User talk:Buidhe/Archive 31

Hey.

Looks like we were both drafting content on that CBC News report at the same time at anti-gender movement, as I just got an edit conflict trying to add some similar content from elsewhere in the same cited source. The content I was adding was:

In February 2024, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service issued a warning that violent extremists within the anti-gender movement could be inspired by the June 2023 stabbing attack at the University of Waterloo to "carry out their own extreme violence against the 2SLGBTQI+ community or against other targets they view as representing the gender ideology 'agenda'".^[1]

Do you think it's worth adding a sentence quoting the CSIS statement as well? Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th I think your wording is better, and I don't really have an opinion which quote is more important to include. (t · c) buidhe 04:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

How do you feel about both of the comments? Perhaps something like:

In February 2024, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service issued a warning that violent extremists within the anti-gender movement could be inspired by the June 2023 stabbing attack at the University of Waterloo to "carry out their own extreme violence against the 2SLGBTQI+ community or against other targets they view as representing the gender ideology 'agenda'". A spokesperson for CSIS said that although violent rhetoric does not always lead to violence, "the ecosystem of violent rhetoric within the anti-gender movement, compounded with other extreme worldviews, can lead to serious violence."

Cited to the same source of course. Maybe it's a bit quote farmy though, two lengthy quotations in quick succession. I'm not sure how we could summarise that though, given the serious nature of the warning and comments. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I would only include one quote for the reason you suggest w (t · c) buidhe 23:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe,

I'm noticing that the Wikimedia Mass Message bot recently sent out a message to a 111 article talk pages at your direction. The bot was used to explain your bold edits across 160 articles that was marked as minor. I understand the intent here, but these very broad edits removed the category from Forced labor in Nazi concentration camps and Extermination through labour. Am I misreading the indictment, or was the slave labor incorporated into the fact pattern as a part of Count 4 (Crimes against Humanity)? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Red-tailed hawk

1. "Crimes against humanity" is not mentioned in either of the articles. All categorization needs to be verifiable and supported by sourced text.
2. All categorization needs to be a wp:defining aspect of the topic. I doubt that the legal classification used at the Nuremberg trials is defining for either of these topics; as someone who researched and contributed to both, the sources don't focus on the legal aspects.

Very few of these articles meet #1 let alone #2. (t · c) buidhe 04:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Philippe Sands, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_125#Amendment_request%3A_Antisemitism_in_Poland_%28January_2024%29 Elinruby (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

On 3 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fighting Vanguard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Fighting Vanguard waged a guerrilla war against the Syrian government in the 1970s and 1980s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fighting Vanguard. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fighting Vanguard), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding potentially disruptive behavior. The thread is Potential Disruptive Behavior by Elinruby. The discussion is about the topic Double genocide theory. Thank you. Carlp941 (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Greetings and felicitations. The change to the en dash was per MOS:RANGE, and the "language=enm" was a mistake I made when I didn't move the "m" with the rest of the book's title—thus the "Conundru". Most of the rest of the edit was to aid editing in the future, in part by putting reference fields in the order in which they are displayed. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit: Link. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Uncommitted campaign is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncommitted campaign 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 until the discussion has finished.

Esolo5002 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

• Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
• 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Garetosmab, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess it would be out of your normal period, but I thought you might be interested to read Edict of Expulsion and maybe give feedback at the FAC review if you felt like it. I'm particularly in need of someone to help with checking the copy for readability and clarity, etc. Jim Killock (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Buidhe, would this page need an featured article review? It has 12 citation needed tags. 750h+ (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, 750h+, it does look like some work is needed to bring it in compliance with the FA criteria. If you have any concerns you should post on the talk page, and add a listing to WP:FARGIVEN so that FAR regulars know of the issues—although it's not likely to be a priority while there are many FA-rated articles in worse shape. FYI to igordebraga who recently nominated this article as part of a good topic. (t · c) buidhe 16:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  You raised that issue in February 2022, in a talk page topic titled "FA sweeps". 750h+ (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Correct, but that was two years ago and a lot may have changed since then—there is no longer an entry on the FARGIVEN list. A fresh notice is needed. (t · c) buidhe 17:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Serendipodous: and @Volcanopele: are more involved with the article than me, calling their attention. igordebraga ≠ 21:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  put in some work to clear the citation needed's in the the Io article. Couldn't clear the one about the alternative pronunciation. I would look for something that talks about the British pronunciation, I know in the past ee-OH was common over there but I think European researchers are switching more and more to the American pronunciation. The other one is about the size of Jupiter in Io's sky. Seems like that should be easy to find but that's not in my wheel house. I've also taken up removing some extraneous images (can happen when people just slap any new photo in there not knowing if it is a good fit or not). I also cleaned up the Juno section to reflect the fact that the flybys have now happened. Sorry this is taking so long. Wikipedia apparently doesn't like iCloud Relay. Volcanopele (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Good work. But there are still two citation needed tags. But they should be easy to rectify. 750h+ (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason I considered the statement controversial is that it makes multiple nontrivial technical and legal assumptions, which I had been reading about for non-editing-related reasons quite recently. For starters, we have here a clearly pro-Palestine source…implying that the State of Israel is the sole legal successor to the Mandate? As far as I know no one, not even the Israeli government itself, claims that.

I’m not at all averse to a mention of the displacement of Palestinians, but I don’t believe the original version as originally sourced was appropriate for wikivoice. My hunch based on past experience was that when editors openly cite POV academics in any area, it tends to be because they can’t find anything better.

So if you can find better sources for the original wording of the statement, be my guest. If you have a rewording, great. Either way, I’d rather deal with this and move on as it was a drive-by edit and the last thing I want is to be dragged into a PIA furball.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

What I'm missing here is 1) any evidence that the statement is disputed 2) any indication that the source's reliability is in question (technically all sources have "bias", so perceived bias is not necessarily a reason to disregard what the source says). Just removing reliably sourced content based on your POV and vague assertions of controversy isn't the way to go, imv. (t · c) buidhe 08:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm well…

1. I just did a fairly extensive (albeit by no means exhaustive) series of searches on engines, Google Scholar, and elsewhere. I came up with relatively few results, and the only one that discussed the matter at any length was this one:

A nonprofit org interviewing the same academic who wrote the book being cited.

So I’d say there isn’t enough basis in reliable sources. Especially as the claims being made in the cited work make a lot of contentious and unstated assumptions about the ramifications of the Mandatory period, some of which, if articulated, would not themselves find support in RS.

(Oh, and by the way, the top result for “denaturalization of palestinians” was about the contemporaneous expulsion Iraqi Jews. Which, indicates that the field of results was sparse enough that the engine had to split the input up into keywords even if those keywords were not linked in the text).

So without clearer sources, this seems to be just yet another case a case of some editor inserting contentious and insufficiently sourced examples in an article that doesn’t actually need them. We get a lot of that in Russia–Ukraine.

2. Have you looked at the source in question? It’s a pretty standard specimen of academic methodology being directed towards the propagation of a particular cause, i.e. highbrow POV.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sources that discuss the denaturalization and/or statelessness of Palestinians, this for instance. I have yet to see any evidence that the fact is disputed or that the source is not reliable for the content it supports. (t · c) buidhe 19:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, but denaturalization is not the same thing as statelessness. Denaturalization is an act and statelessness is a condition. Let me go read what you linked. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the statement is sufficiently novel that explicit contradictions of it are not easily searchable.

Israeli citizenship law#Post-1948 transition and History of Palestinian nationality#Post-Mandate and the references cited there provide good starting points and, in contradicting the statement contested here, presumably set forth the mainstream position.

The article you linked was interesting. The guy is clearly well versed in his field and writes quite well. I actually read a bunch of his abstracts and even skimmed a couple of his other papers, out of sheer interest. Some of his academic positions are a little radical, but I found it engaging; my main critique is that he seems blithely unaware of potential countervailing points and opposing arguments. Anyway, cursory searches also bring up that he has extensive involvement as a consultant to multiple Palestinian organizations.

(By the way…you see the problem? Unlike many other CT areas, virtually all academics have more or less taken a side. I haven't participated in very many ARBPIA discussions, mostly moves, but I imagine there is quite a lot of source bashing all around. Or at least I hope they do that instead of getting all ugly.)

In any event, the issue is that the article, narrowly speaking, is about a specific phenomenon, one that, apart from the previously discussed sources, doesn't seem to be directly related to the well-documented displacement of Palestinians. I personally am mainly annoyed at the fact that someone (didn't check blame) dragged contentious statements into an "examples" section yet again (I'm currently dealing elsewhere with an inexperienced CT cowboy, as I was barely a year ago, who had restored something analogous elsewhere in flagrant contravention of BLP rules). Among other things, this is a simply atrocious practice because it not only entails, but further encourages, the leakage of contentious topics into virgin territory. Deplorable, no?

Anyway, if you aren't convinced, I have way better things to do than start a formal DR process, naturally. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but I see no policy based reason to treat this case any differently than others mentioned in the article, such as those involving the breakup of the Soviet union and Yugoslavia. (t · c) buidhe 01:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, so are you. Anyway, happy editing :)

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Buidhe. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ojos del Salado/archive1.
Message added 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Greetings, since you did review Guallatiri at FAC I was wondering if you may be interested in Ojos del Salado too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I noticed your revert of an edit of mine on the Occupy Pedophilia article.

The older revision that I reverted to seemed to me to be based on information directly sourced from the article's first reference, a report from Human Rights Watch on homophobia in Russia, which was cited in that revision.

Quoting directly from that report: "Since late 2012, its members have harassed and attacked primarily gay people and children and in some cases also transgender women and gender queer individuals."

Could you please provide clarification on why you believe the revision prior to my edit was more accurate? Additionally, I would appreciate any suggestions you may have on what actions I could have taken instead. Sinerst (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad: I confused the revisions and thought that I was restoring the content about it being anti-LGBT. The error has now been rectified. (t · c) buidhe 04:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Hello, collegue. May I ask you to read this article and express your criticism? With respect, Smpad (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Since we are both blocked and apparently guilty of edit warring, we should instead include other editors to discuss the sources and what is accurate or not, instead of back and forth arguing without making progress. I see you pinged someone and I have asked someone else for input as well, hopefully this resolves the dispute. Reaper1945 (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Garetosmab, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Buidhe

I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.

Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.

I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Buidhe,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I want a clarification about this edit because you have changed more than removing the IDF flag from the infobox but reverting other edits as well, contrary to your edit summary. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Sameboat I don't know what went wrong here, I only meant to remove the flag. (t · c) buidhe 01:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

On 10 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Transgender people in Nazi Germany, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in just one night, thousands of books on the experiences and medical care of transgender people in Nazi Germany were burned (pictured) for being "un-German"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender people in Nazi Germany. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Transgender people in Nazi Germany), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 12,314 views (1,026.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Thank you for your work on the article, also featured on Portal:Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I know you quite often patrol and correct pages of genocides, and was seeing if you thought the infobox for the Armenian Genocide page looked adequate? Reaper1945 (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have been opposed to having an infobox there for a long time because most of the fields are oversimplified or at least somewhat disputed (death toll, location, time) depending on which events are counted as part of the genocide. Reducing "perpetrators" to the CUP or Ottoman state is rather simplistic, given widespread popular participation in aspects of the genocide even by non-Ottomans—for example, Iranian Kurds if you count killings in Iran. (t · c) buidhe 03:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand that part about the perpetrators, as similar to the Holocaust, while it was mainly Germany, a lot of it was carried out by its allies and local collaborators, so maybe something similar can be put for perpetrators? Also, the timeline is a bit wonky, but the most commonly stated, as provided by the Holocaust Museum as well, is 1915 to 1916. Reaper1945 (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I can live with those dates, but Suny and some others say it ended in early 1917. What's your source for 1915-1916 being the most common? (t · c) buidhe 03:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources for the date of 1915 to 1916 are listed here.^[1][2][3] However, I see other sources listing it from 1915 to 1923, so as you said, the dates are complicated to pin down and interpret. Reaper1945 (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

On top of the comment above, I may have misinterpreted "most common", as I see there's no agreed upon end date. Whether 1915–1917, 1915–1916, or 1915–1923. Reaper1945 (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand this edit. Cause of death, if known, is pretty essential to any encyclopedia biography, no? Hardly trivial. Nirva20 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Nirva20, please look up WP:NONDEF again. The standard for categories is not "not trivia". Death categories are are widely overused because the cause of death is rarely the reason someone is notable. (t · c) buidhe 23:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear Buidhe, I am writing this message in recollection that some time ago you had suggested that an article I had nominated for a DYK be nominated to be listed as a GA. The article is to a large extent a translation into English of a Greek Wikipedia article that has been recognized there as a FA. I think that it fulfills the criteria for the English Wikipedia as well and I am thus considering a FA nomination. As this is my first FA nomination in the English version of the encyclopedia, I followed the suggestion (which I found here) that I seek the mentorship of an experienced user, but there has been no response at all for the past few days and weeks from neither of the users I contacted. I am wondering whether you could perhaps provide some help in this regard and in particular with whether it would be advisable to go ahead with a FA nomination without first submitting a GA nomination for this article. With many thanks in advance for your response, which I am sure to greatly appreciate, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119 while I don't know if a FAC would be successful at this point, it is likely to go more smoothly (especially as a first time nominator) if you go through GAN first. The criteria are not the same on enwiki as elwiki. Also, you will need access to most of the article's sources to verify content or make changes as necessary without compromising text-source integrity. (t · c) buidhe 17:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice. I have now submitted a GA nomination, as per your suggestion. I do have access to -if I don't miss something- all of the article's sources, as I happen to be the user who had most heavily contributed to the writing of the original Greek article. Many thanks once more, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I want to use the file "Waterboarding a captured North Vietnamese soldier near Da Nang.jpeg" for the Vietnamese version of the article "Tra tấn." Can I download this copyrighted image for the Vietnamese Wikipedia project and use it in the article on "Tra tấn" in Vietnamese Wikipedia? Thank you! Phong Dang (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Phong Dang You should be able to download the image and may be able to upload the image on Vietnamese Wikipedia, I do not know your wiki's specific image upload and copyright rules. (t · c) buidhe 07:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

What about copyright issues? Can I download this photo to the Vietnamese Wikipedia with full copyright as the English Wikipedia version and use it in the Vietnamese Wikipedia? Phong Dang (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Phong Dang I'm not familiar with the copyright rules for Vietnamese Wikipedia, I would look here and here for more information, but I don't speak Vietnamese so I'm not much help, sorry. (t · c) buidhe 03:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries! Thank you for trying. Phong Dang (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024

• IEEE and Haaretz now available
• Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
• Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm calling bullshit on your claim that labor camps are a completely different concept if the name is translated into German. The two citations are a now-offline Polish blog post and a link to an article that doesn't support your assertion. Do you have anything backing up your assertion, or are you just using your power to perpetuate garbage? Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Shankarsivarajan I am not sure what you mean by "completely different concept". As the Wikipedia article Nazi concentration camps makes it clear, the KZ was an organization; other camps run by the Nazi state were not part of the KZ system and were administered by different organizations. There were just over 1,000 concentration camps including sub camps, but many thousands of forced labor camps. They are covered in separate volumes of the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos.

Unfortunately, your decision to redirect the article messed up a lot of links. I hope you understand why that is not good for the encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 02:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That article does not make it clear, but it's probable that there were a few different organizations running different concentration camps, many of which had forced labor. Being run by different organizations doesn't make them meaningfully different. My redirect fixed a lot of links, and your revert is what's "not good for the encyclopedia." But I recognize you have more power and influence than me, so your version will stand. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact is that camps run by different Nazi authorities may at times have had similar conditions, but often the conditions were not similar at all (you can compare the <10% mortality rate for civilian forced laborers, vs. >60% for KZ prisoners...) So not just the administration, but other aspects could be very different. Furthermore, the conditions in other camps are NOT covered in the forced labor in Nazi concentration camps article, making this a wholly inappropriate link. (t · c) buidhe 02:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Not all forced labour went on in concentration camps, so your stance in incorrect. Often civilians were rounded up to built defensive works, put in camps (for ease of exploitation). But those camps were never concentrations camps. The Banner talk 15:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The article German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war for comments about the article, and Talk:German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting my Deception Island Incident draft. Cheers! Bob meade (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I have just listed a ton of new studies that come to other conclusions: why do you keep on hindering work, which is evidence and empirically based ? Please be more constructive… LevanteCra (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOR is not optional. A good source for "It used to be believed that X, but more recent studies have found Y" would say something like "In this field, X used to be the predominant belief. However, in 1999 Scholar Z published research showing Y. Over time Y has become increasingly accepted and there are now few scholars arguing X". It's not acceptable to just cite studies saying "Y is true". (t · c) buidhe 17:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I have linked many actual dissertations, among them scholars from London School of Economics, University of Basel, Lund, UCLA and so on. The claim that Bruinessens studies are old is valid. Ages ago the guy said some stuff in order not to enragen the merits of the countries he so beautifully travelled trough. His ,,Research“ is old, the guy is now 77. Many Young, gifted scholars looked at the matter at hand and came to other conclusions. Original research. New. This is unrefutable. Just change it to ,,other authors“ conclude it was genocide. But stop deleting, hindering, undoing, as if that is your only Dogma. Wikipedia is meant to inform people more or less scientifically. Not hinder the truth with small grammatical plays and so on. LevanteCra (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Please respond on the article talk page. (t · c) buidhe 17:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion on article talk. (t · c) buidhe 17:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I am here to ask for help. Since this is a "flagship" article, I think it should be among our best. I would like to see it go FA, but I have never had one, and I need expert advice. I am hoping (begging) for you to please take a look over the article and make any recommendations you can think of. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Ask me again at the beginning of June. I'm pretty busy rn unfortunately (t · c) buidhe 18:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay! If things aren't in shape by then I will. Yours is one of the WP opinions I value most. Good luck with whatever you are doing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Buidhe, thank you for leaving a comment on the FA review for Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I was wondering if you would be interested in supporting the nomination? Llewee (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

On 16 May 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Soviet prisoners of war were the second-largest group of victims of Nazi mass killing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 14,911 views (621.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

On 18 May 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Data breach, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that data breaches are rarely detected by the compromised organization? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Data breach. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Data breach), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you're doing well. If you have a couple of minutes, would you mind looking at Talk:Never again#Nazism vs. fascism? I took a stab, but I am not sure it's the best way to go. Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Blessed-name has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, regarding your Core contest question, this may not be helpful regarding last year, but I received a prize in 2022. Best, CMD (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Quantum_metrological_gain

Now I refer also to Trenyi et al. 2024 in that line. I changed the wording. The notion has already been defined in Toth el al. 2020, because of that I would like to cite it as well.

Is the present form OK with you, or you would suggest a change. Please let me know. Thank you!

Quantum1956

Template:German-name has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I see that you have removed the table that was in the Marino dialect "lexicon" section due to WP:NOTDICT. However, articles such as Malagasy language and Arbëresh language have identical tables, so I'd like to know if I can add it back. Thanks Manoru007 (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

A lot of articles don't follow policy. Extended vocabulary lists are not encyclopedic information on any of these articles. (t · c) buidhe 13:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Buidhe,

I see that you removed this large section about the Foibe massacres on the Ethnic Cleansing article as being undue but the user placed it back. It seems undue as no other event has a large section going into detail of such events and also it isn’t neutrally written as Foibe was mainly a reprisal targeting Italians and Slavs associated with collaboration. It doesn’t appear consensus that it was ethnic cleansing of Italians. Neither the 300,000 figure for the exodus from Istria and Dalmatia. What’s also misleading is no mention of the ethnic cleansing of slavs in Istria and Dalmatia by Italian Fascist forces during WWII. Could you take a look? Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree this content is UNDUE, but the entire section needs an overhaul, not just this part. (t · c) buidhe 17:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yea the article itself seemed to fixate at certain points. I made some edits like in the etymology section to give brief one sentence summaries on various events there. Appeared to be factoid listed that don’t offer anything profound or worse could mislead. OyMosby (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Should the content be removed again? OyMosby (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

What needs to happen is axe the entire section content and write an overall evaluation of ethnic cleansing in history based on overviews and not books about a specific event. (t · c) buidhe 20:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I reinstated you previous edit their removing the content that lacked consensus and was in way too much detail and gave a synopsis of Yugoslav War militaristic use of ethnic cleansing. Not ideal either in making the section perhaps more general but seemed like an improvement. Also I placed the photo of the Srebrenica Massacre back to the top as it seems like a stronger example that is more due and given it was one of the events that popularized the term. The cleansing in Kosovo would be especially relevant compared to the Lasa Valley picture I would think. I would add but then I feel it would be too many photos in total for that one era of the article. Perhaps be swapped. Not sure. I hadn’t included a paragraph on ethnic cleansing in Kosovo yet. OyMosby (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Syndromes with autism has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Digressivo (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Under the influence of alcohol has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 6 § Under the influence of alcohol until a consensus is reached. Mondtaler (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I don't understand your reversion. You reverted my more accurate text to some Hungarian propaganda talking about "the Slovak state" (it's Slovak republic!) and unspecified legal norms (well, we know it means norms from 1945, but how is that more accurate when talking about illiberal democracy in today's Slovakia?) The old version (based on some Hungarian news) says directly that Fico's government "violated freedom". My version is more neutral, saying that the government "was accused". That the term Carpathian-type democracy was and is used to describe Fico's policies and that this term is in practice perceived as pseudo-democracy (aka illiberal democracy) is well documented in the article Democracy of the Carpathian type. I really do not understant what you meaned by "must be explicit and coming from orbanist sources it is pot meet kettle". Is it some kind of irony?--ScholastikosSVK (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Today's story is about the TFA, by sadly missed Vami_IV. You did the source check in 2018, thank you! For more related thoughts and music, look on my talk for 1 June. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Franz Kafka died 100 years ago OTD, hence the story. I uploaded a few pics from the visit of Graham87. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article about Torture! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Torture is a big topic to dare for FA. Good on you. GMG^talk 13:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is there a lead missing tag if a lead isn’t required? SL93 (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. Tags are neither policies nor guidelines and may be created by any one editor. If the article were longer it would make sense to be put in separate sections, but as it is I don't think it is an improvement. (t · c) buidhe 02:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I might start a discussion somewhere about the tag if leads aren’t required. While anyone can create tags, it is one of the selections on Twinkle. I won’t replace the tag. SL93 (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 63, May – June 2024

• One new partner
• 1Lib1Ref
• Spotlight: References check

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)