User talk:Marrakech

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Peacock Alley
I have reverted your edit on Peacock Alley as the discussion was not yet closed. Archiving is not the same as concluding, you should know that. So I have restored the discussion on Reference desk/Language for further talks. The Banner talk 08:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not about you
A disciplinary discussion in which you may become involved, or may wish to comment, is at WP:ANI here regarding possible disciplinary action against User:The Banner for edit warring at Peacock Alley (restaurant). Akld guy (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop following me around
You think that you are correcting things, but "defunct restaurant" is correct English. Following me around will cause you trouble. The Banner talk 19:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not, The Banner. "X is a defunct restaurant'" is an awkward way of saying that restaurant X does no longer exist. Just like "The Café de Paris is a defunct bar on Via Veneto in Rome" would be very awkward. So please don't stonewall corrections to your articles. Marrakech (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And again you state that it is just a matter of taste. My warning about following me around is a serious one. Do not play games. The Banner talk 20:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a game, and neither is it a matter of taste. This is about using perfectly normal and natural language (X was a restaurant') instead of the very awkward phrasing 'X is a defunct restaurant'. See this discussion for some background. Marrakech (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is about a guy with no serious history of editing on the English language, suddenly editing articles that I have edited today. The Banner talk 20:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice when you stop following me around. Your sudden appearance on Beaulieu, Doorwerth Castle, less then an hour after I had edited, really gives the impression of stalking. The Banner talk 21:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The pot and the kettle. Anyway, I would gladly have a bot correct the remaining 'defunct' phrases in the restaurant articles you wrote, but I don't know how or where to file a request. Marrakech (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are about 1400 articles with that phrase, slightly more than the restaurant articles I have written. Do you really want to see al the opposition? But you only target "my" articles for your stuff. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Banner, I count no more than a total of 80 instances of the 'is a defunct restaurant' phrase, which was the subject of this request for comment. Correcting the particular wording in all the relevant articles is a bit of a chore, which is why it takes me some time to finish the job. Marrakech (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you consider "is a defunct restaurant" wrong why should any other instance of "is a defunct" be correct? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a non sequitur, The Banner, and I for one never said that. It all depends on the context, and in the context of 'your' restaurant articles the phrase is clearly wrong or in any case extremely awkward (an opinion shared by an overwhelming majority of the users who participated in the request for comment referred to above). Anyway, we have been over this before and I do feel there is no point in going round in circles over and over again. Marrakech (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And in your context it is wrong when I used that phrase, not when somebody else does that. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. Marrakech (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC
You are not the one to close that RfC. Usually, it is run for a month. And it must be closed by an 'uninvolved editor, not by the one starting the RfC. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice
Newimpartial (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Manual_of_Style/Biography
Read it. It doesn't matter whether the person in question is a rapist/murderer or not, nor is it disrepsectful to the victim to include their current name. Your behaviour is risking a block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Look who's talking. And it actually does matter. Marrakech (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
<div class="user-block uw-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px"> You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing and pov pushing. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 20:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Truly chilling. Imagine me getting indefinitely banned in a theocratic society where strict blasphemy laws are in place for simply voicing the opinion that God doesn't exist, among other reasons because the authorities consider my opinion to be extremely divisive and 'theophobic', as well as deeply hurtful for those who do believe in God. I am sure you, Isabelle Belato, and all the other people who feverishly defended blocking me, would be outraged at such a measure, possibly even calling on Amnesty International to take urgent action. Yet you don't see any problem in blocking me indefinitely from Wikipedia for expressing a similar opinion, i.e. for not believing that a man who raped and killed an innocent woman actually was himself a woman while committing those heinous deeds. And you resort to the same age-old arguments to blatantly trample on my basic right to free expression, claiming that the alleged hatefulness ('transphobia!') of my opinion fully justifies banning me from the wikipedian society.


 * The moral of this comparison: though you most probably consider yourself a firm believer in democracy and free speech and all, in reality there is no difference between you and theocratic authoritarians whom no doubt you would despise for their draconian and anti-democratic actions.


 * Let's see if you at least have the decency to respect this contribution of mine on my own talk page. Marrakech (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The first rule of holes applies here. Rants in the same tone and go on anbout involving Amnesty International and whatnot will quickly result in your talkpage access being revoked. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 12:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't a rant (though it is telling that you should think so) and I don't go on about involving Amnesty International, certainly not for my own sake. If only for the fact that they would probably side with you on this matter. Marrakech (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you really think I, a lifelong Connecticut resident, have any sympathy for a convicted murderer, I'm not sure what else to say. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am at a loss here. Based on what do you assume that I would genuinely think you have any sympathy for a convicted murderer? Marrakech (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID is indeed a policy, part of the manual of style. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out the quote above supplied by Marrakech apparently from MOS:GENDERID, doesn't even appear in MOS:GENDERID it appears in MOS:GIDINFO which iis an expanded form of MOS:GENDERID. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)