This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Hello, I joined the Backlog Drive and have completed one review (Talk:Blue (Big Bang song)/GA1). I want to update my running total but I am not confident on how to do it. Specially counting the number of words. Can you guide me. Thank you. -ink&fables«talk» 08:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
-ink&fables, Hi, I use User:Dr pda/prosesize to measure the length of articles. The article you reviewed is 1518 words long. If you prefer not to install javascript, you can also use online tools such as as wordcounter.net by copying and pasting only the prose text of the article into the counter (i.e. not including infobox, captions, table of contents, any lists or bullet points, etc.). Thanks for participating in the drive! (t · c) buidhe 08:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello Buidhe, I'm looking at reviewing the article, and wanted to check if review was still ok to do, given the active arbitration remedies described on the talk page. If I go for reviewing the article, do I just review it as normal? Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Amitchell125, the arbitration remedies mostly apply if you physically edit the article. Making suggestions for nontrivial edits on the GAN page (which a reviewer should be doing anyway) wouldn't breach any sanction. It goes without saying that such a topic needs an especially careful evaluation if it is fairly representing all relevant points of view. Good luck. (t · c) buidhe 10:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, message understood! Amitchell125 (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Peer review on history topic
Hi Buidhe,
I'm currently looking to improve Presidential cabinets of the Weimar Republic for a potential FA candidacy. Knowing that you've done a lot of work on history topics relating to the interwar period and the Third Reich, I was wondering whether you could have look at the article and maybe give me some pointers as to how it could be improved on the peer review page I started. My only other FA was an unrelated biography and I thought it might be wise to ask someone with relevant experience. Of course, I'd be happy to help with any review projects you need help with. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
GA review review?
Hi there! I noticed that you're on the Mentor list at Wikipedia:Good article help and was wondering if you could take a look at my first GA review, which I completed at Talk:GTA_West_Corridor/GA1, to make sure I'm doing things right. Thanks so much! — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 16:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Mcguy15, It looks like a solid and thorough GA review to me. (t · c) buidhe 00:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello Buidhe:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2500 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
Hello, Buidhe. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I sent an email yet you got no notice, except this one that I just put here of course... what do you suppose is up???
July 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Audrey Truschke. 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.TrangaBellam (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of ProtonMail. 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. Ardenter (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. LizRead!Talk! 16:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The article The Holocaust in Greece you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Holocaust in Greece for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sayfo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Circassian.
Hello Buidhe, I'm reviewing a GAN article (William A. Robson) here, and I'm unsure about about failing it. The nominator is sticking to the current version of the lead section, but I'm saying it's not good enough. Could you look at this editor's argument about not having to comply with the MOS, and the lead itself, and let me know if I'm right to fail the article? Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks, your input both steadied my nerve and pointed me in the right direction. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Buidhe. 1915 genocide in Diyarbekir has a broken Harvard citation - I can't tell which book you intended to cite. There's no Gaunt 2013 in the bibliography. Thanks!— Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Buidhe, hope you are well! You were kind enough to do the image review on my last FAC nomination, and I was wondering if you might have five minutes to swing by my current one and take a look? No worries if you are busy, but if you had a chance it would be very much appreciated :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1915 genocide in Diyarbekir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vali.
Hi Buidhe. I came back from my wikibreak a few months ago and I'm thinking about working on Katherine Hughes (activist) again. You were the person that I worked on the GA review last time (at Talk:Katherine Hughes (activist)/GA1), and I was wondering if you were interested in doing so again? I remember there being some specific changes that you wanted me to implement before promoting the article, but I couldn't find them when I searched my email. I remember broadness being the general issue. Clovermoss(talk) 02:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Clovermoss, I'm glad to see you back here. I'm happy to review the article again! I left my comments on the GA review page, but that's a bit outdated now. It looks like last December a bunch of content was added by ManfredHugh, so we're getting close to meeting the broadness standard, but I'd still like to see more information about the first 35 years of her life—if it is known. Also, there is now one paragraph with a citation needed tag. (t · c) buidhe 02:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, I have access to New York Times archives and was trying to confirm that her book Archbishop O'Brien: Man and Churchman was indeed reviewed by the Times. I can't find it, but maybe the date of the review would help. (t · c) buidhe 02:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I found a source that verified the info in that paragraph, so I fixed that. I'll try my luck at finding the New York Times review. Clovermoss(talk) 15:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I found a few sources that said it had been favourably reviewed, but I couldn't find the NYT review itself. I also added another paragraph in the writing section. In regards to her early life, most of what I could find was just a paragraph here and there mentioning that she was a schoolteacher, her salary, etc, which is already in the article. She seemed to become more notable once she did all the writing/poltical activist/archivist stuff. Is there anything else I should be looking for in regards to broadness? And should I nominate it for GA again? Or do we just reopen the old one? There should probrably be a permanent link on the talk page about this discussion, too, although I tend to have a bit more trouble with figuring out how to do that compared to diffs. Clovermoss(talk) 16:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Buidhe – Just wanted to ask if you could do a image review of "United States presidential elections in Arkansas", which is a Featured list candidate. Also, there is a concern about accessibility issue, that whether people with eyesight issues be able to distinguish between colors in counties of a map. Would appreciate your view on that too. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. LizRead!Talk! 05:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
I was going through some old drafts and came across this one that you started last fall. I hope you consider submitting it for AFC review, it looks very promising and left me wanting to look over some of the publications you referred to. LizRead!Talk! 23:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
stub articles
Hello, why are you creating separate stub articles as you did on List of awards of Tomáš Masaryk, where is nothing inside them, while politicians normally like Charles de Gaulle or Mustafa Kemal have it normally inside main article? It is destruction for creating stub files. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
It's not a stub, it's a WP:Stand-alone list. Exact list which countries handed out diplomatic souvenirs to Masaryk is undue in the main article, especially when there is already a legacy section discussing his historical fame. (t · c) buidhe 20:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: Why it is not undue in arctiles like Charles de Gaulle and Mustafa Kemal? --ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Jaguar here:ThecentreCZ, List of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's awards already exists. I would support summarizing it and reducing the length of the treatment given in the main article. If you want to create on for Charles de Gaulle, I'd support it, though you may want to run it by the talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
New template
Hi Buidhe, I recently created the template Jewish Lithuanian history, a sidebar templates with collapsible lists. I added it to the article Hasidic Judaism in Lithuania and added "|expanded=groups" in order for the section "Groups" to remain open on the article. However, it did not work, and I was wondering if you could tell me how the correct way to do this. Thank you very much, Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Charlie Smith FDTB, Unfortunately, I don't know. This goes beyond my knowledge of template syntax, and I have no idea where the answer would be found. I suggest you ask another template editor, I do have the permissions but I got them for nonstandard reasons. (t · c) buidhe 05:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, and all who helped, today for Partisan Congress riots, "about anti-Jewish rioting in postwar Slovakia, primarily caused by former Slovak partisans at an official congress of the Union of Slovak Partisans, an anti-Nazi veterans' association"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering whether you could crop the thumb out of this image. I'm completely incompetent when it comes to Commons. Also, would its image licensing be appropriate for the FAC University of Mississippi? Thanks. ~ HAL333 14:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
HAL333, Done, licensing looks OK. FYI, it's REALLY easy to crop on Commons: just use c:Commons:CropTool, you don't even have to download the image. (t · c) buidhe 20:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll use it from now on. ~ HAL333 20:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Image Review/FAC Manganese, Minnesota
Hello, Buidhe! Would you please go have another look at the images for the FAC Manganese, Minnesota. Hopefully I have addressed all of your comments; if not, please feel free to provide additional criticism. Thank you! DrGregMN (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Battle of the Wilderness
Buidhe - Thank you for cleaning up Battle of the Wilderness. I agree that the "In popular culture" section did not belong, also the galleries. I was afraid to eliminate them myself. I am working on upgrading the article, mostly by fixing the citations and adding information about the cavalry. All work is being done in a sandbox first. Hopefully we will have a Good Article by 2022. TwoScars (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Congrats on FA for Talaat Pasha article!
Fascinating article; I learnt a lot from it. Glad to see it is FA - tremendous amount of work. Well done! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Mass killings under communist regimes (primary sources)
What are the primary sources for Mass killings under communist regimes? As I understand it, it is not the Communist states themselves but the authors. We should not cite Conquest to say what Conquest said; we need a secondary source, discussing the topic, quoting Conquest or saying what he thought, otherwise it is undue. Most of the article is based on "he said, she said" but we do not attribute it to secondary or tertiary sources but use the primary sources themselves. I will give you a simple example.
"In the 2007 revision of his book The Great Terror, Robert Conquest estimates that while exact numbers will never be certain, the communist leaders of the Soviet Union were responsible for no fewer than 15 million deaths." We cite the revised version when we should be citing a secondary source that establish weight. If we follow this, you will see that, apart from original research and synthesis, most views, especially at Proposed causes, are undue. We also cite George Watson, Stephen Hicks, and Steven W. Mosher (!). Apart from being non-experts, we all use their primary sources to express their views. We use good sources like Fitzpatrick to merely quote Lenin ("If we are not ready to shoot a saboteur and White Guardist, what sort of revolution is that?") and not actually represent her views, which hold more weight most of authors cited, including Anne Applebaum and Simon Sebag Montefiore, who are both more about popular history than scholarly history, as an actual scholar of Communism. Davide King (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Image Review Manganese Minnesota
Hello, Buidhe! I have replaced the stratigraphic image from the Canadian Mineralogist with a similar free image directly from the Minnesota Geological Survey. I have also replace the attribution photo of the Cuyuna Lakes Mountain Bike trails with one of my own. The problem with the MGS graphic is that it was considerably longer than the one from the Canadian Mineralologist, which forced me to compress the image while trying to keep the text legible. I hope this is acceptable. Thanks in advance for taking another look at this FAC. DrGregMN (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The objective of further reading is not to give a complete bibliography of the topic. Do you have any conflict of interest regarding the book? (t · c) buidhe 15:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for all your work!
Your exclusionist/reductionist work have greatly improved the readability of articles about the Holocaust, Armenian Genocide, Greek Genocide and Assyrian Genocide.
Through your edits, the mass killings of innocent lives and their suffering, is now more easily understood.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Matsas until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Wanna know the bizarre reason why I decided to be initiated into the odd fellows “fraternal organization” ? Lol all my life people have called me odd from grade school , high school and my college days(even till now) so when I observed their lodge and saw their name, i figured, oh well, I’m odd, this organization is for “odd people” so Yup! sign me in. plus they aren’t a men only organization unlike the Freemasons, their loss! However the I.O.O.F is Quite expensive though, in sum total I paid $353 for my initiation Celestina007 (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Celestina007, Yes, I've always been a bit "odd" but I had no idea that there was such a thing as an odd fellowship! Hope you're doing well. (t · c) buidhe 15:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I’m sorry I’m just replying this I suffered a terrible knee injury that almost crippled me but I’m great now, I’m still recovering though. Luckily I have you guys as my family, my real blood family and a confraternity(odd fellows) that were their for me throughout the painful injury. Celestina007 (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Fair-use image question
Hi Buidhe, hoping you could give me some advice. I've been searching for PD images of Vonda McIntyre, who died two years ago, and have had very poor luck. No obvious PD images exist, I've contacted every person who has a copyrighted photo of her on flickr, as well as her publisher; every person who's responded has not been willing to release their images with a license allowing commercial use. D'you think that's sufficient justification to use one of them under a fair-use rationale? I've been hesitant because it's a little hard to demonstrate the absence of free-use media, particularly for a person who died recently. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, Yes, you've gone to more than enough length to obtain a free use image. I believe the expected due diligence for a deceased person is actually a quick google search; if no obviously free image turns up then it's ok to use a fair use one. (t · c) buidhe 22:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you. I'm going to wait a few more days for a reply I've been promised, and then use one from an obituary. An article about a recently-deceased person with no images at all would have been a hard sell at GAN/FAC...Vanamonde (Talk) 05:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Buidhe, just wanted to send out a big "thank you" for creating and developing Anti-gender movement. It's an important topic, and it's almost shocking that we didn't have an article on the topic before you created it a year ago, so take a bow!
I find it interesting to try and find the "missing topics" and work on them. With 6M+ articles in the encyclopedia, one might think that everything worth writing is already out there, but I keep getting surprised that it isn't so. Around the same time you started Agm, I started on a draft of Liberation of France (couldn't believe we didn't have it!) and released it some months later, and I just moved Antisemitism in France from Draft space last week (and it could use some help; hint, hint!).
How do you find your important topics that need doing? I sometimes use the WMF labs tool "not-in-other-language", and either set it to look for featured articles, or a top-level category I'm interested in (like France). For example, featured articles in fr-wiki that are absent in en-wiki are here, and here are the articles about the history of medieval France that they have but we lack. (Even if you don't speak a particular language, it's great just for finding missing topics; for 'Cuba' topics, I'd set it to Spanish, and so on.)
Anyway, once again, good job and congrats on the Agm article; ! Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Mathglot, You're welcome! I've found that more abstract topics are less likely to have an article than more concrete ones. For example, when I started the anti-gender article there already existed articles on some people mainly notable as proponents of it, such as Tony Anatrella. Also, if a broader article exists sometimes that can slow down the creation of a more specific article. Antisemitism in France for example used to redirect to a different article so content would have been added elsewhere. (but I notice more concrete subtopics such as 1980 Paris synagogue bombing already existed... ) (t · c) buidhe 09:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
That's a great point, I'll have to keep that in mind when looking for the next one. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Dersim rebellion article reverts
Hello @Buidhe: you have reverted perfectly good corrections and also minor change improving the flow to the Dersim rebellion article that I made previously. For example you removed corrections I made based on the BBC source referring to the killings, I understand if you wish to remove the tags, but even then without looking at the talk page you really shouldn't be removing the tags. I posted in the talk page on the 29th without any responses so hence the tag today was in order to gather consensus. Can you please leave it for now until a full discussion is made or a vote is concluded.--TataofTata (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Look at the talk page, no one agrees with your edits. (t · c) buidhe 23:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Buidhe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Anatomy of a Genocide, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Reply-link officially superseded by DiscussionTools
Hi! Reply-link has officially been superseded by mw:DiscussionTools, which you can install using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. DiscussionTools, developed by the WMF's Editing Team, is faster and has more features than reply-link, and it wouldn't make sense for me to keep developing reply-link. I think the Editing Team is doing amazing work, and look forward to what they can do in the future. Thank you for using reply-link over the years! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Cool! Although I don't really know if it's news. (t · c) buidhe 02:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Peer review request
Hi, Buidhe! I've got a two-month-old request for a peer review I wonder if you wouldn't mind looking at if you have the time and energy: Wikipedia:Peer review/The Yankee/archive1. The article is about a groundbreaking literary magazine edited by John Neal (writer), whose FAC you reviewed, so perhaps you'd find it interesting. You've reviewed a couple different articles I've written, so I really appreciate your help so far. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche 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 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
New Page Review queue September 2021
Hello Buidhe,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. LizRead!Talk! 22:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Patroller's Barnstar
Thanks for your all effort in patrolling :) 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 19:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi again Buidhe. It's not been long since I asked for a favour, so I can handle rejection...! If not, would you be kind enough to take a look at two FACs, similar in nature to those before, this time it's UEFA Euro 2012 Final and UEFA Euro 2016 Final? I think it should be relatively straightforward, but of course if you're busy on other things, no problem at all. Have a good weekend! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
No worries, image reviews are pretty quick. (t · c) buidhe 20:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
The Rambling Man Thanks, I've fixed it. Just FYI that on Commons, single names (first name or surname, even mononyms in some cases) are not usually specific enough to identify the person. There are a lot of people in the world named "Pepe" so there needs to be something else in the filename to identify, just like the footballer's article on enwiki has a disambiguator. (t · c) buidhe 21:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, this is a bit late, but would you mind re-opening the close at Talk:Sean O'Malley, based on my reading of the consensus, the support rationales except for the one provided by Yaksar were pretty light, and didn't substantially address the fact that one of the most significant Catholic cardinals of the last century in terms of influence is quite obviously the primary topic in terms of long-term significance. I'd like to add an oppose rationale to the RM, and I think it would be fairly strong. Given that the discussion was pretty lightweight in terms of analyzing the two people, I think restoring the status quo and relisting probably makes more sense than a new RM. Thanks, hope all is well. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
TonyBallioni I'd like to elaborate a bit on my close rationale since I didn't at the time. I felt that the supporting arguments expressed during the discussion (especially Yaksar's comment) were stronger than the opposing ones, and support had significantly more numerical support, so I didn't feel it would be correct to close as no-consensus. Obviously I did not consider any points that weren't raised in the discussion. However, it was a fairly well attended move and would require moving the pages back to reopen, so I feel that opening a new discussion would be more appropriate if you disagree with the closure. (t · c) buidhe 02:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't necessarily take issue with the closure, but I think it's also pretty normal to re-open those when someone has a substantive objection. The only argument on the move side that provided any substantial analysis was Yaksar's, and Necrothesp's point about the cardinal being the obvious primary topic based on significance was solidly grounded in policy.To put it in context: we've made someone who is a possible candidate for deletion at AfD (not sure how it'd go, but there's a possibility of deletion) as being more significant than the most significant figure in the Catholic Church's response to the sex abuse crisis. One of them probably won't have a Wikipedia article in 5-10 years. In 100 years, books will probably still be referencing Sean O'Malley's response to the Cardinal Law scandal upon his appointment as Archbishop of Boston.Basically, I don't fault your close, but it wasn't a robust discussion by any means, one of the participants was an IP, and no one really addressed the long-term significance point that Necrothesp brought up, and that's an extremely significant point from a policy perspective. When I was more involved with RMs, when someone came forward with a substantive objection to the close from a "this should be discussed more/wasn't addressed" standpoint, typically I'd normally do a courtesy relist, which is where I'm coming from. Basically there's a pretty strong policy rationale against this move that wasn't really discussed in-depth in the discussion, the move was relatively recent, and the burden shouldn't be on those advocating for the status quo to have to re-prove it after a discussion that didn't really say much. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I would second Tony's points and request for reopening. The cardinal is undoubtedly frequently referred to in reliable sources as Seán O'Malley, probably more than by his full name. He is clearly the primary topic for this name, as he obviously beats the fighter hands down on long-term significance (currently active sports figures are almost always going to prove primary if we only take pageviews into account), and I really don't think the presence of the acute accent is enough to provide decent disambiguation, as accents are often omitted. These points were addressed by only one of the contributors, with the others simply ignoring them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a response to the above. Like I said, I think this is a fairly normal request for an RM without much substantive input, and I'm somewhat surprised it hasn't been reopened yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I really think a RM should only be reopened very soon after it's closed, within a reasonable frame for the RM to be continuously open. For example, an RM is closed after 7 days, the next day someone posts and asks it to be relisted, I would probably say yes. But a month after it's closed the only reason to be overturned if it was badly closed in the first place, which I don't think it was. Otherwise, it shouldn't be reopened for the same reason why move requests should not be left open for months. Long term significance was never addressed during the discussion. The only comment being that there's "no way the fighter is the primary topic". Such an assertion is not a strong argument without explaining why it's the primary topic (pageviews, coverage in reliable source, long-term significance, etc.) along with some evidence that supports the assertion. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with your characterization of the discussion, but the time thing is reasonable, but it also leaves us with a ridiculous result: this was very obviously the wrong outcome from a policy basis. The arguments for moving were extremely weak and had been rebutted (i.e. Seán vs. Sean), and a Google page count of a sports figure vs. a cardinal will obviously go with the sports figure while they are active, but it doesn't mean that they are more significant from a policy standpoint. There's a very good reason to have a discussion about this again, and it should take place from the status quo because the original move lacked a basis in policy. I don't mind being told I'm wrong here if the points are actually discussed. What I do mind is having to start from a place where we need an active consensus to undo a move that so very clearly is out of line with the page name policies and guidelines. The burden should be on those arguing for a move outside of the norm to provide evidence to support it. That never happened. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Anyway, no use litigating it here, and while I think it's the wrong call, a move review would be a waste of time. New RM opened.TonyBallioni (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon
I've been spending some time trying to find a photo of a young David Attenborough to add to his article. My search is hampered by the fact I have no idea about copyright. As the guy is 95, I figured there is a chance the copyright of some of his youth photos would be expired. This news article shows that there are one or two photos older than 70 years of him for which the copyright is Associated Press and BBC. Is it possible that these have come into the public domain? Is the artist date of death still relevant, given the fact that copyright lies with the institutions? Thanks :). FemkeMilene (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
For AP, photographs published in the US without copyright notice before 1989 are not protected by copyright. This includes most AP photographs. See Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_October_5#File:Execution_of_Nguyen_Van_Lem.jpg and Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_October_5#File:The_Terror_of_War.jpg for discussions in which such files have been kept on this basis. Such files may be uploaded to enwiki but not Commons unless they are also free in the source country (probably UK in this case). In the UK the copyright would expire 70 years after publication, but only if there's no known author. Just because the author is not credited on a particular reproduction, however, does not necessarily mean that they're unknown. (see c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom). Conversely, just because it's public domain in the UK does not necessarily mean it's free to use in the US. Those photographs originally published in the UK are likely copyrighted in US because of URAA. In terms of that Gentleman's Journal article, it's likely that some of the photographs are public domain, however, it's hard to say as it's unclear what the original date of publication was, what country they were originally published in, and whether copyright notice was used. (t · c) buidhe 12:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lawrence v. Texas. 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.Antinoos69 (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
turtle image review
Can you do an image review for turtle? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 25 reviews between July and September 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Anatomy of a Genocide, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
You probably remember my FA submission. I see you haven't answered my last comment about the Romanian license for photos. Since the license only mentions "since creation", without specifying anything about the publication, shouldn't it be OK to use? I will try finding out more about the photos' copyright status.
Also, some of the photos taken in Czechoslovakia may have been taken by Romanian military commissions. Does that make the RO license apply to them?
Kind regards, Lupishor (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
October 2021
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Audrey Truschke. 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.
; see Talk:The Holocaust in Greece for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library
Hello, Buidhe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Anatomy of a Genocide, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
.jpg){kind=link}
