User talk:Gidonb/Archive 2019

Nayanova University
Thank you again for the notice about article deletion nomination. While not denying the correctness of edit on Samara article presuming a University to be a diploma mill is quite insulting, especially when wrongly done and with no sources. Besuglov.S cont / talk 12:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Besuglov.S. I did not say that Nayanova University is a diploma mill. Such a concern, however, arose after a connection with an Italian accreditation mill was suggested on the Samara page. To be on the safe side, I wanted a discussion to be held and would agree with any reasonable outcome. gidonb (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misunderstood you Besuglov.S cont / talk 16:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem! gidonb (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Now I know I definitely got you wrong. Althogth I was learning here all my life (since 1991) and working for the last 12,5 years I never heard of International Parliament for Security and Peace and our work with them. It's a pity that we didn't catch this 2008 year edit in Samara article in last 12 years. Excuse me once again and thank you for the note and opportunity to update and improuve the article. Besuglov.S cont / talk 13:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Could you please help me? As I veered off in the article improvement direction I'm not sure what arguments should be presented to avoid article deletion. I was hoping to show academic status by providing information about international cooperation as international sources seem the most independent sources possible and ratings and events coverage as notability criteria. Can you tell me what concerns may be left unanswered? Besuglov.S cont / talk 08:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Besuglov.S, I have closed the discussion as keep/withdrawn. I have renamed the article and engaged in cleanup. You can take it from here. I appreciate your work on the article since my nomination. Do you still use all these buildings? What is in each of them now? gidonb (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick response & cleanup. I guess nomination was just right stimulus to improve the article and hope it does not end with this positive outcome. Yes, the first (1-4 grades & 6-7 grades) and second (5th & 8-11 grades) building used for school education. Third building undergoes recertification process so no activities there yet. Most likely building will be used for Additional Education & Sport programs. Besuglov.S cont / talk  —Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Besuglov.S! Maybe brief mention in the article? If the kindergarten and preschool are gone, please also remove from the intro. In this case can be mentioned in the history (when added, when closed). gidonb (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess a small faculty list would be appropriate in history and not sure about K-12 term as it sort of contradicts with 11 year duration. Preschool programs were not closed and still running in the first building. Besuglov.S cont / talk 12:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * K-12 may be US-centric. Better use primary and secondary if used in Russia. Whatever is used in Russia and are internationally recognized terms. There is no need to argue every word. Be bold and continue taking this in a good direction. Just remember that less is often better. The best editorial question is: Is something of importance missing? The worst: Is there something else that I know about this subject? gidonb (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will try my best. Besuglov.S cont / talk 12:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have made these changes. Happy editing! gidonb (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Edgar Hager
Hi, I don't know if you've watch-listed Edgar Hager, you did quite a bit of work on it last year. I opened a question on the Talk page to no response. Before I make the edit, I wanted to run it past you since you were the primary editor for those changes. What caught my attention was that the lead said "Colonel", but there is no mention of military service in the article.

Other than the newspaper blurb, there is no evidence that Hager was entitled to or used any military rank. The thorough biography, published in 1912 (4 years after the newspaper blurb), makes no mention of any military service. His fraternity directory, published a year after the newspaper, doesn't mention any rank or service (and it does include military ranks for others, indicating that they include rank when there is one). None of the other refs mention it.

I suspect either a misprint or misunderstanding by the Cincinatti Enquirer journalist, or that "Col" was an honorific of the time rather than an earned military title. I'd like to remove the word "Colonel". Do you have any objections? Schazjmd (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Films considered the best
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of films considered the best, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Betty Logan, even if this is your opinion, why engage an edit warring on the article page while there is an on ongoing discussion on the talk page? gidonb (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * An edit war is started not be the person who reverts, but by the person who reverts a revert. Your actions are currently in violation of WP:NOCONSENSUS, and per WP:BRD you should obtain a consensus on the talk page for adding the new material. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why I started the discussion on the talk page but you nevertheless removed on the article page. Sorry but I do not want to engage in your edit wars. gidonb (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Putting the article back to the stable version is consistent with WP:STATUSQUO. I have added comments to the discussion so let's wait and see what other editors think. Betty Logan (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Help
Hi mr, could you help me edits Trần dynasty military tactics and organization and delete the sign. Đông Minh (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Daniella van Graas
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Nationality categories
Please do NOT remove player articles from nationality categories under any circumstances! I have reverted your changes at Leon de Kogel. GiantSnowman 06:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Snowman, these are supercats that create massive categories. In addition, your revert removed the player from a correct category. Don't worry, I already fixed this for you. Exploring some more I see that several other countries have this custom to put all players in the parent cat, so the correct way to address this would be at some central page. gidonb (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Cycling in North Brabant
Seems a bit too minor to me; only has one page. I won't take this to CfD yet but I'm considering it. Remagoxer (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Remagoxer, while you wrote this, I already added the second subcat. gidonb (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And so you have. It looks okay to me now. Remagoxer (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Are such messages the best use of your time? Maybe think about the population potential of each category? gidonb (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Woah there, chill! I felt the subject of the category was a bit niche. That's why I posted here. We don't work on how a disruptive editor might act, we look at how they are acting. I posted this before you added more articles. (By the way, why did you edit your signature to say 12:47 when you posted at 46? Just wondering, like you were.) Remagoxer (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not. This silly new beta function plays with our edits. If you do not understand potentials, just leave everyone to do their work. gidonb (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, we don't really work on potentials. If we did, XfD wouldn't really exist. I thought the category was too niche but you since added enough stuff to make it, in my eyes, fine. I'm sorry that I couldn't predict the future but maybe be a tad less rude? Remagoxer (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not want to be rude, do appreciate that you are excited, but do not see the added value of such discussions. If you must CfD something, just do it. My categories are rock solid and if they aren't, they shouldn't be there. Time at WP is better spent doing. As an illustration, I did nominate a subcat of this category. Only an automatic message went to the (banned) creator. gidonb (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)