User talk:Buddha24

Hi. I note that you keep reverting my edits to the lead of this article, without any explanation. I have added some support for my edits in this area, and would appreciate some dialogue about this. To re-iterate, I made the changes that I did because 'multicultural' directs to this page, and I thought it important to make the distinction between conditions of cultural diversity (i.e. multicultural demography) and the policies of management that go under the name of 'multiculturalism'. And furthermore, to point out that while many countries are multicultural, not all of them have official policies that support it. These points seem common sense to me, and certainly not controversial, nor in need of references - and if they did, then why not require the same of those aspects of the lead that you seem happy with?

Hello, Buddha24.

Would you be willing to consider my sharing thoughts on the above here? (The Econ Talk page is always available and may be necessary, but there might be more agreement than you think, & I'd rather avoid that if possible.) Your courteous tone on this page encouraged me to write. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am just trying to improve the article, I'm sorry for any trouble, thanks. Buddha24 (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was preparing to leave a note for you when I came across your response, Buddha24, for which a belated thanks. I would have responded much quicker had I known of it. Nevertheless, but no harm is done.

I share your concern about improving the article. I still have big concerns about the current S&D image in the lead, which were touched on in my 18:43, 7 May & 19:01, 21 May 2008 Edits (on the history tab of the aricle). I have found that some of the best Edits come from apparently big differences that can be dodged without any loss of principle on either side. I was preparing to post the following Edit summary where I acknowledge & try to meet your concern there:

Restored long-standing image at top, altered to rm irrelevant & arguably objectionable ref. to New York (hence U.S.).

Would that be acceptable to you? If not, would you be open to my elaborating om my concerns? Please let me know in this space. The Talk page of the article is a last resort. Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what your getting at? But yes, you can change the picture back if you like..Buddha24 (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help. I was being uncharacteristically short-winded. The proposed revised image text is at [[User:Thomasmeeks/Rough drafts#Lead. More extended thoughts are at User:Thomasmeeks/Rough drafts#Image problem. Here is a refined Edit summary I'd plan to use, which I don't believe you'd object to:

Restored image at top w text altered to rm irrelevant & arguably objectionable place ref. (w assist from Buddha24).

Your last artoc;e Edit summary allowed me to see what you were getting at. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia as you did to Liberal elite. You seem to be acting in good faith, but clearly from this talk page, you need to rethink your approach. JQ (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Culture of Arizona, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture of Arizona. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? CosineKitty (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kobe Bryant, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Thanks Ramblinmindblues (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my response.

Also, you created your report within the Copperchair report. In the future, please follow instructions more carefully to create a separate case page. I fixed it for you. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you have changed some edits to the Scottsdale, Arizona entry that I made. First of all, Scottsdale is not bordered by Cave Creek. Scottsdale is in fact bordered by Carefree, Tempe, Paradise Valley, Phoenix, Fountain Hills, and the Indian Reservation, and there's nothing wrong with mentioning all this in the intro. Also, the intro needs to have some descriptive information for people who may not know much about Scottsdale, so I think the New York Times quote explains that pretty well. JackWilliams (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which article do you think I did not (un)protect correctly? I'll look into it again if you'd like. · AndonicO ^Engage. 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the posts you made on my talk page.[1][2]:

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please enlighten me. The only recent edits I made to the Los Angeles County, California was to change {{County of Los Angeles}} to a collapsed state so it would also be consistent with the other navboxes on that page.[3] That is not considered vandalism. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you "misfired", intending to post the message somewhere else. If you look at the current discussions on my talk page, there are no other posts that would fit the phrase you wrote, "but clearly from this talk page, you need to rethink your approach."[4] If that is the case, please be more careful. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Fox News Channel, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it's already been discussed that there WILL NOT be a picture of a spider on an arachnophobia page, which is about as descriptive as a picture of a hot air baloon on a Acrophobia article. Thanks, Orangemango (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It is really not polite to refer to somebody as "Dude." Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your insistence that Arlington isn't urban: "Please read the rest of the article" doesn't explain why! Can you give a specific reason instead of making a sweeping reference to the entire article? —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the Minnesota page were mean-spirited and untrue. - Schrandit (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota has been democrat since the early 1970's, that's just a shame that you don't agree. Buddha24 (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why they have a Republican Governor, US Senator and 3 Congressmen? - Schrandit (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Las Vegas, Nevada has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Becky Sayles (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your account seems to be less than one month old, so don't bully me around again. Thanks Buddha24 (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the IQ table was vandalized before so I corrected the IQ values based on the original source. Please see Talk page for original source. Please don't revert back to the vandalized version. Thanks. Nirvana888 (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Millionaire, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - & I'm rather suspicious of many of your other edits. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care, I'm just trying to re-do articles to a global viewpoint, You seem to be against that for some reason. Buddha24 (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a global viewpoint you have to specify a currency - a loaf of bread currently costs 2 billion dollars in Zimbabwe. Please be careful with your grammar and spelling. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Denied/July 2008#Buddha24. SoxBot X (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Buddha24! One of your recent edits — the one you made to California — did not appear to be constructive and I reverted it. You gave "fixing grammar errors" as the reason for your previous reversion, but there were no grammar errors in the page that you reverted. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of reforming the 1990s article to make it look better. I created subpages as a way to shorten the article so that it looks less cluttered. I am modelling my 1990s edits to the 2000s page, which in my opinion is a much better and most importantly "shorter" article. If you are knowledgable at all with the 1990s decade you are welcome to help me. (Tigerghost (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Look at the 2000s article, compared to the 1990s article. The 2000s article is more organized and cleaner than its 1990s counterpart. And all of the misclaneous information is located in the subarticles I already created. And it was not changing history, the Gulf War was authorized by the UN and 34 independent nations invaded Iraq – therefore it was not "only" a US effort, it was a United Nations effort. (Tigerghost (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, six troops from Europe, and three from Russia, doesn't really count as a coalition. Please do your research more carefully. Buddha24 (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What research led you to think that besides US troops there were only six from Europe and three from Russia? Take a look at Coalition_of_Gulf_War#Coalition_by_number_of_troops. (For that matter, why did you think there were any from Russia?) —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be sarcastic, ok?? Buddha24 (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Buddha24, "After 1992 the booming of the stock market, in which Alan Greenspan coined the phrase 'irrational exuberance'." is not a complete or grammatically correct sentence. "Philippines shown a great deal of economic development" is not correct either. The country is THE Philippines, not Philippines, and shown is not the past tense of see, shown is only used when preceded by "has" or "was" as in the Philippines has shown or was shown. Ireland is part of Western Europe, in fact it is one of the most western of all European countries, and the Soviet Union was only in Asia and Europe. Two of seven continents is not "many" besides that to say "In many continents....in many countries" is redundant. Something happening or found in many continents has to be in many countries too as very few countries span multiple continents. Please stop reverting these changes, your versions are incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.221.223 (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Tiptoety ^talk 01:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buddha, I'm pretty perplexed about this edit of yours from last summer. Quite a while before that, I created the chart in question. You uploaded the same file under a different name, without indicating that in the new copy of the file; and your edit summary erroneously reports that you're uploading an image, as opposed to replacing an image that was already uploaded, under a different name (and without attribution).

I guess there's no real harm done -- the article didn't suffer, and I don't attach an enormous amount of importance to being credited for that sort of work. Still, it's one of the more bizarre edits I've come across in some time, and I'm wondering if you could explain. -Pete (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard back. I'm going to delete your version of the file. -Pete (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unnecessary tags to United States. They are disruptive and not needed for an A-class article. wadester16 | Talk→ 04:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, please include an edit summary explaining your reasons for reverting another editor's material. "use your brain before making edits" is not specific enough, and it's also not WP:CIVIL--Loodog (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page United States worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Elliskev 12:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to tag articles disruptively, you may be blocked from editing. --Golbez (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Peja stojakovic.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.nba.com/global/fedex_nba_alliance_071101.html. As a copyright violation, File:Peja stojakovic.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Peja stojakovic.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Peja stojakovic.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Peja stojakovic.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Peja stojakovic.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:SouthEastern.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Denverarea.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Superseded by c:File:Denver-Aurora MSA.svg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 01:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]