User talk:The Banner: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

3
User talk:The Banner: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia


 

Line 46: Line 46:

I might say that at that point, that discussion has crossed the line into being more about your behavioral issues with respect to [[WP:CONSENSUS]] regarding the use of such links, along with possibly a whiff of [[WP:DISRUPT|disruption]], as well, given the large amount of virtual ink spilled on that page already. My intention here is not at all to duplicate that discussion (that might cause undesirable fragmentation) but rather this discussion serves both as a pointer to that one (since sooner or later, the MOS discussion will be archived) as well as an attempt to tease apart the behavioral issue that rightly belongs here, from the content issue it began with that properly belongs there. That’s a bit like unscrambling the omelet, so a messy process at best, but still worth the attempt. The consensus there appears to be that several editors wish you might stop your pattern of violations of [[WP:NOPIPE]] and [[MOS:NOPIPE]], even if it is only a guideline, and with the understanding that you don’t agree with the guideline and don’t feel that it is mandatory to follow it. I’m asking if you might please follow it, anyway, in the spirit of collaboration. Would you? Thanks, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 09:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I might say that at that point, that discussion has crossed the line into being more about your behavioral issues with respect to [[WP:CONSENSUS]] regarding the use of such links, along with possibly a whiff of [[WP:DISRUPT|disruption]], as well, given the large amount of virtual ink spilled on that page already. My intention here is not at all to duplicate that discussion (that might cause undesirable fragmentation) but rather this discussion serves both as a pointer to that one (since sooner or later, the MOS discussion will be archived) as well as an attempt to tease apart the behavioral issue that rightly belongs here, from the content issue it began with that properly belongs there. That’s a bit like unscrambling the omelet, so a messy process at best, but still worth the attempt. The consensus there appears to be that several editors wish you might stop your pattern of violations of [[WP:NOPIPE]] and [[MOS:NOPIPE]], even if it is only a guideline, and with the understanding that you don’t agree with the guideline and don’t feel that it is mandatory to follow it. I’m asking if you might please follow it, anyway, in the spirit of collaboration. Would you? Thanks, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 09:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

:Yes, for some reason I have become a threat to the cosy world of useless, invisible edits related to NOPIPE. And contrary to Jean, I am not following people around to be able to complain and harass them. It is noteworthy in this case that I did take a short wikibreak to prevent me loosing my cool. I am not interested in another editor bullying me. And I am not running around or use automated processes to find as several redirects as possible. I edit, see a redirect and when possible I replace the redirect with a direct link. In my opinion, that is improving Wikipedia. And also in my opinion, replacing a direct but piped link by a redirect is not improving Wikipedia, that is time wasting. It is the behaviour of Jean that needs a reality check. Wikipedia is big enough that we can co-exist. <span style=”border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px”>[[User:The Banner|<span style=”color:green”>The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style=”color:maroon”>talk</i>]]</span> 10:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

:Yes, for some reason I have become a threat to the cosy world of useless, invisible edits related to NOPIPE. And contrary to Jean, I am not following people around to be able to complain and harass them. It is noteworthy in this case that I did take a short wikibreak to prevent me loosing my cool. I am not interested in another editor bullying me. And I am not running around or use automated processes to find as several redirects as possible. I edit, see a redirect and when possible I replace the redirect with a direct link. In my opinion, that is improving Wikipedia. And also in my opinion, replacing a direct but piped link by a redirect is not improving Wikipedia, that is time wasting. It is the behaviour of Jean that needs a reality check. Wikipedia is big enough that we can co-exist. <span style=”border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px”>[[User:The Banner|<span style=”color:green”>The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style=”color:maroon”>talk</i>]]</span> 10:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

::A quick summary. In August, [ you reverted four of my edits] with the edit summary “bypass redirects”. After long discussion [ here] and [ here], in which there was a clear consensus that [[WP:NOPIPE]] and [[WP:NOTBROKEN]] are good guidelines, and a number of editors said they didn’t understand your objection to my edits, I walked away, and I’ve never edited those four pages again.

::You then appeared at a very low-traffic page that I’d previously edited, made [ a series of unhelpful miscorrections], accused me of edit warring when I reverted you, and said I was [ “becoming historical”] when I outed your bad behaviour.

::I discussed the original issue with another editor [ here] in October. After the discussion had concluded, you appeared with [ this edit], claiming you’d found the page accidentally, saying that you found my concerns amusing, and that you intended to leave me in peace. I didn’t respond.

::In December, you appeared on the Talk page of [ an IP editor] – a page we’d both edited previously – urging them to ignore my advice, and calling me a “busy-body thingy that adds nothing”. I walked away.

::Following [ the discussion here] with {{u|Andy Dingley}} in October, I became interested in the activities of a long-term block evader, [ Harry the house], whose favourite game is adding unnecessary pipework to thousands of pages. His activities were causing strife between a number of editors who had different ideas about the best way to address his behaviour. While I was trying to resolve that disagreement, you [ appeared on my Talk page] looking for trouble. I put your comments aside and ignored them.

::At that point I had the idea for a JavaScript tool that can be used to selectively revert Harry’s edits. I began using the tool cautiously after a helpful editor came up with a prototype. I discussed the tool [ here] with {{u|Surtsicna}}. You then began [ a disagreement with Surtsicna] over the [[WP:NOPIPE]] issue on another page. When that disagreement had concluded, you made [ more edits] with the edit summary “bypass redirects” in direct contravention of the advice at [[WP:NOTBROKEN]] that also introduced errors of spelling and logic. Another editor reverted them.

::You then appeared last night at [ another page] that I’d edited 36 minutes previously, making more edits of the same sort, with the same edit summary, “bypass redirects”. When I looked at your recent edit history, I noticed a number of similar edits and raised the matter [ here].

::I think there are clear patterns. You follow me. I walk away. I’m becoming less inclined to keep walking away. [[User:Jean-de-Nivelle|Jean-de-Nivelle]] ([[User talk:Jean-de-Nivelle|talk]]) 11:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User talk:The Banner/Airport vandal

I try to the best of my knowledge and belief to contribute to the small red block of the image
Beware! This user’s talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.
My archives
Part 1: Old archives, organised per year.
Part 2: Current archives, organised per month

Please move your comment in the Margaret Sanger talk page above the reference/note box, because it is currently below it and not directly after the current conversation. DocZach (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know. Request denied. The Banner talk 13:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Banner, hope you’re doing well after your short break.

I was planning on making a tweak to the infobox on the ICW page; it’s a small edit, but I thought I’d discuss it first.

I was thinking of removing the brackets in the commanders and leaders section (i.e (until X month X year)) and just having markers. For instance, Collins and Lynch just have the daggers next to their names with a hashtag placed next to Griffiths’ to signify that he died from natural causes. I noticed other conflict articles do this (Hundred Years’ War, Great Northern War, Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604), First Barons’ War) and I thought it might might work for the ICW as well.

Let me know what you think of it and if I should do something else instead. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, The Banner. I know you are well aware of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Mandatory, since you started it, but there’s increasingly a behavioral angle to it, which therefore belongs here and not there. The discussion
started off being more or less about the level of forcing in a Guideline vs. a Policy, notably in the case of the MOS guideline, and in particular, whether WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE are mandatory or not (and what that even means). Thanks for raising that; it’s a discussion worth having.

At some indefinable point, the discussion seemed to shift away from MOS content or questions about the level of enforcement in a guideline, and became more about your conduct and whether you were going off on a lone-wolf path with piped links despite the views of pretty much everyone else on the page, and whether you might continue your previous pattern even in the face of mounting, and universal opposition.

I might say that at that point, that discussion has crossed the line into being more about your behavioral issues with respect to WP:CONSENSUS regarding the use of such links, along with possibly a whiff of disruption, as well, given the large amount of virtual ink spilled on that page already. My intention here is not at all to duplicate that discussion (that might cause undesirable fragmentation) but rather this discussion serves both as a pointer to that one (since sooner or later, the MOS discussion will be archived) as well as an attempt to tease apart the behavioral issue that rightly belongs here, from the content issue it began with that properly belongs there. That’s a bit like unscrambling the omelet, so a messy process at best, but still worth the attempt. The consensus there appears to be that several editors wish you might stop your pattern of violations of WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE, even if it is only a guideline, and with the understanding that you don’t agree with the guideline and don’t feel that it is mandatory to follow it. I’m asking if you might please follow it, anyway, in the spirit of collaboration. Would you? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, for some reason I have become a threat to the cosy world of useless, invisible edits related to NOPIPE. And contrary to Jean, I am not following people around to be able to complain and harass them. It is noteworthy in this case that I did take a short wikibreak to prevent me loosing my cool. I am not interested in another editor bullying me. And I am not running around or use automated processes to find as several redirects as possible. I edit, see a redirect and when possible I replace the redirect with a direct link. In my opinion, that is improving Wikipedia. And also in my opinion, replacing a direct but piped link by a redirect is not improving Wikipedia, that is time wasting. It is the behaviour of Jean that needs a reality check. Wikipedia is big enough that we can co-exist. The Banner talk 10:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A quick summary. In August, you reverted four of my edits with the edit summary “bypass redirects”. After long discussion here and here, in which there was a clear consensus that WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN are good guidelines, and a number of editors said they didn’t understand your objection to my edits, I walked away, and I’ve never edited those four pages again.
You then appeared at a very low-traffic page that I’d previously edited, made a series of unhelpful miscorrections, accused me of edit warring when I reverted you, and said I was “becoming historical” when I outed your bad behaviour.
I discussed the original issue with another editor here in October. After the discussion had concluded, you appeared with this edit, claiming you’d found the page accidentally, saying that you found my concerns amusing, and that you intended to leave me in peace. I didn’t respond.
In December, you appeared on the Talk page of an IP editor – a page we’d both edited previously – urging them to ignore my advice, and calling me a “busy-body thingy that adds nothing”. I walked away.
Following the discussion here with Andy Dingley in October, I became interested in the activities of a long-term block evader, Harry the house, whose favourite game is adding unnecessary pipework to thousands of pages. His activities were causing strife between a number of editors who had different ideas about the best way to address his behaviour. While I was trying to resolve that disagreement, you appeared on my Talk page looking for trouble. I put your comments aside and ignored them.
At that point I had the idea for a JavaScript tool that can be used to selectively revert Harry’s edits. I began using the tool cautiously after a helpful editor came up with a prototype. I discussed the tool here with Surtsicna. You then began a disagreement with Surtsicna over the WP:NOPIPE issue on another page. When that disagreement had concluded, you made more edits with the edit summary “bypass redirects” in direct contravention of the advice at WP:NOTBROKEN that also introduced errors of spelling and logic. Another editor reverted them.
You then appeared last night at another page that I’d edited 36 minutes previously, making more edits of the same sort, with the same edit summary, “bypass redirects”. When I looked at your recent edit history, I noticed a number of similar edits and raised the matter here.
I think there are clear patterns. You follow me. I walk away. I’m becoming less inclined to keep walking away. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disasters Expo USA, is proud to be supported by Inergency for their next upcoming edition on March 6th & 7th 2024!

The leading event mitigating the world’s most costly disasters is returning to the Miami Beach

Convention Center and we want you to join us at the industry’s central platform for emergency management professionals.
Disasters Expo USA is proud to provide a central platform for the industry to connect and
engage with the industry’s leading professionals to better prepare, protect, prevent, respond
and recover from the disasters of today.
Hosting a dedicated platform for the convergence of disaster risk reduction, the keynote line up for Disasters Expo USA 2024 will provide an insight into successful case studies and
programs to accurately prepare for disasters. Featuring sessions from the likes of The Federal Emergency Management Agency,
NASA, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NOAA, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, TSA and several more this event is certainly providing you with the knowledge
required to prepare, respond and recover to disasters.
With over 50 hours worth of unmissable content, exciting new features such as their Disaster
Resilience Roundtable, Emergency Response Live, an Immersive Hurricane Simulation and
much more over just two days, you are guaranteed to gain an all-encompassing insight into
the industry to tackle the challenges of disasters.
By uniting global disaster risk management experts, well experienced emergency
responders and the leading innovators from the world, the event is the hub of the solutions
that provide attendees with tools that they can use to protect the communities and mitigate
the damage from disasters.
Tickets for the event are $119, but we have been given the promo code: HUGI100 that will
enable you to attend the event for FREE!

So don’t miss out and register today: https://shorturl.at/aikrW

And in case you missed it, here is our ultimate road trip playlist is the perfect mix of podcasts, and hidden gems that will keep you energized for the entire journey

-

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More