User talk:Alistair McBuffio

Welcome!

Hello, Alistair McBuffio, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:Alistair McBuffio/sandbox, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Lord Belbury (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Alistair McBuffio/sandbox

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Alistair McBuffio/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page 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 tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Lord Belbury (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Alistair McBuffio/sandbox

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as User:Alistair McBuffio/sandbox, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page 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 tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from British Democratic Party (2013) into Far-right politics in the United Kingdom. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-Paste Notice

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:2019 British National Party leadership election a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into 2019 British National Party leadership election. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2019 British National Party leadership election (August 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at 2019 British National Party leadership election instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion. If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2019 British National Party leadership election and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alistair McBuffio! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hello, I'm Jr8825. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to British Democratic Party (2013) have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. In particular, please note the guidance at WP:ELMINOFFICIAL.

Also, I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. This is especially important when undoing others' edits – known as reverting – which is discouraged (see our policy on edit-warring). Thanks! Jr8825 • Talk 19:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Alistair McBuffio/sandbox

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as User:Alistair McBuffio/sandbox, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page 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 tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Belbury (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creating imaginary alternate history election pages

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a free webhosting service. Wikipedia is not a place to post personal content, host personal websites, or do things that are not directly related to adding to or improving the encyclopedia. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Wikipedia but rather to remind you that the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B13A:1FB6:35F3:40A8:CCE5:C1E2 (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Thank you. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. User:Namiba 19:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 12:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 12:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. In future I will take care to avoid mentioning my opinion that Talk:Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election is a heavily biased anti-Trump opinion essay that I found to be completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Thank you for letting me know. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here long enough to know that reply is improper and that your deleted comment revealed a failure to check the sources. Be more careful. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How did my deleted comment reveal a failure to check the sources? Alistair McBuffio (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at what you wrote in your edit summary: "This page is essentially a biased anti-Trump and anti-Republican essay and not an appropriate article for an encyclopedia." Does that say anything about bad sourcing? No. It appears to be a personal gripe, and IDONTLIKEIT POV. I can identify at least four things in there you don't like:

"biased"
"anti-Trump"
"anti-Republican"
"not an appropriate article for an encyclopedia" (See WP:GNG)
"anti-Trump opinion essay" (from a previous comment). It's an article, not an essay.

If any of those alleged issues are based purely on editorial opinion, with no sources in the article, then you'd have a point, but if they are based on RS, then you have no basis for your comment. So which is it? Are you here to follow the RS and Verifiability policies, or are you NOTHERE and just making comments based on your personal POV, in violation of WP:NOTFORUM? We all have them, but to complain about an article without referencing policies is problematic. We usually deal with such comments by deleting them on sight. Look at the "Frequently asked questions" at Talk:Donald Trump. Also look at Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus number 61 and Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Bias is allowed when it's based on RS. Please be more careful in the future and not complain about bias unless it is clearly an editor's bias, and then don't do it on an article talk page. Civilly talk to them about it on their personal talk page. They may actually have sources for their opinion that you aren't aware of, sources that may be in the article in question. We have to AGF.

This is not Conservapedia, which you apparently like. We have far different standards here. This is a mainstream, not a fringe, encyclopedia, and we base our content on RS, unlike at Conservapedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Well it looks like we just might have to agree to disagree on this one. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What part(s)? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax

You wrote "The British National Party (BNP) leadership election of 2011 was triggered on _ 2007 when _. Two candidates stood in the leadership election: Nick Griffin (BNP leader since 1999, and Christian "Chris" Jackson, _. On _ 2007," Which makes no sense. Where does British National Party say anything like that? Doug Weller talk 16:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a sandbox, it was a work-in-progress. Certainly not worth deleting. But the 2007 leadership election did happen. It says so here: "In 2007, a leadership challenge by a Tyndallite faction led by Christian (Chris) Jackson succeeded in forcing an election, which was however lost.". This website has some more evidence as well. Is there no way I can recover my progress on the sandbox? Is it gone forever? Alistair McBuffio (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you stand by leadership election of 2011 was triggered on _ 2007 "? Which makes no sense. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said: being a sandbox, it was a work-in-progress. It was not yet complete. There were gaps in the article for information I had not yet put on there. No "hoaxes" whatsoever. Aren't user sandboxes supposed to be a personal place to test editing skills in our own user spaces? Why did you have to intrude like that on a personal work-in-progress sandbox and delete it over some baseless accusation of a non-existent "hoax"? The 2007 BNP leadership election was a real event, not a hoax! Can I please have back my sandbox that you took from me for no good reason? Alistair McBuffio (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ask at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning: 2024 United States Senate elections

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Prcc27 (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. You will be blocked if you continue to edit war on Wikipedia. Prcc27 (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing I'm not doing any edit wars then. Especially since I was completely in the right about this whole thing. 😁 Alistair McBuffio (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can never be “in the right” when you violate the 3RR rule, unless you have an exemption, which you didn’t. Even if you edit war to “enforce consensus” you can get banned. Next time you edit war, I will report you to an admin. Prcc27 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, then I guess it's also a good thing that I didn't violate any rules or do anything wrong whatsoever. Had me worried for a second there. Anyways, you have yourself a good day. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Prcc27 (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

k Alistair McBuffio (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's ridiculous is that all the major networks had called the election during the time you did your last revert and yet you still tried to reason your revert with "no consensus". Yeah, sure. You're wrong in this and you know it too. --Minilammas (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]