User talk:Bananakingler

Hi Bananakingler! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change Berber to Tmazight? M.Bitton (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They are synonymous. If you prefer Berber that’s fine. I am planning to do most city’s in that book. So I can use Berber for future reference Bananakingler (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's not your decision, especially if you intend on changing something and attributing the claim to a source. Please don't so that again. M.Bitton (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If you have doubt about any of the sources I’m happy to discuss them with you. Maybe we can find a better and more accurate source. I saw that the source was used for Agadir and that it might be derived from the Punic Gadir. Bananakingler (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know:

This is what the article on berber names say about tamazight and berber:

"Relatedly, the endonym of Berber languages is typically Tamazight, and in English, "Tamazight" and "Berber languages" are often used interchangeably."

So i did not do this by my "decision" how you claimed, but in concordance with the articles here. I am fine for now with using berber if that makes you stop the WP:BADREVERT you did on the page. Bananakingler (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:13, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Did you even read it? 😂 Bananakingler (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yes. The source doesn't say that the name "Tataouine" means "water springs", but it says that the name "Foam Tataouine" means "mouth of the springs", which is already in the 2nd paragraph of that section 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And for that you give me a final warning? Honestly ridiculous. Bananakingler (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Assume good faith? :) Bananakingler (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've checked your talk page history, and you've been warned multiple times this month [1] [2] [3], so a 4th level warning is warranted here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So you think you should another one for no reason?

1 was a honest mistake. I stopped using LLM for summary’s the moment I was told it is against guidelines.

2 was a ridiculous warning. I did not do test edits there. Look at Mos:B

3 Reverting ONE edit ONCE is not an edit war. I explained my position well and honestly better than the other user but tried to enforce an edit war. I did not engage in it.

So yeah of course you can add an final warning, but it is ridiculous. Bananakingler (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t you also add the warning for writing Tamazight instead of Berber languages? Then you could even say it’s 5 :) Bananakingler (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you make this edit? That is not English usage. JBW (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the bold writing for it cause, it does not comply with MOS:B. Another user reverted it. I am not gonna engage in that. Bananakingler (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. I assumed that my mention of English usage would indicate what aspect of the edit I had in mind, but evidently it didn't. I was referring to your introduction of a kind of quotation mark which is not used in English. JBW (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thank you for the clarification. I did not know that. The idea was to show that it is a called name. Since I removed the bold writing I did not wanted to leave it just like that. English is not my mother tongue. Bananakingler (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just one Question. In Yennayer the text is: ....of recognizing Yennayer as the "Amazigh New Year," based on the longstanding tradition ....

Should it be the: ....of recognizing Yennayer as the 'Amazigh New Year' , based on the longstanding tradition ....

I am not gonna edit anything, cause i am honestly afraid again to get accused for doing edit warring or disruptive editing. I just want to understand. Bananakingler (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bananakingler. You have new messages at Talk:Haplogroup E-Z827.
Message added 08:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined your filing at WP:3O. You linked to Talk:Safi, but there is no evidence of a dispute at that page. You are welcome to re-file with a proper link to where the dispute is occurring, or pursue other forms of dispute resolution. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You've seen that in no way am I biased against you, so please take this as friendly and constructive advice - I think you should stop replying to Skitash or any other editors you've reported at the ANI thread. The thread has already ballooned, and I think frankly that sometimes people look at which editors are leaving lots and lots of comments and assume that they are the problem. If an admin or even an uninvolved editor asks you a question you should absolutely answer, but the back-and-forth is not serving you well.

I'm not an expert - I'm not particularly experienced myself - but I've been round the block a few times at ANI and the other conduct boards, not always in ways that ended up well for me. People are not interested in your commentary on the other users' behaviour, in fact they're more likely to use that commentary against you than to take it at face value. They'll only respond - and I hope that this gets a dispassionate response - to comments where what you're saying is totally self-evident from the evidence you produce. That standard is really, really hard to meet, at least for me, especially when you encounter editors whose behaviour is so obviously over the line you can't adequately summarise and prove it in a relatively concise comment with a few diffs.

Also, and this is totally unfair and not something I agree with, but I think that people at ANI will be pretty judgemental of less than perfect spelling and grammar, even if you're careful about that kind of thing when actually editing articles.

In any case, it's not clear now whether this ANI thread can reach a result or if it has to go to arbcom. In that case, there's not much benefit to further contributing. Arbcom is even more arcane and difficult to follow. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clear words. I feel like there is a need make things clear when some states something that is wrong in my opinion. One other user wrote me something similar. So I will try to better myself. It’s difficult to admit but it seems like I am easy to bait into stuff like this. Bananakingler (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[4] lol Bananakingler (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Going to second this. I would also advise trying to see if you can find stuff to edit outside of Morocco to reduce potential issues with those users at this time. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I say it for your sake:

• Stop commenting at the ANI. Write a short message saying that you're disengaging and that you'll only respond to any admins who ping you. Then do that. If an admin pings you with a question, respond, once, as concisely as you can.
• Try and move on. If someone reverts you, just ask them why on the article talk. Don't revert your stuff back in, even if the other person was unjustified. Try and discuss on talk and if necessary go through WP:Dispute resolution processes.
• If one of the editors you reported at ANI reverts you (on a new page, not one you've already been disputing) go to one of the admins who have weighed in at the ANI thread and tell them.

It doesn't look like any admins have decided to step in and actually do something about the behaviour that you (and I) have highlighted, despite two of them pretty clearly signalling that they see and understand the problem. In that case there's nothing to be gained from continuing to comment, and to be a bit blunt, I think accusations like yours are more likely to lead to the accuser being judged than the accused.

If you're determined to continue, I can't stop you, but I came back because I think you're probably a person who will really like wikipedia if you're able to get on with it for a bit, and I wouldn't want to see you sanctioned. It's not your fault you've been dragged into a sprawling and complicated behavioural dispute right at the beginning of your editing career. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Bananakingler (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if it is relevant for you but here it seemed to me like there was some kind of manipulation of edits too which got an user out of an rfc

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 251 Bananakingler (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Standard Algerian Berber, you may be blocked from editing. Sugar Tax (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How is that disruptive? That user adds something clearly not helpful so I removed it. Bananakingler (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also why do you push the WP:ONUS on my side? The one adding disputed content is responsible for finding consensus. Bananakingler (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bananakingler, if you don't change both your tone and approach, you are extremely likely to be blocked for tendentious editing. I strongly suggest that you limit yourself to one revert, total, in any dispute. -- asilvering (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Bananakingler (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also read through WP:Dispute resolution Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Azrou. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Skitash (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Tag-teaming in North African topics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how long I got time to give my statement? I am pretty occupied with my personal life for the next week but I want to take time for giving a full answer Bananakingler (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, a full statement isn't required - at this point the arbs just need to decide whether or not to open a case. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I'm busy with personal things for the next week but I'll try to respond to direct questions" or "I'm busy with personal things for the next week but [two-sentence statement]". The arbs will understand. -- asilvering (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bananakingler (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]