User talk:Buidhe/Archive 10

1812:

remove the link, it takes something away from the Wiki user, which goes against the very reason why we have Wiki. Also, some disambig. page does evolve into a proper article and then it's double right to have it linked. There is no downside, nothing to lose. I am careful about where I'm using such links, and Wiki sends me emails when I do and I go back and double-check. But even if other editors don't do that, it should be checked case by case, the criterion always being: does it clarify a term or otherwise add useful info? If it does, the link is justified and should stay on.

4192:

non-registered or non-autoconfirmed users)... create new articles directly into mainspace." But I am far from "non-regitered" and far from "non-autoconfirmed". I made my first edit in 2006 and I have 9,165 live edits. I have had the same user-name the entire time, and I was logged-in when I created the moved article. I am, to say the least, deeply puzzled as to why it was moved to Drafts. Since your name appears in the history, I hope you can explain why it was moved. I am assuming good faith, but believe some error was made.

3961:, Hello, thanks for your contributions! Unfortunately, we have to confirm that you have the rights to the content in question. The easiest way to donate your text so that it can be used on Knowledge (XXG) is to add somewhere on the website a "The text of this paper is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License." (This is the same free license that Knowledge (XXG) uses.) 31: 742: 656: 4792: 4752: 4714: 382: 4367: 1774: 2158:, In the discussion, only one person explicitly called for deletion. You did not, and in your comment, you did not state any issue that would be addressed by deleting rather than redirecting the template. My understanding was that redirecting templates is generally preferred to deletion because that causes fewer problems when viewing older revisions of pages that previously transcluded the template. ( 1676: 1592: 1473: 4834: 3518: 3246: 2993: 2576: 2411: 2239: 1848: 1385: 1271: 1162: 1076: 990: 896: 541: 133: 4062: 2498: 1935: 3474: 2366:

article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through

3776: 4024: 3423: 753: 667: 467:

glorify and justify this act of terror against the sovereign nation of Botswana, an act of terror by the Apartheid government which prompted a swift diplomatic response by the United States, the United Kingdom, many other countries and the United Nations. Please refrain from further disruptive edits in favour of extremist narratives!

3755:

Buidhe, you are still listed as the reviewer of this GA nomination, yet you have not been responding to pings. If you are no longer interested in pursuing this review, please let me know and I'll look for another reviewer. If you are, please post in response to the recent comments there. Many thanks.

2043:

I have uploaded the biography of Dr. Chowdari Satyanarayana but it has been removed from Knowledge (XXG) and the reason which I have received for the rejection was that the information which is used with the intention of promoting any agency or company. can you kindly explain it more details it and i

3678:

I believe that there is a user with multiple fake accounts is trying to vandalize the article and turning it into promotional campiagn instead of encyclopdic work , he is deleting third party sources then added tons of primary sources , then engage din edtiing warring they/he needs to be blocked or

2105:

Hello Buidhe. I’ve nominated an for GA. After working with many editors and admins to get it to where it is now, I think it’s ready for the process. If time permits, with your help I would like to give it a GA stamp of approval, please. Thank you for your time, and thank you for your consideration.

466:

You reverted the article back to it's previous, obviously politically biased state, which referred to South Africans leaving the country to escape Apartheid persecution as "terrorists". Due to your actions the article now again uses badly sourced and biased material to spin a narrative that tries to

4191:

box. The article has been moved to the Draft space; something that I have never heard of before, even though I have created 237 pages in Knowledge (XXG). I did find, on the Knowledge (XXG) AfC page this sentence "The Articles for Creation (AfC) process is intended to assist editors who cannot (e.g.

1973:

Hello Sir, I hope that you would be safe and sound. My name is Mutahar Maqsood. I have uploded the biography of Dr. Chowdari Satyanarayana but it has been removed from the wikipedai and the reason which I have received for the rejection was that the information which is used with the intention of

1811:

Hi Buidhe. I see that you are using some king of bot or code that removes wikilinks leading to disamb. pages. Please reconsider. It is allowed on Wiki to set in such links, because they do contain information (mainly by explaining the term in the lead, but not only). If your bot does automatically

1558:

and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion

110:

The section "Impact" is not balanced or neutral. You can't create a lengthy section relying on only one single source. The source used (the CoE) is also biased itself towards the court (obviously). A source being biased is not in and of itself a problem (few sources are actually neutral), but for

3184:

I realize that, in my haste, I have been ambiguous. I am not plumping for WP as a self-referential source. And I realize that WP has to legally cover its butt by insisting that, overall, changes will happen. However, the concept that only print sources are grist for an internet encyclopedia goes

3118:

The Aerodrome has a bibliography, which by consensus makes a website reliable. We in the WWI aviation history community established that some years ago in a consensus. Also, some of the world's most published and greatest authorities on WWI aviation are behind the site--Greg VanWyngarden, for

2935:, A prison is where people are held according to the law. This place was not a prison, because the people were not detained according to laws, but according to the whims of the authorities. That is the definition of internment/concentration camp. So far no one has addressed this distinction. ( 2365:

templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography

3786:

regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

3219:

Hi Buidhe, I noticed that your bot edited a portion of the U.S. Army Distinctive unit insignia page. Just a slight heads up that we keep the unit mottos on the insignia as unlinked as often they can get linked to a completely different meaning than what is actually meant by the

2179:

My nomination was for deletion and, I think, clearly so. Had I meant redirection, I would have said so; or simply redirected it. There were no people explicitly calling for redirection. If anything, I think redirection will cause more, not fewer, problems on old pages.

2012:

policy by promoting the subject in subjective terms, rather than stating objective accomplishments of the subject. If you write an article in line with Knowledge (XXG) policies, making sure to cite all information and maintain a neutral tone, it will not be deleted.

2379: 4111: 3119:

instance. These are the same historians that we cite when they publish in print. It makes no sense to say they are reliable in print, but not on the internet. Kinda reminiscent of the argument that paper encyclopedias are better than Knowledge (XXG).

1113: 2386:. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. 482: 3188:

The Aerodrome website has a bibliography page buried deep within. Pain in the tail to find. Some biography pages in the site cite the source(s) at the foot--where the historians cite the very books I use when I can find

2888:, If it is determined that this article is not covered by your t-ban I would suggest commenting on the last section on the talk page. Surely you know by now that the quality of sources is more important than quantity. ( 3825:

Looks like you got hit by the same pageswap bug that I've seen a few other times lately: if you do a pageswap of two pages where one has a talk page and the other doesn't, the redirect from moving the talk page will be

4409:

My question is this: will it have to stay in Draft form until I have submitted it for approval? Or can I just go ahead and put it up onto the English Wiki off my own bat, given that I am an 'Extended Confirmed User'?

1362:

is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team,

1359: 2909:

But it was a prison, there are sources for that. Other names are also in the lead as you wanted. Why this hard stance despite at least 3 people disagreeing with you on that? This is what I’m not getting Buidhe. -

3032: 1974:

pormoting any agency or company . can you kindly explain it more details it and i will really appreciate that if let me know that still can i revive my article so that i can do the changes there. Thank You.

3281: 1420: 505: 2274: 832:? The article has been posted there a while ago and as received only one text review so far, so I am worried about it failing for want of reviews, in particular image and source ones. Thank you. 2126: 2619: 576: 3185:

against the flow of events. MSM is fading as Internet news picks up. Information storage is rising into the Cloud. WP is pretty unchanging except for growth; not much deletion going on.

214:

Is that helpful somehow? Instead of having actual information? People should be forced look at another article to get information which the title of this page describes they should get?

4262:

Thanks! I am also not too sure if relisting helps to get more reactions, but leaving a discussion open for a longer period because of too few initial reactions certainly doesn't harm.

4184: 1306: 1027: 2862:

Should I tell you how many times you reverted the word “prison" by now? You are such a great contributor and I like you but sometimes looks like you are having trouble to compromise.

1243: 4379: 4371: 4406:

I have new article, this time from the Italian Wiki but with a lot of new information, all of which is cited. It is still in draft form and I will finish it within a day or two.

3553: 1948: 638:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — 935: 4494:

Hello. I was just wondering how the 2021 MLB season page can become active and not a draft. There has been three managerial changes that are on the list now. Thank you.

4873: 2511: 1105: 1095: 2362: 631: 2755:

Buidhe, Thank you for your suggestion. My one observance is that, the filmography section is considerably large. Dosent it justify for it to be in a seperate article? --

2450: 4072: 3835: 1728:

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at

1644:

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at

1201: 3705:

turned out to be planning a conspiracy against me on Begin Sadat Center article , they pre planned an escalated dispute to grant me a block , here is the evidence

3481:, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See 2956:

Okay, Buidhe, you know my position on this one, and I hope you will respect it. I'll let you sort this with Piotrus then, but remember what my view is, please -

798: 712: 2371: 358:

in this 1950 publication. Normally I'd assume this wouldn't be allowed, but as a reproduction of music I'm wondering if an exception of some kind exists? Best,

2375: 232:, Excerpting shows the relevant content on the page. It is not the same as a "see also" link which does force you to click on a link to see more information. ( 1823:. The linking was intentional, as that page also explains the term and doesn't just disambiguate. Hebrew is not an internationally widely used language :))) 3605:

Why are you moving so many articles out of this category? They've been added to this category over the years and doing an mass emptying is not appropriate.

850:, I am actually backlogged at the moment, unfortunately, although it's possible I might be able to do it after clearing out what I already promised to do. ( 4892: