User talk:The Banner

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

Archives (Index)

2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

December 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ubuntu (operating system). 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. Codename Lisa (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

My goodness, do you really fail to see what is going on? The Banner talk 13:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not: I see that you have a perfectly legitimate concern but you are resorting to the wrong methods of edit warring and retaliatory deletion discussion to mitigate said concern. This is very wrong. Edit warring and retaliatory AfDs are worse than COI.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it was not a retaliatory deletion discussion that I started. I was a second nomination because the author/founder/owner of the company reverted the article back to the situation of the first AfD. He plain ignores the outcome of the first AfD and is protected by everyone. This is plain throwing Wikipedia to the dogs/marketeers! The Banner talk 13:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Talking about retaliating: accusation of vandalism. That is the guy you are protecting... The Banner talk 15:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What I am protecting is Ubuntu (operating system). All interactions between you two have been non-collegial from the very beginning, but a non-collegial behavior does not justify reciprocating it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

We will see, a sockpuppet investigation is filed. The Banner talk 21:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you look at that... Everyone is giving you warnings about your edit wars (not just on this article) but you keep at it... And you keep losing these wars. Perhaps you should take everyone's advice and stop it, that's not the proper way to edit Wikipedia. Learning how to cooperate with others isn't so tough now is it? DSNR (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, but we will see what the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation is. And you better watch out with that COI-warning. That could land you, after a procedure, a topic ban on everything related to WeWi and Sol (laptop). Your choice... The Banner talk 22:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...It looks to me like you've received enough warnings yourself from editors here... On other pages and other edit wars... Some reality check is prescribed for you DSNR (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

/me keeps mirror up. You can't bluff me away, mate. That just does not work with me. The Banner talk 23:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you have had enough warnings now with this sockpuppetry block. I hope you will now understand that advertising and promotion is not allowed and that you should stay a neutral facts, described in a neutral way. The Banner talk 04:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Nizamani

Hello, I was going through my clan information page "Nizamani" and found out that you have removed all information associated with the page on 15:36, 5 August 2013. May I know the reason for doing so? --Asifniz (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced, non-neutral and poorly written information. It looked like original research. The Banner talk 13:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Well the things written in the article are all historical events dating back to 17th century, how do you expect me to get documented sources from that era? I belong to Nizamani community and I know all these events as true, the society at the time didn't work on written records and as there were no "White" people in our region at that time so there was no 3rd party to keep a record. All the information has been passed from generations to generations. And since when has Wikipedia decided to act as Big Brother? Does Wikipedia claim to know each and every article that is written here, the whole point of Wikipedia was user/community driven article writing and editing. So only a person from my community will know if the information is correct or not, not someone living thousands of miles away who has not even heard of my community/clan. Regards --Asifniz (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

My advice: don't write in a language that is not the language spoken at home. People thousands of miles away might think differently and have other rules than your community has. Perhaps it is better to write your article for a Wikipedia-version that suits you better than the English-language Wikipedia. The Banner talk 11:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I can improve the English and writing style, but what about the references? I'm sure even after improving the English the article will be up for removal because of lack of reference. Wikipedia needs to realize that references are not always available. By the way are you an official editor at Wikipedia? --Asifniz (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, authors have to understand that only sourced information can get a place on Wikipedia. And those sources must be published before (in print or on the internet). The the sources must be in reliable sources. Not on Facebook, YouTube or other social media. Sources in English are preferred, but not mandatory. The Banner talk 21:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

• WikiProject report: Babel Series: Tunisia on the French Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Hopper to the top

• Discussion report: Usernames, template data and documentation, Main page, and more

• News and notes: Nine new arbitrators announced

• Featured content: Triangulum, the most boring constellation in the universe

• Technology report: Introducing the GLAMWikiToolset

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Mononomic's talk page.
Message added 03:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Mono·nomic 03:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Dear Banner, This is Shravani Gupta, i have edited the CII - Sohrabji Godrej Green Business Centre wiki page. That has been earlier deleted by one person and i have re-written 3 times in non-promtional format with proper references. I am very upset that in-spite of effort in writing non-promotional format it has been deleted, that too a speedy deletion by you. I would be glad if you could ellaborate the reason, before you delete. As the content which i have written last time was one paragraph of 4-5 sentences. Looking forward for your reply.

Regards, ShravaniguptaShravanigupta (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong, every time again it was plain and clear advertising. No neutral description. The Banner talk 09:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

You are starting to edit war again[1][2] over your interpretation of this bot function. I shouldn't have to remind you, but you have no policy basis for your edits and seem to be getting simply tendentious here. I get it, you and I disagree over some point and you want to come in and remove links from articles I've been editing. If you have some policy or behavior dispute you are supposed to handle that through discussion in the appropriate forum, not edit warring. But frankly, it is hard to see what your WP:POINT is here. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

My point is that you are wrong and disrespecting a decision of the community to the point of POV-pushing. Finally accept that decision or fight it through the proper channels instead of permanent starting to edit war over it. Sneaky tricks to get the link back in will not work. The Banner talk 19:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You are continuing to edit war after a caution, yet again, and are technically at WP:3RR on two articles at this point[3][4] and making accusations of bad faith. I see you're having similar interaction difficulties with other editors when you disagree with them over content. You do not speak for the community anymore than I do, and in this case you happen to be wrong. You need to take a step back from self-appointed wiki cop role, it is toxic behavior and goes against more or less every editing policy the encyclopedia stands for. I'll give you some time to think about it, and restore these references again at some point. Don't make me have to warn you again. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

And you continue to bluntly and deliberately ignore a community decision that you just don't like while refusing to to work through the proper channels to get that blacklisting lifted. So you are breaching WP:SPAM by sneaky putting the link back in and you do it time and time again.

And let me make it clear: next time you breach WP:SPAM by sneaky moving the links in, I will remove them again. There were enough prior discussion (and other people) in which you were told not to edit war but request removal of the link from the blacklist. If you refuse to use the proper channels, don't complain about removals. You should change your (as you call it) "toxic behavior" and comply to the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. The Banner talk 20:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, very toxic. Can you please at least try to work with me (and other editors, apparently) in a respectful way? You don't speak for the community or Wikipedia policy anymore than me or any of the other people you're arguing with, and they happen to be in the right from time to time, so edit warring and calling people names is uncalled for. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I do! I show you all the respect you show to me and others. The Banner talk 13:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

And you can keep on going calling it "toxic behaviour", but it is you who refuses the adhere to the rules. Your petty little tricks of nowiki and invisible templates just to get your POV instated won't work at all. The Banner talk 14:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cuisine of Turkey

Please join the discussion on the talk page. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Radchenko

Would you please care to clarify what exactly your problem is with that page? The urban-type settlement link is compliant with WP:NC:CITY#Russia (see bullet 3) and WP:DABRL (a backlink is provided), and the platform link does not belong at all per WP:DABRL—there is no article linking to it. And lack of descriptions makes the links completely useless. What gives?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 26, 2013; 18:29 (UTC)

I've also responded at Talk:Radchenko.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 26, 2013; 18:32 (UTC)

Just stop the edit warring over it. When you read your own links, you will see that "my links" are completely compliant. And please bear in mind the existing of links to the places from other places, like templates. See for an example: Links to Radchenko, Leningrad Oblast The Banner talk 18:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I've clarified at Talk:Radchenko. Let's continue there.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 26, 2013; 18:37 (UTC)

Todrick Hall and (COI)

Sorry, I am just confused (Not COI), as to why pages such as AJ_Rafael, Andrew_Garcia, Traphik, Katie_Stevens, Scott_MacIntyre, Syesha_Mercado and many, many others are notable and not this artist? And I am concerned about the nature of assistance with the article. Based on some of the other editing done by some of the other editors, it seems a bit biased. I would like further help in making the article creditable and notable by wikipedia standards.

Respectfully, Csmcgrier2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csmcgrier2 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know all the other persons. Due to an excessive list of links to disambiguation pages I came across the article Todrick Hall. It is written like an advertisement and it severely looks like you are promoting a client (or at least you have too close a relationship to the subject). That is why I put on the COI-tag. And another advice:social media are not considered to be reliable sources as described in WP:RS. So, info from YouTube, Facebook, Vimeo, Twitter, Linkedin and a lot of others are no suitable sources. The Banner talk 22:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not promoting a client not a personal relationship, I simply used other wiki articles to make this article based on legitimacy. Whether I think it's fair or not to ignore the notability of the other names you do not know is now unimportant. The Youtube aren't sources, they are reference material which doesn't make or break the notability of this person and can be removed. And, I did not use any of those other outlets you stated. And I still am asking for further help because if it sounds like an advertisement, I would like to fix it and contribute to many other articles. A COI code reads as accusation that is either unintentional or misunderstood or both. But if I cannot be assisted, I'd rather the article be removed since wiki guidelines does not find this person notable. ----

Jim Gordon

Doris Hawrelluk (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)I was in the chat room and it was suggested that I email you asking if you are satisfied with the references I have setup for the article Jim Gordon (politician)

Doris Hawrelluk

To be true. NO. Not by far.

And what chat room are you referring to? The Banner talk 17:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

• Recent research: Cross-language editors, election predictions, vandalism experiments

• Featured content: Drunken birds and treasonous kings

• Discussion report: Draft namespace, VisualEditor meetings

• WikiProject report: More Great WikiProject Logos

• News and notes: IEG round 2 funding rewards diverse ambitions

• Technology report: OAuth: future of user designed tools

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Chessington World of Adventures Resort

Thank you for pointing out that my information on the Chessington Hotel reads like an advertisement, could you please find a way to incorporate the same general facts but in a less promotional way if possible as I feel the current section is rather naff. I have tried again to re write it be again unsuccessful in my task of creating a neutral section on the hotel. Thank you for your help.

|BenBowser —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Most simple option: leave it out. It is not encyclopaedic info at all. Are you working for the company? The Banner talk 14:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply

In response to your message, I feel that keeping the opening times and hotel info is in no way promotional. I mean this is ridiculous, anything I add to the page, instead of correcting it to a better way (of which i have already asked) you are just removing it and practically stripping the article of any use at all. One other thing, why the hell would you even suggest that I am involved with the park, surely you can realise that if I really was trying to promote it I would say things like: "The chessington hotel has 150 amazing rooms with spectacular views across the reserve." As well as things like "Chessington World of Adventures Resort consists of a fabulous themed park with over 40 rides and attractions, a world class zoo with many exotic species and a massive African themed hotel providing everything you need for a short break". The way you treat my information is totally ridiculous, you make it appear as though I'm some sort of park repsentative, when I am purely someone who knows quite a bit about the attraction and wants to document this information to help people research about it without needing to visit the resort. I hope you now see that my information is valid and that we can work together now. Many thanks.

BenBowser —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No need to add it at all. If someone wants to visit the park, they can get the information on the website of the park. No need to dump it here. The Banner talk 14:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

HI Banner, everyone appreciates you trying to protect Wiki from COI, but may I kindly remind you not to bite the Wikipuppies (I'm assuming the new tag on Chessington is directed at BenBowser). WikiPuppies are our most precious resource, especially when eager to learn and good at accepting consensus, and I'd like to keep this one around. He does the research I'm too lazy to do, and I've seen no evidence of COI-pushing except an inability to screen out PRish verbiage when searching for facts (which, when I have the time, I'm willing to fix for him). He'll improve quickly, but the more specific you can be with advice to him the better. Earflaps (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

By now he should have gotten the message about advertising. But since he came on board, he worked mostly on Chessington. (I had to take a close look to see that he wasn't a SPA) If he isn't a staff member of Chessington, he certainly is a good imitation. The Banner talk 20:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I tend to nominate his new article ZUFARI: Ride into Africa for deletion as advertising. This is almost a step by step guide through the tour. The Banner talk 20:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your behavior comes off as extremely aggressive. You've barely interacted with BenBowser and yet you've ignored his point of view entirely, and you are defining advertising by your personal standards. I've noticed BenBowser imitates what he sees on other theme park pages, like any normal Wikipedian, and there is no crime in starting your career as an editor with a particular focus. Earflaps (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Call it what you want, but I don't have much mercy with people who are advertising. When you want to be his coach, fine. But act quickly to change his ways. The Banner talk 23:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If BenBowser (while being bold as all Wikipedians are instructed) makes future edits you disagree with, surely you can spare the time to non-aggressively explain your perspective to him, or open a talk page conversation for group consensus, instead of threats or tags. Earflaps (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Being soft on spammers is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. But for the next couple of days I leave him to your mercy and advice, assuming that you act like his coach. The Banner talk 00:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And if I don't have the time to babysit this week, you what. Ban? If you attempt to do so, I at least request you bring other editors in for a second opinion, instead of going vigilante wikicop. Maybe others won't be so eager to ignore agf. Earflaps (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Banning will never be single-handedly my decision. And your remark about ignoring AGF is entirely yours, but it sounds like a threat... The Banner talk 00:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Zufari: Ride into Africa page

Hi The Banner

Having recived your message I will start to adjust the page to a more encyclopaedic way. A lot of those facts such as no animal print clothing I did not put on the page and think it is irrelevant as well. I will start working on the page ASAP. Thanks

--BenBowser (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Zufari page finished?

I have finished updating the Zufari: Ride into Africa page to what I think you want. Could you please tell me if you are happy with it and if not why. Thanks

--BenBowser (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Why So Harsh?

It has ocurred to be since you have started helping myself and Earflaps on the Chessington page that you are constantly abusing me. In your reply to the zufari issues there was absolutely no need to be rude and say that 100% of rides involve disembarking, i was purely stating in a less boring way that you leave the ride. Could you please state what position of authority you are coming from as i find your edits unnecessary and down right rude. Saying that my edits are 'Plain Advertising' and 'Spamming' is totally unnecessary. Many thanks, hoping you are well.

--BenBowser (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can call it harsh or very strict. But I hope you learn from it. Wikipedia is not easy sometimes. User:Foxj/Virtual classroom might be useful. The Banner talk 18:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

When you have trouble with writing "boring", something is wrong. An encyclopaedia is not for fun or excitement. An encyclopaedia is for transferring knowledge about notable subjects between authors/Wikipedians and readers. The Banner talk 19:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, let me re-phrase it then seeing and you can't do that yourself, in plain english I meant it to be written in a more imaginative way. Does that please you? Many thanks and kind regards. --BenBowser (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No, see Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Information style and tone. It has nothing to do with what I want, it is about what the encyclopaedia needs. The Banner talk 21:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, i shall now work towards these standards, this will help me a lot with my editing. Although you still haven't answered one of my first questions. Thank you --BenBowser (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what question? The Banner talk 22:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have mentioned it, this question: "Could you please state what position of authority you are coming from as i find your edits unnecessary and down right rude" thanks. Many Regards --BenBowser (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The nasty answer is: Everybody on Wikipedia has the right to work on every article. The only "authority" (I hate that word) I have, is the "authority" of experience (although I really overlooked the fact that you are a relative newbie). The Banner talk 15:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

• Traffic report: A year stuck in traffic

• Arbitration report: Examining the Committee's year

• In the media: Does Wikipedia need a medical disclaimer?

• Book review: Common Knowledge: An Ethnography of Wikipedia

• News and notes: The year in review

• Discussion report: Article incubator, dates and fractions, medical disclaimer

• WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Fifth Edition

• Featured content: 2013—the trends

• Technology report: Looking back on 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Move Like This

Hey Banner, you're pretty active on the Dutch wiki, and your Dutch is much better than mine. I started translating this article (don't know why), and could use some help: sommige van de sjablonen vertalen niet goed, en na 18 jaar in de VS is mijn Nederlands een beetje houterig geworden... Bedankt, Drmies (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Not "Promotional"

Material on Underwood International College not promotional. Proper citation is given with factual point of view. Thank you. Maintenance Template removed because problems have been resolved. Article is not like advertisment, nor is major editor having a close connection to subject. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xunwei (talk • contribs) 22:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of the info you gave is completely irrelevant. The only use is promotion. See your own talkpage for an explanation. The Banner talk 23:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cryptocurrency

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cryptocurrency. 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) 00:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

• Public Domain Day: Why the year 2019 is so significant

• Traffic report: Tragedy and television

• Technology report: Gearing up for the Architecture Summit

• News and notes: WMF employee forced out over "paid advocacy editing"

• Op-ed: WikiCup competition beginning a new year

• WikiProject report: Jumping into the television universe

• Featured content: A portal to the wonderful world of technology

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: OSN

For stop spamming list, please request protection page here. Thanks. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope he/she got the message now... The Banner talk 13:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Georgism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgism. 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) 00:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

Books & Bytes

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%

Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC

New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers

Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors

Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration

Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

...Read Books & Bytes!

Not my intention

Per Se in New York City has three Michelin stars, and is rated at or near the top of multiple Zagat lists.

Noma in Copenhagen, Denmark rated 2 stars in the Michelin guide, and named Best Restaurant in the World by Restaurant.

But that was only the description of the file. See here for ex. Noma (restaurant). Noma is a two Michelin star restaurant run ... They state that it had two stars in the article also. Or - in that case this is spam too... Hafspajen (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your photos at Restaurant look indeed spammy too, can you reduce the number? What I reverted was restaurant rating. A pictures of a dining room is by far not relevant for an article about a rating. The Banner talk 22:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• But I really don't care for spamming. You missunderstand me. I just tried to make the article cosy, nice and good looking instead of austere, like it was. What do you mean by "spammy", so I will try to understand what you mean, right? Hafspajen (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

And you misunderstood the purpose of WikipediaWhen photos distract from the information, they should be removed. Making an article "look nice" can hamper the primary purpose. The Banner talk 22:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• That is exactly what I mean by those pictures, to : to convey information. I did not missunderstod that one. Wait a minute, you have to mean this one: these two pics were in the article before I started editing. I would be happy to remove those. But images do add encycklopedic value to the article, and if you are more at the austere way of editing, that is just a difference of taste, not a policy ->Consensus about image. Hafspajen (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• You fail in that. They are not adding information, they are distracting. They offer no useful information to the article Restaurant or Restaurant rating as they were not relevant. Your picture of Noma is useful for the article Noma, but not for Restaurant of Restaurant rating. There they are just clutter. Articles should be austere, to aid them in transferring the information. The Banner talk 22:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)