User talk:Aoidh/Archives/2016

This is an archive of past discussions with User talk:Aoidh/Archives. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'd like to inquire about your reasons for reverting diff 697774537. Solus is a distribution I've been trying to fix the article for, and I thought the current one at Solus Operating System would be enough to include it in this list. Is there something I am missing? --Jarfil (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you delete this article in French wiki? Grateful for the attention. 2804:14C:5BB6:44C:E269:95FF:FE51:FF80 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Woman. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Aoidh. I'm not a major Wikipedia editor, so I am not sure how to respond to this, so please let me know if I should do so in a better place. I posted this on my talk page some time ago (25 November 2015) and have no response, so I thought I would try here.

I appreciate the feedback. However I would point out that the page currently has one external link, which does not in fact contain the Suttavibhanga, but merely points to various sources which themselves do not contain the text. It is desirable in discussion of such a text to include a link to an available translation of the text, and this is what I did. Removing this reduces the usability of the page considerably, to no advantage that I can see. These links are not spam: they are up to date, relevant resources.

It is true, I am affiliated with Suttacentral, so this goes against the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Like I said earlier, I'm not a regular Wikipedia user, and I was not aware of this guideline, I simply added these links because I thought the pages would be improved by them. In many cases, the links to Buddhist texts are inadequate, broken, or simply mistaken.

The Buddhist pages tend to not attract a lot of interest, so the chances of getting a reasonable discussion are slim. I posted a lengthy entry in the talk page for Buddhist Mythology several months ago, and so far not a single response. Edit: now one response!

These links should be there. The only problem is that they were added by me, a site owner. So may I suggest that you replace them, then there is no problem.

To add to my previous message, I have now looked in more detail at Wikipedia's policy, and I do not believe I have violated anything. What I did was clearly not Citation spam which, in accord with the guidelines there, “should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia.” Furthermore, uncontroversial edits include repairing broken links, which is mostly what I did. These guidelines seem reasonable to me, and I now do not believe that I have broken any of them. Unless I hear otherwise, I will revert your changes.

Sujato (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edits have been for the sole purpose of promoting your website. Replacing links with your own is not "repairing broken links". I don't believe you're adding them maliciously, but there is a conflict of interest here, and you should not, under any circumstances, by adding your own website to Wikipedia. If you're truly interested in helping to build the encyclopedia, I would recommend expanding Buddhist articles in a way that doesn't also promote your website. - Aoidh (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

STOP being a wikipedia nazi... If you delete something, at least give a reason.Rob.bosch (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I explained very clearly on the article's talk page why I removed the entry you added, with an edit summary indicating that I did so. - Aoidh (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sir or madam, I attempted to clarify my trivia addition on Bessemer's racial demographics by citing the U.S. Census Records themselves, for which I have been extensively researching. I referenced the page that links to the census records, which you found unsatisfactory. You would have to review and cite 15 individual census documents for Alabama/Jefferson County to have proper documentation, and I don't know how I could list that many references in one shot, or if that is remotely necessary to do so. There is no other reference I can cite other than those records, since this is original research on my part. How else do you propose I cite the research ? DJ Jones74 (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Saying "it has the distinction of always having had a Black majority of residents" is problematic if nobody has made that distinction. The issue is that you're deriving a conclusion from raw data that isn't being concluded by anyone other than yourself. That is a "novel interpretations of a primary source" and if there's no reliable source that verifies your conclusion, it shouldn't be added to the article. I don't think that particular bit of research should be added to the article. I reworked the Buford, Georgia article from scratch and did countless hours researching old newspapers, legal documents, laws and session notes and I found countless things that I would have loved to put into the article that aren't really appropriate for the scope and purpose of a Wikipedia article so I understand where you're at, but if nobody else has reported on a conclusion, Wikipedia article's can't, since the purpose of Wikipedia articles are to reflect what is already concluded, not to draw fresh conclusions and present them. - Aoidh (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note I did exactly what was recommended by the editors who did not vote delete in the deletion discussion: stripped away the part about Wittgenstein's ladder to Wittgenstein's ladder and cut the rest. If you can't accept this solution, would you care to send the article to AfD again? --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't belong at AfD again, and you'll note that there's already a proposed merger discussion on the article's talk page...but not to your proposed target. While it is true that the proposal is not a new one, it's a more valid redirect target than your own. Also, there was no consensus for what you're suggesting, otherwise the admin would have noted that as opposed to "no consensus". There is no consensus to remove the article, if you want to remove the article, wait a while and renominate it. - Aoidh (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The merge proposal you reference is from 2013. I did exactly what people suggested at the AfD. Can we please not let this drag on forever? It's a term sourced only from a popular book, The Science of Discworld, which people decided to write an article about. The whole article is OR. If I remove all the OR, which has been tagged as requiring citation for years, will you then object to making a redirect out of what's left? Which will be essentially nothing. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I brought this up with the closer here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I've responded there. - Aoidh (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding you recent content removal, lists of past principals are endorsed as content for school articles in the school article guidelines. The referencing is obviously a separate issue and due to that, I did not restore the content. Just an FYI. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

That essay says "often useful", when it includes "a short description of their achievements"; a barebones list of names is meaningless data, especially when unsourced. A school having a list of headmasters that are noted in some way is very different than having a list of names just because. In my opinion it's not useful to include the list in this situation. I wasn't aware of WP:SCH/AG, however, but even in that context there is no reason to have the list. - Aoidh (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Further FYI, from NLIST (emphasis added),

For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni/alumnae, but such lists are not intended to contain everyone who attended the school — only those with verifiable notability. Editors who would like to be identified as an alumnus/alumna should instead use the categories intended for this purpose, e.g. Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents, headmasters or headmistresses can contain the names of all the people who held this post, not just those who are independently notable.

That just leaves the reference issue. The reason I'm being persistent about this is that school articles are frequently edited by new editors, some of whom can be quite productive. One of the biggest things that drives newbies off is conflicting info. Please keep that in mind. Thanks, and out. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of state leaders in 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Your free one-year account with Newspapers.com will end on March 5 2016. Newspapers.com has offered to extend existing accounts by another year. If you wish to keep your account until March 5 2017, please add your name to the Account Renewal list here. I'll let Newspapers.com customer support know, and they will extend your subscription. If you don't want to keep your account for another year, you don't have to do anything. Your account will expire unless I hear from you that you want to keep it. HazelAB (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Aoidh, nice report. I enjoy blocking socks. Bishonen | talk 16:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

No problem, thanks for helping. - Aoidh (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:PBB. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Fair use in... images. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:International club football. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Your account has been renewed. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. You undid revision 715867580 by IKorisnik with note "Not really worth noting": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU_IceCat&oldid=prev&diff=715867943 I disagree. As Ubuntu user, I find it interesting for millions of Ubuntu derivatives users to know that IceCat cannot be installed via repository and it has to be installed manually. Article already has info on 2 distros, and adding some more popular distros should welcome. I intend to add also info for Fedora, but not before this dispute is resolved. "IKorisnik (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)" PS Please confirm this is the proper place to raise a dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IKorisnik (talk • contribs) 07:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that any package can be made into a PPA by any person. That there used to be a PPA for a piece of software is largely the same as having a WordPress blog on a subject, without a third-party source showing that it's worth noting, it simply isn't. I looked before removing it, but all I found were a few blogs giving quick a "how-to" on adding the PPA to a system, rather than covering in any way that provides context or shows that it's a notable PPA. - Aoidh (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this user your boy 24hrnewsweathertraffic? He's been changing news hour operations again along with unexplained removals. ☔️ Corkythehornetfan ☔️ 13:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Bbb23 took care of it! ☔️ Corkythehornetfan ☔️ 15:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Good catch on the access-date; I'll have to remember to do that next time! I don't usually deal with new articles but came across Apricity OS while checking a related draft at AfC. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 22:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

if you talk i could know why you revert me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&oldid=prev&diff=717124589. like that it is better, i don't know why. let me wonder.--Vatadoshu^french 21:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed it per WP:ELNO, specifically the fact that it "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." There are countless charts that can be given to show data about the article's subject, that one in particular is not of note beyond the others. Also, blockchain.info is already found at the dmoz link that's included in the external links section, so the link is unnecessarily redundant. - Aoidh (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

thanks you to have respond.

I removed it per WP:ELNO... you know that image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total-bitcoins.svg come from this website and is in the article, so say" the source is bad" whereas the image in the article come from this website is illogic. i wanted to put the link because it is actualised and the image is not. If i want to know today how many bitcoin are in circulation i don't know.

Yes i see the website has been cited in reference for sentences. not to say "to know the number in circulation or have graphique from 30-60-180days; 1-2 years or since the begginning.

i dont know what is a "dmoz'"" link.

but it is ok if you see a redundance. --Vatadoshu^french 21:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:State of Palestine. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Go and search on Google shirley setia you will find notability Pankaj Acharaya (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I did. Didn't find anything. If it's as simple as a Google search, perhaps you'd be willing to add those sources to the article, but a paid advertisement doesn't show notability. - Aoidh (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes right bro thanku for suggetion Pankaj Acharaya (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Why you re direct smar puri to sanam band Pankaj Acharaya (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Because there were absolutely no sources showing that the individual met any notability guidelines, so I redirected the article to the most relevant subject, since any claim of notability would be through that band. - Aoidh (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Ohh., that's right what is your orginal name Pankaj Acharaya (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

As per the notification at the top of my talk page, "Aoidh was known as User:SudoGhost until a name change on 19 August 2013." I don't see how that's relevant, however. - Aoidh (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Ohh yeah i got it. Do u have facebook account ? I need your help in creating articles Pankaj Acharaya (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not. Regardless, if you need help, you are welcome to communicate here. - Aoidh (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

How many time takes by an article to published on google? Pankaj Acharaya (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually the BLP sources tag would be better for Matt Farah, I removed the refs that were there as they were all el's that were already in the EL section btw. Wgolf (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The information added to DontDateHimGirl is not poorly referenced. It comes from U.S. Federal Court in Miami. If you delete that reference, then you need to delete references of all cases on the page, since the source is the same. Both Ms. Cunningham and Mr. McGibney are alive and not deceased.

I'd like to know why you deleted the reference to "The Old-Fashioned: The world's First Classic Cocktail" from the list of "Further Reading" from "The Old-Fashioned" entry. This is the most comprehensive book on the subject. It was published in 2014 by Ten Speed Press and is currently in its third printing. That I, the author, submitted it, does not render it "promotional" or "soapboxing." Moreover, it's a much more sold resource that the Schmid book, which is mentioned.----Robert Simonson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Simonson (talk • contribs) 20:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

From what I can see, all of your edits have been to promote your book and your own works. If not promotional, why have you not added any other works, other than those that you yourself are responsible for? I have no doubt that you believe that your book is "the most comprehensive book on the subject", that doesn't make it relevant enough to warrant inclusion, especially since adding that book as you did adds nothing to the article, but promotes your work. Adding your book to the further reading section is a way of saying "further information can be found in my book," and that is promotional. - Aoidh (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete information on the most recent case involving this website when a link to the actual case and dismissal was included? ckroll1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckroll1 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". Lawsuits happen all the time, with and without good cause. That a lawsuit happened and was dismissed is trivial, especially if the only source is the PACER documentation for the lawsuit. Are there any third-party reliable sources that into any detail about this lawsuit? If not, there's no reason the Wikipedia article should either. - Aoidh (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You participated in an MfD discussion about an essay by Collect that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is here. Writegeist (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Pnb Rock has been prodded multiple times, look at the page of PnB Rock. Wgolf (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Request edit. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Buford, Georgia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Buford, Georgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gainesville Times. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The article Buford, Georgia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Buford, Georgia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox company. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Indian massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, was an edit conflict and that is where I had been trying to reply the entire time. Rgoodermote (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Dilling. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in 21st-century France. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New York. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:UnusedCategories. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I read the requirements for External Links, and I don't see how I am violating any of the requirements. All I am doing is adding additional links to information such as online courses on the subject matter. This is not for personal advertising of any kind, it's simply for the sole purpose of adding some more relevant information linked to the subject of each page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibertyChick1776 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

All of your activity on Wikipedia has been solely to promote this website, it doesn't have to be personal advertising to be objectionable. The links your are providing violate WP:ELNO #4: "Links mainly intended to promote a website" and WP:ELNO #5: "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". This edit, for example, does not add relevant information of any kind. It exists solely to promote the website, which sells a service. - Aoidh (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of France. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mumtaz (actress). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Aoidh. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on MediaWiki talk:Sidebar. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Something wrong with the film Black Sheep? Do you not realize the whole section of that article is about use of the flag in popular culture, and all the sources used previously are also pictures and videos?

Fuck off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghoul flesh (talk • contribs)

I've explained why it was reverted on the article's talk page here. I invite you to civilly discuss it with me on the article's talk page and try to reach a consensus on the matter. More behavior like this, however, is likely to get you blocked from editing. Please keep that in mind when editing Wikipedia, especially on talk pages. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on MediaWiki talk:Common.css. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)