User talk:The Banner/Archives/2024/March

The Signpost: 2 March 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 61
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 61, January – February 2024 
 * Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
 * 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Milan Malpensa ANA flight to Tokyo H.
Hi

I saw that you reverted an edit regarding the resumal of ANA flight from Haneda to MXP. The source has been already previously proved wrong as it just re-take some spare data from 2020 (pre-covid era) and flog as recent (without considering all the things happened in the meanwhile, first the fact that ANA itself removed the service before the effective start). It is, actually, the only source that state the start of the flight next 20 april...in fact it will NOT. By simply giving a look to the company web site (https://www.ana.co.jp/it/it/plan-book/routes-timetables/international-route-information/) it appears that this service has not been re-strated and will not, at least, up to next October. Has a proof of this, not Malpensa airport, nor other sources (e.g. Aeroroutes) have yet confirmed the presence of such a flight. I kindly ask you to un-do your un-edit. Additionaly, these kind of edit, made by unregistered users, always have to be carefully evaluate as, recurrently, are errors if not vandalisms. Available 4 info regards Riktetta (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we need independent sources. The Banner  talk 09:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think you got completely the point. Anyway there is NO independent source stating that the service will start on next 20 April, except this one, that, again, has been proved wrong. Once the 20 of April will arrive and NO flight there will be, which arguments are you going to use to support? This would be an intercontinental route and, usually, there is quite a fanfare of announcements to market this. Nothing seen as for today, including independent sources (e.g. Aeroroutes, Malpensa24.it or similar) Riktetta (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think you got completely the point. You state "that source is wrong" and I ask "give evidence that the source is wrong". The Banner  talk 20:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it state that ANA will start the service Malpensa - Haneda on 20th of April, when it will not. Riktetta (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Still a statement but no evidence. Sorry. The Banner  talk 20:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider follow independent source: https://simpleflying.com/all-nippon-big-european-expansion-in-2024/ even though it speaks about the establishment of the route it clearly state that "No details (start dates, frequencies, schedules, equipment, prices, etc.) are known when writing." Being of the same days of the reference used in the wiki page it has to be considered valid as well.
 * Also consider https://www.pegasonews.info/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59230:ana-volo-diretto-da-milano-malpensa-a-tokyo-haneda&catid=101&Itemid=162 . It reports the same dates (20 april start, 10 July increase of services) but it is dated back as 2020. It also stated that sales of flights would commence on 27 January 2020 while, even if it was, are not on sales today (about 1 month prior to the depart) that is quite uncanny. It appears that these dates has been mismatched (or copy-pasted) in the "aviacionline" page.
 * Source https://italiabsolutely.com/news/transportation/all-nippon-airways-direct-tokyo-haneda-to-milan-flights-in-2024-25 clearly states what also in official airline company, that service will not depart untill 2024-25, while all the following confirm that https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/airports-networks/ana-plans-european-network-expansion https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2024/01/24/all-nippon-airways-adds-european-routes/ Riktetta (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:SIMPLEFLYING.  The Banner  talk 21:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

ANI comment
Hi, just a heads up, you have probably posted this comment in the wrong section (as far as I can say you are referring to Rachel Help but you posted the comment in the Thmazing topic ban). My best, Cavarrone 19:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * More confusion, as you pointed to a correctly placed edit. But you are correct, I placed the edit in the wrong section. I had missed the header in between. Thank you for pointing that out.  The Banner  talk 19:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, apparently I linked a totally unrelated edit :D Glad you still managed to understand what I was referring to. Cavarrone 20:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Rachel" was the clue to solve the mystery. The Banner  talk 20:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Assume good faith.
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors.

Your comments in the Margaret Sanger Talk Page are disrespectful and portraying an assumption of bad faith. You are bringing up something completely off-topic to criticize and bash my character. It has nothing to do with the article at-hand, and the only purpose of you doing that is to tarnish my credibility and reputation.

My request for deletion of the "For a Lost Soldiers" article was not simply because I disagreed with the movie. It was because the article was extremely poorly written, and I saw there to be a great lack of notability. Once people included more sources to prove its notability, I voluntarily retracted my nomination. I deleted the PROD notice from the talk page thinking that was the proper procedure, but I assume it is not.

I don't appreciate you following me around and accusing me of bad faith just because you disagree with me. DocZach (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You have something to hide? The Banner  talk</i> 01:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry? DocZach (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking back at some of your comments in your talk page here, it seems you have a tendency to make personal attacks rather than deliberating the argument at-hand. You seem to be repeatedly assuming bad faith in editors you disagree with (i.e. @LuxembourgLover), and your comments come off as very rude and hostile. You need to stop that behavior. DocZach (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Changi Airport Logo
Hi, I saw you reverted my changes for the Changi Airport Logo. Despite the logo saying "Changi Airport Group", it is still the right logo. can easily be verified at https://www.changiairport.com/. Would appreciate it if the current logo (aka the right one) stays, thanks!

- a changi airport staff 202.55.83.233 (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not change the airport logo. I reverted some u7nexplained removals. It is good practise to give independent sources for any additions and give an explanation (preferably with independent sources) when you remove text.


 * In this case you made it clear that you have a Conflict of Interest in your editing. That is not illegal but be careful with it as it is not appreciated. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit comments
Hello again,

I've noticed that you reverted some of my recent edits on Wikipedia with comments like 'nah, I don't think there were already armored units in those days ,' and 'garbled text replaced by English text.' While I understand your concern for accuracy, I would appreciate it if we could maintain a constructive dialogue about edits. If you believe there are errors or issues with the information I provided, I'm more than willing to discuss and address them. I would rather less sarcasm and just a revert or a simple edit fixing the problems. LuxembourgLover (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have asked you to deliver better quality edits. More accurate and in proper English. So far you have failed to do so. Even something simple as a spell-checker could help you.
 * While I have no doubt that you are of good will, too many of your edits are just not good enough. I have voiced my concern about your competency often enough. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I know. We have been over this a dozen times, but the sarcasm saying stuff like 'nah, I don't think there were already armored units in those days,' and 'garbled text replaced by English text' is not needed. LuxembourgLover (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Then check before you save. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And the garbled text: "For This is about the milita from 1840-1845, for the other milita called the militia called the Nauvoo Legion, see Utah Territorial Militia, see Nauvoo Legion (disambiguation)." Did you read that yourself? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, that was my first time using the {About} template so it was not the best. I was trying to say: "This is about the milita from 1840-1845, for the other milita called the Nauvoo Legion, see Utah Territorial Militia, see also Nauvoo Legion (disambiguation)." With that said WP:nice. Also please don't respond with wp:cir. LuxembourgLover (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That it was the first time you used this template is no excuse. You always have the option to "preview" your edit before publishing. Your work is often just sloppy and incorrect. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You keep reverted without apparent consideration of the linked articles. One notable instance is this edit.
 * Regarding the infobox for Dimick B. Huntington, it's worth noting that he was listed as a commander of the Utah Territorial Militia, indicating his significant military service. Additionally, the removal of the edit also resulted in the deletion of a picture associated with it.
 * I've noticed a pattern where my edits are reverted without thorough examination, and I believe that in many cases, a simple two-minute fix could resolve the issue. LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you going to give Elvis Presley an infobox military person because once he was in the military? He is known for something else, not as soldier. And no, I stopped fixing things just because you make too many mistakes. Often clearly misinterpreting sources or over-blowing minor details. Huntingdon might have been a commander of the militia, the article shows that that was not what made him notable.  The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You should still be respectful and limit sarcasm while editing Wikipedia. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you really think your sloppy draft will stand a chance at AfC?? Really, you keep giving me arguments to doubt about your competence. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 00:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This just reinforces my claim about your lack of respect on Wikipedia. Using sarcasm and calling my edits 'sloppy' and 'horrible' is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, yes, I do believe my draft would pass, judging by the editor's statement that it was potentially notable; I just need more sources. LuxembourgLover (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CIR. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Submission declined on 26 March 2024". You may get grumpy about my critical look on proceedings, but this rejecting is no surprise at all. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What recent edits have shown I need “Competence” like I said the draft only was denied because it needed more sources. LuxembourgLover (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A competent person would have known that the sourcing was below par and needed work. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I never submit an article thinking its perfect. Also once again this just reinforces my claim about your lack of respect on Wikipedia. Using sarcasm and calling my edits 'sloppy' and 'horrible' is not allowed on Wikipedia. LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For your information, I can also take other steps to call out your lack of competence. I have no doubt about your willingness and enthusiasm. You wrote somewhere about your dyslexia and I respect that in so far that I advice the use of a spell-checker. But you keep coming with poorly written and poorly sourced texts.
 * One note about the draft: User:Chetsford is also asking for strictly independent sources. In my opinion, that excludes sources related to the Mormons for the article "Latter-day Saints Militias and Military Units". The Brigham Young University and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are closely related, so fail that condition. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Skibbereen (song) modification
I think what I've said is in the given source. however, I wrote it was page 208, because it's the number at the top of the page, but using the websites number, it's page 220 Marissonsoneur (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That the song is named "Old Skibbereen" did not help to find it. :-) But I have reverted my edit and made some minor corrections. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Marissonsoneur (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)