User talk:The Banner/Archives/2024/July

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

• News and notes: WMF board elections and fundraising updates

• Special report: Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board

• In focus: How the Russian Wikipedia keeps it clean despite having just a couple dozen administrators

• Discussion report: Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna

• In the media: War and information in war and politics

• Sister projects: On editing Wikisource

• Obituary: Hanif Al Husaini, Salazarov, Hyacinth, and PirjanovNurlan

• Opinion: Etika: a Pop Culture Champion

• Gallery: Spokane Willy's photos

• Op-Ed: Why you should not vote in the 2024 WMF BoT elections

• Crossword: On a day of independence, beat crosswords into crossploughshares

• Humour: A joke

• Cobwebs: Counting to a billion — manuscripts don't burn

• Recent research: Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? Perhaps

• Traffic report: Talking about you and me, and the games people play

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Distuberd by your actions on my updates / Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport

I find it quite DISTURBING that you are: - removing current links (I've updated the page with relevant up to date links) - adding "independent" links which funnily enough come from 1 (one) web site only!? - consider a 3rd party web site to have more relevant information than the airline company itself - if the company announces a service on it's web page, why do we care about a 3rd party web site, which is relying on the airline information. And why is it just 1 site that you are prioritizing?

I am shocked, and honestly, quite disturbed by this fact. Algoritam1 (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not shocked or disturbed by the fact that you are afraid of independent sources. I have seen that too often already. But be advised that the removal of sources is seen as vandalism by a lot of people. Beside that: sources and source requests are not clutter, it is trying to make Wikipedia reliable and verifiable. The Banner talk 15:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As ALL the links you are posting lead to ONE web site ONLY, I am under the impression that you have INTEREST in it.

In case AN OFFICIAL SOURCE is used, it has move value than what you claim to be an independent source.

Pls. stop what you are doing, or you will be REPORTED for vandalizing the page. Algoritam1 (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Furtheremore, I have updated several dead links with actual links. For reason known only to you, you have removed those links, and vandalized with dead links.

For the record. Algoritam1 (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

That exyuaviation-source is a working link. But you preferred to replace that independent source by a related source provided by the marketing department of Air Serbia. Do you work for/on behalf of the airline or the airport? The Banner talk 08:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

Enough said. Algoritam1 (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should start reading WP:V and WP:RS instead of making baseless claims. The Banner talk 16:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This user is adding IRRELEVANT links to the page, and is vandalizing pages in the process:

- 2, 3, 5, 10 years dead links. When adding new, up to date links, the user reverts to non existing content

- adding 1 (ONE) web site as a source. The user claims this to be an independent source, but there seem to be ULTERIOR motives behind this - it's the only guess I can make. Algoritam1 (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You have nothing more to offer than personal attacks and vandalism? Did you ever read WP:V and WP:RS? The Banner talk 08:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

(from WP:AIV) Hi. Looking at their About page, we're talking about a self-published source by someone on the Internet on a Blogger blog. It is reasonable to argue that an airline's official website is a more reliable source for airline destinations than someone's Blogger blog. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:V are asking for third party sources, not the company website as source. Beside that, the editor claim that the links are dead, what is not the case. But I will see if the edit warring starts again, what was the reason of the prior block. The Banner talk 09:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not always correct, and both pages use the wording "largely not acceptable" to refer to your currently preferred type of source. WP:RS contains WP:SELFSOURCE as an exception that encompasses the official website but not someone else's blog. Regarding the edit warring, it seems you have contributed to it for no good reason. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Even so, just removing independent sources is not a good idea. The Banner talk 09:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I have been trying to explain to the user that posting links from 1 (one) website only (and which on top is a blog) does not make sense over posting official confirmation from the airline.

Furthermore, the user kept bringing back dead links, even after I replaced them with actual links. I can prove this if necessary (in spite of the users claims to the contrary). Algoritam1 (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It is interesting to see that you claim that links are dead but when I click on them, they work as normal. And no, it is not illegal to use one source for multiple claims. In fact, you were doing the same with the air serbia website. The Banner talk 13:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Algoritam1, the situation is less simple than it may have seemed first. For example, the edit summary of Special:Diff/1232608307 refers to the external links guideline, which is not applicable to the dispute about references, as described in bold text in its introduction. The edit summary of Special:Diff/1232531462 makes an accusation of vandalism, which means intentional damage to the encyclopedia that simply hasn't happened here. Special:Diff/1232181570 seems to remove references that have actually been used for adding content to the page and thus should be mentioned as long as that content is still present, or until a replacement source providing the same information has been found.

If I add "Person X did Y" to an article, citing the known-unreliable Daily Mail as the source for my claim, then the right response would be removing the entire sentence and the unsuitable reference. Or, if the known-reliable Guardian said the same thing, it would be equally fine to replace the Daily Mail citation by a Guardian citation. Your approach in Special:Diff/1232181570 appears to remove references without actually fixing the problem, only making the problem less visible. It is almost never a good idea to remove bad citations without touching the content taken from them.

You have created a discussion at Talk:Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport, that's a good step. You have discussed a multi-article dispute with at least one user you've been in conflict with; this is also not bad. The dispute resolution policy contains general advice. As edit warring is not part of the advice and is disruptive even if you are right, I'm happy to see that it has stopped.

About the "dead links" problem, some links are inaccessible from some countries. I can't access some US websites because they're still afraid of the EU's GDPR, "working" on a solution since 2018. Adding "web.archive.org/save/" in front of the URL sometimes already solves the problem. And if there's a specific link you are referring to, please do say which one(s). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

By now, I have replaced a number of links by others, so that at least the argument "all of one site" is not valid any more. And my "ulterior motive" is just to have a reliable encyclopedia, sourced with independent sources. The Banner talk 16:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Move review

Per the instructions at Wikipedia:Move review, please prefix your comments with either Endorse or Overturn. Note that "commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review." Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Shannon Airport

Hi The banner, Please stop posting incorrect articles on the Shannon Airport page. Shannon-Paris IS NOT ENDING in October. You are posting a incorrect article from 2023. If you check the OFFICIAL Aer lingus website its on sale for the foreseeable. Please stop posting incorrect links. Wikipedia is a free for all and you seem to take pleasure in correcting everyones work to suit your own.0 AVGEEK7813 (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a better independent reliable source? If so, replace it (note: the airline and the airport are not independent sources). The Banner talk 08:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but where on wikipedia does it say everything has to be independant sources? You are absolutely potehtic and dont manage these sites. You are not a mod either. You need to get a life.

The OFFICIAL sources say its not ending. Official sources are surely better than back dated incorrect independant sources. 78.18.118.26 (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

There are no recent articles. Just the one you have got from June 2023 which is a INCORRECT indepedant source. no wonder wikipedia is seen as unreliable when you have users like you posting INCORRECT links and not using official sources AVGEEK7813 (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Independent sources are needed per WP:V and WP:RS. The Banner talk 08:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

That needs reviewed because official sites need to be used AVGEEK7813 (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to do a proposal to do this. You can do that at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Good luck. The Banner talk 08:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Are u a moderator on Wikipedia? do u have the right to keep checking pages and amending FACTs? AVGEEK7813 (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I am just an editor trying to keep Wikipedia reliable and spam-free by using independent sources. But you have a lot to say and claim for a new user. Did you have a prior account? The Banner talk 08:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Your keeping reliable information away from Wikipedia. I have had a previous account which is none of ur business. I will be proposing official sources be used on this UNRELIABLE site AVGEEK7813 (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are you afraid of using independent sources? The Banner talk 08:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not afraid! I just dont understand why official sources cant be used as well. Your independant source saying Shannon to Paris is ending is WRONG. So this leads to misinformation being posted on Wikipedia. Indepenandant sources are often incorrect and official sources should be used were needed. You article is from June 2023 which is way out of date and wrong AVGEEK7813 (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. And it would be nice when you back up your claims with independent sources. Beside that, I know Clare.fm as a reliable source of information. If you can prove that they are not reliable, please do so. But it is more then likely that the clare.fm articles are based on press releases from the airport/airline themselves. If they provide inaccurate information, how can we know that? The Banner talk 09:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

By clearly checking the official site that says the flights are on sale beyond October 2024. You are aware its from June 2023 and things can change after that? AVGEEK7813 (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I also know Wiki is not a travel guide but people want to read factual information. This is WRONG. AVGEEK7813 (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Then give independent sources of the correct information. The Banner talk 09:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hahahah as if im going to do that when official sites say otherwise. I have submitted a request to wiki to allow us use official sites AVGEEK7813 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Your BS of using indepandant sources will be put to bed soon AVGEEK7813 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to dream. The Banner talk 09:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Well it seems im correct and you are wrong! Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy) I have submitted a box here and airline websites and airport websites can be used as they are PRIMAry sources! Good thing u kept dreaming and proved you wrong AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Here you go aswell Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

So you can dream on now and leave peoples posts alone! AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The removal of valid sources, as you were doing, is often considered vandalism. And you better start reading Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources yourself, as it does not support your claims that primary sources are always allowed. The Banner talk 15:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Are u serious? I gave the Aer Lingus link which is primary source. The clare fm is a invalid incorrect source from a year ago with invalid information. YOU ARE INCORRECT AVGEEK7813 (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Im not editing it anymore if absolute idiots like you come at us over stupid links. You are very much wrong with ur link. You are incorrect and are not the boss of wiki. Ill leave u edit away there anyway with incorrect information to save on this ‘reliable’ source. AVGEEK7813 (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Also Joe on the other page also said you were incorrect!!!! AVGEEK7813 (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you please stop with personal attacks? The Banner talk 15:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I wish a moderator eould junp in here also. You are amending other users posts also AVGEEK7813 (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

Hi The Banner! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Rick Stein several times without established consensus. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable. This may discourage productive discussion, and come off to fellow wikipedians as rude or repeated vandalism. Continued reverting may result loss of editing privileges. please familiarise yourself with civility and discuss issues with the article at talk:Rick Stein before acting further. Thank you Bejakyo (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Rick Stein several times without established consensus. In fact, there was no consensus to make your changes at all. Up to now, you have provided no proof that Stein in not a Cornish person, despite all arguments delivered by me and the Third Party Editor. So I consider your POV-pushing vandalism. The Banner talk 15:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I have in fact provided multiple sources describing him as english and british, including Rick Stein's own words. Your desicision to ignore both myself and both Third Party editors is not conductive of civility or consensus building, is unfortunately POV-pushing edit warring not inline with the standards of wikipedia Bejakyo (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand the difference between being Cornish by birth and being Cornish by long time association. There are even MPs not born in Cornwall considered Cornish due to their long time association.

But as long as Cornwall is not an independent state, their is no Cornish nationality. Every Cornish man and woman is British, if you like it or not. (Personally, I love to see the UK fall apart.) But Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, not a place for regional activism. The Banner talk 16:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Our personal feelings regarding the continued existance of the United Kingdom is mute, and I agree that indeed wikipedia is not a place for such seperatist and unionist activism.

There is indeed such thing as a Cornish nationality, and has maintained legal recogntion by the United Kingdom since 2014, putting it along side the nationalities of British, English, Scottish, Welsh, and (Northern/) Irish (the British English use of nationality should not be confused with how other english speakers refer to citizenship of a given state)

I'm aware of Cornish by association, as I'm aware of many English-born Cornishmen (those born in England or to English parents, but describe as either Cornish and English or just Cornish), but there is no objective metric beyond consensus how existing media outlets refer to them, and partiuclarly to how the invidual refers to themselves

As you should mention Cornish MPs as, I have previously tried to have the new Cornish MPs (including ones who have been born and raised in Cornwall) described as such but to no avail, which I must admit has been frustraiting. Bejakyo (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

So there are more people not interested in your point of view. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass The Banner talk 17:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You had just said that there Cornishmen who are MPs. I responded by saying that I had tried to add that information as such. I thought you had finally decided to engage civil discussion but sadly I had wrong as you're remaining increadibly WP:rude, feel free to drop the stick and back away oneself given your POV-pushing request for page protection was refused due to your edit warring Bejakyo (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

End of discussion. You are clearly not here to build a neutral encyclopedia. The Banner talk 18:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 63

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 63, May – June 2024

• One new partner
• 1Lib1Ref
• Spotlight: References check

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Asian airports

Hi! I've noticed that you always revert my edit. I fully understand when removing something and explained that "external source" is needed when editing but with my edits despite don't have it external news outlet, the flights to that certain destinations are ACTIVE according to flightradar24 and based on available bookings in an online website. On my previous edit on Air Seoul to Tagbilaran, you removed it but someone restored it back. But you did not even remove it again when that person restore it. Though some don't have source provided but there are some flights active that media is not covering but worth having it listed, correct? If you are using flightradar24, you may search it if there are flights between the two routes. And if they don't have, I won't be complaining why my edits are always removed. That's only my concern thank you Skyking0422 (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Flightradar24 is not a suitable source. And unsourced additions can be reverted. The Banner talk 13:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

• Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo

• News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter

• Essay: Reflections on editing and obsession

• In the media: What's on Putin's fork, the court's docket, and in Harrison's book?

• Obituary: JamesR

• Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword

• Humour: Joe Biden withdraws RfA, Donald Trump selects co-nom

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Your reversions aren't helpful

Useddenim (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

And what about your sloppy work? The Banner talk 14:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

And let me put it this way: every time your work shows up at the maintenance list Templates with disambiguation links, I will plain revert. I have already corrected so many links to disambiguation pages created by you, that I have enough. The Banner talk 14:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)