User talk:Marrakech

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock Alley

I have reverted your edit on Peacock Alley as the discussion was not yet closed. Archiving is not the same as concluding, you should know that. So I have restored the discussion on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language for further talks. The Banner talk 08:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it's not about you

A disciplinary discussion in which you may become involved, or may wish to comment, is at WP:ANI here regarding possible disciplinary action against User:The Banner for edit warring at Peacock Alley (restaurant). Akld guy (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop following me around

You think that you are correcting things, but "defunct restaurant" is correct English. Following me around will cause you trouble. The Banner talk 19:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, The Banner. "X is a defunct restaurant'" is an awkward way of saying that restaurant X does no longer exist. Just like "The Café de Paris is a defunct bar on Via Veneto in Rome" would be very awkward. So please don't stonewall corrections to your articles. Marrakech (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And again you state that it is just a matter of taste. My warning about following me around is a serious one. Do not play games. The Banner talk 20:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a game, and neither is it a matter of taste. This is about using perfectly normal and natural language (X was a restaurant') instead of the very awkward phrasing 'X is a defunct restaurant'. See this discussion for some background. Marrakech (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a guy with no serious history of editing on the English language, suddenly editing articles that I have edited today. The Banner talk 20:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice when you stop following me around. Your sudden appearance on Beaulieu, Doorwerth Castle, less then an hour after I had edited, really gives the impression of stalking.The Banner talk 21:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pot and the kettle. Anyway, I would gladly have a bot correct the remaining 'defunct' phrases in the restaurant articles you wrote, but I don't know how or where to file a request. Marrakech (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 1400 articles with that phrase, slightly more than the restaurant articles I have written. Do you really want to see al the opposition? But you only target "my" articles for your stuff. The Banner talk 22:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, I count no more than a total of 80 instances of the 'is a defunct restaurant' phrase, which was the subject of this request for comment. Correcting the particular wording in all the relevant articles is a bit of a chore, which is why it takes me some time to finish the job. Marrakech (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider "is a defunct restaurant" wrong why should any other instance of "is a defunct" be correct? The Banner talk 09:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a non sequitur, The Banner, and I for one never said that. It all depends on the context, and in the context of 'your' restaurant articles the phrase is clearly wrong or in any case extremely awkward (an opinion shared by an overwhelming majority of the users who participated in the request for comment referred to above). Anyway, we have been over this before and I do feel there is no point in going round in circles over and over again. Marrakech (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And in your context it is wrong when I used that phrase, not when somebody else does that. The Banner talk 10:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. Marrakech (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

You are not the one to close that RfC. Usually, it is run for a month. And it must be closed by an 'uninvolved editor, not by the one starting the RfC. The Banner talk 10:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#DEADNAME

Read it. It doesn't matter whether the person in question is a rapist/murderer or not, nor is it disrepsectful to the victim to include their current name. Your behaviour is risking a block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look who's talking. And it actually does matter. Marrakech (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing and pov pushing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Truly chilling. Imagine me getting indefinitely banned from a theocratic society where strict blasphemy laws are in place for simply voicing the opinion that God doesn't exist, among other reasons because the authorities consider my opinion to be extremely divisive and 'theophobic', as well as deeply hurtful for those who do believe in God. I am sure you, Isabelle Belato, and all the other people who feverishly defended blocking me, would be outraged at such a measure, possibly even calling on Amnesty International to take urgent action. Yet you don't see any problem in blocking me indefinitely from Wikipedia for expressing a similar opinion, i.e for not believing that a man who raped and killed an innocent woman actually was himself a woman while committing those heinous deeds. And you resort to the same age-old arguments to blatantly trample on my basic right to free expression, claiming that the alleged hatefulness ('transphobia!') of my opinion fully justifies banning me from the wikipedian society.

The moral of this comparison: though you most probably are a firm believer in democracy and free speech and all, in reality there is no difference between you and theocratic authoritarians whom no doubt you would despise for their draconian and anti-democratic actions.

Let's see if you at least have the decency to respect this contribution of mine on my own talk page. Marrakech (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]