User talk:Buidhe/Archive 8

Hello, Following step 1 of the move review process, I am the writing to follow up on the request to move the page 'Eskmo' to 'Brendan Angelides.' Brendan Angelides is shifting from the use of the artist name, Eskmo, to his birth name, Brendan Angelides. He recently transitioned from a touring artist to a composer for film & television and is crediting all future work under his full name. On IMDb you will notice past works are credited "as Eskmo," but his most recent 2020 credits (Naked Singularity & Minimum Mass), are credited as Brendan Angelides.^[1] His about section on ancestormedia.com also reflects this change. ^[2]Please inform me if this inadequate proof and I will proceed with Move review process. Thanks Bobtinontinton (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bobtinontinton I would not recommend a move review because you appear to be misunderstanding article titles policy. If there is a conflict, we usually label a subject by what it is called in third party sources, not its WP:Official name or preferred name. If you want a move request to be successful, it's helpful to start by presenting evidence that the destination name is what the subject is usually called in third party sources. (t · c) buidhe 16:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome, I genuinely hope there are no hard feeling from our debate at AfD. I know we're both debating in good faith. Many of the articles you edit are on my watchlist and I do respect your editing and experience. Hope all is well with you and your family.   // Timothy :: talk  12:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe I've come to you before to ask you to stop doing relists/NACs and generally clerking AFD. Can you please explain why you relisted this a second time when you previously relisted it, not to mention that there was absolutely no discussion between the two relists? Or this where you then voted? And this when you had previously relisted it? There are so many problems with this I don't even know where to begin but I am asking you for a final time to stop involving yourself in the clerking area of AFD (meaning relisting and NACing.) Praxidicae (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, My intention is always to perform helpful actions to reduce backlogs. If the community doesn't think my participation is helpful, I'm happy to withdraw from that area. (However, I'm not sure you ever made a previous comment on this as I cannot find anything in my user talk archives). Just out of curiosity, I've just had a look at Wikipedia:Deletion process and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions and cannot find where any of these actions are prohibited or discouraged. Is it actually part of any policy or guideline or just some unwritten rule that people are just supposed to know? (t · c) buidhe 13:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi buidhe (hope you don't mind me butting in Prax), there is some discussion of this at WP:NACAFD, and it's also worth reading WP:RELISTBIAS. The short answer is that there's not a rule saying that you should not relist, but that you're discouraged from doing it unless it's totally obviously the right call. I haven't been through your record, so I'm not going to pass comment on whether you're doing it right, but I don't think this is the first time someone has raised the issue with you, which is perhaps an indication that you should consider whether you need to recalibrate your willingness to relist a bit? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Just wondering why you removed information related to covid pandemic in the EU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Union_response_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic&diff=967639005&oldid=967636041

You say that "article is about the response, not the pandemic". If I believe you, where can we find information related to the pandemic in the EU?

Also wondering why "Removing irrelevant/older graphics and statistics" would imply to remove the full infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.154.111 (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The infobox falsely implies that the article is about the covid pandemic in the EU, when that is not the case. Detailed info on the covid pandemic in the EU should be part of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe article. (t · c) buidhe 19:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

If you belive that, you should not remove it but also move it to the page you says.

However your statement might be wrong as the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe is related to Europe including Russia the UK and possibly Turkey and is not dedicated to the EU. Might be the word EU does not appear on this page? I believe that if you move it to the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe page it will be removed faster than on the European_Union_response_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic.

That is the reason why I believe the right page is European_Union_response_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic.

I regret that when you have a rational to make a change on a page you do not share it in the "Edit summary" box and in the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.154.111 (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe,

This is a pretty minor quibble, but can you go into more detail as to why exactly you closed Talk:Garrett_(Thief)#Requested_move_7_July_2020 as for unadorned "Thief"? It shouldn't have been necessary to go into detailed reasoning, but per SMcCandlish in the earlier RM, it's "looking like it's about a thief called Garret." The previous consensus from the earlier RM should have stood. I recognize that Netoholic gave a weak tiebreaker vote for unadorned Thief, but IMO the earlier RM should have been the better tiebreaker to use since the votes were split down the middle - no consensus between the two options should be "use the earlier result." I didn't say so at the time because the later votes didn't exist, but my vote should be interpreted as a firm "only Thief character, hard no to 'Thief'" if that changes anything. SnowFire (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

SnowFire, As well as the slight numerical consensus, I also noted that bare (Thief) is preferred by the guidance at WP:NCVGDAB, and looked at soetermans's comment that "Mark-up would also make it "Garret (Thief)", so no need for the word "character"", a point that was never refuted. (I've tried to add a displaytitle accordingly but can't figure out how to get it to work). Also, the previous discussion, while it found a consensus for (Thief character), was a weak consensus with multiple editors preferring (Thief). (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. NCVGDAB is the "normal" case, and for something like "Mass Effect" it'd be fine. Most game series don't sound like plausible human occupations placed next to a human name, though. As far as custom styling I wouldn't see a need to refute the point as it doesn't seem very important either way. That said, this issue is probably too minor to drag over to move review if you really feel confident in your close. SnowFire (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe

I see that you closed 26 discussions, at WP:CFD/2020 July 2. All were closed as keep, in these edits.

Many of your closes override the !votes. For example:

1. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Itoman,_Okinawa -- nominator and one delete, plus one keep

That is a clear case of the closer casting a WP:SUPERVOTE, and overriding the actual discussion.

In other cases there was one keep in response to the nomination:

1. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Kaiyō,_Tokushima
2. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Kiyokawa,_Kanagawa
3. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Aikawa,_Kanagawa
4. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Manazuru,_Kanagawa
5. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Yugawara,_Kanagawa
6. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Miyoshi,_Tokushima
7. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Yoshinogawa,_Tokushima
8. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Uda,_Nara
9. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Sanagōchi,_Tokushima
10. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Tabuse,_Yamaguchi
11. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Shūnan,_Yamaguchi
12. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Hikari,_Yamaguchi
13. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Hamanaka,_Hokkaido
14. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Biei,_Hokkaido
15. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Tadaoka,_Osaka
16. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Yakumo,_Hokkaido
17. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Shinhidaka,_Hokkaido

Since each of those has one editor supporting deletion and one supporting keep, each is a case of no consensus.

It seems that in those cases you may have decided to accept at face value the claims that the categories had now been adequately populated, and therefore you would override the balance of !votes.

There are two problems with that:

1. WP:BADNAC #2 says

   The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator.

   WP:NACPIT says

   Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous

2. These closures not clearly unambiguous, because there is not a clear majority of editors supporting the outcome you chose.
3. There is a persistent problem of these categories having been populated indiscriminately in response to the nominations. See for example:
   • WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Nishimeya,_Aomori, where scrutiny (mostly by me) led to removal of 4 of the 6 pages which were in the category after the additions
   • WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Naka,_Tokushima -- Marcocapelle noting that the category had been populated inappropriately
   • WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Tawaramoto,_Nara -- Marcocapelle noting that the category had been populated inappropriately
   • WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Ashikaga,Tochigi -- Marcocapelle noting that the category had been populated inappropriately
   • WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Kurayoshi,_Tottori -- after your close, but 2 of the 7 articles in the category had been added inappropriately
   • WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Category:Gojōme,_Akita-- also after your close, but 4 of the 6 articles in the category had been added inappropriately

So there is a widespread issue here of a dispute about whether population of those categories had been done appropriately. So not only did you override the !votes (which a non-admin close should not do) ... you overrode the !votes on the basis of a clearly-disputed exercise to populate the categories.

It should also have been clear to you that the creator of the categories was systematically disregarding categorisation guidelines, because they posted aggressively about this on multiple occasions:

• on my talk (at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Japanese_municipality_categories (permalink).
• on the CFD page: , ,

You probably were not aware of the discussions on my talk, but you should have been aware from the CFD page that the creator and other editors were acting on the basis of very odd ideas about en.wp categorisation.

Please revert your closes, so that editors can resume assessing the current state of these categories after the indiscriminate population of them ... and an admin can then assess the result of these contentious categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, If the only reason you cite for deleting is WP:SMALLCAT and the category has been populated, then I don't see how it could be closed other than "Keep"—the original reason for deletion having become invalid. In two of these cases above, Marco did identify problems with the categorization, but nevertheless !voted to keep, I assume because there were at least five valid entries (in the third I did not close, because there was not consensus to delete). These discussions have already been open for almost two weeks and should not continue indefinitely. I think that if you identify a problem with the categorization such that there are less than five valid entries, it would be better to start a new CfD discussion rather than keep the discussion open until all problems have been sorted. I do not think it is appropriate to blanket overturn or reopen these discussions, as many are unquestionably valid: even if Category:Yakumo, Hokkaido is currently in part incorrectly populated, there are more than five clearly valid members of the category. If you have a list of a subset of these categories where you believe that there are less than five valid entries, I would be happy to undo those closures but not cases like Yakumo where they are clearly not going to be deleted. (PS: I did not close Gojōme, Akita or Kurayoshi, Tottori.) (t · c) buidhe 10:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: with respect, you seem to be missing all my points.

1. You closed most of the discussions contrary to the !votes. That's substituting your judgement for that of the editors in the discussion. That's not appropriate for an NAC.
2. You applied your supervote on the basis of an assertion of fact (number of articles in category) which was repeatedly challenged. There were a lot of such categories, so assessing the effects of the indiscriminate additions is time-consuming. It should have been clear to you that across the set, the assertions about new category size were being contested. So you should have left it to editors to reach a consensus on those assertions, rather than imposing your own view of them.
3. I agree that the discussions should not continue indefinitely. But that is not a valid reason for a non-admin to simply override the !votes of editors and ignore the fact that assessment was still ongoing. The alternatives open to you were to relist, or to leave these to an admin. There is no deadline, and no basis for a non-admin supervote. Your suggestion that new discussions be opened cannot be done after a "keep" for several months, and in any case is pointless bureaucracy (it would place a huge burden in the nominator, who in every would have to link back to the previous discussion and notify participants). Much simpler to leave the discussions open (or relist) so that an actual consensus can be formed now.
4. Yes, I know that you did not close Gojōme, Akita or Kurayoshi, Tottori. I listed those as examples of the indiscriminate population of this set of categories
5. No, I will not accept your offer to review any reassessments of individual categories. Any such reassessments should be examined in discussion, not by the closer. Your request for me to give you a list is a clear intention to cast another set of supervotes. Any such evidence belongs in the CFD discussions, not on your talk page.
   You seem t severely misunderstand the job of a closer. The closer's role is not to act as a judge and weigh the facts. The closer's job is to weigh the discussion.

So I ask one more time: please revert these closes, or I will take this to DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I am really confused by your comment: "The closer's job is to weigh the discussion." I agree completely. However, most of the discussions in question are essentially equivalent to this one:

:Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Only the head article Tabuse, Yamaguchi and one other. All 3 are adequately categorised, so no need to merge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per 7 articles in cat. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It's up to the person arguing for deletion to make the case that not all the articles valid members of the category. Otherwise, the discussion can be closed by anyone after the seven-day period is up as not having any valid reason for deletion, or maybe even speedy kept per Wikipedia:Deletion process: "A "speedy keep" close is warranted when the nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection". (t · c) buidhe 13:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: that reply is deeply sad. It is written as if you have aid no attention at all to what I wrote above about how there is a systemic problem of those categories being inappropriately populated while at CFD. Did you miss all that? Or are you just choosing to ignore it?

As to the speedy keep argument, that's utter nonsense. The noms were mot withdrawn, and an argument was advanced in every case. I am am appalled by that: if you misrepresent the policy and the discussions so seriously even when challenged, you should not be closing any discussions at all.

One other editor claimed that the problem had been resolved, but there was no consensus that this was the case. You decided to cast a supervote. Whether by design of accident, the effect of your actions has been to endorse an an exercise in category-stuffing.

Your whole attitude here has been that your only interest in any of this was in having the discussions closed. You have shown zero interest in the fact that the purpose of those discussions is to establish a consensus on whether the category should exist. In these cases, that consensus had not formed ... and you effectively acknowledged that in your earlier offer to review your closes if I present new evidence. By standing over these closes you are severely disrupting that consensus formation.

I see that lower down this page, there is a section #AFD_and_NACs/relists where the same problem is evident: you are rushing to close or relist discussions just to be seen to be doing something. That too will form part of the case I make at DRV tomorrow if you haven't reverted your closes. It's now clear that you are acting in flagrant disregard of WP:BADNAC #2 & #3. As a non-admin you should not be standing over controversial closes.

I miss the good old days when only admins closed discussion. Admins have been vetted for their understanding of the relevant policies, and they have something to lose if they simply ride roughshod over those policies, as you are doing.

I have had no personal beef with you before, but I am over pissed off over your decision to engage is so much disruption here. This is no way to build consensus. Why on earth not just reopen the discussions and let consensus form? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• PS You wrote above that It's up to the person arguing for deletion to make the case that not all the articles valid members of the category..

Where exactly is the policy or guideline that plays the onus on those seeking deletion to disprove the validity of additions to the category while it is under discussion?

I have been a regular participant at CFD for 14 years, and I have never seen any such guidance. And it's very easy to see that any such principle would be so easily gamed that it would be unworkable.

So far as I can see, your quoted assertion here amounts to retrospectively inventing a guideline in order to justify your refusal to take the easy way out of a bad decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

As a random person also here to complain about one of Buidhe's closes, dislikes having categories I've nominated for deletion be kept anyway, and someone who admired your work in cleaning up dead portals... I don't see the issue here, BrownHairedGirl, for a random passerby two cents. If the complaint is "smallcat" and the category is expanded sufficiently, then even when the votes are close, it doesn't matter if the rationale is no longer valid. Even for cases where it's disputed just how many articles fall in to the category - is it 3 or is it 7 - that's a perfectly valid keep on a general "grounds for growth even if borderline." None of that is a supervote, just standard weighing of arguments. SMALLCAT is a really, really specific rationale intended to take out undisputed tiny categories with no potential whatsoever for growth. SnowFire (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@SnowFire: the problem here is that "grounds for growth even if borderline" doesn't stand up when we're dealing with a category which started with 3 pages, was boosted to 7 by indiscriminate stuffing ... but on scrutiny went back down to two. That's a huge range of 3.5:1 between the reality and the boosterism, which needs scrutiny.

Sadly, this closer's only interest seems to be in getting the discussions closed to make some stats look good, rather than in helping the community deal with the problem here, which is:

1. a huge set of categories was created indiscriminately without regard to whether they genuinely have a reasonable chance of being populated with articles that already exist or are likely to be created on en.wp
2. when challenged, the creator and one other editor stuffed the categories indiscriminately to try to meet the size threshold

So we have gone from having categories which were useless because they were so small, to having categories which are useless because they have been stuffed with extraneous matter. (One insists that was a good-faith error; the just posts rants about the categorisation guidelines).

I don't care whether the categories are deleted or kept. But I do care that the decisions on whether to keep them are made by properly scrutinising the evidence, which has not been the case here. Buidhe has just given a green light to anyone who decides to WP:GAME CFD by stuffing categories with any old irrelevancy.

Given time, those could have been scrutinised and sorted out. But instead of helping the community actually resolve the issue and get a stable solution, Buidhe has just terminated the process before the scrutiny has happened. If Buidhe's goal was act like a self-appointed version of those I do-what-like-and-don't-have-to-justify-myself cops whose videos are all over the internet, then Buidhe has scored highly. But if the aim was to help the community reach a consensus, then this a multiple fail: a barrier to resolution has been created by the need to start a new discussion to deal with unresolved issues. In each case that will be much more work than the first tie round, because the previously discussion will need to be linked. And a further barrier is created by Buidhe's decision to supervote and close the discussions as "keep", which requires a longer delay before relisting.

This sort of pointlessly disruptive folly is the worst aspect of Wikipedia. Someone with no significant experience of closing CFDs, and no demonstrable expertise, can grab a one-click tool and destroy half-a-day's worth of my work secure in the knowledge that I will have put in a huge amount of work to challenge this ... and that even if the whole lot is eventually overturned, there will almost certainly be no rebuke or sanction to Buidhe for nonchalantly sabotaging consensus-formation.

What the hell is the point of putting in time and effort to try to resolve a widespread problem when all the work of identifying it gets obliterated by some button-clicker who shows no interest in the work of those who are trying to solve a problem?

Right now I am minded to not just say "sod this" and skip DRV, but to leave en.wp ... because life is too short to waste it on this sort of robocop nonsense. I'll think further about that, but this is the latest in several rounds of obstinate folly that I have encountered on en.wp this year ... and whatever drives this sort of nonsense, it's nothing to do with making a better encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

(de-indent) I'll keep this brief because I'd rather let Buidhe speak for himself, but I'm just saying that I, as an outside observer, don't see any problem or outrage with Buidhe's closes or Nihonjoe adding entries to a category post-nomination. That's just a good faith difference of opinion about the scope of the category. (I, personally, have added to smallish categories under CFD before, and the nom just quietly withdrew the nom because he agreed that the additions made sense, so it can happen.) WP:SMALLCAT is a very focused, restrictive criterion: Small with no potential for growth, things like a dead architect and the one notable building he worked on in a 2-article category. Municipalities, barring the most insignificant, often do have potential for growth - and there being equivalent categories on foreign language Wikipedias is frequently a sign that the potential exists.

As for your other comments - your personal happiness is more important than Wikipedia. Let "wrong" people be wrong sometimes; if you need a break, then take a break. I hope you feel better and return if you do decide to take a rest, though. SnowFire (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not yet aware of the "consensus required" sanction on this article. As it happens, the sanction is "Consensus is required for editing this article: If your edit has been reverted you may not reinstate it before reaching consensus at the talk page." My edits were a revert of RGloucester's edits since July 7th, that were not supported by a consensus despite a continuous discussion since they were introduced. Heptor (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, I was not aware of that sanction. However, as I see it, the current version IS supported by a rough consensus of two editors, while your version is only supported by one editor. I do hope that there can be more input from other editors into the article and whether the disputed content belongs in it. (t · c) buidhe 09:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

buidhe that's a rough push indeed. Two against one is as much disagreement as is mathematically possible in a group of three. Heptor (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello there, Buidhe. I am respectfully inquiring about the removal of an H.G Adler quote that you removed from the Rosenstrasse Protest page. The quote I put in was “by a courageous demonstration of women caused the Gestapo, in an exception, to give in, and the husbands were released.”

Just as an explain, my reasoning for including the quote in this page was to use the words of a Holocaust survivor to describe the heroic actions of the women involved in the protest. I personally feel that any Holocaust survivors words should be valued and shared, and I felt that this quote added value to this page. Wikipedia, after all, is a place for introductory material on subjects for many across the globe, and I believe that his words do not harm the cited material throughout the page. Is there a way you feel this quote could be better incorporated into the Rosenstrasse Protest page? I appreciate your time and input on this matter! Hagerty4 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hagerty4, I just don't think such a quote is WP:DUE weight in the lead, it makes it look like we are taking a position on a scholarly debate when instead we should present both positions in a WP:NPOV way. Adler was not an eyewitness of the event, as he was in Theresienstadt at the time, so it's unclear why Stoltzfus is quoting him. Any inclusion of the quote (and I am not persuaded of WP:DUE at all) should make that completely clear. (t · c) buidhe 03:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

On 18 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hitler's prophecy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in a January 1939 speech, Hitler predicted "the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe"? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hitler's prophecy), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Chinese stamp in 1950.jpg is, I think, out of copyright in China but it was still in copyright there on January 1 1996. Right? But, for US, did URAA kick in? https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain#Footnote_10 says that URAA restoration does not apply if there was publication in the US within 30 days of publication in China. It is likely (but I can't prove it) that there was US publication within 30 days. But maybe the arrival of a stamp on an envelope in US doesn't amount to US "publication". If there was US publication, did it attract US copyright? Well, if there was no copyright notice there was no US copyright protection in 1950. If it was published with notice but no renewal it has gone out of US copyright. Only if it was published with notice and subsequent renewal is it still in copyright. See Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. Did every stamp arriving in the US require a notice? - I don't know. It is for these sorts of reasons that matters need to be discussed. It may be the Commons precautionary principle would lead to deletion but it seems to me likely there was US publication within 30 days with no notice and, hence, no URAA restoration. URAA tags cannot be relied on as definitive. I'm pinging Ww2censor who raised the matter back in 2008 and Larryasou who recently placed the URAA tag to see if they would like to comment. This follows from a discussion at WP:Bot requests#Automatically remove Commons files that are tagged as not PD-US. Thincat (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thincat, No, you're mistaken. If it was published with no notice or renewal, it is likely copyrighted in the US because URAA applies as if all copyright formalities in the US were performed, unless there was an explicit copyright registration. Sending a letter with the stamp does not count as publication because letters are private correspondence. (t · c) buidhe 12:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that is where the five point test of Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Restored copyrights leads. "Under copyright law, publication is ... Offering to distribute copies ... to a group of people for purposes of further distribution... constitutes publication". But I'm not arguing that I am right. I'm saying discussion is required. Thincat (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thincat Right, it was published/distributed in China. But once affixed to a letter, there is no "further distribution". As I see it, the burden of proof for potentially copyrighted content is always on those arguing for it to be used. (t · c) buidhe 13:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that is where the onus does, and should, lie. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Occupy Pedophilia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

So I noticied you reverted my edit with the comment that you were making it consistent with the style on the page, when that is not the case. What I changed it to is consistent with all the other SFN pages dealing with Nazi Germany but you don't have to take my word for it--go to that page or Operation Barbarossa for instance. Take a look at some of them and pay attention to how we've rendered the citations (particularly webpages) into SFN Harv refs that will show up in the Bibliography and how much neater they appear. If you think those lengthy citations in the middle of clickable SFN citations looks better, then whatever. It does not align with what we (other editors) have been doing elsewhere for quite some time now. Just so you know.--Obenritter (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you'd be interested in helping me improve this to a DYK? Seems like a pretty under-researched topic with very few sources :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, Thanks for starting this article. However, currently I'm working on Forced labor in Nazi concentration camps and Nazi concentration camps. (t · c) buidhe 16:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Adam Cuerden#Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Harriet Jacobs. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

On 23 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia (book), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in a new book, Wolf Gruner argues that the collaborationist Czech government played a significant role in the persecution of Jews in Bohemia and Moravia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia (book). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia (book)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 00:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I pinged you yesterday on User talk:Rosguill, but you haven't replied. If your ultimate goal is to direct readers to the topic that they are most likely to be looking for, what objection could you have to a temporary test? You'd have to accept the possibility that the results are not what you expect, but isn't that called being intellectually honest? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I replied over on that page. I'm not convinced that dabtest would produce the correct long run results in this case. (t · c) buidhe 00:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Buidhe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of victims and survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, on the article Stefan Ihrig it came up with errors on ISBN and the formatting of the citations and there is no reason to list numerous links to the exact same book just on separate websites. Everything is now fixed after speaking with a page reviewer. Please discuss with me prior to you reverting again. Thanks, Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 19:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bakertheacre, This is a pointless edit which just removes useful sources. The citations don't break up text, and they would be very helpful to anyone trying to expand the article. The entire reasons I create stubs like this is to gather all the reviews and sources in one place. Otherwise there would be no point. You do not WP:OWN the article and can't tell me whether I'm entitled to revert or not. PS: I am also a new page reviewer. (t · c) buidhe 19:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, I never said or implied you or I WP:OWN however, you are now starting an edit war. All of those links can go into a See Also section. By you once again reverting it, you have reintroduced the errors into the article. I ask you self-revert and create a heading of see also and add your links to there. You are also not citing anything in the book, just pointing out where there are versions of it. They would be much better as a see only section instead of a citation.

Thanks, Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 19:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bakertheacre, WP:SOFIXIT the template errors (or leave it for someone else to fix), don't remove useful sources. These are reviews of the book, not places you can buy it. There's no way they would belong in a WP:SEEALSO section. (t · c) buidhe 19:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, Wow you are quite rude! Probably because you created the article and probably consider you own it (which I have noticed you revert a lot of changes made to your own articles. I did fix it, you broke it. Enough said. Do not tag me or speak with me or I will open an admin review.

Toodles

Thanks, Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 19:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I have completed a number of edits to Gerald Bonner, because I saw a post at the Teahouse. I hope they meet with your approval, and I apologize for making so many incremental edits. (I should organized myself better, but I didn't realize what I was getting into.) If other info becomes available (per your note on JBonnerAnglican), I will continue to work here. I also left a note on JBA's talk page. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Tribe of Tiger, thanks for improving the article. (t · c) buidhe 01:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The The Holocaust in Slovakia article has been imported to v:WikiJournal Preprints/The Holocaust in Slovakia (per WP:JAN). Whenever you're ready to proceed:

1. Fill in the 'article info' template at the top (often easiest in VisualEditor)
2. Fill in the authorship declaration form to submit as ready for external peer review to be organised.

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The Partisan Congress riots article has been imported to v:WikiJournal Preprints/Partisan Congress riots (per WP:JAN). Whenever you're ready to proceed:

1. Fill in the 'article info' template at the top (often easiest in VisualEditor)
2. Fill in the authorship declaration form to submit as ready for external peer review to be organised.

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Racist Winston Churchill. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 26#Racist Winston Churchill until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

On 26 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Occupy Pedophilia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Russian vigilante group Occupy Pedophilia filmed more than a hundred anti-gay attacks between 2012 and 2014? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Occupy Pedophilia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Occupy Pedophilia), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 12:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe,
@Buidhe, AldezD, and Some Dude From North Carolina: TV show related articles are not in my skill-set. I would appreciate your opinion about this.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Shirt58, I'm not sure a speedy is appropriate here. The article was determined not to be notable three months ago, but now it looks like it might have attracted more coverage. G4 deletion is only appropriate when the content is "substantially identical" to the deleted content, which isn't the case here. (t · c) buidhe 17:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Based upon your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show, season 21), can you please weigh in on the CSD discussion at Talk:Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (season 21)? Thanks. AldezD (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Dęblin–Irena Ghetto.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for closing, but it appears to be missing a word: "There is a clear consensus the original proposal". Crossroads ^-talk- 21:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the hatnote. I guess you forgot to interwiki link this article to pl wiki (which I've done). I assume you usually do it, but it is always good to check if an article exists on other wikis. Feel free to ping me for Polish topics if you have trouble with searching for possible names of a topic in Polish. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't realize! Thanks for the link. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Since I just noticed , and it is a bit COI for me to do it myself - can you consider my request to add this template linking my article to the following articles it mentions: , , , , , , and Jan Grabowski (mentioned but not linked, your call if it is sufficient). All others are linked from the newspaper article. TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and here is a complete list of other articles Grabowski mentions and links to in his which you linked first: , , , and his own biography (but just like in my article it is not linked). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, will do. From what I can see you don't discuss the Wikipedia article about Grabowski, is that correct? I cannot read past the paywall. However, I would be interested in reading your entire article if you would send it to me (email: fiamh@protonmail.com). (t · c) buidhe 06:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

You can read my article here: pl:Wikipedysta:Piotrus/Media2 (Google Translate should work well enough). Anyway, G. mentions in his article that his bio contained an error and I also refer to this incident. PS. If you read it, I'd be happy to hear your feedback re this exchange.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, Thanks for the link. I think you article is mostly right. However, I think you understate the extent to which there is still entrenched camps of editors (not cabals) with differing perspectives on certain important issues and a tendency to assume bad faith about the other side. The worst offenders have been topic banned or blocked, but there is still enough battlegroundy behavior going on (not by you) that it dissuades me from trying to contribute in the topic area. (t · c) buidhe 09:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I understate it much - I wrote about this stuff 10 years ago: User:Piotrus/Morsels of wikiwisdom (check them out when you have a minute). There are camps, sure, but for the most part I think that most editors, including in that topic area, can be reasoned with. We got one very bad apple recently, yes, but with his indef-sidewide ban things are going back to more polite and good faithed 'normal' like they have been for most of the last decade. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)