a) and b), and to help to improve the nominated article, including regarding NPOV. If you agree, I will ask for your block to be lifted and hope my request will be granted, and more importantly your interactions with other editors will be more peaceful. Dmatteng (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not in for a trade to benefit your advertising. Out of principle, I prefer to be blocked for a week than allow advertising and spamming. The Banner talk 20:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
How would you benefit me by making sure that the article is NPOV per your opinion beats me. I would also appreciate if you would cease personal attacks. No further replies are necessary. I wish to have no further interactions with you. Thank you. Dmatteng (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I consider a conditional support for an unblock request an insult. I prefer the block than selling out my opinions. The Banner talk 11:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know if you've seen what I posted to AN, but the gist is that if you agree to stop reverting, I'll quite happily unblock you. Is this something you'd like to discuss further? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Stopping with reverting of deliberate introduced mistakes? Are you serious? The Banner talk 17:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
      • It's between not editing at all, and editing without the option of reverting other users. Seems a decent proposal. You can still try to convince others on article talk pages to see it your way. There is no deadline.--v/r - TP 17:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
        • True, there is no deadline. But there is also no deadline to go after the guys who are introducing the mistakes. And realistically: if I agree with the condition, that gang would follow me around everywhere coming up with claims of reverting and breaking the consensus-among-friends all the time. And I don't have a defence against that type of bullying and harassing. That sounds nasty, but that is my personal experience with Blofeld and his gang. And that is why I can not accept a conditional release. Sorry. The Banner talk 17:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
          • It would only be for the duration of the existing block. They can't put you in a worse situation than you're already in. At the very least, you could edit other articles not relating to this block and then they couldn't bother you. But if you choose not to, that's fair enough--v/r - TP 18:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You've said it several times and I'm not sure if you're just using poetic license or if you genuinely think Blofeld has manipulated consensus, so I'll bite. Do you have any evidence that the participants at the wikiproject are anything other than neutral third parties motivated by a desire to improve the encyclopaedia? Or that Blofeld advertised the discussion in a way that would attract only people who agreed with him? If you do, please do present it, but if you don't, pleases top making the claim. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • You blocked me, so you do your own research. But you run the risk of having to go back al the way to September 2013... The Banner talk 18:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
      • That's not how it works: you make the accusation, you bring the diffs or stop making the accusation. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Unless it feels like fishing... The Banner talk 20:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


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 User:The Banner appears to be trying to cause a policy change through precedent. Thank you. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block_Review:_User:The_Banner. Thank you. v/r - TP 22:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_22.
Message added 07:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank to all sweet guys...[edit]

... who have been grave dancing and introducing often absolute nonsense in articles. You have made it loud and clear that you guys don't have a f*****g clue about the parishes. Instead of preventing creation of more articles than necessary, you force me to write those articles to be able to repair the damage. Great work in undermining the reliability of Wikipedia, guys. The Banner talk 12:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Macroom Oatmeal[edit]

Hi! Just thought I'd stop in and start a discussion -- what sounds too much like an advertisement to you? FTR, I have zero connection to this product, and they don't have a web page or marketing campaign from which I could have lifted promotional materials. Thanks for any assistance! valereee (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

See the talk page of the article. The Banner talk 19:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish)[edit]

Nomination of Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To my opinion plain vandalism and a provocation. This is not the way to restore peace and tranquillity, Laurel Lodged. The Banner talk 23:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked[edit]

This is something from which I derive no pleasure whatsoever, but I'm afraid I have blocked you indefinitely. In this case, "indefinite" is explicitly intended to mean 'no fixed duration' rather than 'infinite'. Since your previous block, you have carried on regardless, absolutely refusing to listen to the advice you've been given by concerned editors. You have steadfastly refused to take part in the discussion at WT:Ireland regarding your edits; instead of making your case and civilly trying to persuade other editors of the merits of your point of view, you have continued edit-warring, and your only participation in discussions has been to label other editors' contributions "vandalism" and "nonsense". Wikipedia is a collaborative project governed by consensus, not by any one party's persistence, belligerence, or determination that they are correct (regardless of whether such determination is accurate; something on which I offer no judgement). Purely for the purposes of example, and mainly for the benefit of third parties reviewing this block, I will point to your conduct at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish) (particularly this attack) and the article to which it relates, Kilmurry Ibrickane (Civil parish), where yo made similar attacks in edit summaries while edit-warring. As a gesture of good faith, here are the conditions under which I would unblock you without further discussion:

  1. You agree to a topic ban from articles related to Irish parishes (civil or of any religious denomination), except to make your case for your edits at WT:Ireland;
  2. You conduct yourself properly on talk pages, in a manner consistent with good-faith discussion intended to improve the encyclopaedia;
  3. You refrain from referring to good-faith contributions as "nonsense" or "vandalism"—you can disagree with an edit without attacking the editor;
  4. You refrain from making any further allegations that the members of WikiProject Ireland have conspired with Dr Blofeld against you, unless you make it in an appropriate forum and with credible evidence.

In other areas, you are clearly a constructive editor, so it would be a great shame to lose you, but your conduct in this area has been utterly unacceptable, and entirely destructive to good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopaedia, which is the reason for the bock. The block is indefinite, because I believe you would simply sit out a block of a definite duration and then carry on regardless, as you did last time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My friend, this battle behaviour of Laurel Lodged and Dmatteng was exactly why I refused the conditional release in my prior block. They can provoke but I am the one to get punished...
It is sad that you force me to accept this topic ban (for how long?) as it will harm Wikipedia more than you realize. I hope you have some topic bans for Laurel Lodged too, as he has a clear pattern of edit warring on catholic pages. See User_talk:Laurel_Lodged#You.27ve_been_warned_before_over_edit-warring_over_Catholic_pages. Kilmurry Ibrickane fits nicely in that pattern.
And just a question: is User:The Banner/Workpage17 also off limits during the topic ban? The Banner talk 18:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, you surprised me with this. And I am really disappointed that you hold it against me that I did not wanted to be provoked during a conditional release and therefore refused the offered conditions. Trying to de-escalate backfired... The Banner talk 18:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Banner, if I remember correctly, I think I've provided significant support to you in the past. I have to say, you might want to step back and look at this whole situation from a different perspective. I quite unfortunately have to agree with the substance and reasoning behind this (hopefully very temporary) block. You kinda went renegade on us, and forced people's hands when it should have never got to this point DP 21:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I just get very tired of this. It goes on and on and on. That article about the RC parish is claimed to be a fork of the civil parish, while the article about the RC parish is almost two years older. I live there, I have worked for the parish (short time) and still they know better how it works in County Clare...
I am willing (grudgingly) to accept the topic ban, but at least the provocations should stop (see here).
And for now, I just go to bed and hope that mr. Mitchell comes with a few answers in the morning. The Banner talk 22:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Last remark: I have Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland not on my watchlist. Secondly, there is no discussion going on or has been on on the talkpages of Kilmurry Ibrickane, Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish) or Kilmurry Ibrickane (Civil parish) prior to the merger. No notification at all. The Banner talk 22:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment here but as you've cited "this is going on and on". There is consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish) to place village, civil parish and Roman Catholic parish in the same article. I'm following a clear consensus on this. Nothing controversial about it. If you can't accept that others disagree with you and that wikipedia is a community/consensus driven project then don't edit here. Until you can learn to compromise and agree with others then you're likely to remain blocked. It's entirely in your hands Banner. Kilmurry Ibrickane RC might be older/bigger whatever. Irish editors on here agree it is unfeasible to have separate articles and believe its more convenient for the reader to document the RC and civil parish on one page and if a settlement, a settlement too. That doesn't mean we're creating "nonsense" and introducing errors if we demonstrate sources which prove it is or at least was a civil parish and a RC parish etc. As Laurel explained at WP:Ireland, with intelligent wording you can distinguish between the different types of parishes quite feasibly in one article without it being "nonsense".♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

How clear is that consensus as even Aymatth2 states this: We agree that a village, civil and Catholic parish can all be covered by one article if there is not enough to justify separate articles. They are tiny rural areas. There is no consensus that they must all be covered in one article. This childish squabble is idiotic. Laurel Lodged seems to be against Catholic parishes and The Banner against civil parishes, which reflects badly on both editors. Since the dispute is very visible, moving or merging articles and swapping around the content should only be done after talk page discussion. I would say that Laurel Lodged also deserves some form of censure for doing just that. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC).? Yes, I agree with the point that you should not create articles when you have nothing to say about the subject.
Atmatth2 is wrong on one minor point: I am not against civil parishes. I am against creating articles about civil parishes because there is often no useful content for the article, as it is a mere administrative and/or geographical unit. Giving them own articles is giving them undue weight in most cases.
And as I have stated before, a lot of village are now made equal to civil parishes. Like Inagh, that now states Inagh (...) is a village and civil parish in County Clare, Ireland while a correct form should be Inagh (...) is a village, in the civil parish with the same name, in County Clare, Ireland. Why that is not acceptable is mystery to me.
About Kilmurry Ibrickane, I created the article about the Roman Catholic parish in 2012. You created the article about the civil parish in 2014. That makes it rather strange to accuse me of creating a fork that should be merged.
And it would be nice when you agreed to to the point of compromise instead of things like this. I am not getting historic...
Summarized: I agree with the point that articles about parishes, no matter what type, should only be created when you have sufficient content for it and that creating of forks should be avoided. Villages/towns are not equal to civil parishes, but lie within them.
The Banner talk 09:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Didn't Laurel revert Aymatth on some article? I suspect he may be more displeased with Laurel than you at the moment. The consensus at least to me and I'm sure most people viewing the discussion further up the page at WP:Ireland was crystal clear. You should never have nominated Kilmoon for deletion at the best of times let alone during a heated discussion. It's perfectly encyclopedic and appropriate. You nominated it for deletion just as I thought we were coming to a compromise. Things should never have come to this if you'd stopped dismissing good faith edits as nonsense and been more willing to discuss rather than revert.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
And you should never have created Kilmurry Ibrickane (village) and Kilmurry Ibrickane (Civil parish). Just forks from the article about the Roman Catholic parish Kilmurry Ibrickane...
A compromise like the one I suggested for Inagh could do the trick perfectly well. Mentions the different parishes and gives room to linking or not linking. Could you agree on that, Dr. Blofeld? The Banner talk 13:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Inagh as it stands looks very good and I'm content with that layout which makes it very clear to avoid confusion so yes, I'm content with that, the question is, are you?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice when User:HJ Mitchell finally comes with an explanation of what he has in mind with the topic ban or that he brings it properly to AN/I for discussion. Now it just hanging in the air. As with my quote of user:Aymatth2, the consensus is not as clear as claimed. The Banner talk 07:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll comment here, but only briefly. You still don't get it. Your conduct is the reason for this block, not anything else. You can argue about the content til the cows come home, but not with the sort of battleground mentality with which you have approached the dispute so far. It is not acceptable to edit-war or insult other editors or to take the same dispute from one article to the next, especially when you do so without trying to convince anybody in the discussion at the wikiproject. I don't want to see you blocked, but you can't just carry on regardless. Until you've understood that, the risk of continued disruption is too great, in my opinion, for you to be unblocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I can argue till the cows come home. And you just not willing to listen or inform yourself. You come up with herrings of a conditional unblock and withdraw them. I am powerless against your unwillingness and one-sidedness. Too bad, my work end here. Be happy with it. The Banner talk 20:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Banner, above you essentially said you would decline any conditions, now you want some...which is it? How about this, propose something that's WP:GAB-compliant, and will prevent you from getting a) tied up in similar messes and b) blocked again. We'll discuss. I'm not saying you get to set your own limits, I'm suggesting you propose something that will keep you sane, and that we can all agree on DP 20:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It sound strange but for the earlier block I refused the conditions because I was afraid that provocation would lead to an indiscretion followed by a much longer block. That and that alone is why I refused that conditional unblock. In this case, Mitchell came again with the option of a conditional unblock, but totally unclear what the scope would be of the topic ban and what the length of it would be. We did not come any further than that. We never came as far as discussing the other conditions. I have already said that I am willing to accept a topic ban, but only when I know the terms and conditions. Asking me to swim is one thing, but there is a difference in swimming an Olympic swimming pool and the Atlantic Ocean. The Banner talk 21:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
More to the point: what is an article about a parish? Is that an article "Foo (Foo parish)" or is it already like Inagh starting with the sentence "Inagh (Irish: Eidhneach, meaning "ivy in irish") is a village and civil parish in County Clare, Ireland."? The geographical extent does not matter much. Due to my own limitations in interest, time and knowledge, it does not matter when the ban is for County Clare or nationwide. I don't edit much on Irish subjects outside of Co. Clare (with the notable exception of Michelin restaurants). The Banner talk 21:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You're not instilling me with confidence that you're not just going to jump straight back into the same arguments. In fact the wikilawyering over the definition of "parish" makes me inclined to think you're deliberately missing the point, so I won't comment here further until you're willing to have a sensible conversation about how your conduct has been disruptive and how you can avoid causing further disruption once you're unblocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I just want to know what you understand under an article about a parish to avoid falling foul of the topic ban because we have different opinions about the subject. It is just for clarity. With all respect, I would not consider an article like Inagh an article about a parish. Perhaps you do. You come up with the suggestion of the topic ban, so you are the one setting the definition. Please be clear in what you want from me in relation to the topic ban. The Banner talk 22:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind when you define "Irish parishes (civil or of any religious denomination)" as "any article with the word parish in it" but at least I know what you want. The Banner talk 22:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Anything about a parish. That could include Tobago or New Orleans. It doesn't have to be only an article called Foo Parish, it can be "Foo is a parish in Fooville". This is just common sense, and you're smart enough to not push the envelope even if there was doubt DP 00:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. This is clear now. The Banner talk 00:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
But don't worry, you'd be allowed to edit Larry Parrish :-) DP 08:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I am far more concerned about the Gaelic Athletic Association and its clubs, as their catchment area is usually equal to that of a RC parish and nearly always plays under the spiritual leadership of the parish priest. smile The Banner talk 09:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
For what period will the topic ban be? The Banner talk 08:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps annoying but out of principle I never sign a contract without knowing all the details, User:HJ Mitchell. So please, could you give an answer on this question? The Banner talk 09:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Although you're really in no position to "negotiate", topic bans are usually indefinite, with the ability to appeal for modifications after 6 months DP 10:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not negotiating (I am not in the position for that) but I like to have the conditions clear before I sign up for them... The Banner talk 12:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The topic ban would be in lieu of the block, an so it would last until you can convince me that it's no loner needed to prevent disruption, or I'm overruled by the consensus of uninvolved editors at AN. A word to the wise: you're not doing a very good job of the former. Now, fair enough, I blocked you—you get to be pissed of at me. I won't hold that against you, certainly not while you're still blocked, but I do think you need to mellow a little. I know it's easier said than done, but I think you take things a little too personally; sometimes it's hard not to (take my response to TParis regarding your last block, for example—I can't claim to be perfect), but we have to try not to let things get under or skin. I want you to be a productive and hopefully happy Wikipedian, but at the moment, I'm just seeing an angry Wikipedian who's itching to get back into the same old rows and wear their opponents down to the point of submission. Anyway, you can disregard everything after the first sentence if you want; it's offered for whatever it's worth. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Angry, sad and disappointment is my current mood. It is hard to swallow not to be able to correct plain mistakes. It makes me sad and disappointed that reliability is not any longer a core value of Wikipedia. It is sad not to be able to write about villages and towns all around me due to those mistakes. It is sad to walk away from possible problems, and than get it held against you.
But there is more on earth than parishes, hamlets, villages and towns in County Clare. And I can and will be useful in that area. That is to say, when I get a green light. Let us wait till after Easter... The Banner talk 17:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
And to be true, I was deeply troubled by this discussion: User talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive 80#The Banner disruptive editing. The Banner talk 08:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Made a start with removing articles about hamlets/villages/towns assigned to be civil parishes from my watch list. Also kicked a few very bad articles of my watch list as correcting them would land me into hot water. It is better for my anger and frustration levels not to see what is happening there. I will check my watch list later what has to be removed too. The Banner talk 09:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Dr Blofeld: I have the right to disagree with the article that states "Foo is a hamlet/village/town and a civil parish of the same name" as the correct form would be "Foo is a hamlet/village/town in the civil parish of the same name". But I accept that for the foreseeable future that text will be there. And it is just for my own mood that I remove those article from my watch list. Not seeing it means not be tempted to change it. It is one of the steps I have taken to defuse the conflict. I hope you do not mind that I walk away from those articles. The Banner talk 10:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Now we are cleaning up, I like to ask the attention for two other potential explosive cases:

  1. UE Boom, an article that is in my opinion advertising or at least promotional. The AfD-discussion makes clear that the article needs work to make it less promotional but [2] removing the maintenance tags and placing offensive and insulting summaries. Questions have been raised by others about a co-worker and a possible COI.
  2. Ascension Parish Burial Ground, where a dispute is going on about the importance of a section about the Darwin-family. To my opinion, addition of that part to the lead gives undue weight to the Darwin-family in that article so I move it to a trivia section. An IP-moving editor and a recently awakened editor disagree with that and judge it important.

I am not waiting for accidents to happen, so I want your opinion about it to get it out of the way. The Banner talk 09:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC) I am aware that I can be a hothead.

Mr. Dmatteng, could you please stop your campaign to get me blocked forever? The series of personal attacks and insults is not really helpful to restore peace and order. The Banner talk 22:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and canvassing for help is not a good idea either. The Banner talk 10:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Right, Dmatteng (and Blofeld), leave him alone. Unwatch this page and go and find something else to do for a few days, please. Banner, may respectfully suggest you take a few days off to cool down? Perhaps have an early start to the long weekend and come back next week refreshed and we'll talk. You're none of you going to defuse the conflict like this—you need to disengage and give each other space. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • And that was exactly what I had in mind. The Banner talk 17:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

Redirects for discussion[edit]

There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Interested, yes. But I am unable to respond there. I have to say, fair play to you that you notify me of this while you know that I am highly critical of this type of redirects. There are Springs Cleans everywhere now, maybe you should organize your own Spring Clean... The Banner talk 07:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New Visiting Scholar positions
  • TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
  • Australian articles get a link to librarians
  • Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)