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[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[reply]

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

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

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bkissin was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at 2001 Club instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2001 Club and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2001 Club, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bkissin (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Banks Irk! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Bkissin (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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

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

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

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

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- Primefac (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]