Jump to content

User talk:The Banner

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


User talk:The Banner/Airport vandal

I try to the best of my knowledge and belief to contribute to the small red block of the image


Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.




My archives
Part 1: Old archives, organised per year.
Part 2: Current archives, organised per month



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Distuberd by your actions on my updates / Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport[edit]

I find it quite DISTURBING that you are: - removing current links (I've updated the page with relevant up to date links) - adding "independent" links which funnily enough come from 1 (one) web site only!? - consider a 3rd party web site to have more relevant information than the airline company itself - if the company announces a service on it's web page, why do we care about a 3rd party web site, which is relying on the airline information. And why is it just 1 site that you are prioritizing?

I am shocked, and honestly, quite disturbed by this fact. Algoritam1 (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not shocked or disturbed by the fact that you are afraid of independent sources. I have seen that too often already. But be advised that the removal of sources is seen as vandalism by a lot of people. Beside that: sources and source requests are not clutter, it is trying to make Wikipedia reliable and verifiable. The Banner talk 15:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As ALL the links you are posting lead to ONE web site ONLY, I am under the impression that you have INTEREST in it.
In case AN OFFICIAL SOURCE is used, it has move value than what you claim to be an independent source.
Pls. stop what you are doing, or you will be REPORTED for vandalizing the page. Algoritam1 (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furtheremore, I have updated several dead links with actual links. For reason known only to you, you have removed those links, and vandalized with dead links.
For the record. Algoritam1 (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That exyuaviation-source is a working link. But you preferred to replace that independent source by a related source provided by the marketing department of Air Serbia. Do you work for/on behalf of the airline or the airport? The Banner talk 08:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links
Enough said. Algoritam1 (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should start reading WP:V and WP:RS instead of making baseless claims. The Banner talk 16:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user is adding IRRELEVANT links to the page, and is vandalizing pages in the process:
- 2, 3, 5, 10 years dead links. When adding new, up to date links, the user reverts to non existing content
- adding 1 (ONE) web site as a source. The user claims this to be an independent source, but there seem to be ULTERIOR motives behind this - it's the only guess I can make. Algoritam1 (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have nothing more to offer than personal attacks and vandalism? Did you ever read WP:V and WP:RS? The Banner talk 08:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(from WP:AIV) Hi. Looking at their About page, we're talking about a self-published source by someone on the Internet on a Blogger blog. It is reasonable to argue that an airline's official website is a more reliable source for airline destinations than someone's Blogger blog. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS and WP:V are asking for third party sources, not the company website as source. Beside that, the editor claim that the links are dead, what is not the case. But I will see if the edit warring starts again, what was the reason of the prior block. The Banner talk 09:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not always correct, and both pages use the wording "largely not acceptable" to refer to your currently preferred type of source. WP:RS contains WP:SELFSOURCE as an exception that encompasses the official website but not someone else's blog. Regarding the edit warring, it seems you have contributed to it for no good reason. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, just removing independent sources is not a good idea. The Banner talk 09:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have been trying to explain to the user that posting links from 1 (one) website only (and which on top is a blog) does not make sense over posting official confirmation from the airline.
Furthermore, the user kept bringing back dead links, even after I replaced them with actual links. I can prove this if necessary (in spite of the users claims to the contrary). Algoritam1 (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting to see that you claim that links are dead but when I click on them, they work as normal. And no, it is not illegal to use one source for multiple claims. In fact, you were doing the same with the air serbia website. The Banner talk 13:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Algoritam1, the situation is less simple than it may have seemed first. For example, the edit summary of Special:Diff/1232608307 refers to the external links guideline, which is not applicable to the dispute about references, as described in bold text in its introduction. The edit summary of Special:Diff/1232531462 makes an accusation of vandalism, which means intentional damage to the encyclopedia that simply hasn't happened here. Special:Diff/1232181570 seems to remove references that have actually been used for adding content to the page and thus should be mentioned as long as that content is still present, or until a replacement source providing the same information has been found.
If I add "Person X did Y" to an article, citing the known-unreliable Daily Mail as the source for my claim, then the right response would be removing the entire sentence and the unsuitable reference. Or, if the known-reliable Guardian said the same thing, it would be equally fine to replace the Daily Mail citation by a Guardian citation. Your approach in Special:Diff/1232181570 appears to remove references without actually fixing the problem, only making the problem less visible. It is almost never a good idea to remove bad citations without touching the content taken from them.
You have created a discussion at Talk:Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport, that's a good step. You have discussed a multi-article dispute with at least one user you've been in conflict with; this is also not bad. The dispute resolution policy contains general advice. As edit warring is not part of the advice and is disruptive even if you are right, I'm happy to see that it has stopped.
About the "dead links" problem, some links are inaccessible from some countries. I can't access some US websites because they're still afraid of the EU's GDPR, "working" on a solution since 2018. Adding "web.archive.org/save/" in front of the URL sometimes already solves the problem. And if there's a specific link you are referring to, please do say which one(s). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By now, I have replaced a number of links by others, so that at least the argument "all of one site" is not valid any more. And my "ulterior motive" is just to have a reliable encyclopedia, sourced with independent sources. The Banner talk 16:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2024[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Banner&oldid=1233167642"