User talk:BanyanClimber: Difference between revisions

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: the Arab–Israeli conflict gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them They should not be given alerts for those areas.

(This first section, including the table below, is my personal space for taking notes and stuff) -

Hi, BanyanClimber! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to free and open-source software. I'd like to invite you to become a part of the free and open-source software task force, a project aimed at improving the quality of articles about free and open-source software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the free and open-source software task force for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Participants". Thanks! K4rolB (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Simple. August 8 1973 was the day the then-worst series of murders in America was discovered. Corll's death is better covered in a subsection.--Kieronoldham (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

(talk) 16:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I see your point,

Daveout. Even though I believe the sections read better as in the previous edit, as the article stands, it is still informative. We all strive for the collective best on Wikipedia. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi! I've noticed that you believe that the large number of IP comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalen Berns (2nd nomination) should be deleted due to sockpuppetry. Do you have any evidence of this? Simply deleting them is not good practice. Comments by proven sockpuppet accounts may be struck through. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you reverted my bias warning. Thanks for the talk invite, I'm new to this process, happy to have got your attention. I came across the article lateish last night and was irritated by what I think is its unbalanced position, hence my comment. (My comment was not very carefully crafted so I'm happy to see it removed.) But this article reads to me as an odd mix of potted history, lurid detail, cherry picked facts/arguments, and in the extradition section quite openly promoting a pro-extradition view rather than assessing two opposed views. I have no desire to whitewash Polanski, but I think a more scholarly piece is deserved.

An example of lurid - the repeated listing (once in the intro, then in a bullet list at the top of the article) of the charges. What is served by repeating "rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor" twice in a single view of the page? Isn't that the kind of sensationalism that Samantha complained about as traumatising news coverage?

Wouldn't this article be better served e.g. by opening "On March 10, 1977, then-43-year-old film director Roman Polanski was arrested and charged in Los Angeles with six offenses against Samantha Geimer, a 13-year-old girl[1], including rape by use of drugs[2]." Then, provide the full list at the opening of the main article, as a sentence, not as a bullet list. Note that ref [2] is to a showbiz blog. I would expect a more accountable source e.g. published trial documents, LA Times, almost anything except a showbiz blog which is actually about what Whoopi Goldberg said about the case etc. And BTW ref [1] is again to media, here BBC 1 minute news featuring the word "Creepy" above the fold. Is that the best we can do? Finally, what are these crimes of perversion and sodomy? Were these crimes in the context of a rape, or of a rape of a child, or just crimes such as male homosexuals and "sexual deviants" were routinely criminalised for in the past and are not now (one hopes)? Is this a California thing or an America thing? Were these the only way the prosecutors could reflect the full horror of the crime, or did they just throw the book at Polanski in order to obtain leverage in negotiating a plea bargain? I don't propose that the article *must* ask exactly those questions but there is not much attempt in the article to explain, let alone explore, the procedural dimensions of the trial. Given the referenced sources, that's not much of a surprise.

To give an example of missed opportunity - the extradition attempt, almost 30 years after the fact and over the protests of the victim, raises questions about how justice serves or does not serve victims, how women fare under the law (well? badly? do they get justice?), American legal overreach, European legal independence, and a host of contentious issues that are not mentioned. Instead we have opinion poll numbers supporting extradition!

For me the whole piece is full of this kind of dubious argumentation and misses the chance to factually report a case which is still significant for lots of reasons.

Interested to hear what you think. Best, Ben.

Hello, Ben (@Wordmatter:). Indicating that an article is not neutral is actually a pretty common thing, but we normally use templates for that. For example, by adding this tag {{POV}} to the article's code (normally at the top), the following banner will appear:

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

However, it is not a good practice to simply tag the article without explaining your reasons on it's talk page so other editors can work on a solution. (

(talk) 18:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

]

Warnings I've received so far are in the collapsible table bellow:

Extended content

You've violated the 1RR at 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis with now 3 reverts. Kindly self revert your last two reverts or you may be reported to arbitration enforcement. nableezy - 20:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] You dont intend to correct the violation at all? nableezy - 01:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] @ (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply ] You again violated the 1RR at the same article. Kindly stop trying to edit-war your position in to the article. nableezy - 17:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] @ (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply ] This and this are both reverts. A revert is any edit that reverses another editors edit in whole or in part, removing material is pretty much always a revert. nableezy - 18:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] @ (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply ] The initial addition to the body is not a revert. nableezy - 18:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] Lol. this can't be serious. - (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply ] 1rr You have violated the 1RR at Israel, kindly self revert or you may be reported. It is also manifestly untrue that material is not in the body. nableezy - 16:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Im not planning on waiting all that long to file the report, this game of hiding material instead of removing it is cute but it wont fly. nableezy - 16:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Daveout nableezy - 16:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] withdrawn since you self-reverted. nableezy - 16:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Notice 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 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. nableezy - 16:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Trx96 (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Palestine will be free you zionist[reply] Warning Your recent editing history at Gaza flotilla raid 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 being Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Discretionary Sanctions alert 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 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. Clarify about discretionary sanctions You've been given an alert about the Arab-Israeli conflict. You must follow these page-specific restrictions until you have 500 edits and have been here 30 days For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content") Also, 500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring. The sole exceptions to this prohibition are: 1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. 2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required. 3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator. Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time. These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ratlines Reverts and Sockpuppets.

Hello, the issues is the same person under multiple banned sockpuppet accounts keeps adding unsourced images. Also there was no consensus on who were the top war criminals that escaped. The person seemed obsessed with the Fascist Croats especially. They were banned for disrupting pages and puppetry. Another user reverted them after calling their readding vandalism. I hope I was able to give context. Just now that Ip was banned as another puppet account abusing wikipedia guidlines to push edits. It’s a mix of things.

Right. I'll take a deeper look at it. At first glance, the images appeared appropriate and they were in the article at least since 2019 (?), apparently. I don't know who first added it. If everything checks up I'll start a talk page discussion in the near future. See ya. -

(talk) 22:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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 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 NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you for your edit on Trusted_Platform_Module

Thanks for correcting my mistakes on english grammar in the Stallman part of Trusted_Platform_Module. Glad that our contributions complement each other. As I see on your talk page is that you already got invited to the FOSS task force. How is your opinion about it? It seems pretty dead so we might be able to revive it. You can check it's current talk page GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

(talk) 15:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Right to exist

I am not that interested in this article but did you even bother to read the lead? At line 3 it says "It is not a right recognized in international law." so you (and the editor who inserted it to begin with) saying it is a concept in international law are simply inserting contradictory (and unsourced) information into the encyclopedia. I suggest you revert yourself.Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

did you even bother to read the lead? I could ask you the same thing. The line you're referring to is unsourced, whereas the following paragraph states that the concept has been present in writings about International law for a long time (this one is sourced). In fact, I think the line you just mentioned should be removed. In any case, that's not why I reverted. There must be a better wording for that short description.

(pinging bcuz I don't know whether you follow this page or not. @

(talk) 12:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The right to exist is rhetorical twaddle (In 1914 Vladimir Lenin wrote: "[It] would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state.") Self-determination is the only reality these days and IS an integral part of international law, which is why I don't really care about this article. (people have a right to exist, not states). At best, one might describe right to exist as some sort of political philosophy. https://forward.com/opinion/417930/does-israel-have-a-right-to-exist-is-a-trick-question/ Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments

You should use {{Ds/aware}} to show that you are aware. Put it at the top of your talk page. I think what you've done would work, just not as obvious. You also need to add one for the ipa area, eg {{Ds/aware|ipa}} More importantly, if you add an NPOV tag you are expected to explain it on the talk page. I've reverted you. I understand why you put it there, but it still needs a talk page discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

(talk) 15:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. Yes, mobiles don't display a lot of things. Which is why I avoid them for Wikipedia! Doug Weller talk 15:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My example should have said a-i, sorry. I've added ECP to the main article now. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Aqsa storming

This edit verges on vandalism. "current lead looks awful."?? Seriously? You deleted a whole bunch of sources at the same time. Any recurrence will produce a report at AE. Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

boldly

restored an older version of the article (something that happens all the time.) That version had been developed mainly by pro-palestinian editors. Of course, the sources were swapped in the process, not purposefully deleted. There's nothing egregiously pro-Israel in that version.

On a different note, I think this animosity between us should stop. If I were once rude to you I apologize. Among the pro-Palestinian editors, I think you're the best one. I don't expect us to be pals, I just wish for our interchanges to no longer be so bitter. Peace. -

(talk) 05:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Nothing personal, I have given the same warning to another editor that subsequently repeated your edit.Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Settler colonialism criticism

The section was expanded but was removed [1] Shrike (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow

(talk) 09:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Issue

I’m starting to have an issue with you regularly restoring edits of a banned user. Please reconsider doing that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

(talk) 04:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Some edits might be good, but you're doing it regularly and for a while now (it has been noticed). That includes restoration of unsourced content also. Such conduct might lead to troubles eventually as editing on behalf of the banned user is not permitted. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an idea - instead of reverting to the version of a banned user, make your own edit of a similar nature. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

(talk) 16:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

RMS's Alma Mater

Hi Daveout. You said in your revert "enrolling seems to be enough to count as an alma mater".

Firstly, please let's be correct about the historical facts. RMS was not "enrolled" at MIT. He was *working* there as a programmer.

Secondly, the concept of an alma mater means an academic institution that "nourishes" you in an intellectual way, in other words, an institution that forms and shapes your intellectual character and academic personality. An alma mater certifies and documents this "shaping process" by awarding you an official degree.

Just enrolling has nothing to do with that. Take me for example. I have degrees from two universities, so those are my alma maters. But I visited two further universities (one as a student and one as a scientist) which didn't award me any degree. So, those two are NOT alma maters of mine. I don't have four alma maters, I have two.

You can think of it also in another way. If enrolling was enough, many people who never finished any academic classes or took any exam or dropped out after one semester would have alma maters. That is obvious nonsense.

So, in total: RMS wasn't enrolled at MIT, but even if he was, he wasn't awarded a degree, so MIT isn't an alma mater. ʘχ (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

(talk) 13:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Zionism

You inserted "or" in "perceived its primary goal as an ideal ingathering of exiles (kibbutz galuyot) in the ancient heartland of the Jewish people,[15] and, through a unique variation on the principle of national self-determination[16] or the establishment" in your 24 June revision of the Zionism article. Why at all and why there where it sounds awkward rather than instead of "and" following "people"? Mcljlm (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

(talk) 07:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

attribution and time

I dont really care too much, but I think you should maybe give people a day or two to digest and discuss a pretty big change to the lead, and I also think you should probably give attribution to the people who wrote the change in the edit-summary like you would in a page to page move of content if it is being taken from the talk page. nableezy - 22:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Violations

Please read

Wikipedia:BLPREMOVE very carefully, before you find yourself blocked form editing. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

(talk) 22:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

1RR violation on Jordan Peterson

I believe with this edit on

WP:1RR rule. If that's the case, you should probably self-revert. (And thanks for starting a discussion on the talk page.) Korny O'Near (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

1RR violation

At Palestine you have breached 1R.

Revert of Sharontse121, readded de jure

Revert of myself, again readding de jure

Kindly self revert. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have now also reverted my edits at

WP:ONUS you need to justify the inclusion of this material.Selfstudier (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Being bold as habit

That's fine in some instances, not so much in others. Contentious page moves require an explicit talk page consensus for them. Now I dont really fault the impulse to try to cut through the bureaucracy and make an edit to a lead or move a page, but in a DS restricted area under things like a 1RR that impulse needs to be restrained a bit more. You cant just decide that your preferred title is the correct one, you cant just decide that a discussion in which only one person has suggested that title is enough to make the change yourself, in a page your involved in. There is being bold and then there is being reckless, and there are a few times youve exceeded the bold part of things. This isnt a warning, or a threat to report, or anything of the matter. I think you try very hard to edit in a NPOV, yes I have a view on how well you succeed at times, but let me be very clear that I have 0 doubt as to your good faith intent to improve an article with every edit you make. So while this isnt a warning or a threat to report, it is a request that for things like contentious edits to the lead or page moves, that you follow the process of gaining consensus first, and making the change after. nableezy - 15:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please move it back to the title that was reached in the last move request and allow for this current discussion to play out and be closed. That is required, and common sense for an involved editor not to presumptively decide the outcome of a discussion they have been involved in, during a move request. nableezy - 15:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The previous title was too inaccurate. The conflict was restricted to Gaza. –

(talk) 15:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It does not matter. You dont decide the article's title, consensus does. Ill ask for it to be reverted at

WP:RMTR then. nableezy - 16:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

By now you should know not to make personal attacks

As you did at

Talk:2022 Israel–Palestine escalation. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]