User talk:Banana Republic

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

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Banana Republic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  BlankVerse 22:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Cerritos City Image[edit]

Please discuss your opinions on the Cerritos, California talk page. AManSac 07:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the talk page one more time, please. AManSac 07:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Publicdefender99[edit]

I have moved your report to WP:AN/I (should be near the bottom, here unless someone has renamed it)--Konst.able 07:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR[edit]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Shelley Sekula-Gibbs. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Strothra 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

April 2019[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Boeing 737 MAX; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  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 and 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. Afootpluto (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Use the talk page at Allison Mack. Don't just edit war to force in your version. I see that this is the second such notice you've gotten just today. Continue to edit war, and you will find yourself blocked. Grandpallama (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop removing this material without initiating a talkpage discussion to gain consensus to do so. Grandpallama (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Grandpallama (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Wikipelli. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to 33rd parallel north— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Wikipelli Talk 00:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Why did it appear to be vandalism? Banana Republic (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
My apologies. Looking it over, there's no reason to call it vandalism. Too quick on the trigger. :) Cheers... --Wikipelli Talk 00:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank You for Your Hard Work![edit]

Building10VirginiaBeachMunicipalCenter.jpg Current Events Ninja
Thank you for contributing to such as a sensitive topic like you did for the Virginia Beach shooting. <3 Snowycats (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement. Much appreciated. Banana Republic (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Dimsar01. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to [1]. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Any further questions in the form of interrogation will be reported to the Administrators' noticeboard. Thank you.Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 17:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I find it unfortunate that you think my attempts to talk to you are harassing you. I am trying to figure out what are your motivations, since your edit warring has led to the article Eurovision Song Contest 2020 to be protected for a month. I have requested that the page be unprotected, with a warning to you that if you choose to re-engage in edit warring, you ought to be blocked. Your edits do not show me that you are acting good faith. Banana Republic (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 17:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FYI to readers: The result (a WP:BOOMERANG) is recorded in ANI Archive 1011. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Invitation![edit]

WikiProject Eurovision invitation for Banana Republic!

Wiki Eurovision Heart (Infobox).svg

Hello, I've noticed that you contributed to an article within our project's scope, and would like to formally invite you to join our team of editors at WikiProject Eurovision, a WikiProject dedicated to the Eurovision family of events. If you would like to join, then please add your name to this list and add the project talk page to your watchlist.
You may also wish to receive our Project's newsletter; if so then please add your name to the mailing list.

Thanks and have a nice day! Grk1011 (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


Disambiguation link notification for July 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dong Maeng, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patrick Shanahan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Milk N Cooks[edit]

Notice

The article Milk N Cooks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I don't think this meets notability criteria with only one article about the duo in a reliable source, and the other is not even relevant to their music. Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ... discospinster talk 18:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added a reference and contested your PROD. Banana Republic (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Milk N Cooks for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Milk N Cooks 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/Milk N Cooks until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. ... discospinster talk 18:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of host cities of the Eurovision Song Contest, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought it was different content that I was restoring. Banana Republic (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis 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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

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.
One more revert will likely result in a personal sanction--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Proper use of edit summaries[edit]

Hi Banana Republic,

really not impressed by your sarcastic, snide tone in this edit summary. Quote: "Are we going to also talk about the size of his dick?".

I'd direct you to review WP:SUMMARYNO and WP:ESDONTS.

I'll also say that I'm not particularly impressed by the aggressive tone you're taking generally in that article deletion discussion. Perhaps you might consider stepping away for a bit. Oska (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  • really not impressed by your sarcastic, snide tone in this edit summary
    • It was my way to express my frustration that the discussion has devolved into font size. The size of the font on the cover of the book matters about as much as the size of his dick.
  • I'll also say that I'm not particularly impressed by the aggressive tone you're taking generally in that article deletion discussion.
    • I don't know what you're talking about. Can you cite examples of how I have "not particularly impressed" you? Banana Republic (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
      • To be fair to Banana Republic, I am being called a Dick in the AfD discussion right upfront by a different editor. BabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm not seeing anybody calling you any name. Can you provide a diff? Banana Republic (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom note[edit]

I strongly encourage you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations as well as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:OUTING, among others. Not all that is in the news belongs on Wikipedia (there's also such a thing as fake news). The Haaretz article contains many factual errors as well as information that can be seen as harassing some editors; it is de facto a revenge piece by an editor banned for harassment. The incident is unlikely to warrant mention on Wikipedia; and at the very least I recommend using a version of the article that does not contain some of the red glags (like editor names, links to trolling websites with death threats, etc.). Instead of Haaretz piece, consider using [2] for example. It will solve at least some of the problems with this poorly written story. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be throwing around a whole lot of bogus arguments. See my response at Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia. While your arguments in the Warsaw concentration camp can be taken as being made in good faith, your piling on of bogus WP policy violations at Reliability of Wikipedia make me suspect that you may be agenda driven. Banana Republic (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Good[edit]

point; thanks for the edit. WBGconverse 15:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

this edit? Banana Republic (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Yep. WBGconverse 16:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

standard note[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis 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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

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.

October 2019[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Young Sheldon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. AussieLegend () 05:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Just to clarify, you've actually made 4 reverts already and so have violated 3RR. The purpose of this note is to let you know so you don't make any more reverts that would likely result in a WP:AN3 report. --AussieLegend () 05:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I made a ton of edits. Some of them were reverts, but I quite sure that I did not revert the same thing 4 times. Banana Republic (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
      • You don't need to revert the same thing. Per WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." --AussieLegend () 05:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
        • What do you count as a revert? Perhaps you miscounted? I hope you don't count removing {{cn}} tags after placing citation as a revert. Banana Republic (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Also per WP:3RR, a revert is any edit "that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." The reverts that you made are:
            1. 00:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC) The episode summary is only 155 words. The notes cannot be moved to the prose. They are specific to this episode, which was unique, as it coincided with the series finale of the parent series
            2. 01:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Per WP:STATUSQUO, leave the note in the article until we get a consensus to remove. There was a discussion in the talkpage how to acknowledge that the series takes place in 1990
            3. 02:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Tweak wording to avoid WP:SYNTH
            4. 03:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Please reread the reference. It DOES mention the Nobel Prize winners by name --AussieLegend () 05:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
            • Your third item is not a revert. Banana Republic (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
              • I'm afraid that it does qualify as a revert. You added two sources here. Neither reference explicitly supports the claim. The combination of those sources to support the claim is classic WP:SYNTH. The sources were removed in this subsequent edit. You reverted the removal of those sources in #3. --AussieLegend () 06:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
                • I disagree that it's a revert. I accepted that the original wording may have violated WP:SYNTH, and rewrote to what I believed was free of WP:SYNTH. Banana Republic (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
                  • You added the sources, the sources were removed, you restored the sources. That's a clear revert. The wording changes aren't the problem. The problem is the restoration of the sources that had been removed. Restoring them was clearly reversing the action of another editor so it counts as a revert. --AussieLegend () 06:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
                    • We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. The references were removed because they were deemed inappropriate given the wording of the sentence, so I changed to wording to what I thought would make the references appropriate. The purpose of the edit was to reword, not an edit war about the references. If you want to count that as a revert, that's your business. Banana Republic (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
                      • It's not whether I think it's a revert, it's whether an administrator would. --AussieLegend () 06:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
                        • Yeah. It's a little ridiculous to count it as a revert since it would not have counted as a revert if I would have just reworded w/o inserting the references. There was no question that the references were WP:RS, so that was not the issue. It was about the wording, not the references. Again, I don't care how you want to count the reverts. It's your business. Banana Republic (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)