Banks Irk

Hello, Banks Irk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Oberlin College. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've opened a discussion here about the recent Travel + Leisure's college campus rankings you recently added to several articles. Please contribute to the discussion. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the notice. I will comment there.Banks Irk (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Regarding the edit you made here on my talk page, calling good faith edits vandalism is unfortunately considered a violation of our personal attack policy. I clearly explained that my edits to the article were in good faith, not vandalism, as it always has been since I've been here for the past 7 years. Since you are relatively new to the project, there are other ways to obtain consensus for a possible merge, like a requested merge, which I think should have been done in the first place. An AFD could be an imperfect venue for obtaining consensus. If I made a mistake though or did something to upset you, then I am deeply sorry. It was never my intention to hurt or upset you or cause any issues. Please do not feel discouraged from editing Wikipedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the apology. Nor was it my intention to hurt or upset you. Vandalism was a poor choice of words on my part. The reason why I wrote that this needed to go to AFD is because you were not proposing a merger at that time, but simply deleting the work of a score of editors and redirecting to a page devoid of meaningful content, without any discussion. Having commented on a previous AFD, I knew that AFD was the place where disputed redirects are supposed to go. Now that you have changed your mind and now think that a merger is in order, I will comment at the merger discussion. Banks Irk (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

No hard feelings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. On most of the other major language Wikipedias, qualifications are required to be able to vote on RfA. You may wish to read this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

You do not and should not notify everyone who has ever edited an article about an AFD - only the creator and anyone who has made substantial edits. It's considered canvassing otherwise. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. The two editors who initially created the article left Wikipedia years ago, so I just notified any other non-bot editor who contributed. Banks Irk (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

West Herzegovina Canton has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Randykitty (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. ElKevbo (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Let's see. you've reverted twice to your preferred version. After I edited to address the rationale for your first revert, you reverted again. I questioned the rationale for the second revert on your talk page, and then restored my second edit. But I'm the one edit warring, in the wrong and getting templated? I don't think so. You're the one on the cusp of 3RR, not me. Banks Irk (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

You stated "No, you cannot use Amazon as a source. This is not a close question."

I am trying to understand why you stated this and why the question was archived. Amazon has been adding to movies information that is much more accurate than IMDB. They have been building the Amazon Z-ray feature for three plus years. https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/entertainment/what-is-x-ray-on-prime-video,https://www.geekwire.com/2018/amazon-x-ray-lets-viewers-take-deeper-dive-shows-2018s-popular-revealed/

Why would we say this is not a reliable system? The reason I put it up was to have a discussion about this not for a quick answer. While they started with IMDB they have added "The layers of information added to shows and movies is done through a combination of machine learning and manual work."

So I think it merits a discussion of if we should consider this information reliable for all movies. It may actually be one of the largest databases if information on actors, producers, and directors. They do seem to be back filling IMDB with some of the information.Jsgoodrich (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Gruet Winery, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

		The Special Barnstar
		For your hard work at WP:RSN. Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

— Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 13:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I hope this message finds you well. I believe that in PanAm Post's RfC, rather than not being a consensus to change the result from the previous RfC, there simply was no consensus regarding the source's reliability, particularly due to the previous consensus being small. As such, I wanted to know your thoughts abour reconsidering the closure. Best regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@NoonIcarus:Thank you for your note. I certainly considered that as one possible conclusion, but in the end, there was more support for #3 over #2. I also considered closing based on #3, but that seemed more like simple vote counting. Recognizing that it was a close question, I decided that "no consensus to change" best reflected the discussion. I still think that is the correct closure. But, if you want other opinions, closures can be appealed at WP:AN. I won't be offended if you appeal, and probably won't participate. Banks Irk (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I totally understand the reasons and that's alright, thank you very much. I understand that in any case it is courtesy to let know the closer when such review has been opened, so I wanted to leave you the link of said discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC: Reliability of PanAm Post review.

There have been disputes about the source's use in the last months, such as in the Operation Gideon (2020) article. I don't think it matters much at this point, but I can give you more details in case you're interested. Best wishes and happy editing, --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your behavior at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tails Wx has been unhelpful at best. If you have an opinion to express about the candidate, that's fine, but comments like "Respect your elders, junior" are totally unacceptable. It is uncivil and borders on a personal attack. I'll be blunt; if you keep this up, you're going to get blocked. RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Will the same warning be posted to Serial's talk page? Banks Irk (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I am seeking more outside opinion for this issue: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Questionable reference in Johor Bahru, if the reference counts as unreliable? Slothades (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply