User talk:Banana Republic

Welcome!

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)[reply]

Cerritos City Image

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

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

Publicdefender99

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)[reply]

WP:3RR

Warning
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)[reply]

April 2019

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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)[reply]

May 2019

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)[reply]

Why did it appear to be vandalism? Banana Republic (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Thank You for Your Hard Work!

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)[reply]

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

June 2019

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Invitation!

WikiProject Eurovision invitation for Banana Republic!

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.

Expand this box to view a list of contests this project covers.

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


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)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Milk N Cooks

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)[reply]

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

Nomination of Milk N Cooks for deletion

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)[reply]

September 2019

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)[reply]

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

Discretionary sanctions

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 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)[reply]

Proper use of edit summaries

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)[reply]

  • 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.

ArbCom note

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good

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

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

standard note

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 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.

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Prager

You state that Emily Prager never got credited for a single episode and should be listed separately on the SNL cast members wiki page.

This is factually incorrect. She was credited on screen in the final episode of season six, and appears in the opening sequence. This is not original research - simply watching the episode demonstrates this to be true.98.190.223.50 (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for commenting at the recent AfD for the above list. There is now an ongoing discussion around the best way to split the list, if any, if you wish to comment further. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

California Climate mitigation?

Hey, saw your changes to Template:Climate change -- those are highly inappropriate for the general Climate Change template which is on all the general interest (think global) topics on the issue. I recommend thinking about highlighting those in more regionally appropriate templates, or creating navigational templates for something like "Environmental issues in California". Sadads (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral College count

Hey there. I should have made it clearer but my recent edit was a revert of one of your edits, so you can't revert it back per WP:Edit warring. Please self revert your edit. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion on the article's talk page. I think your one word reversion of "unnecessary", is inappropriate, given that I clearly stated in my edit summary why the footnote is necessary. Banana Republic (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benford's law

BTW, it's "Benford's Law", not "Bedford's". ;-) I corrected it, but thought I should let you know. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 01:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the typo. Banana Republic (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Electoral College vote

Hi. Please respect WP:BRD and self revert. There is no consensus for your bold addition and I have reverted it. Otherwise, you are flagrantly edit warring and breaching our bold edit guidelines. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are engaging in edit warring. Go to the talk page to discuss your concerns. Don't come here. Banana Republic (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is with your editing, not the content. You are already aware that I have explained my content concerns on the article talk page. Reverting bold edits is not edit warring. Restoring reverted bold edits without consensus is. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted without going to the talk page. Your statement that you are not concerned with the content is quite disconcerting given that you reverted me. It certainly signals that you are editing in bad faith. Please stop editing in bad faith. Banana Republic (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
It's your responsibility to gain consensus at the talk page, not mine. You are obviously aware that I have concerned with the content, as I have stated on edit summaries and article talk page comments. I have reported the behaviour at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the color change on Biden cabinet page.

It was driving me nuts as well but I hadn't found the time to do it. Qapla'! Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was to change one letter in 3 places. Didn't take much time. I'm glad you found my edit to be useful. Banana Republic (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Color templates

How is that work going on the color templates? Elizium23 (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dismukes revert

Why did you revert the update that someone did where they added a picture on the Andrew Dismukes page? Was it just to go along with his joke that he doesn't have a picture on his page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChibiMewmew (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 May (UTC)

Can you show a diff? I did not revert anything in that article. Banana Republic (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry. I clicked the wrong user, haha... So embarrassing. You are very much right. I see who I meant to ask the question to, but see that I clicked through to you instead. Really very sorry about that :D I don't quite get why I clicked you, though it was pretty late at night and I was pretty sleepy. Sorry again! ChibiMewmew 17:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening of AfD

Per WP:DELREVD I'm requesting you undo your snow closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Dismukes and reopen it for discussion, which I'm required to do before listing this for deletion review discussion. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 10 hours that the AfD was open you got 3 Strong Keep !votes, and one other editor who did not cast a !vote, but did not agree with your nomination. I think this is precisely what WP:SNOW was created for, and do not think it's appropriate to re-open the discussion. I advise you not to go to a WP:DELREVD because the results will highly likely be the same. Banana Republic (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is now listed if you'd like to weigh in. Chetsford (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will let the community judge my actions. Banana Republic (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partial collapse

Please stop persistently changing the term "partial" to "complete" at Surfside condominium building collapse. This is factually incorrect, and there are reasons why every one of our sources also use the term "partial". See Talk:Surfside condominium building collapse#Partially. General Ization Talk 14:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Chess

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of nicknames used by Donald Trump § RfC on inclusion criteria. I thought you'd like to see this given as you're a major contributor to the article. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Freedom Phone Logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Freedom Phone Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Hanink website

I found his actual campaign website [3] ― Tartan357 Talk 06:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Banana Republic (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 California gubernatorial recall election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Cox.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brown vs Walton

Howdy. Apparently, it ain't over yet. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

You've successfully driven me out of the topic area with your constant aspersions and flames. I refuse to work with you until a proper and sincere apology is issued. Edits like this are beyond insufferable now. You "win" bud. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for real? First you propose to ban me from the topic of Kelli Stavast, and now you are banning yourself from the topic? Banana Republic (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DISENGAGE GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note

The Second Polish Republic can be referred to as Poland. Guidelines state linking countries is usually redundant. --IWI (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What guidelines are your referring to? --Banana Republic (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:OL. --IWI (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you reference MOS:OL because right under it is MOS:REPEATLINK which specifically says that it's desirable to have links in infoboxes. --Banana Republic (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn’t mean we should overlink in the infobox, it just means the first link should be in the lead or infobox, but then we get into wikilawyering of text that are just guidelines, which I’m not going to do. Just letting you know that I didn’t just make it up; there is existing consensus that linking well known topics like countries is redundant. Most people know what Poland, Ukraine, United States etc. is and won’t click it. --IWI (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, birth locations are linked in the infobox. In the specific case of Shimon Peres, most people do not know what is the Second Polish Republic, which is not the same as modern day Poland. Banana Republic (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is accurate, but usually we have something like “Austin, Texas, U.S.” or “Dublin, Ireland” without the country linked, due to OL. Historical countries can and often are an exception, though the Second Polish Republic (known as Poland) was a direct precursor to the modern country. Not really the same as completely different former countries like the USSR or Czechoslovakia etc. I’m not contesting your revert because it’s not a big deal, just letting you know where I was coming from. --IWI (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited EAI, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Asia Institute.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP on Jesse Watters

I would just like to remind you that characterizing what Watters said as a "call to assassinste" Fauci, despite RS all saying it was violent but rhetorical, is blatantly crossing a BLP line, whether you intended to or not, whether you had good intentions in calling out rhetoric you deemed obscene, or not. BLP is official Wikipedia policy which is why I'm leaving this message (the editor who reverted you characterized your edit as "good faith", but I think that's a bit...coddling). Please be careful! Have a nice day. 2600:1012:B05D:2A9F:99E8:2918:8389:9A13 (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute that Watters said “Now you go in for the kill shot. The kill shot? With an ambush? Deadly. Because he doesn’t see it coming.” That certainly sounds like a call for an assassination, even if Watters did not say "use real bullets when firing the kill shot". But since I was unable to find a WP:RS that characterized it as a call for an assassination I did not challenge the revert. Banana Republic (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No it was a metaphor used for shock effect for an audience likely familiar with gun terminology and who would be appreciative of the imagery. Ok suppose your characterization is correct--why isn't Watters in FBI custody and why did RS characterize it as they did, in a way that does not let you use your preferred way to describe it? I am genuinely concerned about how you don't have BLP alarm bells ringing after advocating for your extremely literalist interpretation of his comments--you either have a huge blind spot or you maliciously misinterpret as part of an agenda. I am going to recommend that you watch the event where he said those remarks because I must assume it is the former per WP:AGF. 2600:1012:B056:D5EA:8C5B:28CE:E5EF:F433 (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Watters was not taken into custody is NOT proof that his comment cannot be interpreted as a call for assassination. Are you Jesse Watters or a very close relative of his? Why else would you be defending comments that could be construed as a call for an assassination of Dr. Fauci? Banana Republic (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your response reminds me of an old video of "Qanon" adherent who, upon being told that there was no proof of the phenomena, said, "Well, you don't have proof that it isn't happening." I commend you for your apparent concern for our (esteemed) public figures and will say I am similarly motivated to edit here, out of a sense of civic duty, though maybe we have different perspectives, which is fine. I would appreciate it if anyone on here told me I had developed a soft spot for the bat**** right wing stuff, so I'm just following the golden rule here. If you watch the entire episode (perhaps ten minutes of him describing how to basically become an annoying paparazzo) it's patently obvious Watters was basking in all the rights he has under the first amendment by advocating for accountability from our public servants, and I applaud him for that (I would say these conservative conferences are so esoteric, incitement would seem to only be possible if his words are amplified...as they have been by his opponents). There is too much violent rhetoric put out there from the fringes and I lament that, but I'd take that any day over living in, say, China's system. As for the COI question, seeing as my perspective is backed up by the status quo and RS, I would say you have more of a burden of proof to demonstrate you don't have a COI. Of course, all of that is ridiculous since it's all anonymous here. I will say whatever biases I have are best advocated on here by adherence to neutrality and all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, because I think my favored perspectives are superior to other ones, and that it will all show through if Wikipedia is functioning as it is meant to. 174.193.194.40 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ketanji Brown Jackson

FYI, if you check the edithistory of the talkpage and the article, you will see a lot of redactions. That is because this stuff [4] crashes into WP:OUTING. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guideline

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#pointless_essay_linked_to_by_its_creator Dream Focus 02:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Multiple sources

Wikipedia:Multiple sources, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Multiple sources and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Multiple sources during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caution about WP:Edit warring

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Herschel Walker.[5][6][7] 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. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the assertion that I am edit warring. In each time I put a different refence to address the concerns of the other editors. Banana Republic (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert US politics

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

added note

Hi, this is a standard message for anyone editing in US politics. If you don't want to receive these templates there is a way to tell everyone you know about this.... just use Template:Ds/aware. I apologize for not completely thinking through my position about the band tshirt, but to err is human, and to never change one's mind is an invitation to fossilization. And at my age, that's an ever-present risk! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19 kids and counting

Hello friend. I see you recently added blp information about non cast members to a canceled TV show. A couple things to note. 19 kids and counting is about a TV show that no longer airs. It isn't a multi-biography of people involved in the show. Events and births years after the cancelation are especially out of line. In particular, you added information about Josh Duggar's children who weren't on the show, because they weren't born. Hope this helps :) 2601:2C3:57F:3F8E:F5AC:2514:D6AD:DEE4 (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Griner/Whelan

-- you added the claim that the US announcement didn't mention Whelan, even though the cited source explicitly quoted P.Biden pledging to continue working for his release. Was that on purpose? wasserperson (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

my edit was to fix an error.
  1. you wouldn't change the title of the reference
  2. the edit that I undid created a sentence fragment
Banana Republic (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions at Hunter Biden

Your reinsertion of the name of the child violates the page restriction on that page, which states

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rule applies when editing this page:

You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The content is WP:UNDUE and that is a critical and entirely valid reason to exclude it per our NPOV policy. Please self-revert to avoid enforcement. If you feel strongly about this, you may state your case for inclusion on the article talk page. The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate consensus for inclusion. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 22:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually an ongoing discussion in the talk page about whether to include the child's name. I had previously removed the child's name because at the time, the child's name was only mentioned in a publication that does not meet Wikipedia's standards for WP:RS. Now things are different since the child's name has been mentioned in a publication that does meet the criteria. Therefore, there is no reason to exclude the child's name any more.
The article already includes the names of his 4 other children, so WP:UNDUE is a false argument for excluding the child's name. Banana Republic (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not come here to resolve the content issue with you. I came to warn you that you violated a bright-line page restriction so that you could self-revert and avoid a Contentious Topic/Discretionary Sanctions action. Please self-revert. Pinging @NewsAndEventsGuy: who notified you of page restrictions above on this talk page. SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I thought NewsAndEventsGuy was an Admin. @Awilley and ScottishFinnishRadish: The diffs are https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden&diff=1133823209&oldid=1133733888 here] and here. The only talk page discussion of this is this brief past thread SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I am not an admin and have never sought to become an admin. And I have no clue why my name came up in this discussion thread. And I don't need to know, don't want to know, and am not interested, so if anyone feels the need to say more with respect to me, that's fine, but your need to say more is a "you thing" not a "me thing" so please choose wording that makes that explicit, thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You really should self-revert, as this is a clear violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree with showing the 'name'. I undid your revert, to get you out of a possible jam. FWIW, I don't see why it's such a big deal, to mention or not mention his youngest daughter's name. But anyways. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Please keep Wikipedia's restrictions on internal discussion participation in mind. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Information icon Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page MIMO (disambiguation). However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:

  • Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
  • Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
  • Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
    • Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
  • Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
  • Do not insert external links or references

Please see WP:MOSDAB Widefox; talk 12:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked