Jump to content

User talk:The Banner/Archives/2024/September

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Okinawa

Hi there. First, I do not disagree with you reverting the conversion to the dab. Probably should be discussed. That being said, I began to slog through through dab links it created this morning, and I have to say that only about 30% categorically should have been redirected to the prefecture. About 40% I redirected to the island. 20-25% were ambiguous, and could have referred to either the island or the prefecture. The rest went to the island chain or the city. If it did go to a discussion, I'd probably agree with it being a dab, based on my experience this morning. Onel5969 TT me 19:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

5350 links to disambiguation pages is just not okay. That makes this undiscussed change contentious. The Banner talk 00:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
And I can not stand it when somebody changes a redirect to a dab-page and then leaves it to others to clean the mess up. The Banner talk 09:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed regarding letting others clean up. Onel5969 TT me 10:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024 on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Independent Sources

Hi

Can you provide any link or redirect to a article that show a consensus that all information about airport and airline articles need to be only using independent sources? Metrosfan (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS The Banner talk 15:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
@The Banner which section is the information in? Thanks Metrosfan (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Did you try searching the word independent? The Banner talk 20:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

DAB project

Hello @The Banner! Nice work with the disambiguation links that you have been fixing. I noticed that you've been updating the list when you finish an entry, which is great, but it would be helpful if you also updated the 2 counters at the top at the same time, so that the progress bars are accurate (or at least mostly so - they'll always be a bit off based on partially-fixed entries, etc). Notice in this diff where R'n'B updated the number of entries that have been fixed from 988 to 1168 in two locations - one for the text, one for the progress bar.

Additionally, it's not a problem at all, but I wanted to let you know that it is possible to move an entry in one edit, rather than 2, by clicking the edit button by "September 2024" instead of the "Progress" and "To do" ones separately. I hadn't realized that at first and found it a bit annoying to do two edits.

I'm relatively new to doing these myself, so there may be procedures I'm unaware of, but I figured I'd mention it in case it helps you. Cleancutkid (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, I always had the idea that it was done by a bot. The Banner talk 21:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I thought so as well, until I saw it not update once after editing it, and then looked at the page history. Cleancutkid (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 64

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 64, July – August 2024

  • The Hindu Group joins The Wikipedia Library
  • Wikimania presentation
  • New user script for easily searching The Wikipedia Library

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Question about disambiguation vs set index for lists

Hey, I noticed that you turned List of National Historic Landmarks in Washington back into a set index page. I wonder what problems elsewhere it might matter and I had turned into a DAB page following the example of Georgia US state vs Georgia the country, like List of rivers of Georgia. And based on my, admittedly somewhat shaky, understanding of the distinction between the two. And if my understanding is incomplete, I'd love to learn how to make this distinction here. Thanks! Skynxnex (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

As the link was used in a template, many pages suddenly showed up on maintenance pages as "links to disambiguation pages needing to be fixed". But fixing them correctly (i.e. linking to the right page) is near impossible due to code issues. But making it a set index also solves the problem. The Banner talk 10:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Ah. I see that Template:National Register of Historic Places listings in Lewis County, Washington currently includes it. I'm not sure what makes it nearly impossible since if its in a template, you just need to fix that single template page (I've done that in many templates in the past). And I would argue that the list page in question being a dab page would be a better outcome since that template is about Washington State and so being notified the creator accidentally linked to a page that disambiguates between Washington state and Washington, DC, is a better outcome than having a link to a dab/set index page in the template (as there's no natural affinity between the two washingtons more than any other state-city/district pair than the name happenstance). Skynxnex (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Feel free to fix that template. I failed on that. The Banner talk 17:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't see it as a failure. And looking again, I see it's caused by the {{NRHP navigation box}} template. Not sure how it's only that one county that's causing it but it does require a bit more work to properly fix (looks like the Georgia special case is already handled). I hope to have time to sort it out soon, no worries. Skynxnex (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Renaming Section for Port Blair to Sri Vijaya Puram

hi, Ravi3270 (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I am aware that you are passionate about the name change, but with your demands you crossed a line. Discussion first, than changes. Not dumping a text and demand that others give reasons for reverting. The Banner talk 10:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Port Blair. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Stop your incorrect POV-pushing. The info is backed up by multiple sources. The Banner talk 13:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

St Munchin's College

Hello.

Your recent revert over at St Munchin's College seems a little odd. You claim copyright violations, however, are happy to revert to a version in which the entire history section of the article has been directly copy and pasted from the history section of the website with not even one reference. All I have done is add references to it, however, I have not yet made time to take action on this further. Other information I have been adding to the article since yesterday has been reworded as best as I can in order to avoid copyright. Goodreg3 (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio detector. I have reverted the copyvio again. The Banner talk 23:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
I see that, but yet, you do not address the fact that the entirety of the history section on the article is unsourced and a direct copyright violation as it has been copied word for word from the history section of the website. That hardly seems fair?
You have reverted the entirety of the edits on the basis of copyright violation, where I would disagree that a full revert was warranted. If a 1% copyright violation is suggested in the reverted article, then something is off. I would encourage you to sit with the article and history section of the website side by side and see clearly for yourself. Goodreg3 (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Please, stop your excuses. The Banner talk 00:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
88% copyvio in your version. Just 1% in the reverted version. The Banner talk 23:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
The versions were substantially identical, and after reviewing closely, I have to agree with @Goodreg3. The reason their version was showing so much copyvio on Earwig is because they added links. They didn't add infringing text. I've gone ahead and removed all the suspect text, because while webarchive doesn't go back far enough for me to prove a violation conclusively, the very first revision of the article (where the text was introduced) looks like it was copy-pasted from the school's website. I also removed some promotional-sounding text that, at best, I could only source to the school website. Because I removed so much text, there's a possibility the odd sentance or paragraph could have been retained- but given the unsourced nature, and the fact that to source the material, I'd have to use the school's own website (which is not ideal for obvious reasons) I didn't try. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
In fact, more recent edits of Goodreg3 are suspect for copyvio. The Banner talk 00:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I did see a few lines which made me suspect they're flirting with the line between close paraphrasing and writing their new content. The earwig report doesn't show that, however. But what I was trying to say is that the reason your version looked clean was because you removed the links, so Earwig didn't have anything to compare the article text to. Your revert still left all the potential copy-vio in. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I was in fact checking and removing but you were quicker in saving. The Banner talk 01:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I finally won an edit conflict? Ahaha! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I am glad that someone finally saw the point I was making. Every word in the history section of the version you reverted to was copyrighted. Albeit, I have spent today rewording the article and providing sources with paraphrased text to avoid any further claims of copyright violation. The article was long due attention. Goodreg3 (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Yep, you did a better job. Not 88% copyvio but just 60% copyvio (https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=St+Munchin%27s+College&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1&turnitin=0). You have still loads of work to do in rewording. The Banner talk 18:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Banner/Archives/2024/September&oldid=1249074006"